I agree about self-serving cleverness, but that leaves out those writers who have good ideas AND writing which matches them. It seems to me calling Asimov a good writer because his ideas are good is doing a diservice to truly great Science Fiction writers. To have ideas, prose, characters and plot all on the same level is what makes a great writer--and that shit is HARD.

You might like a ground-breaking plot the best and I may be a sucker for well-rounded characters, and we can enjoy books which work to our own interests, but the REALLY great writers offer the whole enchilada. They may not do it with every book or they may only manage it with one story, but they DO manage it, and I don't think they should be rated the same as a writer who only manages to do part of the job. We can still enjoy that writer, but I think writers who do amazing work shouldget the most accolades because, as I said, that shit is hard.

I think a lot of it is subjective.

I read Asimov's Foundation Triology in high school - in one large gulp I read the whole series straight through, I think in 2 weeks. I have to admit I remember more about the actual experience of reading than the story at this point. But I remember sitting crosslegged on my bed, hunched over, reading until it was physically painful and not putting the books down. Sometimes it wasn't the easiest read for me, but I kept wanting to know where teh story would go.

On the other hand when I tried to read Nine Princes of Amber I just couldn't get into it, it wasn't compelling to me.

Although I keep putting it in mental "try again" book list.

I also think a writer can be vitally important without being great. Asimov is vitally important AND a founding father, and that is a huge accomplishment in itself.

(It should go without saying that I have nothing to say about Asimov or SF as a genre.)

the REALLY great writers offer the whole enchilada

Absolutely. There just aren't that many of them. And there are a whole lot of authors who write really beloved novels and rich characters without being prose innovators.

I also think a writer can be vitally important without being great.

Me, too.

It would be fairer to posit your Asimovetti as someone who, say, was a groundbreaker (or genius, if you prefer) in composition but derivative color and flat humans.

I just now got that there wasn't a real painter named Asimovetti who painted gryphons.

I haven't read any Asimov, but I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't really like him. I tend to like influenced work more than their influences.

I would argue that much of Asimov's short fiction is as good or better than most SF writers' since. "Nightfall" has been on every best SF short story of all time list I've ever seen. He's not Bradbury, but who is?

This seems a good time to link to "Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury" in case someone hasn't seen it.

This is where I admit I can be completely humorless at times, because that video sets my teeth on edge. (Plei pointed out that part of my annoyance at it is that in a way, I think of Ray Bradbury in the same way I do as Clovis, so of course that song/video would make me cranky.)

My teeth are with Jilli's.