Are we not supposed to enjoy Asimov?

I was just asking if people did. And some people do.

Gleaned from the comments of Mark Reads:

You can pull up Google Maps and ask for the Walking directions from "The Shire" to "Mordor."

You get a special warning.

It tried to direct me from someplace in Chehalis to Mordor Tattoo in Oregon.

But does it give you the warning beforehand? I got one.

Does anybody really like reading Asimov?

I got a tinge of disbelief in that question. You didn't intend any with your word choice?

to Mordor Tattoo in Oregon

Clearly they do not encourage walk ins.

I got a tinge of disbelief in that question.

Saying he was a shitty writer with weak characterization and would recommend him gave me that sense too.

Books are very subjective things.

I got a tinge of disbelief in that question. You didn't intend any with your word choice?

Oh absolutely intended. I think he's vastly overrated.

But people did say they enjoyed reading him and I don't think they're lying or deluded. So I got my answer despite my leading question.

Then my question stands--I reacted as if you thought we weren't supposed to enjoy him, and I was quite surprised at that. Was your initial thought that he was coasting on juvenile attention? Or something else?

Was your initial thought that he was coasting on juvenile attention? Or something else?

Just looking at his place in the canon. Thinking about the kind of people you read as an English Major; you have to read Clarissa by Richardson which is an Important Novel in English literary history but it's not an enjoyable or particularly good one.

And I think that's Asimov's place. The Foundation books and his robot stories are important and influential, but not because of the quality of his writing. They arrived at a certain place and time and the ideas were valuable and other people did (I think) better things with them. Certainly it's hard to imagine something like Iain Banks Culture series without the precedent of the Foundation books.

Also, I think Asimov's public persona as a popularizer of science and genial figure in the magazines and fandom had a lot to do with the place he was accorded in science fiction history. That boost in reputation is separate from his writing.

He's just kind of sacred cow of science fiction. He sits in the inner circle of Science Fiction Valhalla, but I don't think his actual literary output merits it.

He sits in the inner circle of Science Fiction Valhalla, but I don't think his actual literary output merits it.

But you're assuming that the SF Valhalla relies on literary quality. Which is, I suspect, also a moving target anyways, because of changing cultural context and personal subjectivities.

I don't disagree that his prose is merely adequate and his characterizations bare-boned, but he did produce an enormous volume of work that had a great effect on people both at the time it was written and afterwards.

As much as I adore and revere Zelazny, some of his earlier stuff has women characters whose primary purpose is to be attracted to the hero--though he has other women who are tough and have things to do that are important to the plot. And the 2nd Amber series is much better about it. It's like the writers of the 60s and 70s had this huge blank spot in their heads and needed rapped smartly to realize there were a whole lot more characters they could be playing with.