dushechka
07-30-2007, 09:53 AM
I hope this is the best place to put this, but if it's not, feel free to move it.
: )
Anyway, I was reading some criticism about Isaac Asimov, and this stood out for me:
Except for two stories—"Liar!" and "Evidence"—they are not stories in which character plays a significant part. Virtually all plot develops in conversation with little if any action. Nor is there a great deal of local color or description of any kind. The dialogue is, at best, functional and the style is, at best, transparent.... The robot stories—and, as a matter of fact, almost all Asimov fiction—play themselves on a relatively bare stage.
I guess I'd just like to know if you agree with that statement, and if it isn't, necessarily, a bad thing?
I actually quite like stories where there's no "action" or indepth description. I'm not sure why this is exactly, I guess I enjoy the freedom to imagine so much more than strict descriptions.
Anyway, I figured I'd ask what you thought (about this / Asimov in general).
: )
Anyway, I was reading some criticism about Isaac Asimov, and this stood out for me:
Except for two stories—"Liar!" and "Evidence"—they are not stories in which character plays a significant part. Virtually all plot develops in conversation with little if any action. Nor is there a great deal of local color or description of any kind. The dialogue is, at best, functional and the style is, at best, transparent.... The robot stories—and, as a matter of fact, almost all Asimov fiction—play themselves on a relatively bare stage.
I guess I'd just like to know if you agree with that statement, and if it isn't, necessarily, a bad thing?
I actually quite like stories where there's no "action" or indepth description. I'm not sure why this is exactly, I guess I enjoy the freedom to imagine so much more than strict descriptions.
Anyway, I figured I'd ask what you thought (about this / Asimov in general).