Asimov novels are 90% stilted expository dialogue punctuated by tepid action. Yet they somehow work. Why? I think sheer conceptual ambition.
Conversation
Replying to
They defined a genre. Similar to Doc Smith earlier. As space opera? It stinks. But it was the first fumblings towards greatness
1
1
Replying to
It doesn't stink! Psychohistory is still one of the finest operatic plot devices ever!
4
1
Replying to
I still wish Asimov stayed with the vignette approach from Foundation. It makes sense that The Plan failed over 1000 years... but still
2
Replying to
Hmm. I kinda liked how his style matured. The last-written books (Forward the Foundation and Robots and Empire) are my favorites.
2
Replying to
Interesting. I loved R&E growing up. It tied everything together. I hated it rereading it. It tied everything together.
2
1
Replying to
(rereading pebble in the sky now for the second time and very satisfying to know how it fits)
2
1
Replying to
Ah, those three hidden gems. Currents of Space somehow really spoke to me
2
1
Replying to
Of course. That one I only read for the first time last year. Very cool indeed.
Replying to
Unlike Clarke, Asimov could actually write longer form. But still, ah, his Susan Calvin shorts. Such fun
1
1
Replying to
Never did like Clarke though I read most of his stuff. Felt too much like science lectures in disguise.
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
I always like the uprising tales, too. But a thick thread of detective genre thrown in, which Asimov was also great at. Who is X?

