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.

There's nothing wrong with serviceable prose.

For a writer there certainly is something wrong with it.

Let me posit the lost Italian Renaissance painter Asimovetti. He was a contemporary of Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Titian. His compositions were static, his use of color derivative, and his humans were all flat. But he was the first person to paint gryphons with blue tinged wings and everybody after painted them that way. He was influential. But you don't put him in the same rank with Da Vinci, Michelangleo and Titian because he's not as good.

His paintings are serviceable. You can see what he's getting at. There are some interesting ideas in there about robots gryphons. The way he laid out that Triptych wasn't particularly well executed but everybody had to admit Triptych's were a pretty cool idea.

I can get it if you don't want to swallow the entire Modernism insistence on the medium itself as the essence of art. But the mere serviceability of Asimov's prose negatively affects the quality of the work. Because writing is made of words and he's not particularly great at it.

There's a reason why Asimov only writes the foreword to Harlan Ellison's Dangerous Visions instead of contributing a story to it. Because when you're trying to create a new standard for science fiction that's more daring in subject and of a higher literary standard then you have to set the bar over Asimov's head.

Asimov as a Beloved and Respected Figure can lend his credibility and approval to the project, but Asimov the writer doesn't deserve to be in the same book with Fritz Leiber, Robert Silverberg, Brian Aldiss, Phillip K.Dick, Theodore Sturgeon, J.G. Ballard, Philip Jose Farmer, Roger Zelazny, Samuel Delaney and Harlan Ellison. The standard of Asimov's merely serviceable prose is the very thing they are trying to overthrow to improve the genre.