2/ Guys, you can argue all you want about who YOU think the best three are, but "the big three" is a phrase w a precise historical meaning. It's Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein. https://www.sfandfantasy.co.uk/php/the-big-3.php …
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I’ve never heard van Vogt put in there as part of the big three.
-
As a follow up, I know I’ve read something by him but short of going over to the bookshelves and digging or googling his output, I’ll be damned if I can remember it.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Them’s the Big Three as far as I’m concerned.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah, that's different. I can name at least a few of Clarke's books I've read. I know I've read Van Vogt, but no way I could tell you what right off the top of my head.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Heinlien, asimov, and pkd.
-
pkd doesn’t belong on that list or any list of anything
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Clarke wasn't writing Campbellian SF. He was writing in the vein of Wells. Besides, the Big Three have changed over time. Used to be van Vogt, Heinlein, and Kuttner.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I've just realised that Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke rarely had real functional families as we'd know them in their fiction. Maybe REH's juveniles count. Burroughs did, part of the happy ending to Lensmen was Kinnison having a big family. I haven't read Brackett yet so can't say.
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.