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.

And Asimov's prose did rise above serviceable on occasion.

If I want an example of "damning with faint praise" I'd start with this, Gar.

See, I find Martin TL:DR. He's like a sleeping pill for me.

But, then, so is Rowling. And you're talking to someone who routinely can't sleep because OMG, BOOK! MUST READ MORE! So if a book puts me to sleep...

He never did anything for me, but saying so does feel like slagging someone's Uncle Isaac.

I enjoy sf for a lot of reasons. Beautiful prose can keep me reading, but ideas can also keep me reading. Stories like Nightfall, The Ugly Little Boy, Misbegotten Missionary and The Last Question are unforgettable.

I have, under duress, read the condensed Clarissa. Now that's painful.

Btw, Gar, I just had an image of us arguing Asimov's merits at some old SF WorldCon and just as you said, "And Asimov's prose did rise above serviceable on occasion," he walks up behind you and claps his hand on your shoulder. And he says, "Thank you for your gallantry, but can I ask you not to rush to my defense anymore? I don't think my ego can survive any more of your sallies on my behalf."

Pish tosh, serviceable is exactly what prose is supposed to be. Prosaic, even.

There's nothing wrong with serviceable prose. Writers can be great for any of a number of reasons. And great writers can be less than great in certain areas. Dickens's characters are magnificent, but his plots rely too much on coincidence. ("Our hero walked through London. Out of all the millions of people in the city, he just happened to meet an old friend that he hadn't seen in 500 pages....")

See, I find Martin TL:DR. He's like a sleeping pill for me.

Since the only non-shared-world Martin I've ever read is Fevre Dream, I have a skewed sense of him. (I love Fevre Dream.)

I haven't re-read any Asimov in years, but I remember liking what he wrote. And in terms of the SF Valhalla, these days I prefer Asimov to Heinlein. (I suppose it's telling that my favorite Heinlein really is Magic, Inc. )

But of course, I will place Bradbury above them all.