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.

But you're assuming that the SF Valhalla relies on literary quality

Absolutely. It relies on literary quality and imagination. And that's what I loved about Asimov--his concepts. He strung concepts together that intrigued me at a time where I wasn't primed to care too much about literary quality. *Now* I'd prefer both together, but his concepts are still strong enough for me to enjoy his work with the serviceable literary quality he's displayed.

Absolutely. It relies on literary quality and imagination. And that's what I loved about Asimov--his concepts. He strung concepts together that intrigued me at a time where I wasn't primed to care too much about literary quality. *Now* I'd prefer both together, but his concepts are still strong enough for me to enjoy his work with the serviceable literary quality he's displayed.

Yeah, you'd never mistake him for a writer of lush prose, but serviceable is a good word for his writing, and you're totally right about his concepts.

I would re-read Asimov (disclaimer: I had a cat named after him growing up) before a lot of other writers, some of whom may register more strongly on the literary quality scale (whatever that is), but have a failure of imagination. I'll take imagination over imagery most days.

I couldn't get in to Asimov, even as a young person-- but that is unsurprising since the "hardest" science fiction I liked was Narnia. My mother kept buying me science fiction, though.

Yeah, you'd never mistake him for a writer of lush prose, but serviceable is a good word for his writing, and you're totally right about his concepts.

This is the way I feel about George R. R. Martin. He's not an exceptional stylist, but he tells a damn good story.

He's not an exceptional stylist, but he tells a damn good story.

Yeah, I wouldn't rate Asimov as a particularly gripping storyteller either. His ideas were interesting, and apparently still are interesting. It's not that you're swept away by his narrative. Also, Martin like Rowling (another writer who gets dinged for her prose at times) created much more vivid and complex characters, and were better storytellers.

Anyway, I'm not trying to turn anybody to my point. If he's still a good/valuable/enjoyable read to you then that's the relevant answer to my original question.

And Asimov's prose did rise above serviceable on occasion. "The Ugly Little Boy". And another story whose exact title I'm brain farting on: "A nice day for a walk" something on those lines.