Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Kryptin OP t1_j9y84k1 wrote

Reply to comment by JalenSmithsGoggles in Asimov's Foundation Is Bad Literature by Kryptin

It's not about whether I enjoined it or not. It about if it is a good story. Just ask yourself a question. Do you think that this book will be published if it were written today?

−124

DrCurtains t1_j9y8d8y wrote

Pride and Prejudice wouldn't be published today, does that make Jane Austen a bad writer?

65

Kryptin OP t1_j9y91qf wrote

I'm in the middle of reading Pride & Prejudice. The only other Austen's book I've completed is Sense & Sensibility. And judging with these, I'll say Austen isn't a very good writer. There are flashes of brilliance here and there. But overall, her stories aren't compelling. And her prose is cumbersome and bloated.

−137

DrCurtains t1_j9ya067 wrote

OP... are you the only good writer?

134

North_Yam_6423 t1_j9yl234 wrote

Apparently! Neither Asimov nor Austen can measure up to OP. OP needs to put their $ where their mouth is and identify the books they wrote. I highly doubt they compare to Austen or Asimov. Smdh

42

altcastle t1_ja1r9xa wrote

They’ve got what looks like a real bummer of a post about 2 years of self publishing so yeah, they’re clearly going through… something.

4

NoPerformance5952 t1_j9yjrch wrote

And yet Jane Austen is well known, and I doubt we've ever heard of any of your work. To say nothing about being a woman back then and having opinions about the economics of marriage

24

yeetedhaws t1_j9ypfzc wrote

Jane Austen's works were actually pretty fast paced for the time period, the writing norms of that time are just completely different then what we see today. You've probably already seen a few changes in writing style in your life time (I know a lot of new books during the 2000s-early 2010s had text lingo written in, now that's considered out dated). The fact that you can see flashes of brilliance even though her books are centuries old show that she was a great writer.

It seems you're confusing good literature with personal preference. I personally don't enjoy Faulkner or Steinbeck (hated east of Eden and grapes of wrath, as I lay dying was super morbid and a waste of time for me) but they are inherently outstanding authors because of how their books impacted people when they were published and how they continue to be relevant to people today (very few people know what the great depression was like but people can still get lost in a pilgrimage of a family trying to survive a hard time).

Aismov's foundation might have some antiquated writing techniques or prose but try to listen to how other people are reading and understanding it. They might point out something that proves why it's an enduring piece of literature. If people didn't gleam something from it, it would have been forgotten and would not be considered the classic people deem it to be.

22

EdTheWright t1_j9zul3j wrote

You are quite clearly a poor judge of writing quality.

10

sum1won t1_j9zzhbp wrote

Lmao

Even modern literature greats acknowledge that Austen was a good writer, especially her prose.

The only big author I can think of who hated Austen is Twain, and he appears to have done so tongue in cheek.

Maybe you're just bad at separating your personal taste from whether literature is actually good.

10

Daffneigh t1_ja2r3ja wrote

Wow the arrogance in this comment is astonishing. Austen’s stories aren’t compelling… to you. Millions of readers over 200 years would disagree.

3

shadow_stalker_20 t1_j9yc988 wrote

OP, I think you kind of miss the point here... Close to none of the classics we know would be published today, you can't judge a book by this factor. Besides, it very much is about whether you enjoyed it or not. You don't really criticize the book in your post: you name subjective things you didn't like (boring prose, unintrestting characters, lack of proper pacing), then proceed to declare that Foundation is not a classic. None of us have the right to say that in general, even less so if your points are not concrete (aside from the pacing, I'll admit it is a bit weird). Finally, why were you expecting the author to cut right to the meat, as you said? As far as I can tell, books have only recently started to become so fast-paced. Not to say that all stories prior to the 21st century are snore fests; I think they simply have a (mostly) different style.

48

Majestic-Rutabaga-28 t1_j9yp5pq wrote

You can see a clear cut between sf and fantasy authors who grew up with modern cinema(80's and up) and those before. Movies have hijacked the way to write novels. Actions scenes, descriptions, etc.Just compare Dunsany and Sanderson for example.

19

shadow_stalker_20 t1_j9zc4ev wrote

Haven't read Dunsany (yet), but I'm quite a fan of Sanderson, and it's really clear how much writing has changed in recent years. I'm not someone who "sees" the things they read, but Sanderson's novels really do feel like a movie with more details.

5

ReturnOfSeq t1_j9yeq4p wrote

Imagine saying Foundation wouldn’t be published today while Chuck Tingle exists.

19

sinofonin t1_ja0c4uc wrote

The entire outlook of Foundation is that it has a different look at what really matters in history and the outcome of the story beyond the individual. This is generally in contrast to a typical fictional story or even how we often tell our history which looks at individuals and their impact and importance. I think this way of thinking is actually becoming more relevant in modern story telling and history. Even if they still hold to some of the traditional story telling traditions of focusing on individuals.

It is unlikely Asimov gets this story written without being a known quantity. It is unusual. It isn't going to necessarily appeal to a broad audience. It is a classic in literature in large part due to the way it breaks from traditional story telling molds. Things are not classics because they are for everyone.

3

altcastle t1_ja1qxr3 wrote

You seem to think this is an incredible gotcha. But yes, I do, cause I subscribe to Clarkesworld. It also doesn’t matter at all cause it’s not like Dracula or the Bible would see the light of day.

2