His older novels such as the later Foundation series were crap. Fad idea of the day (Gaia) instead of exploring a topic a bit more in depth (advantages of large populations in combating stasis). His best work was his early short stories (three laws of robotics, ultimate question). IMHO, his quality gradually went down before falling off a cliff. Traded quantity for quality?
>His older novels such as the later Foundation series were crap. Fad idea of the day (Gaia) instead of exploring a topic a bit more in depth (advantages of large populations in combating stasis).
While the writing was a little pulpy (then again, it always has been), the ideas were worth exploring. Doesn't matter if it was based on a "fad idea of the day", it was still a concept worth exploring in the context of the series. Besides sci-fi writers have done the Gaia idea dozens of times, way before it became a fad. His classic "robot" stories, on the other hand, I always found ho-hum.
In any case, the second foundation series is no worse in writing than the "Pebble in the Sky" -- and that was his very first novel, after tons of short stories.
Gaia made no sense. Especially evident nowadays with global warming. It showed lack of depth and lack of exploration of the topic. I also noticed numerous mistakes in the novels, sentences cut off, misspellings, etc...Didn't notice that with the earlier stories. There could be various reasons for that.
>Gaia made no sense. Especially evident nowadays with global warming.
What kind of sense? Like, whether it was accurate as a model for the real world? Why, did the Mule make sense in that way? Or the Second Foundation? Or psychohistory for that matter, what with the later developments into chaos theory?
I'm also not sure how global warming has anything to do with validating or discarding Gaia, either the fictional or the real theory.
Wikipedia: "The Gaia hypothesis, also known as Gaia theory or Gaia principle, proposes that organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet."
The theory might not hold, but not because there's global warming, as global warming can be accounted in a dozen of ways within the theory. E.g. humans as intelligent agents are outside the "synergistic/self-regulating" system and throw it off balance with their emissions and such.
>I also noticed numerous mistakes in the novels, sentences cut off, misspellings, etc...Didn't notice that with the earlier stories
Aren't those a matter of editors, as opposed to authors?
>The theory might not hold, but not because there's global warming, as global warming can be accounted in a dozen of ways within the theory. E.g. humans as intelligent agents are outside the "synergistic/self-regulating" system and throw it off balance with their emissions and such.
Btw, another way to understand global warning within the Gaia hypothesis, would be to consider it like a "fever" -- the immune system fighting invaders (well, us) off.
Something making sense and having supporting evidence is not the same thing. The Star Wars story makes sense (e.g. no major plot holes etc), but not only there's no supporting evidence, it's also totally made up.
Second, theories in fiction (especially fiction with mutants, telepathy, mind control, and other things besides) don't need "supporting evidence" to fit in.
I'm as big an Asimov fan as anyone, but I generally agree that his later novels were weaker. He set himself the challenge of merging the Robot universe with the Foundation universe and I'm not sure it was a good idea. I have always said that his short stories were his best work. I recently heard the radio adaptation of "Hostess" and was reminded was a great story that is.
I was a fan of his science essays before I read his fiction. I taught myself physics via those essays before I learned it in High School. But even more importantly, I learned how to think like a scientist. I owe him a huge debt of gratitude for that, which, fortunately, I was able to express to him once in person.
Yes, although he wrote over 400 books, most of the good ones were in the first 100.[1] There were a lot of junk books in the later years. That happens to working writers.
At least Asimov didn't get stuck writing movie tie-ins.
Some good SF writers have had to write movie tie-in novels to pay the rent. Alan Dean Foster, who wrote some excellent novels in his own universes, has ground out too many Star Dreck, Star Wars, Alien, Terminator, and Transformers tie-ins.
Foundation series are still my favorite. I'm on the Caves of Steel now. Interesting that the whole "robots are taking our jobs" is presently playing out, and how being "declassified" relegates one to a life of poverty.
I hated his later Foundation novels because it basically turned down the governing theme of the original series.
(Spoilers)
In the original, there's history, which progresses relentlessly without giving a damn about individuals. Even most capable humans can at best nudge it toward the right direction, sometimes paying huge prices. Threatening the whole plan required the existence of a super-human, because no ordinary human being could do that.
In the later series, there's this guy who achieved little in whole life (other than being a moderately successful politician), yet somehow his judgement is supposed to be "correct", and his single decision is going to set the course of humanity. All the ultra-capable people of Gaia bow to his innate wisdom and promise to make it that way. What the...?
I loved the original Foundation series as a teen. Re-read them just a few years ago, when I'm much older. The ideas were every bit was stimulating, but the writing really was not that great. And plot holes and inconsistencies. But you know, maybe those things are not as important.
I did also like his short stories more. Same with Clarke -- I liked the short stories better.
