The thing with Asimov, and I just re-read Nightfall thanks to this discussion, is that his prose is often effectively transparent. Reading it, the story, the *what* of what's happening is what you notice, even 70 years later. It's aged exceptionally well in large part because of that.

Nightfall is probably the best example, but I think "The Ugly Little Boy" is damn close.

I don't think you're risking getting called a snob because you know details, Hec. That's deflecting.

What's your definition of a snob?

It's certainly not someone who knows details. I wasn't the one that called out criticism, so I'm not going to go into detail about *that* meaning, but knowing details? Isn't remotely a definition of snob. It's not even required. I'm just not sure why you'd come to that conclusion.

You'd have to ask Connie precisely what she meant. But I assume it's something vaguely like the dictionary definition.

I'm hearing a "Hmph!" and sensing perhaps a little grimace. But that inference is all on me.

Oh no, it was there.

I think snobbery is the difference between the statement "X is a shitty author" and "X's style doesn't work for me." I admit I often cross this line into snobbiness - my wife and I have had a few arguments verging on fights about Twilight which she actually really enjoyed, even in hindsight, despite being one of the best English teachers I've ever met. She, even more than me, feels like there is more to good books than good prose, though she appreciates beautiful prose at a level far above my ability to appreciate it, as well, and she happily calls me out on my snobbiness when I roll my eyes at Twilight or The DaVinci Code.

In the long run, I think a great book is one that can consistently appeal to a broad range of people outside of its time period. I don't think Twilight and The Da Vinci Code will fit that bill, but I could be wrong. If I am, I'll admit it in 50 years. That doesn't mean I'll like it, which is fine. I also don't like The Catcher in the Rye that much, abhor Vonnegut, and roll my eyes constantly as I read most of Jane Austen. But they've all earned their place, not just because they are influential, though they are, but because I know a lot of people who enjoy them, and love them, still. And that means the authors have done something worth doing.

See, I'm willin to both roll my eyes at AND enjoy things like trashy romances or the Davinci Code!

I think snobbery is the difference between the statement "X is a shitty author" and "X's style doesn't work for me."

Well, I get paid to make critical judgments like that all the time. I don't think asserting something is good or bad is snobby. I think judging an individual based on their taste is snobby.

I was in the kitchen making cookies with some neighborhood kids at my parents' church (long story), and a couple of them asked if I believe in Santa. After considering for a moment, I said that I believe in the Hogfather. They decided that that must mean I'm Jewish (you know, because it's like Santa, only not. Just like Channakah!)

Personally, I thought A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius was really great(am jealous he got to the title, first.) I don't think it was as brilliant as the narrative voice thought it would be, because nothing could be, in a way, but at the same time, I thought the mix of styles worked well. Maybe I was sort of the perfect audience for it...TV freak, sick sense of humor, fresh out of college when it came out... But I felt like I should stand up(so to speak) for ironic Gen X-itude(although that book itself annoyed me bunches, parts of it have also stuck with me...what the hell is that?)

I loved the crap out of it too, erika.

I'm almost enjoying I, Robot so far! From the conversation, I expected Asimov to be dull as dirt or something, but the stories are good, if straightforward.