It doesn't seem as though I should be but I am.
In fact, I've been feeling pretty exhausted for the last two or so weeks.
Not quite sure what's going on there.
Anyway...
(Yeah, bullet points again. Sorry)
* Foundation has proved to be somewhat disappointing. It feels rushed and the characters are never developed. In fact, more than anything, it
(
Read more... )
Comments 9
I've read just about all of Asimov's stuff, even the truly extra abysmal novels, and I'd say he seldom developed a character worth a damn. The groundbreaking was certainly not in the realm of character development and subtlety :)
But I'm not old enough to know why it was groundbreaking; I read Asimov's as Classic My-Dad's-SF.
Reply
In fact, most of my sci-fi reading has always been short stories, as opposed to my fantasy consumption which has tended more (though not exclusively) towards novels and series.
Personally, I like the premise of Foundation, which just me all the more irritated by what I see as a waste of potential (bit like the new Doctor Who series but we won't go there ;D).
I really really like his short fiction and I suspect I would have quite liked any one of the sections of Foundation, if they'd been pitched to me as short stories.
I suspect the 'groundbreakingness' is due to the concepts he proposed, rather than his novel writing style. At least I hope so but who knows? After all,we live in a world where many consider Stephanie Meyer and J.K. Rowling to be brilliantly talented...
*takes off bitter old lady hat and goes about her day*
Reply
Hey me too, till I met the Datlow/Windling short story collections!
Now most of my short fiction reading is fantasy too :)
I do think Asimov was at his strongest in the short work, where relatively shallow characterization wasn't such an issue, and nor was his prose. So reading the short fiction is a good way to go, really.
I may be too young to know why his concepts were groundbreaking :)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment