I personally wouldn't characterize Asimov's writing as anything near awful. It's simple, yes-- but only enough to bring a layman sensibility to the most esoteric and abstract of concepts.

It depends on what you're looking for. His settings are mind-blowing (the more so when they were new and you didn't have Singulatarians running around blowing your mind twice as hard) and his stories dramatically sound, but his characters tend towards simplistic and dialog is pretty rough, even by contemporary standards.

This isn't a criticism he'd be surprised by. He said so himself, several times, in some of the books I have. Romance in particular was a weak point of the entire genre during his era, and he admits it's because they were all pretty stereotypical nerds.

Fortunately, that's not why we were reading his books.

Yeah I have not read this before. I wish there were a few more brilliant writers like this. I really enjoy his work.

Then you'll be glad to know that he's written an astounding number of short stories - you have good times ahead finding them all :-)

Yeah the only books of his I have read are the Foundation series...kept meaning to dig more into his works. I think I will now :)

Really love the short story where he takes you through the first ever trillionth frame per second imaging of an atomic explosion! The one where the historian builds a "past window" device and releases the specification on the internet really makes me think, too....

Do you remember what those are called? I don't remember reading either book, and I've read quite a lot of his writings.

"Hell-Fire" and "The Dead Past"

"two minute read"

~2223 words per minute. Impressive.

OK, to be more accurate, two minute skim to remind me of the salient points of something I've probably read 15 or 20 times.

I thought maybe my reading level was drastically sub-par. ;)

I have not read this before. But I heard this story told by a college professor Michio Kaku when I was in his astronomy 101 class. Yes, he is the author of the book, Hypersapce.(http://www.amazon.com/Hyperspace-Scientific-Odyssey-Parallel...) It's a good book to read if you're interested in those things.

I concur with all of your particulars (everyone has read this, fun two minute read, occasionally brilliant ideas, generally awful writing, sadly missed) and was completely in agreement up until your very last word.

If Isaac Asimov's a genius, what was Isaac Newton?

"...all little sisters like to try on big sister's clothes..."

> If Isaac Asimov's a genius, what was Isaac Newton?

A genius of a different type. Can you compare Nelson Mandela with Leonhard Euler? Can you compare Benjamin Franklin with William Shakespeare? Genius, like intelligence, comes in different flavors.

In short, it's silly and ultimately pointless trying to quantify terms such as "genius". One person's "genius" is abother person's "skilled". Let's agree that it's not worth worrying about.

Sorry, but I think there's orders of magnitude of difference involved here. Sure, you can compare Nelson Mandela, Leonhard Euler, Benjamin Franklin and William Shakespeare-- all were (are) truly exceptional men of the first order.

Asimov was a somewhat talented and extremely prolific science fiction writer. He wrote a few great short stories, a few great novels, and a lot of standard (and sub-standard) fare. To call him a "genius" devalues the term beyond recognition.

Then we'll agree to differ. I think simple, direct and engaging writing is difficult, and coming up with such a range of ideas to exploit is equally difficult. I think in this field Asimov has very, very few peers. I'm not upset that you don't think he was a genius.