[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 14 KB, 342x456, IsaacAsimov.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2904801 No.2904801[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I've been getting into sci-fi lately and I see Asimov mentioned everywhere. I just rented a book of his and I would love to know why is he so highly regarded in the field. I've done a great deal of Niven and Lem and others. Loved them.

>> No.2904822

>>2904801
with his large SF output, he practically created the field.

>> No.2904844

>>2904822

This. Very prolific. Probably the best educated among sci-fi authors, also.

>> No.2904852

Hands down one of the best. His books are basically a holy bible to anyone who creates a robot story.

And look at those friggin' mutton chops. What a man..

>> No.2905010

Pleb shit.

Highly _un_ recommended for anybody older than 12.

>> No.2906012

>write amazing stories ala Foundation and Galatic Empire series
>editor says that Mystery and Sci-Fi can never be together in one story
>call editor's bullshit and write multiple Sci fi Mystery novels that are hailed as some of the best robot books to this day

BASED ASIMOV

>> No.2906024

>>2905010
this is bait

>> No.2906028

>>2904801
Asimov is one of the last polymaths. He was proficient in history, mathematics, theoretical physics, chemistry, biochemistry, literature, sociology, philosophy and linguistics. In order to fully appreciate his works one needs an appreciable scientific background.

>> No.2906040

I'd recommend Asimov's The Naked Sun, it's a sci-fi/mystery book. Definitely one of my favorites.

>> No.2906056

Was years and years ago that I last read any, but as I recall he has a common sci-fi problem: great ideas but stilted prose, unconvincing characters and dialogue.

Makes me wonder, actually... which sci-fi writers avoid these problems? Are there any out there with literary pizzazz?

>> No.2906064

>>2906056
>unconvincing characters and dialogue
Because they're not the main focus.

>> No.2906080

>>2906064
What would you say is the main focus? Given that you can't tell a story without them- or maybe you can, but I don't think Asimov tried that- I'd say that's still a problem.

>> No.2906083

>>2906056
I wouldn't call his prose dull, maybe concise or effective, but not dull.

>> No.2906081

>>2906080
>Given that you can't tell a story without them
You can. Characters and dialogues were only vectors.

>> No.2906086

>>2906081
>You can. Characters and dialogues were only vectors
If they're 'vectors', then they're being used to tell the story, no?

>> No.2906092
File: 18 KB, 281x211, le interupt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2906092

Understanding Physics was one of the best works of pop science of all time

>> No.2906095

>>2906083
Eh, opinions and all that. 'Concise and effective' makes me think of Hemingway, and... Asimov ain't Hemingway.

Anyway, /lit/, Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein. Who wins in a fight?

>> No.2906105
File: 92 KB, 398x609, LuckyStarr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2906105

>look up Asimov on wikipedia
>see that he wrote pic related under a pseudonym
That's pretty awesome.

>> No.2906156

>>2904801
>The Year of Our Lord 2012
>trying to troll MAH /lit
gtfo

>> No.2906162

>>2906156
bait

>> No.2906179

>>2906095
>Heinlein attempts to break up the fight and have a spiritual orgy

>> No.2906184

>>2906056
> Was years and years ago that I last read any, but as I recall he has a common sci-fi problem: great ideas but stilted prose, unconvincing characters and dialogue.

The ideas were shit too. Mostly clever puzzles and gimmicks to amaze a curious 14-year-old boy. Certainly never anything genuinely scientific or thought-provoking.

>> No.2906196

>>2906184
more bait

>> No.2906210

>>2906179
Yeah, as someone who knows almost nothing about Heinlein, this confuses me. The two impressions I've been given of him are
>Starship Troopers, fascist propaganda, go the military!
and
>counterculture hippy transexual orgies errywhere

>> No.2906213

>>2906210
Also, add in
>incestuous
somewhere

>> No.2906228

So, he's cool?

>> No.2906235

>>2906228
1. Google The Last Question, taking care to get the story and not a spoilery summary.
2. See if cool.

>> No.2906239

>>2906210
He believed in this odd crypto-fascist hippie Earth creed. You gotta be a veteran to run for public office but you can fuck whoever you want.

>> No.2906256

>>2906239
This was prevelant in the 50's Cold War era.
See: Henry Kissinger, Dr Strangelove and the 'Mineshaft Gap".

>> No.2906269

>>2906196
> more bait

Truth hurts?

When was the last time you read Asimov? (Corollary: do you live with your parents?)

>> No.2906359

I've got a collection of short stories by Asimov, the guy is pretty great. Even though they're all robot stories - there is surprisingly still quite a lot of variety. Including interesting characters, such as Susan Calvin, Powell & Donovan, and the many different Robot types.

I've only read SIASL by Heinlein. With him, I found the first half really well done, but the second half is really lacking. The character Jubal is so clearly Heinlein projecting his philosophical bullshit, and the fact that no one seems to trump his stupid logic is just infuriating.

>> No.2906447

>>2906359
Felt the same way with Stranger in a Strange Land. Great story, then all of a sudden we're in this orgy filled cult for 150 pages

>> No.2906452

>>2906269
2 weeks ago, and no.
Sorry, I fell for the bait.

>> No.2906458

>which sci-fi writers avoid these problems? Are there any out there with literary pizzazz?

Ray Bradbury and Ursula LeGuin for a start. The more literate types tend to write "soft" SF. Maybe R.A. Lafferty as well for old-school types.

>> No.2906477

>>2906458
You need a good scientific background to fully understand and appreciate hard sci-fi writers. Also, Ray Bradbury is awful. Only Fahrenheit 451 is halfway decent.

>> No.2906483

>>2906477
Which I have, but a lot of golden age SF is a playground for ideas about science and technology - this is a turnoff for people whose tastes are more inclined to the insight into people afforded by actual literature. I'd even argue that some of the loopy extrapolations about the social impact of technology you get from the Golden Age crowd came out of their limited insight into the human animal - the characters in their stories are frequently just mouthpieces for speeches the author wants to make.

This doesn't make hard SF a bad thing necessarily, but it does inhabit quite a different zone from that of literature.

>> No.2906510

>>2906056

Gene Wolfe.

Though his works lean more towards fantasy sci-fi as opposed to Asimov's hard scientific sci-fi. His Book of the New Sun series is brilliant nonetheless

>> No.2906592

>>2906483
>Which I have, but a lot of golden age SF is a playground for ideas about science and technology - this is a turnoff for people whose tastes are more inclined to the insight into people afforded by actual literature.
>actual literature
Stopped reading here.

>> No.2906636

>>2906477
> You need a good scientific background to fully understand and appreciate hard sci-fi writers.

Anybody with a _real_ scientific background would fly into a blind rage upon reading the pseudoscience crap of the so-called 'Golden Age'. A scientist would probably burn the shitty excuse for literature and flush the ashes down the toilet for their crimes against science.

>> No.2906637

I read I, Robot when I was about 14 and I really liked it then. I'm now 22, is any more Asimov worth exploring now? Also how come I only ever see people discussing Foundation, and absolutely never I, Robot?

>> No.2906674

>>2906028

Yeah, see, but you don't. That's what makes him so great. Reading his works is enhanced by a scientific knowledge base, but it's not necessary, because it's not ABOUT the science, it's about humanity.

OP, read this, It's my favourite of his short stories

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

>> No.2906685

>>2906592

A-fucking-men

>> No.2906697

>>2906592
Are you saying Science Fiction cannot be considered literature - or the oposite?

>> No.2906704

>>2906697
Literature is the art of written work. Not knowing that removes all credibility.

>> No.2906710

>>2906674
> Reading his works is enhanced by a scientific knowledge base

Nope nope nope.

Asimov's writing is full of the most egregious antiscientific shit. Having a scientific knowledge base would only spoil whatever entertainment value of his work there is.

(Same principle -- you are are a professional programmer, don't watch movies about 'hackers', it will only make you choke on bile. If you are a scientist, don't ever attempt to read 'SF', especially 'hard SF', and _especially_ 'hard SF of the Golden Age'.)

>> No.2906724

I just got a hold of his short story collection "The Complete Robot". Read the first story, "Sally", and didn't pick up the book again. Even though I liked the story, it didn't really do much for me.

Recommend me a short story that will get me hooked and want to read the whole book?

>> No.2906727

>>2906724
See >>2906674
But it's not a robot one.

>> No.2906737

>I just rented a book of his and I would love to know why is he so highly regarded in the field.

Historical importance.

Asimov, along with a few other people (most notably Heinlein and Clarke) was responsible for basically a revolution in science fiction that made it far more intellectually interesting and far more viable as a literary form. It's really difficult to overstate their influence on the genre and how much more serious and thought-provoking their work was in comparison to most things that had gone before.

>> No.2906736

>>2906727

Well, that was kind of the point, no? I don't want to read a story off a screen. I want a recommendation of a story in the book.

>> No.2906744

over rated shit OP
>>2904822
except that it was an established field with dozens of publications when began writing

>> No.2906758

>>2906744
Yeah, but none of it was any good. It wasn't as imaginative, as speculative, as serious. It was, for the most part, a pulp form. I mean, there were other people doing similar things before him and at the same time, Asimov didn't do it single-handedly - you need to talk about Heinlein, you need to talk about John W Campbell, you need to talk about the Futurians. But around the time Asimov started writing, science fiction was undergoing a massive change, and Asimov was one of the people most responsible for it. And it's not like it had been going on for that long - Asimov starts writing in '39, the same year as Heinlein. "A Martian Odyssey" was written in '34. Campbell took over Astounding in '37. So Asimov was coming in fairly close to the beginning of the revolution in science fiction and he was one of the central writers in it.

>> No.2906825

>>2906736
For a semi-humours work read Victory Unintentional.

Other one's I liked were:
Robbie
The 'Some Humanoid Robots' section stories are all good.
Little Lost Robot
Evidence
And the last two climaxes (...Thou Art Mindful & The Bicentennial Man).

>> No.2906835

>>2906256
uh

I don't think you can just cite jews as a total example of what was going on in the USA.

>> No.2906842 [DELETED] 

>>2906056
>Makes me wonder, actually... which sci-fi writers avoid these problems? Are there any out there with literary pizzazz?

Many.

In the 70s, there was a change in science fiction similar to the one Asimov was a major part of, called the New Wave, which was much more experimental, more interested in "soft science" and more interested in artistic expression than Golden Age science fiction. You should read some of that shit, and people who wrote after that point. In particular, Harlan Ellison, JG Ballard, Tom Disch, and John Brunner for New Wave, and Gene Wolfe, James Tiptree, Michael Bishop, Ursula K Leguin, M John Harrison, and John Crowley.

Also Ted Sturgeon. Siempre Ted Sturgeon.

>> No.2906847

>>2906056
>Makes me wonder, actually... which sci-fi writers avoid these problems? Are there any out there with literary pizzazz?

Many.

In the 70s, there was a change in science fiction comparable to the one Asimov was a major part of, called the New Wave, which was much more experimental, more interested in "soft science" and more interested in artistic expression than Golden Age science fiction. You should read some of those writers, and people who wrote after that point. In particular, Harlan Ellison, JG Ballard, Tom Disch, and John Brunner for New Wave, and Gene Wolfe, James Tiptree, Michael Bishop, Ursula K Leguin, M John Harrison, and John Crowley.

Also Ted Sturgeon. Siempre Ted Sturgeon.

>> No.2906854

>>2906825

Thank you, kind sir.

>> No.2907111
File: 68 KB, 350x521, DangerousVisions(1stEd).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2907111

>>2906847
>>2906458
>>2906510
Cool, thanks dudes. I should look at that Dangerous Visions compilation, maybe, looks New Wave as shit. Although sounds like it has lots of sex in, and you can colour me apprehensive about sci-fi+sex.


>>2906736
I know, but you should read that story anyway because it's awesome. Also
>not wanting to read on a screen
>reading sci-fi

>> No.2907163

>>2906012

Yeah, the guy was a pioneer. Lately I have been thinking about now The Foundation series addresses the same problems that Atlas Shrugged did. The first foundation was a lot like Galt's gultch. Also, the series conclusion seemed to be the exact opposite of the conclusion of Atlas Shrugged.

I would have paid money to see Asimov debate Ayn Rand.

>> No.2908118

I just finished up the pre-foundation empire trilogy(stars/currents/pebble). Might just be the pulpy short story nature or the age of them, but they're barely scifi. Politically charged adventure books. They were well executed and I certainly enjoyed reading them but if the rest of his output is similar I think I'll pass.

>> No.2908135

>>2907163
that's probably because ayn rand is an idiot

also there's a pretty big difference between "retreat into isolation against the inevitable downfall of global civilization" and "take your ball and go home because people want you to pay taxes"

>> No.2908232

>>2908135
God yes. Ayn Rand was an unpleasant cunt who basically wanted to dress up pure sociopathic nature. Basically she took the philosophy of Wealth of Nations and took the premise to an extreme. And christ her books take forever. Just say what you need to say, there is no need to go on forever and ever for 1200+ pages. I mean certain books like Arabian Nights are long because they are a true epic that provide good stories to read.

>> No.2908247

>>2908118
Try The Caves of Steel. Detective sci fi.

>> No.2908264

Despite all the Ayn Rand hate, I would still read Anthem by her. It's a fantastic novella with an interesting gimmick. While she has written much lengthy shitty novels, Anthem should only take you a few hours to read. Less preachy as well.

>> No.2908855

>>2908264
Despite dripping with the kind of forced, one-sided political badgering that you only get with extremists of all sorts, I agree that Anthem is probably Rand's most entertaining little work

>>2906704
Yawn, whatever sequence of words works for you, because I *know* you understood what I was saying. SF as something other than paper-thin technology masturbation literature written for manchildren? The "golden age" drivel (much of which is simply unbearable to read these days) coexists with Hemingway and Faulkner temporally - just an interesting point to think about when you're trying to justify it as comparable in quality to "real" literature.

Which isn't to take away from SF - I enjoy it like I enjoy a Big Mac once in a while.