3 ms·

He didn't shape much at all. Asimov was the literal definition of a hack; he churned out writings more or less nonstop, and most of his work is nonfiction and f

by Noos 9y ago

He didn't shape much at all. Asimov was the literal definition of a hack; he churned out writings more or less nonstop, and most of his work is nonfiction and forgotten in time. His science fiction in general wasn't particularly that good, and he's more of a prototype of Michael Crichton when you consider his fiction; both managed to seize on a single idea that was striking, but were unable to go beyond that idea with the rest of their output. I read him growing up, too, even his David Starr and Norby books, and he never really caught my attention. Gordon R. Dickson's Dorsai Saga is a much better version of the Foundation books, and for all of the love of the Three Laws of Robotics, they really just were devices for science fiction versions of locked room mysteries.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
Ha! I can't stand the Dorsai stuff; Asimov rules. He inspired a generation to harden their science, and make it pivotal to the science fiction story. It takes all kinds.
- Noos 9y ago
  How is his stuff hard science? He made up the positronic brain, and his whole psychohistory was just absurd; if anything, the idea of a brilliant cabal of scientists and technicians using psychohistory to predict the future is just dressed up witchcraft than real science. Stuff like Nightfall is just embarrassing. Most of his science output was in a bunch of nonfiction books that I'm not even sure are still in print, and he had a rep for churning out books on every subject at lightning speed, rather than for great insight. Dorsai and Dickson's stuff had issues too, but he was much better at writing people as well as ideas, and he's had a longer, better overall career at writing science fiction and fantasy. Asimov was probably the first household name writer, but really needs to be viewed a lot more critically then the fandom does.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    Who do you think wrote hard science fiction which didn't have its absurd aspects? Heinlein, writing about ESP, and FTL? Niven too, for that matter. FWIW, Asimov's "Evidence" is listed as a representative example of hard science fiction at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction .
  - cde-v 9y ago
    "Most of his science output was in a bunch of nonfiction books that I'm not even sure are still in print, and he had a rep for churning out books on every subject at lightning speed, rather than for great insight." The Intelligent Man's Guide to Science (now called Asimov's New Guide To Science) was and is still very highly regarded.
eesmith 9y ago
"His science fiction in general wasn't particularly that good" I think you have to consider it in context, and compare it to other SF at the time. There's a reason why he was one of the "Big Three" of that time, and why Foundation series and his Nightfall novelette were acclaimed so highly. I can't stand reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, but I can tell that SF fans in the early to mid-20th century thought he was great. I think Dune is simplistic in how it portrays ecosystems and economies, but I recognize that it was the book which really got people to start taking those ideas serious when writing SF. You'll note that both have been turned into movies, as have several of Asimov's works, so it's not like he's mediocre. But yes, Asimov wrote with a mid-20th century viewpoint, which dates the material. (Just like early Niven has such a 1970s/Los Angeles viewpoint.[0]) And here we are, post-New Wave, post-cyperpunk, even post-space-opera-revival. Our views have changed, and we now have different expectations and higher standards. In his non-fiction works, I quite enjoyed the broad coverage in "Asimov's Guide to Science". [0] Consider that "Puppeteers" comes because on the human ship which met them there was "a camp revival of the ancient Time for Beany TV show featuring Cecil the Sea-Sick Sea Serpent." Compare to Cordwainer Smith, whose works, I think, are not so easily dated.
- bllguo 9y ago
  Interesting. You seem quite well-read in science fiction. Could I ask you (or anyone) for some recommendations, as someone who rates the Dune and Foundation series highly?
  - cde-v 9y ago
    Not who you were asking, but coming from someone how has read the Foundation series and Dune multiple times (only books I have ever reread): The Expanse series by James S. A. Corey The Culture series by Iain M. Banks
  - eesmith 9y ago
    My SF knowledge is quite dated. I've read little in the last 20 years, and SF has changed yet again during that time. Moreover, I've changed, and realized that too much of the SF I read was white male nerd escapism. (As a Heinlein fan, I really enjoyed Varley's "Red Thunder", written as an homage to Heinlein's juvenile series. There's a scene where the disgraced former astronaut is talking with the family of one of the teens, to convince them that it's okay for him to be on the experimental rocket. The teen's mother is a single parent, and the grandmother is was a Cuban refugee who crossed the Florida Straight in a makeshift boat. It's the grandmother who used her history to convince the mother that it was okay. This scene mirrors one from Heinlein's "Rocketship Galileo", where the esteemed nuclear physicist visits the mother and father of one of the teens, and the mother draws on the family history where her great-grandparents as teenagers crossed the country on a Conestoga wagon. The Heinlein one draws on standard American patriotism. I read the Varley version as a commentary that that courage isn't limited to the (primarily white European) people who colonized the American west.) Okay, that long parenthetical note aside, perhaps you would like David Brin's Uplift Saga series. I didn't like Sundiver that much, but "Startide Rising" and "The Uplift War" have elements which feel like Dune and the Foundation series. For more modern SF, you may be interested in Ian M. Banks' Culture series. That isn't much like Dune or Foundation, but it is well-written, complex, thoughtful, and full of interesting ideas. (Edit: I see cde-v mentioned Banks an hour ago.)

by Noos 9y ago

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

Ha! I can't stand the Dorsai stuff; Asimov rules. He inspired a generation to harden their science, and make it pivotal to the science fiction story. It takes all kinds.

Noos 9y ago
How is his stuff hard science? He made up the positronic brain, and his whole psychohistory was just absurd; if anything, the idea of a brilliant cabal of scientists and technicians using psychohistory to predict the future is just dressed up witchcraft than real science. Stuff like Nightfall is just embarrassing. Most of his science output was in a bunch of nonfiction books that I'm not even sure are still in print, and he had a rep for churning out books on every subject at lightning speed, rather than for great insight. Dorsai and Dickson's stuff had issues too, but he was much better at writing people as well as ideas, and he's had a longer, better overall career at writing science fiction and fantasy. Asimov was probably the first household name writer, but really needs to be viewed a lot more critically then the fandom does.
- eesmith 9y ago
  Who do you think wrote hard science fiction which didn't have its absurd aspects? Heinlein, writing about ESP, and FTL? Niven too, for that matter. FWIW, Asimov's "Evidence" is listed as a representative example of hard science fiction at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction .
- cde-v 9y ago
  "Most of his science output was in a bunch of nonfiction books that I'm not even sure are still in print, and he had a rep for churning out books on every subject at lightning speed, rather than for great insight." The Intelligent Man's Guide to Science (now called Asimov's New Guide To Science) was and is still very highly regarded.

eesmith 9y ago

"His science fiction in general wasn't particularly that good" I think you have to consider it in context, and compare it to other SF at the time. There's a reason why he was one of the "Big Three" of that time, and why Foundation series and his Nightfall novelette were acclaimed so highly. I can't stand reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, but I can tell that SF fans in the early to mid-20th century thought he was great. I think Dune is simplistic in how it portrays ecosystems and economies, but I recognize that it was the book which really got people to start taking those ideas serious when writing SF. You'll note that both have been turned into movies, as have several of Asimov's works, so it's not like he's mediocre. But yes, Asimov wrote with a mid-20th century viewpoint, which dates the material. (Just like early Niven has such a 1970s/Los Angeles viewpoint.[0]) And here we are, post-New Wave, post-cyperpunk, even post-space-opera-revival. Our views have changed, and we now have different expectations and higher standards. In his non-fiction works, I quite enjoyed the broad coverage in "Asimov's Guide to Science". [0] Consider that "Puppeteers" comes because on the human ship which met them there was "a camp revival of the ancient Time for Beany TV show featuring Cecil the Sea-Sick Sea Serpent." Compare to Cordwainer Smith, whose works, I think, are not so easily dated.

bllguo 9y ago
Interesting. You seem quite well-read in science fiction. Could I ask you (or anyone) for some recommendations, as someone who rates the Dune and Foundation series highly?
- cde-v 9y ago
  Not who you were asking, but coming from someone how has read the Foundation series and Dune multiple times (only books I have ever reread): The Expanse series by James S. A. Corey The Culture series by Iain M. Banks
- eesmith 9y ago
  My SF knowledge is quite dated. I've read little in the last 20 years, and SF has changed yet again during that time. Moreover, I've changed, and realized that too much of the SF I read was white male nerd escapism. (As a Heinlein fan, I really enjoyed Varley's "Red Thunder", written as an homage to Heinlein's juvenile series. There's a scene where the disgraced former astronaut is talking with the family of one of the teens, to convince them that it's okay for him to be on the experimental rocket. The teen's mother is a single parent, and the grandmother is was a Cuban refugee who crossed the Florida Straight in a makeshift boat. It's the grandmother who used her history to convince the mother that it was okay. This scene mirrors one from Heinlein's "Rocketship Galileo", where the esteemed nuclear physicist visits the mother and father of one of the teens, and the mother draws on the family history where her great-grandparents as teenagers crossed the country on a Conestoga wagon. The Heinlein one draws on standard American patriotism. I read the Varley version as a commentary that that courage isn't limited to the (primarily white European) people who colonized the American west.) Okay, that long parenthetical note aside, perhaps you would like David Brin's Uplift Saga series. I didn't like Sundiver that much, but "Startide Rising" and "The Uplift War" have elements which feel like Dune and the Foundation series. For more modern SF, you may be interested in Ian M. Banks' Culture series. That isn't much like Dune or Foundation, but it is well-written, complex, thoughtful, and full of interesting ideas. (Edit: I see cde-v mentioned Banks an hour ago.)