tzor wrote:My first Asimov book as a very young child was "The Moon." I still have it today in the basement. Come to think of it I was only 6 when this children's book came out in 1967.
I'm actually v impressed by a lot of his non-fiction. I used to love his "Asomov's Guide to Science". I've always wanted a copy of "Asimov's guide to the Bible", and I remember very fondly an article he wrote about what the Earth would be like without the Moon.
But he still couldn't write fiction for toffee.
Because he was a toilet-head.
jonesthecurl wrote:But he still couldn't write fiction for toffee.
I recollect a Far Side comic entitled "Did Not Like Dances with Wolves" where there were three people at the meeting. I think you need to start a "Did Not Like Isaac Asimov" club (you could call it "Asimov Was a Toilet Head"). And you and the three other members can complain.
jonesthecurl wrote:Obviously you're both toilet-heads too.
I am a NaNoWriMo'er ... If you want shitty fiction ... read my works.
Necropolis - The City of the Dead: Necropolis is an erotic fantasy romance with plenty of food where family ties extend even beyond the grave. The original draft was written in one month as a part of National Novel Writer’s Month in November 2005.
This was my first successful NaNoWriMo and it's really crappy. But hey. you try to get 50,000 words on the page in less than a month.
jonesthecurl wrote:Obviously you're both toilet-heads too.
You're just old-man-sideburns-ist
Actually thats a good point.
Jonesy, do you actually dislike him, or are you simply factually stating his head looks like a toilet?
There's two points: first, he was a boring and arrogant git. With no sense of humour.
Secondly, though I enjoyed his fiction when I was a kid (because it's a fiction of ideas, and I was an sf fanatic), it's badly written. The characters have no depth, he seems almost entirely aware of the female half of the human race, his robots are more bellievable people than any of his humans.
I've said elsewhere (maybe in this thread) that his non-fiction was good.
jonesthecurl wrote:Obviously you're both toilet-heads too.
I am a NaNoWriMo'er ... If you want shitty fiction ... read my works.
Necropolis - The City of the Dead: Necropolis is an erotic fantasy romance with plenty of food where family ties extend even beyond the grave. The original draft was written in one month as a part of National Novel Writer’s Month in November 2005.
This was my first successful NaNoWriMo and it's really crappy. But hey. you try to get 50,000 words on the page in less than a month.
Y'know, tzor, you should come and see me on stage sometime. Do you like Shakespeare?
jonesthecurl wrote:Obviously you're both toilet-heads too.
You're just old-man-sideburns-ist
Actually thats a good point.
Jonesy, do you actually dislike him, or are you simply factually stating his head looks like a toilet?
There's two points: first, he was a boring and arrogant git. With no sense of humour.
Secondly, though I enjoyed his fiction when I was a kid (because it's a fiction of ideas, and I was an sf fanatic), it's badly written. The characters have no depth, he seems almost entirely aware of the female half of the human race, his robots are more bellievable people than any of his humans.
I've said elsewhere (maybe in this thread) that his non-fiction was good.
It is worth noting that his writing of women in particular leaves a lot to be desired.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
jonesthecurl wrote:Obviously you're both toilet-heads too.
You're just old-man-sideburns-ist
Actually thats a good point.
Jonesy, do you actually dislike him, or are you simply factually stating his head looks like a toilet?
There's two points: first, he was a boring and arrogant git. With no sense of humour.
Secondly, though I enjoyed his fiction when I was a kid (because it's a fiction of ideas, and I was an sf fanatic), it's badly written. The characters have no depth, he seems almost entirely aware of the female half of the human race, his robots are more bellievable people than any of his humans.
I've said elsewhere (maybe in this thread) that his non-fiction was good.
Badly written is an exaggeration. They're not spectacularly wonderful, but bad? No, I can't follow you all the way there. The plots are logically consistent, there is great economy (no extraneous passages that don't contribute anything) and the style is crisp. Characterizations are a bit weak, and sometimes conversations could be a bit more scintillating, but when you have so many good points (as you admit yourself, it is the fiction of ideas, which is a massive positive point in my books) then a few weaknesses can be forgiven.
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
