Telling the tale

Asimov DID write everything, but he didn't write everything well. I love his histories, autobiographies (he wrote at least three) and science essays, and admire some of his mysteries (the longer ones, which aren't based on puns), but most of his science fiction and fantasy doesn't show well against modern competition. I liked one of the three novellas that made up The Gods Themselves (the one written from an alien viewpoint) and the short story, "The Ugly Child," but most of even his 'classic' works (like "Nightfall" and the Foundation trilogy) just don't make for enjoyable reading. His humor...well, the less said the better.

Speaking for Spike, I believe his point wasn't that Asimov, Heinlein, et al were poor writers, but that they were writers who apprentice writers should not be trying to copy. Their styles worked for them, but probably wouldn't work for others, especially newbies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curtis

Asimov DID write everything, but he didn't write everything well. I love his histories, autobiographies (he wrote at least three) and science essays, and admire some of his mysteries (the longer ones, which aren't based on puns), but most of his science fiction and fantasy doesn't show well against modern competition. I liked one of the three novellas that made up The Gods Themselves (the one written from an alien viewpoint) and the short story, "The Ugly Child," but most of even his 'classic' works (like "Nightfall" and the Foundation trilogy) just don't make for enjoyable reading. His humor...well, the less said the better.

Speaking for Spike, I believe his point wasn't that Asimov, Heinlein, et al were poor writers, but that they were writers who apprentice writers should not be trying to copy. Their styles worked for them, but probably wouldn't work for others, especially newbies.

---

Asimov's "Opus 100" was one of my favorites; his bios really grounded one as to what his world looked like then. His humor had to be more a taste thing; his first treasury is an instruction manual on how to tell jokes. Never liked his work on limericks, though.

I would agree about how long it takes to emulate a writer; I'd like to write like Spider Robinson... but it'll take me another 50 years to break my current style. Whatever that is.

Yeah, you're right about his humor (anyone's, I suppose) being a taste thing. He had a lot of good, self-deprecating humor in his autobios, as well as in many of his science essays. It was his limericks and puns that put me off.

If you want to look at style, then the real peaks of the 20th century were Joyce's Ulisses and Steins' the Making of Americans. These are both early 20th cent. For the latter half, the snow has most probably not yet settled, but my personal fav is Powell's 12 volume Dance to the Music of Time.

None of these should be emulated by anybody.

However, a good way of getting something our of your system is to try to write 'in the style of' for a set period of time - say a month or so. Then go back and read what you've written in comparison to the ideals : - )

Good luck all!

Shel

I would like to mention
Ernest Hemmingway
esp.:
To Whom The Bells Toll

Undependingly from beeing a great Author Hemmingways
shows a very good insight into realistic human behavior.
What makes the story different fom others is, that
Hemmingway doesn't write much about emotions
directly, but one can always conclude from the
action of the characters and their dialogues.
This sends the reader into the position of a very
informed spectator, which works good with erotic fiction,
too, I guess.

Hemingway, the master of short stories, was once asked if he could write a story on a post-card. He said he wouldn't need that much space and gave an example in 6 (!!!) words: "For sale. Baby shoes. Hardly used".

"The Hellfire Club" by Peter Straub

"Don Quixote" by Cervantes

"High Fidelity" by Nick Hornby

"The Elephant Vanishes" by Haruki Murakami

Anything by Salinger