Thank you. You’ve put your finger on the reason why I enjoyed reading and re-reading the original trilogy. Perhaps that was what was meant by “no literary value”.
Is it possible: “literary value” = “sentimental wanking” = “character study” ?
I like it.
Yep, literally. You can’t read a book when it’s flying toward the wall. 
As for the people who need a definition of “literary value” - your punishment is to eternally read Asimov and his ilk. Nothing more I can say or do would be more painful. 
But without your definition of value (and some example authors), your claim is rather meaningless.
If you choose to answer, and your answer contains the phrase “Terry Pratchett”, you will completely invalidate your claim.
C’mon, you guys can’t tell the difference between Asimov’s prose and that of Ray Bradbury or Theodore Sturgeon, Cordwainer Smith, Henry Kuttner, Alfred Bester, Fritz Leiber, R. A. Lafferty, Thomas Disch, Harlan Ellison, Robert Silverberg, Kurt Vonnegut, Roger Zelazny, Samuel R. Delany, Ursula K. LeGuin, Kate Wilhelm, John Brunner, Michael Moorcock, Brian Aldiss, Bruce Sterling, Nancy Kress, Michael Bishop, Neil Stephenson, Geoff Ryman, M. John Harrison, Kim Stanley Robinson, Octavia Butler, or Kelly Link, just to name a very, very, very few? (And making sure to include many contemporaries of Asimov. And staying away from primarily fantasy writers.)
And if you don’t understand why Terry Pratchett is a far superior prose writer, able to achieve better effects than Asimov ever did, there’s really no way to have a discussion. Pratchett is brilliant. And I say that as a professional sf writer.
“beinmg readable many years later a second or third time” does not equal “have enduring literary value and prose style”
Yeah, and Henry VIII’ butler really liked eel pasties, but that’s no reason to condemn him to eat only them forever.
I love your list with the exception of Pratchett. I find him to be warmed over Monty Python meets Hitchhiker’s Guide. The world only needed one Douglas Adams.
I like Asimov for the same reason that a previous poster mentioned, to me the people are meaningless in the larger scope of the story. I don’t need character development to enjoy a work of fiction.
The question now is “Have I read anything of yours, Exapno Mapcase?”.
The first three (Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation) fit together as a cohesive whole. Foundation’s Edge and Foundation and Earth are a bit removed from those, and tie together very strongly (Earth starts about five minutes after the end of Edge). Prelude and Forward are both prequels, dealing with the life of Hari Seldon, and also go together.
The tying in of the robot stories and the Foundation stories (seen in the last four Foundation books, and in Robots and Empire and to a lesser extent The Robots of Dawn) is rather clumsy, and I would have prefered that Asimov not have attempted it. But if you can get past that, they’re still pretty good reads. The two Foundation prequels I found especially fun. But then, I can also see someone not being able to get past the clumsiness.
Well, they all draw from similar sources in British humor and literature, most notably P. G. Wodehouse…
I don’t know if you can ever get too much of a good thing, but since we don’t have a Douglas Adams any more, I’ll happily get my regular doses of Paratchett, thankyouverymuch.
And to address the thread, reading Asimov for characterization is like listening to Rush Limbaugh for facts – you’re not just in the wrong room, you’re on the wrong planet.
I don’t disagree with this statement; I just disagree with the assertion that good characterization is necessary for good literature.
I never said that. All I will say is that when I sit down to read an Asimov story, I’m fully prepared to be greeted by cardboard cutout characters with atrociously unrealistic expository dialog. 
Who ever said his writing wasn’t different? His books are about plot and story, interesting things happen, interesting ideas are explored. His characters are flat as a pancake, only there to experience and drive the interesting events. Is it a flaw in his writing? Yes, but his strengths make up for the flaw, because his books are still interesting to read.
To you, the strengths make up for the flaws. For me, and apparently for several other posters in this thread, they no longer do.
Since there is no way to tell which camp the OP (remember the poor neglected OP?) falls in, it’s only fair to give both reactions to let the OP make the decision whether to pursue the books or not.
Both camps are equally valid. Nobody in one can tell someone in the other how to enjoy fiction or what fiction to enjoy. Just don’t make the mistake of telling me that there is only one approach and that I have to go along with it. I don’t. I don’t tell others that either.
I do try to explain the difference between “good literature” and a “good read.” Good characterization is indeed necessary for good literature. It is not necessary for a good read. There are many such. Most of the fiction that most people read most of the time consists of good reads rather than good literature. I’m well aware of that and I read some and I even write some. But I also know what the difference is.
And some writing is too bad even to qualify for being a good read. Look at any of the zillion threads on Dan Brown or Michael Crichton or a million others. I put Asimov into that territory now. If you don’t, go ahead and enjoy. Just don’t tell me I have to because his awful prose and cardboard characters don’t count.
The reason there were no boring, pointless love interests is because the characters were neither gay nor female. In Foundation, if I recall correctly–a book consisting of mini-stories with a whole bunch of different characters–there are exactly two women. One of them has no speaking parts: she walks on-screen to demonstrate a pretty technolicious dress and then walks away. The other is a shrewish wife who exists to demonstrate how pussywhipped a certain villainous male character is; she gets a little less than one page of dialogue, I think.
I liked his stuff when I was younger, but his stuff leaves me totally flat now.
Daniel
I read all the Asimov books mentioned (including End of Eternity).
Asimov himself stated that he wrote the original Foundation trilogy as a magazine series. I like it because it swiftly sets the scene and gets on with the plot. As others have said, no depth of character. I read it when I have a limited amount of time.
The following Foundation books were written in response to massive reader demand. Asimov also wanted to tie up two of his most successful ideas (psychohistory and the three laws of Robots) before he died.
I find most of the remaining Foundation books heavy going and don’t recommend them.
I read Pratchett for the comedy and the characters e.g. will Sam Vimes will triumph over evil and his personal demons; how will Lord Vetinari keep control of the city.
Wait a minute. Wouldn’t this qualification rule out a substantial number of the poems and essays found in just about any Anthology of Literature?
How about “Skillful and creative use of language is necessary for good literature”? This is something that I think can be said of all the writers on your list, but not of Asimov. Skillful, maybe: Asimov’s not bad at explaining things (hence his success at expository nonfiction), and this carries over to his explaining what’s going on in his plots. But, yeah, he’s not really creative in his use of language; he doesn’t “achieve effects,” or even try to.
The writers you listed are all stylists. Their writing styles—the way they put words together—make up a large part of the joy to be gained from reading them. On the other hand, those styles, sometimes dense or quirky, can make it harder to read them or harder to get into the story, particularly for someone who’s unused to reading that sort of thing, or who’s used to reading quickly just to see what happens. (Dan Brown I find enjoyable as long as I read him fast; Ursula LeGuin both demands and rewards a slower reading, for example.)
Bottom line: If a writer writes stuff that lots of people want to read and enjoy reading, he must be good at something. Asimov clearly passes this test. But the something he’s good at may not be the something you’re looking for, and that’s fine.
Granted, Asimov doesn’t write good literature, or even Literature at all: I can’t imagine him writing mainstream, literary fiction, and if he tried I doubt I’d want to read it. However he has written good, even great, science fiction—at least, there have been way more than enough SF fans and experts that have claimed this that it’s a reasonable claim. It’s possible to write something that’s good science fiction (or, for that matter, a good mystery or a good comedy) without being literature. Which has led to the mistaken belief that science fiction can’t be good literature. But of course it can be, which some of the writers on your list prove.
Not true for Second Foundation which does have a major female character. In any case, Asimov was wise not to try love interest, since when he did, in some of the prequels or End of Eternity, he didn’t do it particularly well.
People get different things out of different books, and can enjoy both Asimov (and Clarke and Baxter) and all these you mentioned. The closest I’ve ever come to throwing a book across the room is when I reread Martian Chronicles and came across the passage where the new Martians saw the destruction of Earth with their bare eyes. I have no problem with a habitable Mars, considering the Planet Stories conventions of the time, but that was just stupid. Most people don’t care. I can appreciate Bradbury for what he does do well.
This is total heresy, I know, but I recently reread the Hitchhiker’s Guide books, and the later Pratchett is far, far better than any but the first. Pratchett has gone beyond cheap jokes about fantasy (not that I don’t like the cheap jokes) into a deep examination of life and death, while still staying funny. Adams never appeared to be getting better, Pratchett still is. That’s remarkable, since most writers are on serious autopilot by book ten of a series, not to mention twenty something.
Manifestly true. I would have said obvious to everyone, but I’ve been proven wrong.
I guess we gravitate towards what “floats our boats”.
So Exapno, you say you’re a pro science fiction writer. I guess you prefer anonymity; but maybe you could provide a lengthy list of writers with yourself buried amongst them; I will read all and therefore will have read your work.
Or has your true name been revealed? I’m too lazy to search.