Over rated Authors-Isaac Asimov

[grumbles]

I read the entire Foundation series a few months ago. I had read the original Foundation books back in the mid-sixties (see, that's why I know about slide rules.) I found the that I enjoyed the original books but I found the later books and the attempt to provide background to be just a little flat. It's not that they were bad books, I thought they were worth reading, I just didn't enjoy them as much as I enjoyed the first three.

Heinlein wrote the ultimate time travel paradox short story, "All You Zombies."

I grew up reading all these authors, I watched Tom Corbett, Science Fiction Theatre and others. None of this was great (or even ordinary) literature, as some of my teachers frequently pointed out, but it was great adventure and great fun! It was, and is, great story telling and that is what it is all about.

And an aside to Lbooker. The world is awash with very stupid geniuses.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Blasphemy....

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Sci-fi should be held to the same standard as all literature.

Not all so-called literature is worth reading. Sure, it may be called great writing, but it can be very dull with nothing really entertaining. To me, reading is about enjoyment. There are a lot of good stories lost in writing that is dated and not easy to read or dull to read given the way it's written.

If the story is enjoyable, it's a good read. If it's not enjoyable, then it's not a good read. Literature is just a term that really is meaningless.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If a book is still read 70 years later, that's an indication that it is a good book. That doesn't mean everyone is going to like it, of course.

Not all books read 70 or more years later are good. They just get read. Look at a lot of the books kids get forced to read for school. A lot of them are awful even though the teacher thinks they are works of literature.

[cromag]

In response to some of the posts about I, Robot -- the movie. I always thought the only significant contributions made by Asimov's work were the title and the "three laws."

The plotline really seemed to owe a lot more to Jack Williamson's The Humanoids.

[Lord Mahoney]

I've experienced this syndrome before but certainly not with Asimov's work!

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Not all books read 70 or more years later are good. They just get read. Look at a lot of the books kids get forced to read for school. A lot of them are awful even though the teacher thinks they are works of literature.

If a book was only being read because teachers were forcing them to read it, sure. But that isn't a reasonable definition of "still being read." Just how many books are there that are only read because they are required for school? Besides, not many kids are assigned Asimov's books to read.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If a book was only being read because teachers were forcing them to read it, sure. But that isn't a reasonable definition of "still being read." Just how many books are there that are only read because they are required for school? Besides, not many kids are assigned Asimov's books to read.

Jon can't help himself. He's convinced the words "literature," "classic," and "old" need to be stamped out. They make him feel all icky whenever someone uses them in conjunction with "good."

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Not all books read 70 or more years later are good. They just get read. Look at a lot of the books kids get forced to read for school. A lot of them are awful even though the teacher thinks they are works of literature.

There are a couple of big reasons why a book read in school may seem awful, even though they are good:

• Students are asked to read books that they aren't be interested in.
• Students are asked to read books in ways that they aren't interested in.

Teachers also don't have much choice in the books that they are expected to assign, even though they are expected to demonstrate enthusiasm for what is being read. They usually have a short list of titles from which they can choose, or are given criteria which the book must meet.


Asimov is a different story though. As others have noted, science fiction becomes dated quite quickly. Dependence upon technology and science can quickly become a distraction as our understanding of the world changes. Even the books that are focussed on social issues are discussing social issues of the day (e.g. wars come and go). Couple that with a readership that is forward looking, and you are left with a genre that has very little relevance outside of the time that it was written.


If you don't believe that, then read an Asimov book that you enjoy (though Verne is a better example). Count how often words like "quaint" pop into your mind while reading.

[Freeshadow]

In regard of technical development predictions in SF being partly hits or overshot and partly very behind reality I have already suggested to read as well Verne as Doc Travis some posts ago.
Even so called fututologists are able to epically fail in their prognoses. Why should an author not?
I repeat: Always judge the text with the tech level of its time in mind. Besides... What's currently technically possible and what's available were always two different things it isn't as if artificially slowing down or suppression of progress with the goal to maintain the status quo would be some new idea of the currently big ones in the market.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

Infliction of pain is not equal to structural damage. Just a matter of adjustment and methods.
And as it is not unpleasant for the masochist, therefore there is no psychic damage inflicted too.
Easy enough isn't it?

That depends on the part you snipped out - who gets to define harm. Is it the person who owns the robot, or the one who created it? Certainly there are those who believe the the S&M lifestyle is psychologically harmful to both participants. So whose definition gets used? Because there's no definition inherent in the Three Laws. (I believe Asimov addressed that potential for conflict at one point, in a story, didn't he?)

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by grumbles

I still remember the first pocket scientific calculator, the HP-35, and it was over $300 at the time.

395 1972 US dollars, and featuring the much easier to use Reverse Polish Notation.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

395 1972 US dollars, and featuring the much easier to use Reverse Polish Notation.

Heh! That was my first exposure to fanboy wars: HP RPN fans vs TI Algebraic notation fans. The blood reached the street a few times.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Jon can't help himself. He's convinced the words "literature," "classic," and "old" need to be stamped out. They make him feel all icky whenever someone uses them in conjunction with "good."

I don't think that's quite right.
I gather that he just wants to re-define "classic" to (a) include anything he likes, including Douglas Adams and Star Shmek, and (b) exclude anything he doesn't like or which he personally finds hard to read.

[Freeshadow]

In a nutshell: Everything that's different than my way is per definition wrong.
Jon as usual.

Hell, I'd like to have been present at his wedding ceremony: "What do you mean with: 'She has to answer the question too. ' !?"