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
Haven't read any of the non-Asimov trilogy though. The plot synopses arent inspiring. They seem like bad fanfic rather than good hole-plugs
Replying to
And it's a Benny Hill chase from about 1/3 of the way in
1
1
Replying to
Yeah agreed on that. It was one of the first I read. Luckily teen me had poor taste so I continued reading hm anyway.
Replying to
The Brin one is good. The earlier two sorta (?) set it up though. Read once, never again
Replying to
Third one has Pebble in the Sky references galore. Explains the psychohistory need for The Sack. too
1
Replying to
Brin effectively redefines the First v. Second v. Galaxa discussion

