/lit/ - Literature

>>21534260
Is each chapter 50 pages long? My word. I prefer shorter chapters that produce many natural stopping points, giving me the option to continue or not without being in the middle of something.

>>21534260
>gobbled
Are you a consumer or a turkey? These stories were published in magazines.

>reading Isaac Asimov in 2023
>oh wow this is boring
Yeah. no shit, Asimov is legitimately unreadable for anyone who experienced any other kind of post-New Wave/contemporary sci-fi. He's a product of his time, the worst of both worlds stuck in a limbo between soft and hard sci-fi, and could only have come to prominence in the 50s, when the genre was read only by children or weird professional nerds from RAND Corp.

>>21534260
I would like to see more posts like this. Asimov has written literally more than he had read( like Garth Marhengi) and his books are of high shelf popsci and both low shelf SciFi/YA. But all his stuff is good.

>>21534486
>But all his stuff is good.

>>21534500
>>21534486
Right? He wrote a book in all but one of the major dewey decimal categories, some are going to be kind of weak.

>>21534572
I'd rather point out that most of his low and high level popsci work is rather meant to pass specific knowledge. Its rather an entrypoint for a nerdy kid into science. This is not Ulysses nor it has to be for it to be a good educational material. Then on top of it there's a semi pulp SciFi paperbacks. They are not Ulysses either. Their main purpose is engagement of the reader. They provide role models, cliques and 101s a la Harry potter so that a young adult can get some basic life guidance. These stories also reflect the authors philosophical PoVs I.e. stoicism, which is a good starting point. This is not Ulysses either.
This literary material is not shallow. It has to be understood though that its prime function was never intended to be like Borge's Traut fishing in america or anything.

>>21534858
I was suggesting, his book on the history of the bible or such, which I just totally paid for, maybe isn't going to agree with modern scholarship in important ways. He wrote on a lot of stuff, maybe more than he should've. I guess I'll find out soon.

>>21535310
Asimov's guide to bible is full of asimovian puns and it gave me a lot of sensible chuckle whilst reading. Apocriyphal knowledge is another aspect regarding not only bible but natural sciences too.

>>21535527
Well sounds pretty good, I was interested to see a non theological history of the bible to go along with the other more traditional commentary. Now if I could just find an ordering of the bible by date written (according to the best secular scholarship)

It was good until the Golan Trevize part actually the Mule part

Will reading the first book give me a conclusive answer as to wether or not I will want to continue the rest of the trilogy? About to finish Robots and Empire but both it and the Naked Sun noticeably suffered from being stretched too thin considering how the books are written. It looks to me like his 50s output is more succinct in this regard compared with the changed publishing standards that affected his 80s behemoths.

>>21538074
>Will reading the first book give me a conclusive answer as to wether or not I will want to continue the rest of the trilogy?
Yeah

>>21534858
>ts rather an entrypoint for a nerdy kid into science
I was gobsmacked by The Collapsing Universe as a kid

>>21534260
aw man I just started reading reading Foundation, I even borrowed the hard-cover anthology of the whole trilogy. Am I gonna regret this?

>>21534425
>He's a product of his time
Yea this kinda shows. His vision of the future is laughably optimistic in some aspects (surviving till year 11,000? bruh good luck) but has just enough imperialism and misery to keep me convinced.

His descriptions of the ultra-technological urban setting are great but he really straddles the line between Sci-Fi tech and straight-up magic. Sometimes that stuff gets dry, but it's great at inspiring young readers to dream about "the world of tomorrow" and all that cool science-y stuff.

>>21539699
No , the trilogy is great. People don't like it because they go in with the expectations that it is something it isn't. the foundation books are mysteries where everyone's trying to outsmart each other not epics.

>>21539808
I just know he's a great author and want to see what he has to say and what his vision of the future is. I don't have any expectation beyond that. If anything, I find massive sprawling epics to be exhausting.

>>21539808
Yeah, what makes the Foundation series great is the vision and the scale of the events that span tens of thousands of years. Not the technology and technobabble. It deals with how civilizations rise and fall and what they would do on a galactic scale to preserve it. It was kind of inspired by the fall of the Roman empire and would describe even the modern western civilization perfectly.

>>21534260
its funny how the jewish chemistry groper writing a love story between a human and a robot kept it cleaner than the physics nazi william pierce who wasnt writing to be published by mainstream publishers

asimov couldn't write for shit. only autists enjoy his books

>>21540390
imagine the decline of rome, but it's over millennia, the writer transplants his mid-century american views onto the fantasy, and he can't write dialogue or engaging plot.

>>21540168
>vision and the scale
the vision is that human atoms follow chemical type laws. the scale is planets are city states and there are as many of them as in ancient greece. klaus schwab thinks hes the leader of the second foundation. the last books have new age sluts for the action heroes hook up with

>>21540396
>but it's over millennia
it was over 300 years but if you like talking about big numbers warhammer 40k has the biggest numbers known to science fiction

>>21534260
It was originally put out as a short story magazine format with a sort of murder mystery whodunit style. The characters rehash every potential facet of their mysterious dilemma multiple times.
Makes for some easy reading, not exactly the height of literary achievement.
That said, if you like the idea of some nightmarish horrific, action at a distance, never to be seen, all encompassing evil dark lord, be patient. Asimov's prehistoric take on a Tolkienesque story line with "The Mule" can be surprisingly satisfying. A professional clown does not a malicious magic ring make, and yet Asimov pulls it off just the same.

>>21540409
>The state of this board.
Star Maker covers 2 billion years, written in 1937. One of the most important works of early sci-fi, perhaps you should look into it.

>>21540461
>Star Maker
never heard of this or the author but after a quick read of the summary and the author's other works, it seems pretty cool
shame i'm not all that much into science otherwise i'd devour his works
still very cool nonetheless, thanks for sharing anon

>>21538074
what exactly are you looking for? this is sci fi without all the techno babble details and there is rarely a violent scene. each section is basically new set of characters outsmarting someone diplomatically. i loved all three books.

>>21534260
First foundation book is the worst one. Foundation and empire and second foundation are both better. I also like foundations edge and foundation and Earth better