Over rated Authors-Isaac Asimov

[Loafers]

Originally Posted by kennyc

42



.

wrong book, but im sure that was a joke

[twobob]

I'm late to the debate, and it's mainly been said.

Isaac = visionary

[unkilbeeg]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Another essay I read (can't even remember who wrote it) renamed science fiction as speculative fiction-and I like that name better. What *I* like to read are stories that make you think. For me it's usually not about the people but about their society. People don't change due to scientific advancement-but societies do. The same, to a lesser extent, is true of philosophical 'advancement'.

I think that might have *been* Asimov. I remember the "SF as Spec Fiction" discussions from the mid 70s, and still to this day cringe at the phrase Sci Fi.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by unkilbeeg

I think that might have *been* Asimov. I remember the "SF as Spec Fiction" discussions from the mid 70s, and still to this day cringe at the phrase Sci Fi.

The term SciFi *originated* as a disparaging term in the 50's.
Forest J. Ackerman intended it for stories that had the form but not the substance of serious SF. The mass media, ever subtle, applies it to everything.

[BlackVoid]

Lol, you should read the Bible. Also a bit dated, but rampant atheism at least is missing.


It is called SCIENCE fiction, not RELIGIOUS fiction.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by BlackVoid

Lol, you should read the Bible. Also a bit dated, but rampant atheism at least is missing.


It is called SCIENCE fiction, not RELIGIOUS fiction.

[DrNefario]

I have to say I would definitely not recommend Asimov to a non-SF reader to try to convert them. Foundation especially.

The Robot stories might be a bit more accessible. It's a long time since I read them.

I wouldn't recommend Clarke or Heinlein, either. Bradbury, maybe, for that era?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I wouldn't recommend Clarke or Heinlein, either. Bradbury, maybe, for that era?

Bradbury is just to strange and he considered himself to be writing fantasy and not sf.

I would say that Heinlein's Have Spacesuit, Will Travel is a very good introduction to science fiction.

[fjtorres]

50's era Heinlein is a good intro to newcomers.
Any of the juvenies if they're young; THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS if they're older.
His first novel (BEYOND THIS HORIZON) is probably a bit better for sheer accessibility.

Asimov? NIGHTFALL is probably a good intro to what he's all about.
Clarke? Oh, go straight to CHILDHOOD'S END.

And since Herbert keeps coming up; yes, do DUNE. Avoid all sequels, avoid SANTAROGA BARRIER, HELLSTROM'S HIVE and most of his work other than UNDER PRESSURE, at least until you're familiar with the genre. Accessible he ain't.

Bradbury is in many ways the opposite of Asimov and Clark; more about mood and style than idea and concept. A SOUND OF THUNDER is probably as accessible he gets.

[BeccaPrice]

I've always felt that Heinlein's Double Star was an under-rated book. It has a lot to say about the nature of personal identity. (wasn't there a Kurasawa film with the same theme?)

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

I've always felt that Heinlein's Double Star was an under-rated book. It has a lot to say about the nature of personal identity. (wasn't there a Kurasawa film with the same theme?)

Neglected, for sure.
A bit odd given that it won a Hugo and has figured in the news a few times:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/book...leaseturnerpic

In 1968, when Charles Hall tried to apply for a patent on the waterbed he thought he had invented, he found he was unable to do so because Heinlein had already described one in sufficient detail in Double Star (and other places). This impressive bit of technological pre-empting sits neatly alongside the fact that the book is generally cited as the first to use the abbreviation "ET" (or at least, eetee). Elsewhere, there are dozens of other inventive ideas, which may not have been realised, but do sound cool. There's real appeal to a sealed off "Hush Corner" noise reduction areas for intimate conversations in crowded bars, for example, while "Bounce Tube" pneumatic transport systems for people might do a lot to improve commuting.

In common with much of the best SF, it's not just the scientific ideas that make this book worthy of investigation. History does too. The political concerns and philosophy that Heinlein chooses to project onto his imagined future also provide an intriguing barometer of his times.

The book's impassioned pleas for understanding and tolerance with regard to Martian culture, for instance, might not make for a subtle allegory, but it is moving given the book's context in 1950s America. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that a few of those impressionable teenage white males who comprised the books original target audience went on to stand with Martin Luther King on the Washington Mall a few years later.

Considering how often Heinlein gets crucified by those a of a certain political persuasion, as a "fascist" and even a racist, DOUBLE STAR should indeed be brought up more often.

[Darkday]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Another essay I read (can't even remember who wrote it) renamed science fiction as speculative fiction-and I like that name better. [...]

Originally Posted by unkilbeeg

I think that might have *been* Asimov. [...]

No, Asimov preferred the term "science fiction". In his autobiography "In Joy Still Felt," he wrote the following: (page 731)

[O]n January 23 [1976] [...], I was on a panel with several writers, and we all tried to define science fiction. Two of the other members of the panel were Harlan Ellison and Barry Malzberg. They (together with Robert Silverberg, who was not on the panel) had grown disillusioned with science fiction and were threatening to write no more of it. Harlan even argued that the name itself was mischievous and helped keep us all in a disregarded "ghetto." He wanted it called "speculative fiction." Against this, I maintained the conservative view. I liked science fiction, I wanted to keep the name. [...]

[BenG]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

I've always felt that Heinlein's Double Star was an under-rated book. It has a lot to say about the nature of personal identity. (wasn't there a Kurasawa film with the same theme?)

I always thought it was the best of the juveniles and more appealing to adults.

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And since Herbert keeps coming up; yes, do DUNE. Avoid all sequels, avoid SANTAROGA BARRIER, HELLSTROM'S HIVE and most of his work other than UNDER PRESSURE, at least until you're familiar with the genre. Accessible he ain't.

Really, avoid anything of his that isn't Dune. They're quite 60s & 70s and the best you can call them is schlock, I think.

The sequels written by Frank Herbert (Dune Messiah, Children of Dune, God Emperor of Dune, Heretics of Dune, and Chapterhouse: Dune) are good, not great (worth reading, but you won't miss much if you ignore the final three). The Dune books to avoid are the abominations by Brian Herbert (Frank's son) and Kevin J. Anderson. They have no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Bradbury is in many ways the opposite of Asimov and Clark; more about mood and style than idea and concept. A SOUND OF THUNDER is probably as accessible he gets.

...while "The Martian Chronicles" is an almost incomprehensible mess. (tried reading it a couple of months ago - I'll stick to Fahrenheit 451, I think )

[taustin]

Originally Posted by BlackVoid

It is called SCIENCE fiction, not RELIGIOUS fiction.

It's not missing so much as punished.