martin schiller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> a msg from [log in to unmask] on 10/4/02 2:15 AM included ...
>
> >but IMHO they
> >simply don't compare as writers to folk like Robinson, Cherryh, or
> >Banks.
>
> imho the don't compare also.
>
> I find it hard to call up a writer who tackles the scope of painting
> the evolution of civilization as in _foundation_
In part this is a question of what is important. Asimov was fairly
obviously not as skilled (in a technical and literary sense) as
skilled an author as Kim Stanley Robinson or Iain M. Banks. He
characterization is not as good and his writing is general is not as
evocative and rich However, Asimov's *ideas* were most certainly
first-rate. The answer to who is better depends upon which quality
you value more.
> or presents an idea
> as pivotal as social hardship and deprivation used to build fighting
> forces as in _dune_.
OTOH, I never did understand why anyone like anything by Herbert.
To me Dune was *amazingly* sexist fluff and most of this other
books were dreadful. _The Green Brain_ is an amazingly bad book
and is only one of many.
-John Snead [log in to unmask]
|