|
@astrangerhere. Interesting contrast. Of the three, I would classify only Bradbury as a real master of the craft of writing. That is not to disparage either Asimov or Simak. I believe there is one aspect of Science Fiction which can sometimes result in an otherwise ordinary competent writer joining the ranks of the great. That aspect is ideas and their exploration. This I think includes authors like Asimov and Simak. This type of writer is also perhaps better suited to grand saga's like those mentioned. I was blown away by Nightfall when I read it as a child. Not because it was particularly well written. Not because I cared for the superficial characters. But because of the ideas it explored and exposed me to. The consequences of such a small but important difference on the human psyche. The fall of successive civilisations, the fires, the religion and mysticism. And the hope of final release from the cycle. Years later I had a similar reaction to Alice Sheldon's "The Screwfly Solution", though in fairness Sheldon was a much better writer than Asimov. The Foundation Trilogy was enjoyable for the same reason, the ideas. I can't say I cared for any of the sketchily drawn characters, but I loved the idea of psycho-history and the foundations. Asimov was at his best with great ideas and grand sweeping stories and deserves his place as one of the greats. Simak also explores interesting ideas and concepts, but I don't think it's an accident that many here think that the best character in the books was a sketchily drawn Robot. Bradbury, on the other hand, was a master of his craft, and far more capable of conveying emotion. Who can forget "All Summer in a day" or "I Sing the Body Electric".
The theme of human flaws and ultimate serious limitations lost me also as the stories progressed, mainly because, like AnotherCat, I found the Dogs and Animals which increasingly dominated quite jarring, fantasy more suited to Children's books. I would nevertheless still classify the book overall as Science Fiction, but with a large and important element consisting of pure fantasy drawing it very close to the border.
@AnotherCat. Good post. You set out the reasons for your point of view very well. The only story I can really say I loved in the book is Desertion. I note your comments about Jupiter's core, and had a very cursory look at the state of the science when the story was written. I found nothing definitive, though what I did find suggests that real information about the composition of Jupiter only surfaced after close encounters with our probes. I'm not so sure that the science of the time invalidated Simak's speculation on this point and if so whether he should have known of it. That aside I managed to enjoy the story in any event.
|