Asimov novels are 90% stilted expository dialogue punctuated by tepid action. Yet they somehow work. Why? I think sheer conceptual ambition.
-
-
Replying to @vgr
They defined a genre. Similar to Doc Smith earlier. As space opera? It stinks. But it was the first fumblings towards greatness
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @craig_montuori
It doesn't stink! Psychohistory is still one of the finest operatic plot devices ever!
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
I still wish Asimov stayed with the vignette approach from Foundation. It makes sense that The Plan failed over 1000 years... but still
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @craig_montuori
Hmm. I kinda liked how his style matured. The last-written books (Forward the Foundation and Robots and Empire) are my favorites.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
Interesting. I loved R&E growing up. It tied everything together. I hated it rereading it. It tied everything together.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @craig_montuori
(rereading pebble in the sky now for the second time and very satisfying to know how it fits)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
Ah, those three hidden gems. Currents of Space somehow really spoke to me
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @craig_montuori
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
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yeah agreed on that. It was one of the first I read. Luckily teen me had poor taste so I continued reading hm anyway.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.