(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.

For what it is worth, there are pictures on the net of Bradbury watching that vid and really getting into it.

For what it is worth, there are pictures on the net of Bradbury watching that vid and really getting into it.

Oh, I know! And I'm very glad he was amused by it. That doesn't change the fact that it raises *my* hackles.

Style over content is a bad goal for any art, probably, but writing particularly.

There is no such thing as "style over content." The style - the aesthetic choice the creator made in putting the work together - is the content.

The content of that painting is lilies. How the person painted it makes it a Monet.

The fact that you can synopsize a plot does not make that the content of the book. It is no more the book than my spleen is me. Style is not a cup that holds the hot sweet content of coffee. Style is not icing you spread around the top of the content-cake. It is the what the cake is made of.

I can give five different directors the same screenplay and the same budget and they will come back with five radically different works.

If I gave the script for Chinatown and an $80 million dollar budget to David Fincher the movie that he makes will be very different from the movie that Martin Scorsese would make. Or David Lynch. Or Woody Allen. The style - the aesthetic choices - of cinematography, score, casting, editing, costuming, set design, lighting would all be different, would all succeed or fail in different ways. Those are five completely different movies.

All of the choices that Dave Eggers makes in writing A Staggering Work...are the things that constitute that book. The self consciousness, the irony, the footnotes. That is what the book is made of.

People did not cry about Little Nell's death because she was some random child in a story that died. They cried because of the way that Dickens wrote her and built the narrative. The rhythm of his prose, his word choice, the dialogue he created. The book is only composed of the text so what you get out of it - what you are asserting is the content - is the effect of all the stylistic choices.

How it moves you is dependent on how Dickens wrote it.

If you went to an academic conference on literary theory and tried to talk about style separate from content they would look at you as if you'd gone to a medical conference and talked about balancing the humours.