/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14750219]

has it been surpassed?

[Anonymous No.14750359]

a challenger approacheds

[Anonymous No.14750428]

>>14750219
Is this that good ? I mean if I read it I'd prefer not to be memed

[Anonymous No.14750483]

>>14750428
>is it that good

No

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14750520]

>>14750428
It’s dry as toast. A series of conversations about galactic history over a vast span of time. If you’re an Asimov fan it’s great. But to get the full impact you’d also have to read his Robot books which take place chronology first. Try those first

[Anonymous No.14750597]

>>14750219
Depends. It’s mostly talking heads, characterization is virtually non-existent, but I liked it. And the “great galloping galaxies!” and “by space!” stuff is corny but fun. I thought I’d hate it, but I ended up really enjoying it for the reasons lots of people hate it. There’ve been better books by better writers, but the Foundation Trilogy has a charmingly brainy unselfconscious energy and I don’t know if anyone can write like that again.

So yeah it’s been surpassed. But also sort of no.

[Anonymous No.14750637]

>>14750483
No asimov has never written anything good that is why his books litter the shelves at thrift stores

[Anonymous No.14750638]

>>14750219
>autistic sci-fi that has no sense of poetry or character
No. If Gormenghast is superior fantasy, and this is superior sci-fi, then look me in the eye and tell me that Gormenghast isnt a far far better trilogy. Also fantasy is better than sci-fi in general with a few rare exceptions like PKD.

[Anonymous No.14750663]

Asimov is bugman /r/ThriftStoreHauls shit.
>Look at these old sci-fi books that smell like moth balls.
>I love campy sci-fi stories that sometimes impart rudimentary existential conjecture!

[Anonymous No.14750679]

>>14750219
Asimov had a few interesting ideas, but he's a horrible prose writer. Just horrifically bad.

[Anonymous No.14750696]

Starship Troopers and The Forever War were both better

[Anonymous No.14750722]

>>14750219
It had been surpassed when it was written. It's interesting enough, though, and foundational to the genre (pardon the pun). Count to a Trillion was interesting as a direct response to it (or is, only halfway through it now).

[Anonymous No.14750824]

>>14750663
I like the term "mothball fiction"

[Anonymous No.14750868]

>>14750663
>>14750824
reddit moment

[Anonymous No.14751103]

>>14750868
You're the one that pasted Asmiov, headass.

[Anonymous No.14751131]

>>14750219
Book of the New Sun shits all over this.

[Anonymous No.14751187]

>>14750219
I can think of only one scifi trilogy that I've enjoyed more.

[Anonymous No.14751229]

>>14750428
I liked it

[Anonymous No.14751278]

>>14750219
I see this is the kino thread. Nice.

[Anonymous No.14751303]

>>14750219
sounds like a Hari Seldon crisis though...

[Anonymous No.14751317]

>>14750219
I want them to put retard juice into this series and market it past the point of absurdity.

>Foundation and Scooby Doo
>Foundation and the Magic Chocolate Factory
>Foundation for the discerning woman

[Anonymous No.14751324]

>>14750219
Read the first book a few months ago. Trash.

[Anonymous No.14751327]

>>14751303
I was scrolling down before I made this joke. Damn you for beating me to this joke. Damn you.

[Anonymous No.14751382]

>>14750428
I greatly enjoyed Foundation and Empire (the other two are okay) but I wouldn't recommend them to anyone that wasn't already an Asimov fan.

[Anonymous No.14752967]

Gaskun’s mega saga.

[Anonymous No.14752979]

>>14750663
>/r/ThriftStoreHauls
go back

[Anonymous No.14753362]

>>14750638
>Also fantasy is better than sci-fi in general
That's a hot take. I would like like to hear somebody expound on this...

[Anonymous No.14753482]

>>14750663
If you are able to cite subreddits individually, you are a closeted redditor, and any opinions you have on the habits of other people are less than worthless.

[Anonymous No.14753494]

Yes

[Anonymous No.14753499]

Again, yes

[Anonymous No.14753510]

>>14750638
>>14753362
Ah, but Asimov isn't superior sci-fi. As for fantasy vs sci-fi in general, fantasy does seem to have more great classics just by the greater inclination towards older and more substantive mythologies rather than scientific autism, which a lot of sci-fi ruins itself as literature with.
Still a lot of great science fiction though- Wolfe, Bester, Lem, Zelazny, LeGuin, Delaney, PKD. The most memed works aren't often the best.

[Anonymous No.14753627]

>>14753510
I think my surprise is due to having read a ton of junk fantasy over my lifetime. The idea that fantasy is better than sci-fi in general just feels wrong to me. Frankly, I've only recently started to look for quality recommendations in fantasy after getting a little tired with pure escapism like the WoT books. I see Gormenghast recommended here. I've started to look into Gene Wolfe. I'm waiting on a few of his books in the mail today. Having trouble finding recommendations without tripping over mindless entertainment. I mean, it has it's place, but I'm just wanting more out of my books lately.

[Anonymous No.14753686]

>>14750219
those books are like 40+ years old lmao, scifi has a high turnover rate

[Anonymous No.14753691]

>>14753686
b8

[Anonymous No.14753697]

>>14753627
True, there's a ton of dreck to both genres. Fantasy has a lot of greats that are as notable as literature as they are as fantasy, though: Tolkien, Dunsany, Eddison, Lewis, LeGuin, etc. Still, the argument over which is better tends to come down to things like the inspirations for each. I've never found them very convincing, but there are some points worth noting in favor of fantasy.

[Anonymous No.14753714]

>>14753686
ready player one is pretty good, actually.

[Anonymous No.14754012]

>>14750520
This. Though I'd add that the later books which reconnect the robot & empire narratives into an almost touristic overview are considerably wetter in personality & place & humor, without loss to the speculative conversation, or suspense. Those are the underrated volumes in the sequence.