Old Masters of Science Fiction

[Pajamaman]

I think in some ways Clarke is somewhat overated in the same way Shakespeare is. Like Shakespeare, Clarke wrote some bad stuff. I reread Earthlight. Its kind of slow. The plot is poorly conceived and lacks pace. The Deep Range was weaker than I recall. Imperial Earth is...well, I couldn't get into it. A Fall of Moondust is better, but not deep. But it doesn't matter, because he wrote The City and the Stars and Childhoods End, both of which left an impression on so many readers and continue to do so. They are timeless, like Shakespeare..Clarke excelled at the short story, but he wrote two masterful novels. Clarke was particularly good at invoking humanity's courage and impotency in the face of eternity. He was also a.great optimist.

[Pajamaman]

There is of late a fashion in downgrading Asimov that I disagree with. His short stories are a good as Clake's, and that's saying something. The Foundation may not have aged so well; I wish the publishers would change the references to atomics.But he wrote about people, I think. Anyway, forget his snotty critics who prefer boring Connie Willis, etc. They know nothing. He was a master. Ill never forget the strange timelessness of the Spacer worlds, and poor bungling Elijah trying to survive politics, and his friends Daneel and the other one.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

I don't agree Heinlein and his politics were a symptom of his time. His politics have not gone away. His romaticized rugged individualist views remain current.

Asimov was writing in the same period, or even earlier, and his politics are not clear from his writing. How would Elijah Bailey have handled one of Heinlein's John Wayne models. Out-witted him, I'm sure.

I read that Heinlein stopped talking to Clarke because Clarke attacked Reagans Star Wars program. But he did buy a broke Philip K Dick a type writer.

Product, not symptom. Clarke was, of course, British with a British outlook and moved to Sri Lanka in 1956. Clarke, Heinlein and Asimov were all different products of different schools of thought. I'm fine with that.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

There is of late a fashion in downgrading Asimov that I disagree with. His short stories are a good as Clake's, and that's saying something. The Foundation may not have aged so well; I wish the publishers would change the references to atomics.But he wrote about people, I think. Anyway, sod his snotty critics who prefer boring Connie Willis, etc. They know nothing. He was a master. Ill never forget the strange timelessness of the Spacer worlds, and poor bungling Elijah trying to survive politics, and his friends Daneel and the other one.

I guess I haven't paid attention to the wrong crowd since I wasn't aware that it's the new fashion to downgrade Asimov. Asimov was a very smart man who wrote a lot about a lot of different subjects. Some of his stories haven't aged as well as others. That's to be expected. Kind of like Heinlein having his characters in the future still using slide rules. I really like his Black Widowers mystery stories.

[rkomar]

I have no problem with Asimov's ideas, it's his execution of the stories that I'm more critical of as I've aged. I find his dialog to be wooden and unnatural. When I was young, I didn't care about stuff like that, and there were plenty of golden age writers who I loved to read. As I've gotten older, literary problems have become annoying for me, and I can't enjoy the books as I used to. Ideas are no longer enough for me. I'm speaking as someone who adored Asimov and bought every book of his I could find. For me, it's his non-fiction books that I enjoy the most now.

[binaryhermit]

I didn't back that Heinlein kickstarter but I did preorder both books from the publisher.
https://www.arcmanorbooks.com/pursuit

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

John Christopher was a close friend of Clarke, and wrote the brilliant YA Tripod Trilogy which may be the best YA book/s ever written.

The Tripod trilogy! The Dutch translations were my first SF. Fond memories...

[Apache]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I have no problem with Asimov's ideas, it's his execution of the stories that I'm more critical of as I've aged. I find his dialog to be wooden and unnatural. When I was young, I didn't care about stuff like that, and there were plenty of golden age writers who I loved to read. As I've gotten older, literary problems have become annoying for me, and I can't enjoy the books as I used to. Ideas are no longer enough for me. I'm speaking as someone who adored Asimov and bought every book of his I could find. For me, it's his non-fiction books that I enjoy the most now.

I could never get into Asimov's characters either. I don't know how many times I started Asimov's stories only to put them down after a while.
Apache

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by mbovenka

The Tripod trilogy! The Dutch translations were my first SF. Fond memories...

Those (the English version) were among my earliest SF reads as well.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

I could never get into Asimov's characters either. I don't know how many times I started Asimov's stories only to put them down after a while.
Apache

Hum. I'll admit it's been awhile since I read Asimov's SF, but I can't say I noticed anything that bothered me particularly. I did read a volume of Black Widower stories a year or two ago and enjoyed them. Certainly the original Foundation Trilogy, with it's vast sweep of time was more focused on big ideas than characters, though the Mule was an interesting character.

[Greg Anos]

Asimov was a writer, period. It didn't matter what, or how good, as long as he was writing. He said words to that effect in one of the short story forwards, in one of his books.

So some of his works are great, many are middling, and some are bad. He was at his best with puzzle stories, and occasionally with other material.

I enjoy the best stuff, and ignore the rest.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Greg Anos

Asimov was a writer, period. It didn't matter what, or how good, as long as he was writing. He said words to that effect in one of the short story forwards, in one of his books.

So some of his works are great, many are middling, and some are bad. He was at his best with puzzle stories, and occasionally with other material.

I enjoy the best stuff, and ignore the rest.

I can count on the figures of one hand the number of authors whom I enjoyed everything they wrote and most of the time, it was because they didn't have a big body of works.

Back in the days of per word writing (i.e. paid per word), writers were under pressure to write a lot in order to pay the bills. Writers who had day jobs didn't have that same pressure, of course, but then again, they could not devote a lot of time to writing.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I can count on the figures of one hand the number of authors whom I enjoyed everything they wrote and most of the time, it was because they didn't have a big body of works.

Back in the days of per word writing (i.e. paid per word), writers were under pressure to write a lot in order to pay the bills. Writers who had day jobs didn't have that same pressure, of course, but then again, they could not devote a lot of time to writing.

David Drake quit his job as a lawyer and took a job as a bus driver, so he could devote more time to writing.
Apache

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

David Drake quit his job as a lawyer and took a job as a bus driver, so he could devote more time to writing.
Apache

I know some lawyers for whom that would have been a pay raise.

I will say that unlike a lot of fans, I generally avoid learning about favored authors. Learning that an author you like was accused of child abuse can sure tarnish the memories.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by Apache

I could never get into Asimov's characters either. I don't know how many times I started Asimov's stories only to put them down after a while.
Apache

Try reading the Eternal Bard.