5 ms·

Asimov's first real published story was in 1939 (his high school "published" a story earlier). The Foundation stories were written in 1941-1950. In 1951 Asimov

Asimov's first real published story was in 1939 (his high school "published" a story earlier). The Foundation stories were written in 1941-1950. In 1951 Asimov stopped writing fiction for thirty years. So it's not "early Asimov" by any means. When he came back to write Foundation sequels his characters and dialog hadn't improved. Asimov was always an author only of ideas. His best dialog was the terrible and deliberately corny dialog in the Azazel fantasy-comedy stories, very much done in imitation of P.G. Wodehouse's cleverer banter. Excerpt from one of the 80's foundation books: “Is not all this an extraordinary concatenation of coincidence ?” Pelorat said, “If you list it like that.” “List it any way you please,” said Trevize. “I don’t believe in extraordinary concatenations of coincidence.” Cringe.

GeekyBear 5y ago
> it's not "early Asimov" by any means He wrote the first Foundation story when he was only 21. That certainly qualifies.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  His retcon from the 80's wasn't any better in terms of dialogue
- StrictDabbler 5y ago
  "Search by the Second Foundation" (the second half of the book "Second Foundation") was one of the very last science fiction stories he wrote, apart from the spate of novels in the 80's. It gets confusing because once he was famous, magazines would call him up asking for a story and he'd give them one that he'd written between 1939-1951 that had been rejected. They'd accept it because he was now a legend. So Second Foundation, at least, is not early Asimov. It's arguably late Asimov. And it's exactly as wooden as the other parts of the original trilogy. That said, I've read every bit of fiction he ever wrote and loved most of it, so...
- maire 5y ago
  I think the OP would agree that it was "early Asimov" but you can't blame the writing on that. The OP was making the point that his writing never improved. Having said that there were cringeworthy aspects of the first Foundation book that improved over the subsequent books. I recently reread the series and came to the shocking conclusion that he must have been a virgin (or at least not exposed to women) in the first book.
allturtles 5y ago
I agree that Asimov, late or early, lives or dies on his ideas, and never was a great writer - he doesn't do lovely prose, naturalistic dialog, or vivid, multi-dimensional characters. But I don't see anything particularly bad about the dialog you've quoted.
handrous 5y ago
> When he came back to write Foundation sequels his characters and dialog hadn't improved. OK, great, it's not just me. I was about to respond, "wait, did he ever get good at characters and dialog? I've read a lot of Asimov, and at no point have those ever not been distractingly bad."

GeekyBear 5y ago

> it's not "early Asimov" by any means He wrote the first Foundation story when he was only 21. That certainly qualifies.

chaostheory 5y ago
His retcon from the 80's wasn't any better in terms of dialogue
StrictDabbler 5y ago
"Search by the Second Foundation" (the second half of the book "Second Foundation") was one of the very last science fiction stories he wrote, apart from the spate of novels in the 80's. It gets confusing because once he was famous, magazines would call him up asking for a story and he'd give them one that he'd written between 1939-1951 that had been rejected. They'd accept it because he was now a legend. So Second Foundation, at least, is not early Asimov. It's arguably late Asimov. And it's exactly as wooden as the other parts of the original trilogy. That said, I've read every bit of fiction he ever wrote and loved most of it, so...
maire 5y ago
I think the OP would agree that it was "early Asimov" but you can't blame the writing on that. The OP was making the point that his writing never improved. Having said that there were cringeworthy aspects of the first Foundation book that improved over the subsequent books. I recently reread the series and came to the shocking conclusion that he must have been a virgin (or at least not exposed to women) in the first book.

allturtles 5y ago

I agree that Asimov, late or early, lives or dies on his ideas, and never was a great writer - he doesn't do lovely prose, naturalistic dialog, or vivid, multi-dimensional characters. But I don't see anything particularly bad about the dialog you've quoted.

handrous 5y ago

> When he came back to write Foundation sequels his characters and dialog hadn't improved. OK, great, it's not just me. I was about to respond, "wait, did he ever get good at characters and dialog? I've read a lot of Asimov, and at no point have those ever not been distractingly bad."