Well, you have probably heard that Arthur C. Clarke has died. I used to love his writing when I was younger. He actually wasn't a very good writer in the way we think of writing today.
Now, the priority in writing is often to pull the reader into the narrative with character driven interest. That's why books are so damn long (like movies, most books could use a good editor), you have to know the character, know what drives and motivates them, know the inner conflict.
Clarke, on the other hand, was driven by ideas and dreams. His characters were rarely fleshed out (much like early Asimov), but his books were these futurist landscapes where stories played out. It was the landscape and the idea that stayed with you.
The first (and best) Arther C. Clarke book I read was The City and The Stars. It is meant to be read by a 12 - 17 year old. He doesn't explain why it important that this kid escape The City. But he describes the city like a miracle. It is perched on the edge of a all encompassing desert, but the natives never look out the windows. The kid sees the city change in a model, which we would now call a hologram, but then it wasn't invented.
Sure it peters out at the end (the big crazy emotional swamp creature?), but it wasn't the story that was the big deal, it was the ideas it contained. Same for 2001, 2010, 2061, and 3001 and Childhoods End and the rest.
I never understood why he moved to Ceylon (which later named itself Sri Lanka), but more power to him. He died of a lingering post-polio degenerative disease, which probably sucks as a way to die - but I think he had a fun life. He wrote until the end of his days. And his books never really changed. I think he was ever the idea man.