Isaac Asimov?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Science fiction has yet to produce a writer of Hemingway's calibre, of course.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The last Asimov novel I read was The Gods Themselves, and I couldn't even tell you what that was about.

In a nutshell, it's a metaphor for pollution.

 

[RandyS]

I've read the seven original Foundation novels, the ones by Asimov, I have yet to get to the others. I've also read his Galactic Empire trilogy and his four Robot novels (though again, only those by him, I haven't yet gotten to the continuations by Roger McBride Allen). I've also read The Gods Themselves, and The End of Eternity.

I definately recommend Asimov.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Here's the list for Asimov's Robots-Empire-Foundation series, in the order that *I* would recommend reading them (by Asimov unless otherwise stated):

The End of Eternity (actually, you can read this at any point before Foundation)
I, Robot
Nemesis
Mind Transfer by Janet Asimov
Caves of Steel
Naked Sun
Robots of Dawn
Mirage by Mark W. Tiedemann
Chimera by Mark W. Tiedemann
Aurora by Mark W. Tiedemann
Robots and Empire
Caliban by Roger MacBride Allen
Inferno by Roger MacBride Allen
Utopia by Roger MacBride Allen
The Stars, Like Dust
The Currents of Space
Pebble In The Sky
Foundation
Foundation and Empire
Second Foundation
Foundation's Edge
Foundation and Earth
Prelude to Foundation
Forward the Foundation
Foundation's Fear by Gregory Binford
Foundation and Chaos by Greg Bear
Foundation's Triumph by David Brin

For your amusement if you're still craving the Asimov universe after all of that (and I expect that you will be):
Isaac Asimov's Robot City series by misc authors
Isaac Asimov's Robots and Aliens series by misc authors
Foundation's Friends (anthology by other authors)
The Norby Chronicles and the rest of the Norby series, by Janet and Isaac Asimov
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series by Douglas Adams (not really directly connected, but pays homage in places throughout, and worthwhile on its own, besides).

That might seem a bit intimidating for someone who just wants to try Asimov's stuff, so if you just want to read a single book that can stand alone, try any of these:

I, Robot
The End of Eternity
Nemesis
The Stars, Like Dust
The Currents of Space
Pebble In The Sky

I hope you enjoy his works as much as my wife and I both have and do.

 

[Owain Taggart]

You certainly can't go wrong with any of his works. One thing to note though, is that he eventually tried to tie all of his stories and series together, probably one of the first attempts of world building on a big scale, and likely due to his publisher. So, his later books had more direct hints of the series being interconnected, which in my opinion felt forced as I don't think he originally intended for them to be connected. I'd enjoy the stories for what they are, good stories with lots of insight from the golden age of science fiction. The good thing is, they can be read as standalone novels.


Btw, Triumphant, there's one you didn't mention and I'm not sure if you've ever read it. It's a tribute novel set more or less in the same universe but using different names for everything since the author couldn't get permission from the estate, but it's Psychohistorical Crisis by Donald Kingsbury. It's a very good novel if you liked the Foundation series and I think it probably pays more respect and does it more justice than the second trilogy by the big 3. I highly enjoyed it.

Here's a review:

http://www.ansible.co.uk/writing/psychris.html

Prologue:

http://www.donaldkingsbury.com/PsychoCrisis/PsychoCrisis.html

The different names for everything can take some getting used to, but the way I explained it away to myself was to have the references for things having changed over centuries and the world having evolved over time.

 

[KB24]

My favorite is The End of the Eternity. It is a short time travel novel relatively stand alone, as compared to all of the other Foundation and Robots that all end up tied together. It might be a good place to test if you like his style or not before committing to the series. Or there are several short story anthologies out there. Or Nightfall.

I read a lot of Asimov as a kid and have always intended to go back and reread, but never do. My husband was just asking similar questions about him, as he liked the movie versions of I Robot and Bicentennial Man. Though they take plenty of liberties, that might give you an idea, too.

 

[Non Sync]

There is also a large collection of non-fiction that he's also written.

 

[Aeolusdallas]

Although the Foundation and Robot books are what he is most famous for his non fiction books are the best reads. He could take almost any subject and make it easily understandable.

 

[Klaus]

I have a signed copy of Foundation that is my proudest geek possession... saw him speak twice.

Two of my best "geek possessions" are the last couple of parts to both "Currents Of Space" and "Now You Don't" in their original magazine forms.

I have the Currents of Space issues of Astounding too, though they're very brittle. Somewhere I have Lord Valentine's Castle and The Gunslinger in F&SF, too.

I think the simplicity of Asimov's writing is definitely part of the appeal, and I mean that in a good way.

 

[Goliath]

SFTV is almost always a decade or two behind prose SF.

That is true, but my point was that the gap between the two was particularly wide during the period of the New Wave.

In the case of TOS, television was a decade behind the cinema--which was already pretty far behind literary SF in 1956.

In a nutshell, it's a metaphor for pollution.

Thank you. But once again: this is rather beside my point.

I didn't have any difficulty understanding the novel. As other people have noted, Asimov's writing is nothing if not clear.

I have difficulty remembering it. I just reviewed the plot by reading the novel's Wikipedia entry, and I still don't remember any of it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That is true, but my point was that the gap between the two was particularly wide during the period of the New Wave.

In the case of TOS, television was a decade behind the cinema--which was already pretty far behind literary SF in 1956.

Yep.

 

[Christopher]

The last Asimov novel I read was The Gods Themselves, and I couldn't even tell you what that was about.

In a nutshell, it's a metaphor for pollution.

More to the point, it was Asimov's response to the conventional wisdom that he couldn't write about aliens or sex.

You certainly can't go wrong with any of his works. One thing to note though, is that he eventually tried to tie all of his stories and series together, probably one of the first attempts of world building on a big scale, and likely due to his publisher.

If anything, Asimov's efforts to unify his separate works into a single universe were a rather late example of that process. Multiple authors had done it before Asimov started doing it. Larry Niven's Known Space universe came about because he wrote a story in the late '60s that drew on elements from two of his previous, formerly unrelated continuities. Poul Anderson had merged his van Rijn and Flandry series by the '70s at the latest. Other authors like Heinlein and, I think, Pohl had extended universes established in the '60s.

 

[ITL]

SFTV is almost always a decade or two behind prose SF.

That is true, but my point was that the gap between the two was particularly wide during the period of the New Wave.

In the case of TOS, television was a decade behind the cinema--which was already pretty far behind literary SF in 1956.

In a nutshell, it's a metaphor for pollution.

Thank you. But once again: this is rather beside my point.

I didn't have any difficulty understanding the novel. As other people have noted, Asimov's writing is nothing if not clear.

I have difficulty remembering it. I just reviewed the plot by reading the novel's Wikipedia entry, and I still don't remember any of it.

Same here.

All I remember is the strange communication between the two realities and blobby alien three way relationships with explicitly defined roles. Mind you, it has been a long time since I read it.

My favourite Asimov book is The Robots Of Dawn - a bit clunky in places, but it's Bailey at his best. And Giskard was wonderful.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I remember The Gods Themselves pretty well - and I certainly remember the derivation of the title - certainly a useful quotation.

I had the opportunity to talk to Asimov briefly about the book. He said that he wanted to include the aliens because people were forever saying "Asimov doesn't have aliens in his books because he doesn't know how to write them, and I wanted to show them that the old man can so." I thought they were easily as interesting and memorable as, say, Niven's one-trait-defines-a-species alien characters.

 

[Owain Taggart]

The last Asimov novel I read was The Gods Themselves, and I couldn't even tell you what that was about.

In a nutshell, it's a metaphor for pollution.

More to the point, it was Asimov's response to the conventional wisdom that he couldn't write about aliens or sex.

You certainly can't go wrong with any of his works. One thing to note though, is that he eventually tried to tie all of his stories and series together, probably one of the first attempts of world building on a big scale, and likely due to his publisher.

If anything, Asimov's efforts to unify his separate works into a single universe were a rather late example of that process. Multiple authors had done it before Asimov started doing it. Larry Niven's Known Space universe came about because he wrote a story in the late '60s that drew on elements from two of his previous, formerly unrelated continuities. Poul Anderson had merged his van Rijn and Flandry series by the '70s at the latest. Other authors like Heinlein and, I think, Pohl had extended universes established in the '60s.

Hmm, I hadn't realized that. I guess then it started to become popular to do that. In some cases, it can work well, others not so much though, and my opinion is that Asimov's work kind of feels forced and doesn't really work all that well being unified.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Actually, I really think the idea that ties The End of Eternity into the Foundation series is incredibly brilliant.

That being said, I strongly believe that either can be read independently of the other. In particular, there is nothing in Foundation that depends in any significant way on The End of Eternity. It's just a detail that may not occur to the reader on even the second reading of Foundation. But it's still really neat.

I also strongly believe that the books can, and probably should, be read in the order in which they were published.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Actually it did occur to me once I read EoE.

Eternity by the way also resembles the 2nd Foundation in the way it operates and inhibits the growth and expansion of humanity. Probably the same goes for the Robots.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I also strongly believe that the books can, and probably should, be read in the order in which they were published.

Well, yeah - that works, too. But reading them in order of the timeline in the stories can provide a good experience, too. Which is what my list on the previous page represents - except for the last five Foundation books (Prelude, Forward, and the Second Trilogy), which are *way* too spoilerific to read in timeline order.

 

[Owain Taggart]

In particular, there is nothing in Foundation that depends in any significant way on The End of Eternity.

Do you mean Foundation in particular or the series as a whole? Cause the later books in the series, particularly Foundation & Earth show strong ties to the Robot series whereas his early ones don't. I'd honestly probably avoid Foundation & Earth. I loved the story arc he was going for, but I found Foundation & Earth ultimately disappointing after the huge build up as it seemed to exist solely to tie the series together with his other works. The Hermaphrodite character also weirded me out in the way it was written. But I actually really liked his prequels.

That said, I love Asimov. His simple prose is what made it so easy to get into.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It's just a detail that may not occur to the reader on even the second reading of Foundation.

Actually it did occur to me once I read EoE.

I believe the point is supposed to occur to the reader upon reading The End of Eternity, where the point is made quite clear. I was saying that I think the need for the point to be addressed is not necessarily apparent in Foundation itself.

In particular, there is nothing in Foundation that depends in any significant way on The End of Eternity.

Do you mean Foundation in particular or the series as a whole? Cause the later books in the series, particularly Foundation & Earth show strong ties to the Robot series whereas his early ones don't.

I mean both. The tie-in between The End of Eternity and the Foundation series has nothing to do with robots.

Some might consider it a major spoiler to mention, because it's just so damn cool.

I'll be back in ten days. Thanks for a great topic all.