|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Like Clarke's 2001, this series earns my respect... (Reply to this comment)
by Joubert
...for the concept and incredible writing. But I often felt the good doctor was trying to dazzle rather than concentrate on telling a story. It's a matter of personal preference, I guess. I like story-tellers. I also like your review. Very well done!
Best,
George
|
Apr 21 '03
5:06 am PDT
|
|
Read these about ten years ago (Reply to this comment)
by deaser26
And loved the series...although they hardly seemed better to me than the Rings books by Tolkein. I do like Asimov's sense of timing and surprise, though.
I would have to include Phillip Jose Farmer's Riverworld books in greatest ever written contention, as well as Robert Anton Wilson's Mars trilogy.
Great review...
cheers
deas
|
Apr 19 '03
5:43 pm PDT
|
|
I've read . . . (Reply to this comment)
by ed_grover
the Foundation Trilogy a few times and found it fascinating. I must get back to re-reading some of my favorite science fiction again. Thanks for inspiring me to do it.
Ed
|
Apr 15 '03
12:23 am PDT
|
|
Agree with your assessment. (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch,  in Books
Of course, a 1966 awarding of best SF series ever is hardly worth referencing anymore, so many greats have come since, like Dune and Ender, and Tolkien not truly having come to be fully appreciated by that time.
I'm perhaps more forgiving of Asimov's characterization and dialogue in my review of the Foundation Trilogy, but there's certainly little depth or diversity, as you point out.
But Foundation's importance can hardly be overstated. As I'm rereading Dune presently, I'm struck by how much psychohistory seems to have influence Herbert's notion of prescience, especially with God Emperor.
|
Apr 14 '03
8:52 am PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.