Asimov wrote early and often. He’s not a deep writer (in SF and mystery, at least), but he was an extremely prolific one, and he wrote on an extremely wide variety of topics. Not only was he a science fiction writer, but he wrote a regular column on science fact, and he was the editor of a LOT of SF anthologies. I’d argue that both of these helped improve the whole field of science fiction. He also lent his name to a science fiction magazine that is still going, last I heard of it. Asimov’s contributions to the field of SF aren’t just in his writings, but in other things as well.
Plus, he seemed to be able to laugh at himself. I didn’t vote for him (I voted for Norton), but he was definitely one of the people I anguished over.
I’m a little disturbed by all the support for Asimov. As you say, he’s not a deep writer and he also wrote a ton of mediocre stories. And --definitely IMO-- some of his most famous stories like “Ugly Little Boy”, “Nightfall” and “Final Solution” (or whatever the name is) are hugely overrated.
Still I love the guy.
*I loved Foundation (long ago) and The Gods Themselves was masterful.
*He became a better craftsman decade by decade.
*His literary persona and love of the SF field were delightful.
*His autobiographies and science books are “comfort reading” for me and can stay on my nightstand for weeks at a time.
*The guy was a genius, although his SF skills weren’t the best evidence for it.
OTOH I’ve no warmth for Heinlein the man… but as a SF writer he kicked Asimov’s ass. I’d also say that Niven and Zelazny produced as many good novels and were hugely better at short fiction.
(I voted for Dick who was an excellent writer -when he could take the time- and completely unique.)
Well said Baal. That’s what I should have put in my post, but I didn’t have the time or your eloquence
“The God’s Themselves” was his masterpiece and a good read… the rest, meh.
Asimov’s writing are a chore to read, as opposed to Heinlein, Clarke, Niven whose are a entrancing delight - I’ve read and re-read those guys over and over.
I stand by what I said in the earlier thread: Heinlein is The Beatles of science fiction. And, like the Beatles, he has plenty of people who say “He’s overrated” or “I don’t see what’s so great about him,” but he’s widely loved and respected by both casual and hardcore fans, and there’s at least as much of a consensus about his hall-of-fame-worthiness as about anyone else’s.
Continuing the analogy, the other greats of his generation (Asimov, Clarke, Pohl) would be like the other great British Invasion bands that were The Beatles’ competitors (The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks). Jules Verne and H.G. Wells would be the earlier generation (e.g. Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry). Ray Bradbury would be one of those popular and critically-acclaimed acts that wouldn’t be categorized as “rock,” at least by purists (Simon & Garfunkel, maybe). The other, later writers mentioned would be other acts, some of unquestioned greatness and popularity, others more niche or esoteric, that nevertheless didn’t define the genre the way The Beatles did.
This appears to be a two man race. I am not surprised by the two but I am surprised Clark is not doing better. I voted for Heinlein of course. He wrote the best Science Fiction book of all time and several other contenders. His youth stories are awesome. He covered all the important aspects of Time Travel long ago. He explored so many different aspects of Sci-Fi that he shines among even the greatest.
I would enjoy seeing a similar poll for Fantasy, but I am guessing that would be one sided with many running for second instead.
I wonder how Vonnegut would have done if included in this poll. I know why that might not be right, but I suspect he might break the top 5.
It seems the goalposts keep moving. I voted Asimov, but I wouldn’t want to have his work be seen as representative of the whole of SF. He loved suspense and mystery too much IMHO. His adventures were largely cerebral puzzle-solvers, not the space opera of Doc Smith, the futurism of Clarke or Verne, or the human-focus of Heinlein and Bradbury. Definitely not the alternate-reality stuff of Herbert or McCaffrey.
Are we talking about the best storyteller, the one who could read a phonebook and make it interesting? The most creative, even if long-winded or overly-detailed? The most scientifically accurate, major props to accurate futurists? The one we think had the largest impact on the genre, a grandmaster who was/is a leader and mentor, not just an exceptionally skilled member of a group?
I thought Grand-Master implies the leader, mentor and best or near best. To me it can only be the big three or possibly Campbell. With a nod to Wells and Verne as the primogenitors.
Of the big three, I thought Heinlein both the best and most readable writer and also by a small margin the most influential.
I voted for LeGuin before I read the thread. If she wasn’t on the list I’d be hard pressed to choose between Asimov and Heinlein. I never liked Clarke and I doubt I ever will.
**49 26.78% Heinlein, Robert
44 24.04% Asimov, Isaac
13 7.10% Clarke, Arthur C.
9 4.92% Wells, Herbert George
8 4.37% Zelazny, Roger **
7 3.83% LeGuin, Ursula K.
6 3.28% Dick, Phillip K.
5 2.73% Verne, Jules
5 2.73% Niven, Larry
I went with Farmer, but its a tough choice. It depends on what you want from science fiction. I’m sure its just a race between Heinlein and Asimov though.
I voted for Asimov, but I admit part of that was strategic, because I also really like LeGuin, Bradbury, Clarke, and Silverberg. But I detest Robert Heinlein. I loathe his writing with every fiber of my being, and the way I see it, the way this is going, a vote for anyone for anyone other than Asimov is a vote for Heinlein.
