Over rated Authors-Isaac Asimov

[Abtacha]

Originally Posted by holymadness

People may enjoy his work; that doesn't make it good.

I'd argue that's exactly what makes a (fiction) book good, it just doesn't make it great literature.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Anabran

...

Third Asimov let his (IMHO) Rabid Atheism color his linguistic choices to the point of sounding goofy & ridiculous.

OK We get it
He does not believe in a Diety or a God
his choice his freedom.
.....

Ah, I see the real issue...

never mind.

[QuantumIguana]

It's not like excusing a bad song. It's like not liking a song. There is a difference between not liking a song and a song being bad.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

I disagree. Those few decades can be unmatchably rewarding and worth all sacrifice.

To each his own .

That is not the question.

The question is whether women should aspire to be ONLY wives and mothers and nothing else, or not.

You can valorize motherhood and childbirth without thinking it's the end-all-be-all of existence for half the human race.

Don't be sexist.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Anabran

This notion that some great "vision" can be communicated in the absence of well thought out descriptive writing just does not pass for me personally

It (sort of) can, but then it becomes philosophy, not literature. Like reading Heidegger.

its like trying to excuse to an untrained singing voice and bad song writing because the subject matter of the songs are so important or "visionary."

Very good analogy.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Don't be sexist.

It's not.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by taustin

I didn't say it wasn't. I said that women should, generally, aspire to more than just that, just as men should aspire to be more than just fathers.

And what if society doesn't *allow* them to be more than that?
What if society doesn't teach them they can be more?
What if society *needs* them to be just that?
(It is easy to envision scenarios where any or all three are plausible and reasonable.)

The Foundation series is set in a very distant future; 25,000-plus years in parts. Asimov doesn't go into detail on what the societies spread through those millennia and those thousands (millions?) of planets where like before the Empire homogenized them. There is a lot of room for alternative civilizations, alternative cultures, alternative mores. Nowhere does he say that the Empire is a direct descendant of our culture, our mores, our technology. Even the City culture of Lije Bailey is a major departure from our times.

It is just as naive to expect the future will *only* change in ways *we* would like as it is to expect it *not* to change at all.

With Science Fiction you either like the world the author builds or you walk away but you don't get to say it is good or bad solely because it doesn't fit *your* preconceived notion of what that world might be like.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

It's not.

You don't seem very qualified to comment on the matter.

[RDaneel54]

Other opinions on Isaac Asimov and his work:

1987 Grand Master Award Winner
1960 Hugo for best all time series, "Foundation" (of all things!)
1973 Hugo for novel, "The Gods Themselves"
1977 Hugo for novelette, "The Bicentennial Man"
1983 Hugo for novel, "Foundation's Edge" (again for this series?)

Several other Hugos, Nebulas you can look up.

I think these Science Fiction award guys know good writing.

Dean (who didn't pick RDaneel54 as his monicker because he thought Asimov's writing was bad.)

[Loafers]

Paul Krugman disagrees.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

Other opinions on Isaac Asimov and his work:

1987 Grand Master Award Winner
1960 Hugo for best all time series, "Foundation" (of all things!)
1973 Hugo for novel, "The Gods Themselves"
1977 Hugo for novelette, "The Bicentennial Man"
1983 Hugo for novel, "Foundation's Edge" (again for this series?)

Several other Hugos, Nebulas you can look up.

I think these Science Fiction award guys know good writing.

Dean (who didn't pick RDaneel54 as his monicker because he thought Asimov's writing was bad.)

Yes, and I think I know where I'm going when the series I reading now ends.

[Freeshadow]

Well, as said before, Asimov's great achievements were not on the tech side of SF (altough he managed some marvellous predictions: e.g. scanner pen cf. Cpen) but rather on the psychological and social.
(robotics & psychohistory both currently under serious consideration of people in the respective fields of research)

Same goes for Heinleins "Stranger": Altough his prediction of a water bed was precise enough to lead to a later denial of a patent due to prior art, his achievement in said book was working on the question in how far acquisition of psionic skills (or if you want the fantasy glasses: magic) would change society.
When judging an author's attempt to make tech predictions, never lose the tech level they live within out of focus. Verne was a well chosen example.

For a hardcore comparison read:
http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/1...wsThatCatchCD/
"Warp Speed" & "The Quantum Connection"
Unless you keep in mind that Doc is @ home in these sciences you'll think it's the biggest heap of makeuppium ever seen - until you read his notes on the scientific background of it all.

Re Dune: De gustibus...
IMO the last three volumes of Dune are far away of being labelled greatest for whatever reason. Tastes differ.

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by Loafers

Paul Krugman disagrees.

I heard Krugman's interview on The Geek's Guide to the Galaxy. He was inspired by Foundation to become an Economist.

There are people thoughout the US space program who were inspired by early science fiction.

Hmmm.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And what if society doesn't *allow* them to be more than that?

Originally Posted by fjtorres

A completely different subject.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

What if society doesn't teach them they can be more?

Another completely different subject.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

What if society *needs* them to be just that?

Quite possibly an evolutionarily impossible subject. Certainly a different subject.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

(It is easy to envision scenarios where any or all three are plausible and reasonable.)

Not really, any more. And, in all cases, not the subject at hand. You seem to be trying to argue with something nobody has said.

[QuantumIguana]

If you want children, have children. If you don't, then don't. You probably know what is best for you.