Discussion in 'Archive: SF&F: Books and Comics' started by JediTrilobite, Jan 3, 2006.
What about HG Wells and Jules Verne?
I can think of several retorts to this. A lot of Verne's writing (around the world in 80 days...) is actually more adventure-oriented than sci-fi. Both Wells and Verne *are* often talked about in regard to the origins of science fiction. And a lot of the real popularity of SF started with 40's/50's pulp magazines, which Asimov and his contemporaries were a part of and by which time Wells and Verne were not around to interview (although re-circulation of Wells and Verne stories was common, for instance the infamous Orson Welles radio adadaptation HG Wells' of War of the Worlds.)
I disagree. HG Well and Jules Verne are the forerunners of Science Fiction. At the time that they were released, they were the first glimpse into the fantastic of the Victorian era. The books, in a sense, are about exploration, which was a very big and popular topic during the time period, and these books, in addition to numerous other, and somewhat lesser known authors, were extremely popular during their time, and still are.
The other thing is, Jules Verne alone is possibly responsible for the boom in the 30s, 40s and 50s, as he inspired numerous authors and scientists to go into their respective trades. You can probably make the argument that he's responsible for the Apollo program.
I am so glad to see a new Asimov thread. Huge fan. He has inspired me in so many ways. And he is just a great writer. As for his "old fashioned" style...so. Just because a work is older does not diminish it's quality. And even in the 90's his books were bestsellers. And if his life was not tragically cut short, I am sure his fiction would continue to be bestsellers. So what does that say about how "old fashioned" his writing style was. I disagree and don't really think it matters.
As for his influence, he clearly had a huge impact on science fiction, but there were many predecessors and previous SF writers who influenced his work (he basically grew up reading pulp SF...so he mimicked, if you will, those stories he loved). And lets not forget Mary Shelley. But I don't really want to talk about her or those other fantastic writers in this thread.
I was want to talk about Asimov.
Arguing over other things has taking away from taking about Asimov.
How can we keep this thread fresh and going?
Has anyone read Psychohistorical Crisis? Great read. I, for one, would like to see more works in the Universe Asimov created. It could totally be a huge franchise if they let it.
And I would love to see one of his novels get same treatment and care that Lord of the Rings received, as far as turning his works into movies (I liked I, Robot, but it got so far away from the novel it was barely recognizable...and I was so upset it was billed as Will Smith: I, Robot...I am a Will Smith fan, don't get me wrong, but it just seemed like a total disregard of Asimov).
Someone call Peter Jackson...or maybe Spielberg?
Ugh, I don't think this book is really filmable, at least not to the point where it'll be as good as the books... They're complex, have a lot of characters and cover a huge amount of time, not something that's easily translatable into a 2 hr film.
I don't know what book you're talking about because I never singled out any.
You're argument may apply to maybe the original Foundation Trilogy.
But his early robot novels (i.e., Caves of Steal, The Naked Sun) would work really well.
And I would say it's arguable whether Foundation is doable. Yes, there would have to be changes--but there always are when transferring stories to different medium.
The Foundation books are really great. I love how Asimov points out in the intros of the Trilogy editions I have, how the whole series is just people talking. All the violent stuff and what-not happen off-page, it's just pages and pages of people talking and explaining........yet it's great!
I also love his mysteries. The Black Widower mysteries were great.