posted
I just picked up some reprint copies of the Foundation Trilogy---you know, Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation. (Not on my vacation, but right after---funny the most active reading I've done since I got back has been on books bought right after.)
I've got to say, they're not quite as enjoyable as I once found them. One factor seems to be my own knowledge of history. Asimov based this work on the Fall of the Roman Empire, and used this and that in his stories. When I first read them, I knew next to nothing of history---now I know too much and can see a lot of what he took from here and there.
Another problem would best be stated as the political position Asimov writes from. I don't want to get into a broad political discussion here---for one thing, I promised not to---but Asimov writes from a position on the left. There are some elements that might be called Marxist, even. I might have bought into that back then---but I sure can't now. Again, I know too much.
The overall writing doesn't seem as great...kinda pulpish in the early stories...kinda oddball multiple viewpoints and structure in the latter stories...odd behavior of characters...odd modes of speech in dialog...maybe too much recapping of what went before as the stories progressed. (Hardly surprising, that latter---these were after all originally published as magazine stories in the forties and each story needed recapping.)
Still, they occupied my attention yesterday and today...Asimov could keep a reader interested, and that remained with me. I think Asimov wrote better later, in the fifties, though I wait on reprints of those novels for absolute confirmation.
posted
You have inspired me to knock the dust off of my copies. I have been meaning to revisit them. So far as odies, I have recently been reaching for Clarke (Perhaps due to his recent passing) and Heinein(comfort and to brush up on some style for the centennial)
In fact, I know that it has been at least ten years since I have read this series. As far as the comment on the Marxist tone or element, I pick up on that when reading the classics. I suppose it is the generation gap. The cold war brought out a very certain tone is SF. I often don't even need to look at print dates to have a good general idea of what year the novel was published. Bester is also an example of this period.
Yeah, I think I'll delve into foundation once again. I may even return to comment in the next couple of days to share what I find.
posted
I've got to say I think "knowing aught too much" probably prevents me from enjoying the little SF I read these days...I'm afraid it's now influencing my opinion of what influenced me way back when. Asimov was probably right there after Heinlein as an influence---maybe ahead of him from the late seventies on---but after Asimov's death my opinion of him as a person and and of his politics lowered considerably. (This is true of me and Heinlein as well, though Heinlein's politics are probably closer to what I am now.)
I still enjoy browsing through Asimov's memoirs---Volume Two is here with me right now---but I pick up on things he would do that I don't care for.
(I feel the urge to cite an example here---Kathleen, if it's too much politics, let me know, or just take this part out if you can. Asimov quit MENSA in the mid-sixties, partly over the number of pro-Goldwater people he met there---this strikes me as an unwillingness to face up to ideas different than one's preconceptions. (When one seeks out the company only of those who agree with one, one isolates oneself from any chance of correcting one's mistakes.) There are other examples I can cite.)
Still...I reread Sturgeon's "Baby Is Three" a few years ago---it switched from a story I liked but really "didn't get," all the way to a story I "got" and loved. It's comforting to know it can go the other way, too.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
