this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
140 points (95.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
650 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I read all of the main sequence of Dune through to the Brian Herbert ending books. Quinns Ideas got me motivated enough to start reading those a few years ago. That got me to start Foundation next. I saw the various Asimov books referenced by the publishers and read most of the series. I still have Foundation's Edge, and one other I'm not able to recall ATM, to fill in my entire collection from Robots through Foundation.
I loved robots and empire but foundation was waaay to much telling not showing. Are the latter books better?
The sequels trend towards fewer, longer stories with a bit more characterization as compared to Foundation, but it never really stops being a series about moments in a larger history. I'd say give either prelude to foundation or Foundation and Empire a try, but odds are if those don't grab you, none of them will.
(importantly for those who don't know already, the publishing dates vary widely across the series - with Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation released in the 50s, and the surrounding prequels and sequels arriving decades later. This can manifest as a jarring shift in writing style if you read them in chronological order instead of publishing order.)
Appreciate the reply. Yeah it very much sounds like not something that would grab me. More Detective Bailey and less dictionary entries!
I can read most of Asimov, but I don't like the short stories from his early years as much. The broken but themed short stories are hard for me to stick with reading as a routine. His later stuff is much better than the earlier as far as books you can't put down. They aren't sequentially written though. The way Asimov ties in earlier story elements into his later books to interweave the different series together is interesting. Like you might totally miss many subtle references when reading the later books, and these have no impact on the story in question, but if you are reading them with the context of having already read the earlier books there are intuitive clues that guide you along. Like, there is an element of foreshadowing in the plot that is fun. Forward is good but also a slightly broken 3 part story from 3 different feature characters' perspectives, but a sequential story in its own way. Still, I'm in a lull hiatus in my reading at the beginning of the third section. I just don't do great with interruptions in fiction. I'll probably end up binging the last section when I get around to it.