What do you think?
Rate this book
Gold: The Final Science Fiction Collection
Gold is the final and crowning achievement of the fifty-year career of science fiction's transcendent genius, the world-famous author who defined the field of science fiction for its practitioners, its millions of readers, and the world at large.
The first section contains stories that range from the humorous to the profound, at the heart of which is the title story, "Gold," a moving and revealing drama about a writer who gambles everything on a chance at immortality: a gamble Asimov himself made -- and won. The second section contains the grand master's ruminations on the SF genre itself. And the final section is comprised of Asimov's thoughts on the craft and writing of science fiction.
The first section contains stories that range from the humorous to the profound, at the heart of which is the title story, "Gold," a moving and revealing drama about a writer who gambles everything on a chance at immortality: a gamble Asimov himself made -- and won. The second section contains the grand master's ruminations on the SF genre itself. And the final section is comprised of Asimov's thoughts on the craft and writing of science fiction.
416 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1995
About the author
Isaac Asimov
4,464 books25.7k followersWorks of prolific Russian-American writer Isaac Asimov include popular explanations of scientific principles,
The Foundation Trilogy
(1951-1953), and other volumes of fiction.
Isaac Asimov, a professor of biochemistry, wrote as a highly successful author, best known for his books.
Asimov, professor, generally considered of all time, edited more than five hundred books and ninety thousand letters and postcards. He published in nine of the ten major categories of the Dewey decimal classification but lacked only an entry in the category of philosophy (100).
People widely considered Asimov, a master of the genre alongside Robert Anson Heinlein and Arthur Charles Clarke as the "big three" during his lifetime. He later tied Galactic Empire and the Robot into the same universe as his most famous series to create a unified "future history" for his stories much like those that Heinlein pioneered and Cordwainer Smith and Poul Anderson previously produced. He penned "Nightfall," voted in 1964 as the best short story of all time; many persons still honor this title. He also produced well mysteries, fantasy, and a great quantity of nonfiction. Asimov used Paul French, the pen name, for the Lucky Starr, series of juvenile novels.
Most books of Asimov in a historical way go as far back to a time with possible question or concept at its simplest stage. He often provides and mentions well nationalities, birth, and death dates for persons and etymologies and pronunciation guides for technical terms. Guide to Science, the tripartite set Understanding Physics, and Chronology of Science and Discovery exemplify these books.
Asimov, a long-time member, reluctantly served as vice president of Mensa international and described some members of that organization as "brain-proud and aggressive about their IQs." He took more pleasure as president of the humanist association. The asteroid 5020 Asimov, the magazine Asimov's Science Fiction, an elementary school in Brooklyn in New York, and two different awards honor his name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_As...
Isaac Asimov, a professor of biochemistry, wrote as a highly successful author, best known for his books.
Asimov, professor, generally considered of all time, edited more than five hundred books and ninety thousand letters and postcards. He published in nine of the ten major categories of the Dewey decimal classification but lacked only an entry in the category of philosophy (100).
People widely considered Asimov, a master of the genre alongside Robert Anson Heinlein and Arthur Charles Clarke as the "big three" during his lifetime. He later tied Galactic Empire and the Robot into the same universe as his most famous series to create a unified "future history" for his stories much like those that Heinlein pioneered and Cordwainer Smith and Poul Anderson previously produced. He penned "Nightfall," voted in 1964 as the best short story of all time; many persons still honor this title. He also produced well mysteries, fantasy, and a great quantity of nonfiction. Asimov used Paul French, the pen name, for the Lucky Starr, series of juvenile novels.
Most books of Asimov in a historical way go as far back to a time with possible question or concept at its simplest stage. He often provides and mentions well nationalities, birth, and death dates for persons and etymologies and pronunciation guides for technical terms. Guide to Science, the tripartite set Understanding Physics, and Chronology of Science and Discovery exemplify these books.
Asimov, a long-time member, reluctantly served as vice president of Mensa international and described some members of that organization as "brain-proud and aggressive about their IQs." He took more pleasure as president of the humanist association. The asteroid 5020 Asimov, the magazine Asimov's Science Fiction, an elementary school in Brooklyn in New York, and two different awards honor his name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_As...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 162 reviews
February 3, 2015
It feels odd sitting down to review this book, because on page 309, in the Essay titled "Book reviews", Asimov states:
"I have never made any secret of the fact that I dislike the concept of reviews and the profession of reviewing."
Ha! Well. Rarely do I disagree so heartily with Asimov - one of my favourite authors - but I do here (quite good-naturedly). He is of course poking fun at both the reviewers and himself, as he is wont to do. I still think reviewing is something that does have a purpose. I love both reading and writing them. (I'm not going to write an essay on the subject though, I'll leave it at this.)
Gold is a collection of Asimov's previously uncollected stories and essays. Editorials he wrote for his magasine, short stories that have only occurred in anthologies and magasines, but never in an actual Asimov collection. As such, it is an ecclectic bunch of stories, with both robot stories and more of the SF-"idea" stories he loved so much. There isn't an ongoing theme, but it is all very, very Asimov.
I'm super biased when it comes to Asimov, and I have yet to read a single story or novel of his that I didn't like. As such, Gold was read with the same giddy delight I always read his books.
My favourites of the stories:
"Cal"
This one is about a robot who wants to become a writer. I love robot stories, so I was immediately pleased! It also turned out to be an interesting comment on the writing profession in itself, as Cal the robot had to be taught how to write - and thus what it entails teaching someone to write. What constitutes good writing, and is a robot capable of doing it?
"Hallucination"
About a boy who comes to a strange planet for an education he doesn't much want to get. I'm not going to say anything else, because that would spoil the story, but it was a well-written, interesting story. One of the idea-stories, where you can practically see the "what if..?" question that spawned it.
"Alexander the God"
Detestable main character and a very loveable super-computer. What's not to like! Excellent ending.
"Fault-Intolerant"
Another story about writing, and computers, and what modern computing could possibly one day entail for the writing profession (SF as a genre does What if-stories so incredibly well). Saw the ending coming a mile away; loved it all the same.
I cannot really choose between the essays, I liked them all. Asimov has a peculiarly familiar way of writing. It feels like he's sitting there, chatting with me about this and that, and just by chance happen to share some of his opinions on writing, SF, readers - and everything in between. There's not much in the way of groundbreaking revelations in these essays, but then they were never meant to be such either. It's interesting to learn that Asimov would revise no more than once or twice, that he doesn't outline, that he writes so much just because he loves it. His advice on writing are sound, but not novel in any way.
The collection did have another interesting effect though: I started writing because of it. Asimov, with his insane output of 5-600+ books, is a marvel in prolificness. And the way he writes about stories, and about science fiction and about ideas, plots, characters, makes it quite clear that writing is something he loved more than pretty much anything else (he's quoted as saying such many times).
His joy of the craft is contagious. During the week I read Gold I had to stop four times to jot down ideas, and twice those ideas turned into actual short stories.
I should think he would approve very much indeed.
"I have never made any secret of the fact that I dislike the concept of reviews and the profession of reviewing."
Ha! Well. Rarely do I disagree so heartily with Asimov - one of my favourite authors - but I do here (quite good-naturedly). He is of course poking fun at both the reviewers and himself, as he is wont to do. I still think reviewing is something that does have a purpose. I love both reading and writing them. (I'm not going to write an essay on the subject though, I'll leave it at this.)
Gold is a collection of Asimov's previously uncollected stories and essays. Editorials he wrote for his magasine, short stories that have only occurred in anthologies and magasines, but never in an actual Asimov collection. As such, it is an ecclectic bunch of stories, with both robot stories and more of the SF-"idea" stories he loved so much. There isn't an ongoing theme, but it is all very, very Asimov.
I'm super biased when it comes to Asimov, and I have yet to read a single story or novel of his that I didn't like. As such, Gold was read with the same giddy delight I always read his books.
My favourites of the stories:
"Cal"
This one is about a robot who wants to become a writer. I love robot stories, so I was immediately pleased! It also turned out to be an interesting comment on the writing profession in itself, as Cal the robot had to be taught how to write - and thus what it entails teaching someone to write. What constitutes good writing, and is a robot capable of doing it?
"Hallucination"
About a boy who comes to a strange planet for an education he doesn't much want to get. I'm not going to say anything else, because that would spoil the story, but it was a well-written, interesting story. One of the idea-stories, where you can practically see the "what if..?" question that spawned it.
"Alexander the God"
Detestable main character and a very loveable super-computer. What's not to like! Excellent ending.
"Fault-Intolerant"
Another story about writing, and computers, and what modern computing could possibly one day entail for the writing profession (SF as a genre does What if-stories so incredibly well). Saw the ending coming a mile away; loved it all the same.
I cannot really choose between the essays, I liked them all. Asimov has a peculiarly familiar way of writing. It feels like he's sitting there, chatting with me about this and that, and just by chance happen to share some of his opinions on writing, SF, readers - and everything in between. There's not much in the way of groundbreaking revelations in these essays, but then they were never meant to be such either. It's interesting to learn that Asimov would revise no more than once or twice, that he doesn't outline, that he writes so much just because he loves it. His advice on writing are sound, but not novel in any way.
The collection did have another interesting effect though: I started writing because of it. Asimov, with his insane output of 5-600+ books, is a marvel in prolificness. And the way he writes about stories, and about science fiction and about ideas, plots, characters, makes it quite clear that writing is something he loved more than pretty much anything else (he's quoted as saying such many times).
His joy of the craft is contagious. During the week I read Gold I had to stop four times to jot down ideas, and twice those ideas turned into actual short stories.
I should think he would approve very much indeed.
November 20, 2017
Read for the Genre Non-Fiction and the Collections! Reading Challenges.
This collection represents the last batch of stuff that Isaac Asimov gave to us. Half of it is stories, and the other half is a collection of essays about science fiction and writing in general that he produced, mostly as editor of some of the most legendary sci-fi magazines ever. As a result, it qualified for both a short story collections reading challenge and a genre-related non-fic challenge that I was doing, and I counted it for both.
This is going to be a short review because, in a nutshell, you can see why Asimov remains a legend. He was a master of his craft, and this writing spanned the breadth of his illustrious, long career.
I enjoyed his non-fiction writing immensely. He was a thoughtful, intelligent man with a self-deprecating, dry wit that I think tickles my Canadian sense of humour especially well. He was also capable of doing a great thing that I admire in intellectuals; he was capable of thinking harder about an issue and then changing his mind! Asimov is somewhat infamous for having directly contributed, for example, to the stereotype against women writing sci-fi. In one of these essays he apologizes and confesses that this view was mostly was the result of having been told this by people he admired when he was still a young writer, and he clearly begins to change his approach, including his use of pronouns in the course of these ongoing essays. I learned an amazing amount about the genre and its evolution through his eyes.
The short stories were like reading liquid light. I had forgotten, since it's been a while since I'd read Asimov, what an amazing storyteller he could be. As a reader, I felt his prose flowed like magic. His stories were all page-turners that left me feeling satisfied, whether it was a light snack (there's a couple of three-page stories) to a full meal deal (Gold, the title story).
And as a writer, I know enough about the craft to recognize the technical minutiae of his style and the way he told his stories, and I think I learned some things by watching this master at work that might help me to write better short stories.
Why did it take me so long to read it? I started with the non-fiction, and I tend to read non-fiction in snippets, and also the book was misplaced for a while. When I got into the fiction, I couldn't put it down. Don't think the long reading time is in any way a comment on its quality!
A must for anyone who considers themselves a sci-fi fan, and recommended for anyone else also.
This collection represents the last batch of stuff that Isaac Asimov gave to us. Half of it is stories, and the other half is a collection of essays about science fiction and writing in general that he produced, mostly as editor of some of the most legendary sci-fi magazines ever. As a result, it qualified for both a short story collections reading challenge and a genre-related non-fic challenge that I was doing, and I counted it for both.
This is going to be a short review because, in a nutshell, you can see why Asimov remains a legend. He was a master of his craft, and this writing spanned the breadth of his illustrious, long career.
I enjoyed his non-fiction writing immensely. He was a thoughtful, intelligent man with a self-deprecating, dry wit that I think tickles my Canadian sense of humour especially well. He was also capable of doing a great thing that I admire in intellectuals; he was capable of thinking harder about an issue and then changing his mind! Asimov is somewhat infamous for having directly contributed, for example, to the stereotype against women writing sci-fi. In one of these essays he apologizes and confesses that this view was mostly was the result of having been told this by people he admired when he was still a young writer, and he clearly begins to change his approach, including his use of pronouns in the course of these ongoing essays. I learned an amazing amount about the genre and its evolution through his eyes.
The short stories were like reading liquid light. I had forgotten, since it's been a while since I'd read Asimov, what an amazing storyteller he could be. As a reader, I felt his prose flowed like magic. His stories were all page-turners that left me feeling satisfied, whether it was a light snack (there's a couple of three-page stories) to a full meal deal (Gold, the title story).
And as a writer, I know enough about the craft to recognize the technical minutiae of his style and the way he told his stories, and I think I learned some things by watching this master at work that might help me to write better short stories.
Why did it take me so long to read it? I started with the non-fiction, and I tend to read non-fiction in snippets, and also the book was misplaced for a while. When I got into the fiction, I couldn't put it down. Don't think the long reading time is in any way a comment on its quality!
A must for anyone who considers themselves a sci-fi fan, and recommended for anyone else also.
April 6, 2024
This collection is split into three sections. Science Fiction stories, essays about science fiction, and essays about writing science fiction. In the last section Asimov mentions the use of names in science fiction and how he tends to alter the spelling of common names (ex: Hari instead of Harry) or to use strange names that don't actually exist (ex: Golan Trevize). He also comments that he had expected to receive letters from readers complaining about his character names and had not. Issac Asimov has been dead for nearly twenty years but here you go:
Dear Isaac Asimov,
You are my favorite author, but your characters (although I love them) have stupid names. I have complained about this before and I will continue. It may be science fiction but spell like a normal person.
Dear Isaac Asimov,
You are my favorite author, but your characters (although I love them) have stupid names. I have complained about this before and I will continue. It may be science fiction but spell like a normal person.
December 14, 2019
For completists. Most entries are concise; I appreciate both that Asimov always has a point and that he gets to it. Of course I skimmed the non-fiction. But I did read the stories. The significant ones here are the one w/ Cal, the robot who wants increasingly badly to be a writer (the story that, upon this read, reminds me of Flowers for Algernon) and the title story, which is a nice nod to Shakespeare and to SF genre writers. (The SF story staged by the MC seems familiar... did someone actually write that up?)
2.5 stars rounded down in a feeble effort to correct for how over-rated this is by the GR community.
2.5 stars rounded down in a feeble effort to correct for how over-rated this is by the GR community.
January 18, 2017
Not the best collection of short stories from Asimov but I will commend him on a truly, clever pun in the story "Battle-Hymn".
About 2/3s of this collection is an assortment of essays about science fiction and writing. I didn't read many of them but they are entertaining in their own right.
Favourite:
Battle-Hymn
About 2/3s of this collection is an assortment of essays about science fiction and writing. I didn't read many of them but they are entertaining in their own right.
Favourite:
Battle-Hymn
May 27, 2019
Among many other varied accomplishments, Asimov is well read and loves Dickens and Shakespeare (well, you'd be a fool if you didn't). He gives us some good stories here, and they're not all fiction. But if you're after a collection of his best SF stories, this is not it (The Martian Way [1964] is that). This is a late collection (largely) of what's left unpublished in his many other anthologies.
With only two short stories of any substance - Cal and Gold - this set of frivolous diversions gives us only a little insight into Asimov's brilliance than, say, any of the Foundation trilogy [1951-3], or The Gods Themselves [1972], for example, but rather are more illustrative of Asimov's relentless narrative and inventive hyperactivity. Section 2 provides introductory covers to his signed anthologies. Section 3 are his words of wisdom on his craft.
One of the problems of a compilation of this kind is that the poor (rare) gets bundled in with the average (often) and the good or thought-provoking (often). As a result, the median is always lower than the best - and the promise. Asimov may have been the most prolific of writers, but surely the rules of probability occur in his essays as in his fiction. This is for completists, and therefore, for me. If you want a truly excellent book of a writer on writing - and this was not intended as such, only in part turns out to be - see Stephen King's On Writing: A Memoir Of The Craft [1999] and Margaret Atwood's On Writers and Writing [2202]. George Orwell has written a couple too (Books v. Cigarettes [1952]). But I don't know of one by an SF writer...
Some of the best advice in his essays on writing are particular to his own method. He recommends reading a lot in the field you intend to write about, start with several short stories before attempting the novel, do as many revisions as you feel comfortable with, and then stop (unless the editor demands another, then face the consequences, one of which is to tote it elsewhere), and find out if you are the kind of writer who needs an outline, by doing one, and try sticking to it. Do your research, especially the science if you're writing science fiction. Otherwise, discover your own style, and don't obviously plagiarise (that's not, obviously, don't plagiarise). Take from the canon, but give something new back.
Here's a few of what I consider the best, the worst or the notable...
+ Part One - The Final Stories
· Cal [1990] - 6.47
It has been observed that the ultra-prolific Asimov was intent in his later life to be even more prolific. These stories of the '80s and early '90s are part of that determination. And the essential pitfall of that objective is, it is apparent, a sacrifice of quality. It has also often been observed that his best output was from the '50s, the time of the original Foundation trilogy. Both aspects are fiercely telling in this opening story, which was intended as wit and comic adroitness, but which was a chore I little wish to repeat. Very poor. It seems to be of a kin with his six Tales Of The Black Widowers, where 6 professionals meet at a restaurant to tell each other tales of, and solve mysteries. We shall see...
· Hallucination [1995] - 6.8
A neat glimpse into the wider imagination of Asimov - such as the creation of the Foundation series, or the Galactic Empire novels - and how he can create a self-contained microcosm of a full science fiction story in a tidbit.
· In The Canyon [1995] - 3.33
This missive from Mars implies that we should be populating it about now.
· Good-bye To Earth [1989] - 7.2
The probable cause of the human diaspora. Bear in mind that Iain Banks was writing about supremely advanced orbitals at around this time... (The Player Of Games [1988]).
· Fault-Intolerant [1990] - 6.57
Asimov's humorous depiction of the intelligent word processor reminds me of my first attempt to go into business with an Amstrad PC1640. It had 16Kb of RAM - or was that 640Kb? - and duel floppy disks - I didn't ever see the need for the enormous hard disk space of 10Mb! Or 20! Anyway, this thing had TWO operating systems, and GEM was the dazzling GUI that allowed me to do all sorts of things I didn't know how to do. All I wanted to do, with my trusty dot matrix printer, was go into business with my copy-typist partner to type out students' theses. It seemed an unsinkable ship! Three weeks later - and two weeks over deadline - I delivered said MS to the happy student - a happy student builds in contingency - and my partner and I slept for 3 days solid, recovering. But boy, did I love that Amstrad PC1640. I could even go into my dBase database and amend a bug in the record count via Hex! I may not have been able to start a proper business with it, but I could debug proprietary databases via the back door. I only wish the damned thing had learned how to copy type - I would have been a billionaire (since a millionaire is peanuts, today).
· Kid Brother [1990] - 6
Macabre humour, but a fragment off Bicentennial Man [1976], without the affection.
· Gold [1991] - 7.8
By far the best of the stories in this collection, Asimov introduces his cast and technological theme with Shakespeare's Lear. He then goes on to portray the visualisation - with sublimation - of the triple-characters of one of his best novels, The Gods Themselves [1972]. Not only is this all brilliantly interwoven, but we regain for half an hour the affection we held for Dua when we first read that novel. I must re-read it, soon. Excellent.
+ Part Two - On Science Fiction
Many of the pieces in the section 'On Science Fiction' are taken from introductions to the various anthologies that Asimov penned his name to or compiled.
· The Longest Voyage [1983] - 6.27
Brief survey of ways to get to the stars.
· Inventing A Universe [1982] - 6.6
The universe referred to was a template for a series of new stories by new sf authors, created by Asimov with 6 different intelligent civilisations of various physical makeup occupying various appropriate habitable planets about the Milky Way. What is interesting is not the template universe - though it gives pause for thought: consider Banks's different intelligent civs - but the background to 'The Big Three' (Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke) in the sf publishing community at large.
· Invasion [1995] - 6.97
Another introduction to an anthology, Asimov seeds the introduction with Earth's own internal invaders - the Mongols, colonising Europe - to interesting effect.
· The Robot Chronicles [1990] - 7.4
This introduction to Robot Dreams [1986], a summary of the most significant robot short stories and novels, and Asimov's overview of the history of 'robotics', a phrase credited to him in the OED. Having read most of his robot output - only a handful of short stories and essays to go - I have a vested interest in his subject, and an affection, too, for Elijah Bayley and R. Daneel Olivaw. I do not, however, agree that any of his robot stories compete with his Foundation trilogy, as he does.
· The All-Human Galaxy [1983] - 6
How the pan-human galactic empire of the Foundation series came about. Where were all the alien civs?
· Psychohistory [1988] - 7
The origin of the concept of psychohistory and its parallel of v.l.s. behavioural probability to gas/fluid dynamics is the heart of Hari Seldon's new science. It should have been called 'psychosociology', but a couple less syllables is predictably much better, given innate human laziness.
· Science Fiction Series [1986] - 7.27
I didn't know that E.E. ('Doc') Smith was the first to produce a science fiction series with his 3 Skylark and then 5 Lensman novels of 1928 to 1947. Well, I did, from an earlier essay, but Asimov drops it in here in a survey of sf sequels, prequels, trilogies and series.
· Survivors [1987] - 7.3
Asimov lists 9 prolific sf writers still on the go as of 1987. Burn-out in the genre, a reduction of ideas and interests in other genres and modes (mainstream/fiction/non-fiction) and extinction must account for most of the rest. I have rad but 4 of them.
· Nowhere! [1983] - 7.57
One of the most interesting and thought-provoking essays, Nowhere!, is about utopian and dystopian fiction and the balance of the forces of good and evil in fiction based on either or both of these 'good' and 'bad' states. Asimov mentions some examples of each, and roundly damns Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four [1948] as 'abominably poor' (p.270). While disagreeing with him, absolutely, it did throw up a preoccupation of mine: the envy of certain authors who have defined a universe, 'world' or system that will never be bettered, but very often imitated. The most obvious example is Tolkien's The Lord Of The Rings [1954-55], the tale of elves and orcs, hobbits and medieval men, generic species of billions of subsequent fantasy stories (though the hobbits remain unique). Another is Asimov's own Foundation trilogy, of around the same time [1951-53], and his pan-human empire of 23 million habitable planets and psychohistory. Again, there's Frank Herbert's first Dune trilogy [1965-76] and his creditable sociological capitalist-religious 'empire' based (initially) around the CHOAM interstellar corporation (and later upon Muad'Dib). Next, most obvious to me, comes Banks's Culture series, with his smart ships, orbitals and drones, and his sexy Contact and Special Circumstances - not to mention the naming of ships by their Minds. These are the trailblazers, for me.
It seems to me that these people have created worlds with such strongly rooted and widely integral concepts founded each on sound sociological bases that they are inimitable, and are concepts that we may borrow from, but to reuse (or 'reinvent') in some wholesale way would merely be plagiarism, rather than the respected reuse of parts of the canon. But the littoral zone between what may be borrowed from the canon and what would be seen as mere plagiarism is an interesting one. Think of the dozens of concepts borrowable: orcs, elves, the ansible, neutrino message packets, smart minds, hyperspace, FTL. Think of those which could not: hobbits, psychohistory, spice (that spice), Minds, SC... And think of those that wouldn't work: SC intervening on a planet of wayward hobbits. Yet call them some other humanoid term and it's perfectly passable - just outright plagiarism.
This issue plagues me recurrently. But it is really about the envy of what those few invented that could only forever be copied, not manipulated or borrowed as though canon.
· Outsiders, Insiders [1986] - 7.23
A call to arms of the 'band of brothers' (and sisters) that were the privileged group of the Golden Age of sf, who published largely through the magazines, graduated to novels, and only hoped for pieces appearing in the quality press, the bestseller lists and, hope against hope, had films made of their works. They earned their kudos. They didn't just come from medical school and write bestsellers that were made into films...
· Women And Science Fiction [1983] - 4
Not really an exploration; part apology; part introduction. Cherryh, LeGuin, Leckie, are my favourites. LeGuin gets a mention in this. But if any exploration of 'Women and Science Fiction' is to be comprehensive - even in 6 pages - it should surely be devoted more to women sf writers than just editors.
· Time-Travel [1984] - 7.27
In defence of time travel, some basic maths (but significant thought).
+ Part Three - On Writing Science Fiction
· Plotting [1989] - 7.23
Asimov's plots are highly detailed, very balanced and have a solution I can never see. His characters are fairly two-dimensional, usually male, and often, nearly all but one are what-you-see-is-what-you-get. In his best stories, this formula works; in his not so good, what is missing? I think his best stories have good characterisation as well: take Hari Seldon, or Dua, Tritt and Odeen...
· Metaphor [1989] - 7.1
Three metaphors to illustrate a reader's complaint about an inaccurate cover.
· Ideas [1990] - 7.6
In response to the usually awful question to an author, 'Where do you get your ideas from?', Asimov delineates the process of developing ideas and a novel, in this case Nemesis [1989], his latest at the time of writing, to fascinating effect. 'I have a natural aptitude for this sort of thing, and, also, that I have been doing it for over half a century now...' (p.328)
· The Name Of Our Field [1978] - 7.43
An interesting tale of the evolution of the term 'science fiction', with a saucy end to the tale.
· Hints [1979] - 7.17
Sound advice from a writer who made it over 17 years.
· Writing For Young People [1986] - 4.07
One of the few pieces in this collection of 'chats' where I went blank several times, and re-read the same passage several times. It did, however, spin the question about just when 'YA' entered the field technically and universally as a sub-category of literature. Apparently, YA became a sub-category (it is not a genre, it contains many genres, like 'fiction' does) with J.K. Rowling in the late '90s. All I know is that it became a category of dedicated shelves within the last 15-20 years, though I cannot set a precise date. All of this was more interesting than Asimov's piece, though, once again, he is thought-provoking.
· Originality [1986] - 7.2
The origins of the Nightfall short story [1941]. A good yarn.
· Revisions [1982] - 7.4
Instructive and interesting - one of his best. Listen.
· Irony [1984] - 7.7
I've always been useless at irony. My university lecturer - whom I admire, who has an amazing breadth (of subject) - admires it. Asimov proves he's as widely read and can dissimulate between satire and irony. A minor crash course, but an important one.
· Plagiarism [1985] - 7.27
Coincidences do occur, down to similar names of characters. There is only one solution: he who published first has priority, the later one withdraws or radically amends. But borrowing from the canon? In the end, the reader will out.
· Symbolism [1985] - 7.67
A defence of criticism of a published short story in a magazine (most of this section are editorials), Asimov's point of real interest is in his interpretation of the symbolism in The Lord Of The Rings [1954-5]: what does the Ring symbolise?
· Prediction [1989] - 6.93
Not one for blowing his own trumpet, Asimov blows God's.
With only two short stories of any substance - Cal and Gold - this set of frivolous diversions gives us only a little insight into Asimov's brilliance than, say, any of the Foundation trilogy [1951-3], or The Gods Themselves [1972], for example, but rather are more illustrative of Asimov's relentless narrative and inventive hyperactivity. Section 2 provides introductory covers to his signed anthologies. Section 3 are his words of wisdom on his craft.
One of the problems of a compilation of this kind is that the poor (rare) gets bundled in with the average (often) and the good or thought-provoking (often). As a result, the median is always lower than the best - and the promise. Asimov may have been the most prolific of writers, but surely the rules of probability occur in his essays as in his fiction. This is for completists, and therefore, for me. If you want a truly excellent book of a writer on writing - and this was not intended as such, only in part turns out to be - see Stephen King's On Writing: A Memoir Of The Craft [1999] and Margaret Atwood's On Writers and Writing [2202]. George Orwell has written a couple too (Books v. Cigarettes [1952]). But I don't know of one by an SF writer...
Some of the best advice in his essays on writing are particular to his own method. He recommends reading a lot in the field you intend to write about, start with several short stories before attempting the novel, do as many revisions as you feel comfortable with, and then stop (unless the editor demands another, then face the consequences, one of which is to tote it elsewhere), and find out if you are the kind of writer who needs an outline, by doing one, and try sticking to it. Do your research, especially the science if you're writing science fiction. Otherwise, discover your own style, and don't obviously plagiarise (that's not, obviously, don't plagiarise). Take from the canon, but give something new back.
Here's a few of what I consider the best, the worst or the notable...
+ Part One - The Final Stories
· Cal [1990] - 6.47
It has been observed that the ultra-prolific Asimov was intent in his later life to be even more prolific. These stories of the '80s and early '90s are part of that determination. And the essential pitfall of that objective is, it is apparent, a sacrifice of quality. It has also often been observed that his best output was from the '50s, the time of the original Foundation trilogy. Both aspects are fiercely telling in this opening story, which was intended as wit and comic adroitness, but which was a chore I little wish to repeat. Very poor. It seems to be of a kin with his six Tales Of The Black Widowers, where 6 professionals meet at a restaurant to tell each other tales of, and solve mysteries. We shall see...
· Hallucination [1995] - 6.8
A neat glimpse into the wider imagination of Asimov - such as the creation of the Foundation series, or the Galactic Empire novels - and how he can create a self-contained microcosm of a full science fiction story in a tidbit.
· In The Canyon [1995] - 3.33
This missive from Mars implies that we should be populating it about now.
· Good-bye To Earth [1989] - 7.2
The probable cause of the human diaspora. Bear in mind that Iain Banks was writing about supremely advanced orbitals at around this time... (The Player Of Games [1988]).
· Fault-Intolerant [1990] - 6.57
Asimov's humorous depiction of the intelligent word processor reminds me of my first attempt to go into business with an Amstrad PC1640. It had 16Kb of RAM - or was that 640Kb? - and duel floppy disks - I didn't ever see the need for the enormous hard disk space of 10Mb! Or 20! Anyway, this thing had TWO operating systems, and GEM was the dazzling GUI that allowed me to do all sorts of things I didn't know how to do. All I wanted to do, with my trusty dot matrix printer, was go into business with my copy-typist partner to type out students' theses. It seemed an unsinkable ship! Three weeks later - and two weeks over deadline - I delivered said MS to the happy student - a happy student builds in contingency - and my partner and I slept for 3 days solid, recovering. But boy, did I love that Amstrad PC1640. I could even go into my dBase database and amend a bug in the record count via Hex! I may not have been able to start a proper business with it, but I could debug proprietary databases via the back door. I only wish the damned thing had learned how to copy type - I would have been a billionaire (since a millionaire is peanuts, today).
· Kid Brother [1990] - 6
Macabre humour, but a fragment off Bicentennial Man [1976], without the affection.
· Gold [1991] - 7.8
By far the best of the stories in this collection, Asimov introduces his cast and technological theme with Shakespeare's Lear. He then goes on to portray the visualisation - with sublimation - of the triple-characters of one of his best novels, The Gods Themselves [1972]. Not only is this all brilliantly interwoven, but we regain for half an hour the affection we held for Dua when we first read that novel. I must re-read it, soon. Excellent.
+ Part Two - On Science Fiction
Many of the pieces in the section 'On Science Fiction' are taken from introductions to the various anthologies that Asimov penned his name to or compiled.
· The Longest Voyage [1983] - 6.27
Brief survey of ways to get to the stars.
· Inventing A Universe [1982] - 6.6
The universe referred to was a template for a series of new stories by new sf authors, created by Asimov with 6 different intelligent civilisations of various physical makeup occupying various appropriate habitable planets about the Milky Way. What is interesting is not the template universe - though it gives pause for thought: consider Banks's different intelligent civs - but the background to 'The Big Three' (Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke) in the sf publishing community at large.
· Invasion [1995] - 6.97
Another introduction to an anthology, Asimov seeds the introduction with Earth's own internal invaders - the Mongols, colonising Europe - to interesting effect.
· The Robot Chronicles [1990] - 7.4
This introduction to Robot Dreams [1986], a summary of the most significant robot short stories and novels, and Asimov's overview of the history of 'robotics', a phrase credited to him in the OED. Having read most of his robot output - only a handful of short stories and essays to go - I have a vested interest in his subject, and an affection, too, for Elijah Bayley and R. Daneel Olivaw. I do not, however, agree that any of his robot stories compete with his Foundation trilogy, as he does.
· The All-Human Galaxy [1983] - 6
How the pan-human galactic empire of the Foundation series came about. Where were all the alien civs?
· Psychohistory [1988] - 7
The origin of the concept of psychohistory and its parallel of v.l.s. behavioural probability to gas/fluid dynamics is the heart of Hari Seldon's new science. It should have been called 'psychosociology', but a couple less syllables is predictably much better, given innate human laziness.
· Science Fiction Series [1986] - 7.27
I didn't know that E.E. ('Doc') Smith was the first to produce a science fiction series with his 3 Skylark and then 5 Lensman novels of 1928 to 1947. Well, I did, from an earlier essay, but Asimov drops it in here in a survey of sf sequels, prequels, trilogies and series.
· Survivors [1987] - 7.3
Asimov lists 9 prolific sf writers still on the go as of 1987. Burn-out in the genre, a reduction of ideas and interests in other genres and modes (mainstream/fiction/non-fiction) and extinction must account for most of the rest. I have rad but 4 of them.
· Nowhere! [1983] - 7.57
One of the most interesting and thought-provoking essays, Nowhere!, is about utopian and dystopian fiction and the balance of the forces of good and evil in fiction based on either or both of these 'good' and 'bad' states. Asimov mentions some examples of each, and roundly damns Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four [1948] as 'abominably poor' (p.270). While disagreeing with him, absolutely, it did throw up a preoccupation of mine: the envy of certain authors who have defined a universe, 'world' or system that will never be bettered, but very often imitated. The most obvious example is Tolkien's The Lord Of The Rings [1954-55], the tale of elves and orcs, hobbits and medieval men, generic species of billions of subsequent fantasy stories (though the hobbits remain unique). Another is Asimov's own Foundation trilogy, of around the same time [1951-53], and his pan-human empire of 23 million habitable planets and psychohistory. Again, there's Frank Herbert's first Dune trilogy [1965-76] and his creditable sociological capitalist-religious 'empire' based (initially) around the CHOAM interstellar corporation (and later upon Muad'Dib). Next, most obvious to me, comes Banks's Culture series, with his smart ships, orbitals and drones, and his sexy Contact and Special Circumstances - not to mention the naming of ships by their Minds. These are the trailblazers, for me.
It seems to me that these people have created worlds with such strongly rooted and widely integral concepts founded each on sound sociological bases that they are inimitable, and are concepts that we may borrow from, but to reuse (or 'reinvent') in some wholesale way would merely be plagiarism, rather than the respected reuse of parts of the canon. But the littoral zone between what may be borrowed from the canon and what would be seen as mere plagiarism is an interesting one. Think of the dozens of concepts borrowable: orcs, elves, the ansible, neutrino message packets, smart minds, hyperspace, FTL. Think of those which could not: hobbits, psychohistory, spice (that spice), Minds, SC... And think of those that wouldn't work: SC intervening on a planet of wayward hobbits. Yet call them some other humanoid term and it's perfectly passable - just outright plagiarism.
This issue plagues me recurrently. But it is really about the envy of what those few invented that could only forever be copied, not manipulated or borrowed as though canon.
· Outsiders, Insiders [1986] - 7.23
A call to arms of the 'band of brothers' (and sisters) that were the privileged group of the Golden Age of sf, who published largely through the magazines, graduated to novels, and only hoped for pieces appearing in the quality press, the bestseller lists and, hope against hope, had films made of their works. They earned their kudos. They didn't just come from medical school and write bestsellers that were made into films...
· Women And Science Fiction [1983] - 4
Not really an exploration; part apology; part introduction. Cherryh, LeGuin, Leckie, are my favourites. LeGuin gets a mention in this. But if any exploration of 'Women and Science Fiction' is to be comprehensive - even in 6 pages - it should surely be devoted more to women sf writers than just editors.
· Time-Travel [1984] - 7.27
In defence of time travel, some basic maths (but significant thought).
+ Part Three - On Writing Science Fiction
· Plotting [1989] - 7.23
Asimov's plots are highly detailed, very balanced and have a solution I can never see. His characters are fairly two-dimensional, usually male, and often, nearly all but one are what-you-see-is-what-you-get. In his best stories, this formula works; in his not so good, what is missing? I think his best stories have good characterisation as well: take Hari Seldon, or Dua, Tritt and Odeen...
· Metaphor [1989] - 7.1
Three metaphors to illustrate a reader's complaint about an inaccurate cover.
· Ideas [1990] - 7.6
In response to the usually awful question to an author, 'Where do you get your ideas from?', Asimov delineates the process of developing ideas and a novel, in this case Nemesis [1989], his latest at the time of writing, to fascinating effect. 'I have a natural aptitude for this sort of thing, and, also, that I have been doing it for over half a century now...' (p.328)
· The Name Of Our Field [1978] - 7.43
An interesting tale of the evolution of the term 'science fiction', with a saucy end to the tale.
· Hints [1979] - 7.17
Sound advice from a writer who made it over 17 years.
· Writing For Young People [1986] - 4.07
One of the few pieces in this collection of 'chats' where I went blank several times, and re-read the same passage several times. It did, however, spin the question about just when 'YA' entered the field technically and universally as a sub-category of literature. Apparently, YA became a sub-category (it is not a genre, it contains many genres, like 'fiction' does) with J.K. Rowling in the late '90s. All I know is that it became a category of dedicated shelves within the last 15-20 years, though I cannot set a precise date. All of this was more interesting than Asimov's piece, though, once again, he is thought-provoking.
· Originality [1986] - 7.2
The origins of the Nightfall short story [1941]. A good yarn.
· Revisions [1982] - 7.4
Instructive and interesting - one of his best. Listen.
· Irony [1984] - 7.7
I've always been useless at irony. My university lecturer - whom I admire, who has an amazing breadth (of subject) - admires it. Asimov proves he's as widely read and can dissimulate between satire and irony. A minor crash course, but an important one.
· Plagiarism [1985] - 7.27
Coincidences do occur, down to similar names of characters. There is only one solution: he who published first has priority, the later one withdraws or radically amends. But borrowing from the canon? In the end, the reader will out.
· Symbolism [1985] - 7.67
A defence of criticism of a published short story in a magazine (most of this section are editorials), Asimov's point of real interest is in his interpretation of the symbolism in The Lord Of The Rings [1954-5]: what does the Ring symbolise?
· Prediction [1989] - 6.93
Not one for blowing his own trumpet, Asimov blows God's.
November 22, 2017
Gold is my gateway into the universe of Asimov, and what a mistake that was! Gold, as it turns out, is not just a collection of short stories from the later end of Issac Asimov's huge career but a collection of reflective essays on his works and methods of writing - something ideally read after I've not only read plenty of Asimov, but dived deeper into the world of science fiction.
The short stories which make up just under half of Gold ranged from interesting to simple and sometimes a little silly. Standing out were 'Hallucination' and 'Kid Brother', as they were a little longer in length and stronger in complexity (and perhaps a little darker). The namesake of the collection, the story Gold was interesting but great lengths of it didn't really make sense in the context of someone reading it in 2017. Perhaps two didn't resonate with me at all, one of them literally ending with "this was the moral of the story". It was interesting seeing small glimpses at Asimov's legendary sight in to the future, even if it didn't quite hit the mark (could you imagine paying for a computer that they couldn't tell you the specifications for?). There was even a short story that I would swear was the inspiration for the The Expanse series.
The reference parts in the second half was interesting, but with no reference of his other works it was hard to know how to absorb it. Unlike Stephen Kings 'On Writing', where I have read enough King to know what he is talking about what which parts I want to absorb, I don't know anything about Asimov. At least I know what his own favourites are, and can go from there.
A name that lives on my "will get around to reading one day" lists, Gold makes me exited to read more of what this titan of his genre puts out, and maybe then I'll give this book another go.
The short stories which make up just under half of Gold ranged from interesting to simple and sometimes a little silly. Standing out were 'Hallucination' and 'Kid Brother', as they were a little longer in length and stronger in complexity (and perhaps a little darker). The namesake of the collection, the story Gold was interesting but great lengths of it didn't really make sense in the context of someone reading it in 2017. Perhaps two didn't resonate with me at all, one of them literally ending with "this was the moral of the story". It was interesting seeing small glimpses at Asimov's legendary sight in to the future, even if it didn't quite hit the mark (could you imagine paying for a computer that they couldn't tell you the specifications for?). There was even a short story that I would swear was the inspiration for the The Expanse series.
The reference parts in the second half was interesting, but with no reference of his other works it was hard to know how to absorb it. Unlike Stephen Kings 'On Writing', where I have read enough King to know what he is talking about what which parts I want to absorb, I don't know anything about Asimov. At least I know what his own favourites are, and can go from there.
A name that lives on my "will get around to reading one day" lists, Gold makes me exited to read more of what this titan of his genre puts out, and maybe then I'll give this book another go.
July 2, 2018
Because this book contains short stories of Asimov that hadn't been published before, I was eager to read this book. It also contains a lot of essays and letters to the editor that Asimov wrote for the magazine Asimov's Science Fiction. This is a kind of inside baseball book and not for someone who hasn't read Asimov before. The stories are good but feel as though they haven't been fully fleshed out. His essays, especially those targeted to writers, are well worth reading if you are writer.
September 24, 2021
U kreeg al een voorschotje op de bespreking van Goud in mijn bespreking van de Foundation-trilogie, maar dat was uiteraard alleen maar zo omdat: 1) Goud ook over de Foundation-trilogie gaat; en 2) het in sommige gevallen interessant is een auteur iets te laten vertellen over zijn werk. “In sommige gevallen”, zeg ik wel, want een slecht boek blijft gewoon een slecht boek, zelfs al melkt de auteur er in een ander boek over door dat het toch zo goed is. Da’s gelukkig niet het geval met Isaac Asimov. De Foundation-trilogie is groots en Goud is op zijn beurt een bijzonder goed boek.
Al is het dan wel, eerlijk is eerlijk, een beetje een samenraapsel. Op de voorflap staat te lezen dat dit “De laatste verhalen van de meester van de moderne SF” (volgens Asimov zelf overigens niet te verwarren met “sci-fi”) zijn. Op de achterflap wordt al wat eerlijker reclame gemaakt: “een persoonlijk getinte verhalenbundel die een verhelderende blik gunt op het denkraam van een groot genrevernieuwer” en “Uit de verhalen in Goud, vernoemd naar het Nebula Award winnende titelverhaal, spreekt vooral vakmanschap, intelligentie en humor, uit Asimovs korte toelichtingen spreekt inlevingsvermogen (…)”. Maar in werkelijkheid bestaat nog niet de helft van dit boek uit wat de gemiddelde lezer (ik inbegrepen dus) zou verstaan onder “verhalen”.
“De laatste verhalen” is de titel van Deel een van het boek en omvat naast Goud de kortverhalen Cal, Links naar rechts, Frustratie, Hallucinatie, Instabiliteit, Alexander de God, In het ravijn, Aarde vaarwel, Strijdlied, Feghoot en het hof, Fout-intolerantie, Kleine broer, Naties in de ruimte en De glimlach van de chipper. Deel twee, Over science fiction, en Deel drie, Over het schrijven van science fiction bevatten echter geen verhalen (noch kort noch lang), maar introducties, voorwoorden, editorialen, enzovoort. Zeker niet minder het lezen waard – in tegendeel –, maar ze mochten op z’n minst wel van enige toelichting voorzien zijn. Ik weet niet of ze dat in de oorspronkelijke uitgave Gold misschien wél waren, maar in de Nederlandse vertaling, verschenen bij J.M. Meulenhoff in 1995, is alleszins niks opgenomen met betrekking tot de tijdschriften of boeken waarin die stukken oorspronkelijk verschenen. Zeker is dat ze niet allemaal tot zijn “laatste” hoorden en voor veel lezers zal het er ook niet echt toe doen wanneer en waarin deze artikels eerst gedrukt werden, maar wie na het lezen ervan zin krijgt om de bundels of tijdschriften die er na volgden te lezen of te verzamelen – en die zin géven is doorgaans de bedoeling van dergelijke artikels – blijft op zijn honger zitten. Maar goed, wellicht voelden ze bij Meulenhoff (of bij The Isaac Asimov Estate dat Gold uitgaf) niet de behoefte bladruimte te verspillen aan reclame maken voor iets waar ze toch niks mee konden verdienen. Het zij zo en het zij ook gezegd dat daarmee alles wat ik aan negatieve zaken kon noemen – behalve hier en daar een storende fout in de vertaling van Maarten Meeuwes (écht, “lijden” in plaats van “leiden”…) – ook genoemd is.
Voor de rest is dit een, zoals gezegd, bijzonder goed boek. Omwille van die laatste verhalen uiteraard. Verhalen waarin bijvoorbeeld een enigszins eigenzinnige robot (“Ik vraag hem niet of ik hem [een schrijfmachine, noot van mij] mag gebruiken. Als ik het hem niet vraag en hij niet zegt dat het niet mag, ben ik niet ongehoorzaam als ik hem gebruik.”), Cal, zich met medewerking van zijn eigenaar, een schrijver, tot schrijver ontwikkeld. Verhalen waarin, zeer tegen Asimovs gewoonten in, buitenaardse wezens opduiken, al worden die dan oorspronkelijk voor een Hallucinatie gehouden. Verhalen (Alexander de God) waarin precies gedaan wordt waar mensen ook in onze tijden héél ernstig mee bezig zijn: alles in modellen gieten, in de hoop zo alles beheersbaar te maken. Iets wat gelukkig goed afloopt: “De Aarde was weer vrij, wat natuurlijk inhield dat hier en daar een zekere mate van wanorde bestond, maar de meeste mensen vonden dat een geringe prijs om te betalen.” Verhalen (Fout-intolerantie) over machines die de creatieve inbreng van mensen overbodig maken, een thema dat bijvoorbeeld ook al naar voor kwam in het in De totale robot (bespreking hier) opgenomen verhaal Galeislaaf. Verhalen (Kleine broer) waarin robots zodanig het hart van iemand veroveren dat dat hart meer voor hen dan voor mensen gaat kloppen. Verhalen (Naties in de ruimte) die zozeer “een moderne fabel” zijn (toch volgens de ondertitel) dat je ze zo kan koppelen aan de Koude Oorlog, inmiddels voorbij maar als het er op aankomt nog steeds in leven gehouden. En verhalen (Aarde Vaarwel) waarin kolonies, ruimte-kolonies in dit geval, zich “afscheuren” van de Aarde uit angst besmet te geraken met een of ander virus dat van de Aarde zou komen: “Als dit gebeurt, wordt er natuurlijk altijd verontwaardigd geroepen dat er een strengere controle moet komen. Daarom mogen reizigers van een andere nederzetting en kolonisten die van een reis terugkeren naar hun eigen nederzetting, niet zomaar binnenkomen zonder een volledig onderzoek van hun bagage, een complete analyse van hun lichaamsvloeistoffen en pas na een bepaalde quarantaineperiode, om te zien of iemand een op dat moment nog onzichtbare ziekte onder de leden heeft.” Tiens, waar hebben we dat nóg gezien?
Over Goud, het titelverhaal, heb ik het verder niet. Dat is er een buiten categorie (veel langer ook dan de andere, toch zo’n 35 bladzijden) en ieder stukje van het ontdekken waard. Met King Lear geef ik u de tip dat het over toneel gaat, maar meer krijgt u van mij ook niet. Over naar de delen die ik – al ben ik dan een grote fan van de verhalen van Isaac Asimov – in dit boek interessanter vond, de al eerder genoemde “introducties, voorwoorden, editorialen, enzovoort”. Die bieden behalve tot het werk van Asimov zelf – in zoverre dat nog nodig zou zijn – een bijzonder interessante introductie tot de wereld van de geschreven science-fiction. Bij momenten lezen de stukken als een regelrechte Who’s who?, maar je krijgt ook titels van verhalen en tijdschriften, uitleg bij thema’s, de verbanden tussen schrijvers, het wereldje op zich, enzovoort. Ik kreeg er verdorie goesting van om mijn hele collectie boeken even te laten voor wat ze is – ik heb, geloof het of niet, nauwelijks science-fiction in huis – en meteen aan het verzamelen te gaan. Wetend dat er heel veel van die oude tijdschriften gratis te downloaden zijn op het internet is dat niet eens zo moeilijk, dus dat zal er sowieso wel van komen, maar waar stapel ik dié nu weer?
Namen noemen dus. Gewoonlijk streep ik passages waarin zulks gebeurt wel aan om ze eventueel te gebruiken in mijn boekbespreking, maar een keer ik die bespreking geschreven heb, gom ik wat ik aangestreept heb ook weer uit. Dat ga ik in dit geval niet doen. Zoals gezegd zijn de stukken niet voorzien van uitleg omtrent plaats waar en datum waarop ze oorspronkelijk verschenen zijn, maar helaas ook niet van een literatuurlijst of van voetnoten. Ik ga mijn aanstrepingen dus, minstens tot ik ergens zelf een lijstje heb aangelegd, laten staan. Om zo makkelijker terug bij Robert ‘Bob’ Heinlein en Arthur C. Clarke uit te komen (al heb ik van die laatste wel 2001: een ruimte-odyssee en 2010: odyssee 2 staan). Of bij Herbert George Wells met zijn The War of the Worlds en The Time Machine (“Wells is waarschijnlijk de beste sciencefictionschrijver aller tijden (…) Als anderen na hem tot grotere hoogte zijn geklommen, is dat alleen omdat ze op Wells’ schouders staan”). Of Jack Williamson (The Legion of Space; Born of the Sun), E.E. Smith (Galactic Patrol), Nat Schachner (Past, Present and Future), Charles P. Tanner (Tumithak of the Corridors), Daniel Keyes (Flowers for Algernon) of Clifford D. Simak (City; Cosmic Engineers). Of bij L. Sprague de Camp (Lest Darkness Fall), Fritz Leiber (Conjure Wife), Frederik Pohl (Gravy Planet), Michael Bishop (The Gospel According to Galmaliel Crucis), Jim Aikin (Statues) of Poul Anderson (The Helping Hand). Of bij A.E. van Vogt, Alfred Brester, Harlan Ellison of Lester del Rey. Of bij bladen als Astounding Science Fiction (voorheen Astounding Stories), Astonishing Stories, Wonder Stories, Marvel Stories, Startling Stories of Galaxy natuurlijk. Om maar te zwijgen van fictie zonder dat het science is: A fruteful and pleasant Worke of the beste State of a publyque Weale, and of the newe yle, called Utopia, kortweg Utopia, van Thomas More; Looking Backward van Edward Bellamy; Paradise Lost van John Milton; Walden Two van B.F. Skinner (met uiteraard een titel verwijzend naar het Walden van Henry David Thoreau); het stuk waarvan de naam in theaters niet mag genoemd worden, “The Scottish Play”, van William Shakespeare; The Rime of the Ancient Mariner van Samuel Taylor Coleridge (nee, niet van Iron Maiden); Lord of the Rings van J.R.R. Tolkien (“elke keer genoot ik er meer van, omdat je, nadat de spanning verdwenen is, des te meer van de tekst en de opbouw van het boek kunt genieten”); Hymn to Proserpine van A.C. Swinburne; Alice in Wonderland van Lewis Carroll (en The Annotated Alice van Martin Gardner); A la recherche du temps perdu van Marcel Proust (die ook al voorbij kwam in mijn bespreking van Ode aan het kijken van Alain de Botton); of de verhalen van Charles Dickens, Mark Twain; Oscar Wilde (zelfde opmerking als bij Proust) en P.G. Wodehouse.
Maar de stukken gaan niet alleen over schrijvers en hun producten, ze gaan ook over hun onderwerpen. Asimov was een man van de wetenschap met een interesse die véél breder ging dan zijn eigen specialisme, biochemie, en weet dus interessante feiten te brengen over ruimtereizen (“Alle sondes die de NASA tot nu toe door het zonnestelsel heeft gestuurd, waren spelletjes in onze achtertuin. De langste reis bestaat uit interstellaire tochten, reizen naar de sterren.”), over vliegende schotels, over – uiteraard – robots (en golems, bronzen reuzen en Mary Shelleys Frankenstein), of zelfs de praktische realiseerbaarheid van tijdmachines.
En ze gaan ook over hoe je een verhaal schrijft. Met uitleg over Het maken van een plot, Metaforen, Spanning, waar je Ideeën vandaan haalt, nut en onnut van Series, Voor jonge mensen schrijven, Namen (van karakters) en Pseudoniemen, Originaliteit, Correcties, Ironie (met als voorbeeld The Mysterious Stranger van Mark Twain en A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from being a Burden to their Parents or Country and for Making them Beneficial to the Public van Jonathan Swift), Plagiaat, Symboliek, bestsellers, dialogen en vuilbekkerij, en zelfs … Boekbesprekingen. Met een citaat uit dat laatste stuk wil ik deze boekbespreking eindigen:
“Ik heb er nooit een geheim van gemaakt dat ik niet van boekbesprekingen houd, nog van het bespreken van boeken. Dat is een zuiver emotionele reactie want, om redenen die duidelijk zullen zijn, heb ik er vreselijk de pest aan dat iemand mijn werk negatief beoordeelt.
Ik denk niet dat ik daarin alleen sta. Als ik schrijvers goed bekijk (bijna al mijn vrienden schrijven) zijn ze in twee groepen te verdelen. 1) Degenen die zichtbaar gegriefd zijn als er een slechte kritiek over hen verschijnt. 2) Degenen die diep gegriefd zijn als er een slechte kritiek over hen verschijnt, maar er niets van laten blijken.
Ik behoor tot de eerste groep. De meeste van mijn vrienden proberen zich als de tweede groep te gedragen, maar dat lukt hen niet altijd helemaal. Overigens zonder dat ze zich daar altijd bewust van zijn.
Helaas kun je op geen enkele manier je recht halen bij een criticus. Soms kreeg ik de neiging om iemand er eens flink van langs te geven in de vorm van een scherpe brief, met de bedoeling de idioot levend te villen, maar ik heb me altijd kunnen beheersen, op enkele keren in mijn begintijd na. Dat doe ik niet uit idealisme, maar omdat ik weet dat de schrijver altijd verliest bij zo’n confrontatie.
In plaats daarvan schrijf ik mopperende, geringschattende commentaren over boekbesprekingen en besprekers in het algemeen.
Maar ik sta ik [sic] hier op een foute plaats. Dit tijdschrift (dat een oogappel van mij is) heeft niet alleen een vaste rubriek waarin boeken worden besproken, maar ook andere rubrieken, die een minder vaste plaats hebben, waarin bepaalde facetten van het science-fictiongenre worden besproken. Als ik dan zo de pest heb aan besprekingen, waarom sta ik dan besprekingen in het tijdschrift toe?
Omdat ik eigenlijk helemaal niet de pest heb aan besprekingen en besprekers. Dat is een emotionele reactie, die ik ook als zodanig herken, en doet daarom niet ter zake. Ik ben een rationeel mens, ik denk graag; wanneer er onenigheid tussen mijn emoties en mijn rationaliteit ontstaat, hoop ik dat de rationaliteit elke keer weer wint.”
Waarna Asimov verder gaat met het opnoemen van de voorwaarden waaraan een goede criticus zou moeten voldoen. Kort samengevat: 1) “Een criticus moet een boek zorgvuldig lezen – elk woord, zo mogelijk zelfs als het heel slecht lijkt te zijn.”; 2) “Een criticus moet aandachtig lezen, misschien passages aankruisen en aantekeningen maken, zodat hij bij het schrijven van zijn bespreking niet helemaal op zijn geheugen hoeft te vertrouwen.”; 3) “Een criticus moet onbevooroordeeld lezen en zijn oordeel van het boek niet laten beïnvloeden door zijn kennis over de schrijver.”; 4) “Een criticus moet niet alleen een geletterd persoon zijn, hij moet ook een brede kennis van het genre hebben”; 5) “Een criticus moet zelf ook goed kunnen schrijven”; 6) “Het doel van de bespreking is niet de superieure kennis van de criticus te tonen of het erop te laten lijken dat de criticus, als hij er de moeite voor zou nemen, het boek zelf beter zou kunnen schrijven dan de auteur”.
Nu ga ik niet beweren dat ik op al die punten even goed scoor, maar ik heb sowieso geen problemen wat punt 1 en 2 betreft. Aangaande punt 3: ik heb ooit wel eens een schrijver ontmoet en er zelf eens vijf minuten mee gesproken, maar van die ene schrijver nooit een boek gelezen. Voor de rest interesseert het privéleven van schrijvers me nauwelijks, tenzij ze aan dat privéleven hun werk wijden. In dat geval wil ik het een al wel eens afzetten tegen het ander. Wat punt 4 betreft: ik ben niet meteen ongeletterd, maar kan ook niet zeggen dat ik alles weet van bepaalde genres. Ik lees elk boek op zich en voel eigenlijk niet de essentie een boek te gaan vergelijken met dat van een ander binnen hetzelfde genre. Punt 5: of ik goed schrijf, kan u eventueel zelf beoordelen aan de hand van mijn boekbesprekingen, maar ook op basis van mijn artikels voor TeKoS. Waarmee ik vanzelf op punt 6 kom: ik heb me in mijn jeugd wel eens bezondigd aan een aantal kortverhalen, maar zou me eerlijk gezegd verzetten tegen publicatie van de meeste daarvan nú. Ik heb dus zeker niet de pretentie zelf beter boeken te kunnen schrijven dan de auteur van welk boek ik dan ook bespreek.
Los daarvan is het uiteraard zo dat de meeste boeken die ik bespreek al jaren niet meer in de boekhandel te vinden zijn (tenzij tweedehands) en dat mijn boekbesprekingen niet door zoveel mensen gelezen worden dat ze in staat zouden zijn de verkoop van welk nieuw boek van een auteur dan ook te verminderen (of vermeerderen). Ik bespreek boeken dan ook vanuit een louter persoonlijk standpunt (ik heb er geen ander) en zelfs als ik zeg dat ik een boek heb afgevoerd naar de zolder, dan is dat nog steeds omdat ík het boek maar niks vond, terwijl ik boeken ook alleen maar aanraad om redenen die voor mij persoonlijk belangrijk zijn. De gustibus et coloribus, nietwaar?
Hoe dan ook: Goud is voor mij een blijver, een boek waarnaar ik allicht nog regelmatig zal teruggrijpen, een boek dat ik de liefhebbers van science-fiction ook zou aanraden, minstens omwille van de talloze referenties naar andere (waarschijnlijk) lezenswaardige werken.
Björn Roose
Al is het dan wel, eerlijk is eerlijk, een beetje een samenraapsel. Op de voorflap staat te lezen dat dit “De laatste verhalen van de meester van de moderne SF” (volgens Asimov zelf overigens niet te verwarren met “sci-fi”) zijn. Op de achterflap wordt al wat eerlijker reclame gemaakt: “een persoonlijk getinte verhalenbundel die een verhelderende blik gunt op het denkraam van een groot genrevernieuwer” en “Uit de verhalen in Goud, vernoemd naar het Nebula Award winnende titelverhaal, spreekt vooral vakmanschap, intelligentie en humor, uit Asimovs korte toelichtingen spreekt inlevingsvermogen (…)”. Maar in werkelijkheid bestaat nog niet de helft van dit boek uit wat de gemiddelde lezer (ik inbegrepen dus) zou verstaan onder “verhalen”.
“De laatste verhalen” is de titel van Deel een van het boek en omvat naast Goud de kortverhalen Cal, Links naar rechts, Frustratie, Hallucinatie, Instabiliteit, Alexander de God, In het ravijn, Aarde vaarwel, Strijdlied, Feghoot en het hof, Fout-intolerantie, Kleine broer, Naties in de ruimte en De glimlach van de chipper. Deel twee, Over science fiction, en Deel drie, Over het schrijven van science fiction bevatten echter geen verhalen (noch kort noch lang), maar introducties, voorwoorden, editorialen, enzovoort. Zeker niet minder het lezen waard – in tegendeel –, maar ze mochten op z’n minst wel van enige toelichting voorzien zijn. Ik weet niet of ze dat in de oorspronkelijke uitgave Gold misschien wél waren, maar in de Nederlandse vertaling, verschenen bij J.M. Meulenhoff in 1995, is alleszins niks opgenomen met betrekking tot de tijdschriften of boeken waarin die stukken oorspronkelijk verschenen. Zeker is dat ze niet allemaal tot zijn “laatste” hoorden en voor veel lezers zal het er ook niet echt toe doen wanneer en waarin deze artikels eerst gedrukt werden, maar wie na het lezen ervan zin krijgt om de bundels of tijdschriften die er na volgden te lezen of te verzamelen – en die zin géven is doorgaans de bedoeling van dergelijke artikels – blijft op zijn honger zitten. Maar goed, wellicht voelden ze bij Meulenhoff (of bij The Isaac Asimov Estate dat Gold uitgaf) niet de behoefte bladruimte te verspillen aan reclame maken voor iets waar ze toch niks mee konden verdienen. Het zij zo en het zij ook gezegd dat daarmee alles wat ik aan negatieve zaken kon noemen – behalve hier en daar een storende fout in de vertaling van Maarten Meeuwes (écht, “lijden” in plaats van “leiden”…) – ook genoemd is.
Voor de rest is dit een, zoals gezegd, bijzonder goed boek. Omwille van die laatste verhalen uiteraard. Verhalen waarin bijvoorbeeld een enigszins eigenzinnige robot (“Ik vraag hem niet of ik hem [een schrijfmachine, noot van mij] mag gebruiken. Als ik het hem niet vraag en hij niet zegt dat het niet mag, ben ik niet ongehoorzaam als ik hem gebruik.”), Cal, zich met medewerking van zijn eigenaar, een schrijver, tot schrijver ontwikkeld. Verhalen waarin, zeer tegen Asimovs gewoonten in, buitenaardse wezens opduiken, al worden die dan oorspronkelijk voor een Hallucinatie gehouden. Verhalen (Alexander de God) waarin precies gedaan wordt waar mensen ook in onze tijden héél ernstig mee bezig zijn: alles in modellen gieten, in de hoop zo alles beheersbaar te maken. Iets wat gelukkig goed afloopt: “De Aarde was weer vrij, wat natuurlijk inhield dat hier en daar een zekere mate van wanorde bestond, maar de meeste mensen vonden dat een geringe prijs om te betalen.” Verhalen (Fout-intolerantie) over machines die de creatieve inbreng van mensen overbodig maken, een thema dat bijvoorbeeld ook al naar voor kwam in het in De totale robot (bespreking hier) opgenomen verhaal Galeislaaf. Verhalen (Kleine broer) waarin robots zodanig het hart van iemand veroveren dat dat hart meer voor hen dan voor mensen gaat kloppen. Verhalen (Naties in de ruimte) die zozeer “een moderne fabel” zijn (toch volgens de ondertitel) dat je ze zo kan koppelen aan de Koude Oorlog, inmiddels voorbij maar als het er op aankomt nog steeds in leven gehouden. En verhalen (Aarde Vaarwel) waarin kolonies, ruimte-kolonies in dit geval, zich “afscheuren” van de Aarde uit angst besmet te geraken met een of ander virus dat van de Aarde zou komen: “Als dit gebeurt, wordt er natuurlijk altijd verontwaardigd geroepen dat er een strengere controle moet komen. Daarom mogen reizigers van een andere nederzetting en kolonisten die van een reis terugkeren naar hun eigen nederzetting, niet zomaar binnenkomen zonder een volledig onderzoek van hun bagage, een complete analyse van hun lichaamsvloeistoffen en pas na een bepaalde quarantaineperiode, om te zien of iemand een op dat moment nog onzichtbare ziekte onder de leden heeft.” Tiens, waar hebben we dat nóg gezien?
Over Goud, het titelverhaal, heb ik het verder niet. Dat is er een buiten categorie (veel langer ook dan de andere, toch zo’n 35 bladzijden) en ieder stukje van het ontdekken waard. Met King Lear geef ik u de tip dat het over toneel gaat, maar meer krijgt u van mij ook niet. Over naar de delen die ik – al ben ik dan een grote fan van de verhalen van Isaac Asimov – in dit boek interessanter vond, de al eerder genoemde “introducties, voorwoorden, editorialen, enzovoort”. Die bieden behalve tot het werk van Asimov zelf – in zoverre dat nog nodig zou zijn – een bijzonder interessante introductie tot de wereld van de geschreven science-fiction. Bij momenten lezen de stukken als een regelrechte Who’s who?, maar je krijgt ook titels van verhalen en tijdschriften, uitleg bij thema’s, de verbanden tussen schrijvers, het wereldje op zich, enzovoort. Ik kreeg er verdorie goesting van om mijn hele collectie boeken even te laten voor wat ze is – ik heb, geloof het of niet, nauwelijks science-fiction in huis – en meteen aan het verzamelen te gaan. Wetend dat er heel veel van die oude tijdschriften gratis te downloaden zijn op het internet is dat niet eens zo moeilijk, dus dat zal er sowieso wel van komen, maar waar stapel ik dié nu weer?
Namen noemen dus. Gewoonlijk streep ik passages waarin zulks gebeurt wel aan om ze eventueel te gebruiken in mijn boekbespreking, maar een keer ik die bespreking geschreven heb, gom ik wat ik aangestreept heb ook weer uit. Dat ga ik in dit geval niet doen. Zoals gezegd zijn de stukken niet voorzien van uitleg omtrent plaats waar en datum waarop ze oorspronkelijk verschenen zijn, maar helaas ook niet van een literatuurlijst of van voetnoten. Ik ga mijn aanstrepingen dus, minstens tot ik ergens zelf een lijstje heb aangelegd, laten staan. Om zo makkelijker terug bij Robert ‘Bob’ Heinlein en Arthur C. Clarke uit te komen (al heb ik van die laatste wel 2001: een ruimte-odyssee en 2010: odyssee 2 staan). Of bij Herbert George Wells met zijn The War of the Worlds en The Time Machine (“Wells is waarschijnlijk de beste sciencefictionschrijver aller tijden (…) Als anderen na hem tot grotere hoogte zijn geklommen, is dat alleen omdat ze op Wells’ schouders staan”). Of Jack Williamson (The Legion of Space; Born of the Sun), E.E. Smith (Galactic Patrol), Nat Schachner (Past, Present and Future), Charles P. Tanner (Tumithak of the Corridors), Daniel Keyes (Flowers for Algernon) of Clifford D. Simak (City; Cosmic Engineers). Of bij L. Sprague de Camp (Lest Darkness Fall), Fritz Leiber (Conjure Wife), Frederik Pohl (Gravy Planet), Michael Bishop (The Gospel According to Galmaliel Crucis), Jim Aikin (Statues) of Poul Anderson (The Helping Hand). Of bij A.E. van Vogt, Alfred Brester, Harlan Ellison of Lester del Rey. Of bij bladen als Astounding Science Fiction (voorheen Astounding Stories), Astonishing Stories, Wonder Stories, Marvel Stories, Startling Stories of Galaxy natuurlijk. Om maar te zwijgen van fictie zonder dat het science is: A fruteful and pleasant Worke of the beste State of a publyque Weale, and of the newe yle, called Utopia, kortweg Utopia, van Thomas More; Looking Backward van Edward Bellamy; Paradise Lost van John Milton; Walden Two van B.F. Skinner (met uiteraard een titel verwijzend naar het Walden van Henry David Thoreau); het stuk waarvan de naam in theaters niet mag genoemd worden, “The Scottish Play”, van William Shakespeare; The Rime of the Ancient Mariner van Samuel Taylor Coleridge (nee, niet van Iron Maiden); Lord of the Rings van J.R.R. Tolkien (“elke keer genoot ik er meer van, omdat je, nadat de spanning verdwenen is, des te meer van de tekst en de opbouw van het boek kunt genieten”); Hymn to Proserpine van A.C. Swinburne; Alice in Wonderland van Lewis Carroll (en The Annotated Alice van Martin Gardner); A la recherche du temps perdu van Marcel Proust (die ook al voorbij kwam in mijn bespreking van Ode aan het kijken van Alain de Botton); of de verhalen van Charles Dickens, Mark Twain; Oscar Wilde (zelfde opmerking als bij Proust) en P.G. Wodehouse.
Maar de stukken gaan niet alleen over schrijvers en hun producten, ze gaan ook over hun onderwerpen. Asimov was een man van de wetenschap met een interesse die véél breder ging dan zijn eigen specialisme, biochemie, en weet dus interessante feiten te brengen over ruimtereizen (“Alle sondes die de NASA tot nu toe door het zonnestelsel heeft gestuurd, waren spelletjes in onze achtertuin. De langste reis bestaat uit interstellaire tochten, reizen naar de sterren.”), over vliegende schotels, over – uiteraard – robots (en golems, bronzen reuzen en Mary Shelleys Frankenstein), of zelfs de praktische realiseerbaarheid van tijdmachines.
En ze gaan ook over hoe je een verhaal schrijft. Met uitleg over Het maken van een plot, Metaforen, Spanning, waar je Ideeën vandaan haalt, nut en onnut van Series, Voor jonge mensen schrijven, Namen (van karakters) en Pseudoniemen, Originaliteit, Correcties, Ironie (met als voorbeeld The Mysterious Stranger van Mark Twain en A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from being a Burden to their Parents or Country and for Making them Beneficial to the Public van Jonathan Swift), Plagiaat, Symboliek, bestsellers, dialogen en vuilbekkerij, en zelfs … Boekbesprekingen. Met een citaat uit dat laatste stuk wil ik deze boekbespreking eindigen:
“Ik heb er nooit een geheim van gemaakt dat ik niet van boekbesprekingen houd, nog van het bespreken van boeken. Dat is een zuiver emotionele reactie want, om redenen die duidelijk zullen zijn, heb ik er vreselijk de pest aan dat iemand mijn werk negatief beoordeelt.
Ik denk niet dat ik daarin alleen sta. Als ik schrijvers goed bekijk (bijna al mijn vrienden schrijven) zijn ze in twee groepen te verdelen. 1) Degenen die zichtbaar gegriefd zijn als er een slechte kritiek over hen verschijnt. 2) Degenen die diep gegriefd zijn als er een slechte kritiek over hen verschijnt, maar er niets van laten blijken.
Ik behoor tot de eerste groep. De meeste van mijn vrienden proberen zich als de tweede groep te gedragen, maar dat lukt hen niet altijd helemaal. Overigens zonder dat ze zich daar altijd bewust van zijn.
Helaas kun je op geen enkele manier je recht halen bij een criticus. Soms kreeg ik de neiging om iemand er eens flink van langs te geven in de vorm van een scherpe brief, met de bedoeling de idioot levend te villen, maar ik heb me altijd kunnen beheersen, op enkele keren in mijn begintijd na. Dat doe ik niet uit idealisme, maar omdat ik weet dat de schrijver altijd verliest bij zo’n confrontatie.
In plaats daarvan schrijf ik mopperende, geringschattende commentaren over boekbesprekingen en besprekers in het algemeen.
Maar ik sta ik [sic] hier op een foute plaats. Dit tijdschrift (dat een oogappel van mij is) heeft niet alleen een vaste rubriek waarin boeken worden besproken, maar ook andere rubrieken, die een minder vaste plaats hebben, waarin bepaalde facetten van het science-fictiongenre worden besproken. Als ik dan zo de pest heb aan besprekingen, waarom sta ik dan besprekingen in het tijdschrift toe?
Omdat ik eigenlijk helemaal niet de pest heb aan besprekingen en besprekers. Dat is een emotionele reactie, die ik ook als zodanig herken, en doet daarom niet ter zake. Ik ben een rationeel mens, ik denk graag; wanneer er onenigheid tussen mijn emoties en mijn rationaliteit ontstaat, hoop ik dat de rationaliteit elke keer weer wint.”
Waarna Asimov verder gaat met het opnoemen van de voorwaarden waaraan een goede criticus zou moeten voldoen. Kort samengevat: 1) “Een criticus moet een boek zorgvuldig lezen – elk woord, zo mogelijk zelfs als het heel slecht lijkt te zijn.”; 2) “Een criticus moet aandachtig lezen, misschien passages aankruisen en aantekeningen maken, zodat hij bij het schrijven van zijn bespreking niet helemaal op zijn geheugen hoeft te vertrouwen.”; 3) “Een criticus moet onbevooroordeeld lezen en zijn oordeel van het boek niet laten beïnvloeden door zijn kennis over de schrijver.”; 4) “Een criticus moet niet alleen een geletterd persoon zijn, hij moet ook een brede kennis van het genre hebben”; 5) “Een criticus moet zelf ook goed kunnen schrijven”; 6) “Het doel van de bespreking is niet de superieure kennis van de criticus te tonen of het erop te laten lijken dat de criticus, als hij er de moeite voor zou nemen, het boek zelf beter zou kunnen schrijven dan de auteur”.
Nu ga ik niet beweren dat ik op al die punten even goed scoor, maar ik heb sowieso geen problemen wat punt 1 en 2 betreft. Aangaande punt 3: ik heb ooit wel eens een schrijver ontmoet en er zelf eens vijf minuten mee gesproken, maar van die ene schrijver nooit een boek gelezen. Voor de rest interesseert het privéleven van schrijvers me nauwelijks, tenzij ze aan dat privéleven hun werk wijden. In dat geval wil ik het een al wel eens afzetten tegen het ander. Wat punt 4 betreft: ik ben niet meteen ongeletterd, maar kan ook niet zeggen dat ik alles weet van bepaalde genres. Ik lees elk boek op zich en voel eigenlijk niet de essentie een boek te gaan vergelijken met dat van een ander binnen hetzelfde genre. Punt 5: of ik goed schrijf, kan u eventueel zelf beoordelen aan de hand van mijn boekbesprekingen, maar ook op basis van mijn artikels voor TeKoS. Waarmee ik vanzelf op punt 6 kom: ik heb me in mijn jeugd wel eens bezondigd aan een aantal kortverhalen, maar zou me eerlijk gezegd verzetten tegen publicatie van de meeste daarvan nú. Ik heb dus zeker niet de pretentie zelf beter boeken te kunnen schrijven dan de auteur van welk boek ik dan ook bespreek.
Los daarvan is het uiteraard zo dat de meeste boeken die ik bespreek al jaren niet meer in de boekhandel te vinden zijn (tenzij tweedehands) en dat mijn boekbesprekingen niet door zoveel mensen gelezen worden dat ze in staat zouden zijn de verkoop van welk nieuw boek van een auteur dan ook te verminderen (of vermeerderen). Ik bespreek boeken dan ook vanuit een louter persoonlijk standpunt (ik heb er geen ander) en zelfs als ik zeg dat ik een boek heb afgevoerd naar de zolder, dan is dat nog steeds omdat ík het boek maar niks vond, terwijl ik boeken ook alleen maar aanraad om redenen die voor mij persoonlijk belangrijk zijn. De gustibus et coloribus, nietwaar?
Hoe dan ook: Goud is voor mij een blijver, een boek waarnaar ik allicht nog regelmatig zal teruggrijpen, een boek dat ik de liefhebbers van science-fiction ook zou aanraden, minstens omwille van de talloze referenties naar andere (waarschijnlijk) lezenswaardige werken.
Björn Roose
January 20, 2013
This collection really impressed me. I didn't know really what to expect from this book. I haven't read a lot of Asimov, but I count him among my favorite authors because whenever I read his work I'm always impressed; so I was excited for this. And it delivered.
The collection starts off with a group of Asimov's short stories. No surprises here; they all were worth reading. My favorite story has to be "Cal", the first story in the collection. It's about a robot named Cal who works for a writer. He discovers inside himself an urge to write, but when he uses his master's writer all he can turn out is gibberish! So his master decides to put a larger vocabulary in Cal and the knowledge of how to use the writer. Now Cal can write stories and the story follows him as he develops further skills (by having them programmed into him) and what the resulting stories that Cal writes are. This whole story was really cool to me and it got me thinking. I love robots and robot stories and there's no doubt that Asimov was the master at this.
"Kid Brother" is the next story that I especially liked. It was another one of those thinking stories, and it also had a robot in it.
If I had to pick a least favorite story it would be "Gold", the title story. It was good, but it just didn't live up to the rest, in my opinion. I didn't really get it. But I did enjoy reading it.
Next there's a bunch of essays by Asimov. Some of them are from the beginnings of anthologies he edited. These were amazing. I loved reading his views on different subgenres of science fiction, for example there is an essay on space travel, on alien invasion, on dystopias and utopias, and of course on robots. The essay "Robot Chronicles" was my favorite of this section. It was fantastic. Asimov outlined which of his robot stories he viewed as contributing the most to the idea of robots. I loved this list and it gave me an idea of what Asimov viewed as his best robot stories. Another favorite essay from this section was "Nowhere!" which was the one about dystopias and utopias.
The last part is a group of essays about the art of writing science fiction, so there's one about dialogue and one about plot, etc. These were nothing special but I did appreciate the look inside Asimov's work and ideas. I don't have a favorite of this section, I liked all of them.
I definitely recommend this collection to a fan of Asimov. Even if you've only read a few books by him, if you enjoyed those reads you'll like this one!
The collection starts off with a group of Asimov's short stories. No surprises here; they all were worth reading. My favorite story has to be "Cal", the first story in the collection. It's about a robot named Cal who works for a writer. He discovers inside himself an urge to write, but when he uses his master's writer all he can turn out is gibberish! So his master decides to put a larger vocabulary in Cal and the knowledge of how to use the writer. Now Cal can write stories and the story follows him as he develops further skills (by having them programmed into him) and what the resulting stories that Cal writes are. This whole story was really cool to me and it got me thinking. I love robots and robot stories and there's no doubt that Asimov was the master at this.
"Kid Brother" is the next story that I especially liked. It was another one of those thinking stories, and it also had a robot in it.
If I had to pick a least favorite story it would be "Gold", the title story. It was good, but it just didn't live up to the rest, in my opinion. I didn't really get it. But I did enjoy reading it.
Next there's a bunch of essays by Asimov. Some of them are from the beginnings of anthologies he edited. These were amazing. I loved reading his views on different subgenres of science fiction, for example there is an essay on space travel, on alien invasion, on dystopias and utopias, and of course on robots. The essay "Robot Chronicles" was my favorite of this section. It was fantastic. Asimov outlined which of his robot stories he viewed as contributing the most to the idea of robots. I loved this list and it gave me an idea of what Asimov viewed as his best robot stories. Another favorite essay from this section was "Nowhere!" which was the one about dystopias and utopias.
The last part is a group of essays about the art of writing science fiction, so there's one about dialogue and one about plot, etc. These were nothing special but I did appreciate the look inside Asimov's work and ideas. I don't have a favorite of this section, I liked all of them.
I definitely recommend this collection to a fan of Asimov. Even if you've only read a few books by him, if you enjoyed those reads you'll like this one!
Read
March 13, 2011Great, but not quite what I was expecting...: This is the first book by Isaac Asimov that I have ever read. I suppose it was a bit stupid to start with the last one. I think it's really good, although the writing is 'simpler' than I expected it to be. I thought it would be more complicated, but I think the fact that it is written in a simple way is good, as it does not detract from the actual stories, and makes it lighter reading. I will definitely be looking out for other books. i had heard his name so many times, but didn't actually realise he was a writer, or what he had written. the one about Cal is interesting, in that if you think about it enough, it starts to get confusing. where did his intelligence come from? this is a good book and I would recommend it to anyone. I am not very far through it, but i feel like I have already read a whole book, although there is loads more to read, and i can't possibly think how much more he could write. When I found a list of his books....it must be at leat 100!
November 16, 2023
This book is divided into three parts - short stories, essays on SF and finally essays on writing in general. It was the non fiction part that attracted me to this collection. And it didn't disappoint me at all. Although I loved all the essays, I will list a few of them that I found to be absolutely significant.
1. Writing for young people There are people who argue that YA writers are inferior to the so called literary ones. This essay could be considered as an answer to that argument.
2. Prediction Often we stumble upon articles that list the predictions made by the different SF writers like 'X predicted wi-fi in 67'. Asimov expresses his genuine bafflement by his so-called predictions. He admits that he never intended to do so.
3. Essays on plotting, revisions and originality.
Among the short stories, the one that I loved was 'Alexander the God'. In this era of big data and data analytics, this short story is super-relevant.
1. Writing for young people There are people who argue that YA writers are inferior to the so called literary ones. This essay could be considered as an answer to that argument.
2. Prediction Often we stumble upon articles that list the predictions made by the different SF writers like 'X predicted wi-fi in 67'. Asimov expresses his genuine bafflement by his so-called predictions. He admits that he never intended to do so.
3. Essays on plotting, revisions and originality.
Among the short stories, the one that I loved was 'Alexander the God'. In this era of big data and data analytics, this short story is super-relevant.
October 11, 2023
I have to imagine the stories in this collection were lifted directly out of the trash in some forgotten vault of Asimov's home.
I recently read I, Robot and said that it was probably the worst-written good book of all time on the strength of its ideas. By contrast, Gold is just the worst writing of all time with the added benefit of having dumb ideas. Just as a story collection I think this is probably the weakest I've ever read.
A few google searches tell me that pretty much all of these stories are from the back end of Asimov's twilight. A very bleak thought.
Rounded up to two stars because of the essays in the back. Some of them are actually pretty good but you can skip over a few of them and miss nothing.
Can't even recommend this book for Asimov completionists. It'd probably make you too upset.
I recently read I, Robot and said that it was probably the worst-written good book of all time on the strength of its ideas. By contrast, Gold is just the worst writing of all time with the added benefit of having dumb ideas. Just as a story collection I think this is probably the weakest I've ever read.
A few google searches tell me that pretty much all of these stories are from the back end of Asimov's twilight. A very bleak thought.
Rounded up to two stars because of the essays in the back. Some of them are actually pretty good but you can skip over a few of them and miss nothing.
Can't even recommend this book for Asimov completionists. It'd probably make you too upset.
September 3, 2019
If you're expecting a collection of short stories here, you'll be sorely disappointed. What few pieces of fiction are included in this volume are... not great. Certainly far from being the best or the most representative of Asimov's work. More like the last few pieces of paper found on his desk.
The bulk of this volume is taken up by the more academic sections. The first of these, titled On Science Fiction, is a collection of introductions and forewords Asimov wrote for story anthologies over the years. An interesting record, perhaps, but not a great read.
For readers looking for a good dose of Asimov's short fiction, there are plenty of other excellent collections to choose from!
The bulk of this volume is taken up by the more academic sections. The first of these, titled On Science Fiction, is a collection of introductions and forewords Asimov wrote for story anthologies over the years. An interesting record, perhaps, but not a great read.
For readers looking for a good dose of Asimov's short fiction, there are plenty of other excellent collections to choose from!
February 4, 2017
Re-reading to see if I want to keep my copy. Conclusion: Nope.
So far the fiction was not that good, and the non-fiction essays are either introductions to other anthologies which talk a lot about those anthologies or editorials from Asimov's magazine. Lot's of platitudes and references to stuff in the books/magazines they were published in.
Not really worthy of collecting and publishing again.
It felt like a collection to cash in on some left over pieces.
So far the fiction was not that good, and the non-fiction essays are either introductions to other anthologies which talk a lot about those anthologies or editorials from Asimov's magazine. Lot's of platitudes and references to stuff in the books/magazines they were published in.
Not really worthy of collecting and publishing again.
It felt like a collection to cash in on some left over pieces.
March 15, 2023
The short stories are, well sort of good I will say. I mostly liked Cal and Kid Brother. Both of these stories are marvellous, simply because these stories prove the visionary brilliance Isaac Asimov possessed.
This book is divided into 3 parts. The 1st part is a collection of short stories while the remaining 2 parts are a collection of essays, mostly introductions to anthologies and editorials from his magazines. To be honest I skipped the 2nd and 3rd parts of the book.
This book is divided into 3 parts. The 1st part is a collection of short stories while the remaining 2 parts are a collection of essays, mostly introductions to anthologies and editorials from his magazines. To be honest I skipped the 2nd and 3rd parts of the book.
June 24, 2011
Basically a collection of leftover unpublished stories and editorial introductions to magazines. The introductions have some interesting insight into Asimov's style, and some of the stories are interesting. But on the whole, not what I would call "best of" material.
April 5, 2011
Asimov is a treasure, god bless him, but his fiction is often little more than a competently written one-liner. I attempted re-reading this whole collection and I got about half way through before remembering that it's so slight, there's a reason I only remember a bit of it now.
February 7, 2023
If you are into Asimov, this book is a must!
June 20, 2023
With this book, I’ve completed reading the bulk of Asimov’s short stories. I was planning to only read the robot stories, but ended up reading all of them.
November 12, 2023
Good short stories; got even better in the second half with its collection of Asimov's magazine prefaces and writing-related musings.
December 21, 2023
Read it for reading tips, got PRECISELY what I wanted, Asimov is a brilliant non-fiction writer as well as fiction
March 15, 2017
This is one impressive collection, filled with short stories and collections of writings on various aspects of... well, writing, I think that this has to be my favourite book of the year so far (barring the manga I've read because that's just in another category all by itself).
My father is a large Asimov fan and I recall him reading and re-reading the Foundation trilogy books - his copies are rather worn away and 'old' looking, they're clearly well read. In recent years my Mother and I had the rather smart idea (smart as it means I get to read the books too!) to buy first the remainder of the Foundation series, then the Robot series, the Galactic Empire trilogy and then this. I had veered away from the compilations of Asimov (with the exception being I, Robot) as I wasn't sure how well they would go down - but this book is just genius.
I was aware that the vast majority of Asimov books we had bought for my father were rather old (in terms of they were written before I was born and are therefore old by deafult) - I wasn't aware though that the first Foundation book was written during WW2, and given how many ... ideas he put forward that are now becoming or have become reality that is rather outstanding to me. Nor was I aware that Asimov was quite as prolific as he is. Asimov mentions how many things he has written a few times in this book, but I can't spot them as I skim through now - so, according to Wikipedia he wrote or edited 500 books... that's just incredible to me (although when I now look at the Wikipedia entry for prolific writers, although he is included there are others who have, apparently, written thousands!)
But, enough about the author and my families reading habits, and onto the book. This starts off with a number of previously uncollected short stories. The titualar one - Gold - appears last in this section and was certainly interesting but I wouldn't call it gripping. I found Hallucination, Kid Brother, Fault Intolerant and Cal to be rather interesting, thought provoking stories, whilst Battle Hymn and Feghoot and the Courts first made me aware that Asimov was quite a droll character (something backed up in the latter parts of the book where he says that if one can't be a writer they could always take up a lesser profession such as surgery (amongst other equally difficult jobs)).
The commentaries that take up the latter two-thirds of the book are also really absorbing. Split into comments on Science Fiction in general, and then writing it, you get to see how much work Asimov puts into his craft, and how his through process seems to differ from what I have always heard being the "done thing".
As I was reading this book mostly on trains and at lunch I wasn't really able to make notes on the parts I wanted to comment so - so relied on sticking train tickets near interesting parts... the first of these is the commentary on "Science Fiction Series" where Asimov discusses the trend towards the ongoing story as opposed to the standalone novel. I am a fan of series, as I do think that it gives greater time to build the plot and character and often, therefore, has a greater pay-off but I do hate it when the first book clearly requires you to buy a second to know how things finish - some loose ends are acceptable but, for me, there is a fine line between tempting you to read on and forcing you. Reading why authors are apt to do this, from the perspective of an author, was therefore really interesting to me.
The second, and last, comment I marked with a train ticket (last only because I had two old tickets and didn't think to rip them in half or anything...) is a commentary on what makes Science Fiction, and what makes Sci-Fi. In fact I will be (either after this review is out, or later today) be altering the name of my Sci-Fi shelf to Science Fiction as I don't think Asimov would appreciate being classed as Sci-Fi. To quote from the book directly "We can define "sci-fi" as trashy material sometimes confused, by ignorant people, with SF. Thus, Star Trek is SF whilst Godzilla meets Mothra is sci-fi". I *think* the books I shelve(d) as sci-fi all meet the SF requirement, so one bulk bookshelf change should be in order!
The comments on both Plagiarism and Originality also stand out to me as worth commenting on - the latter especially given the vast amount of books now available to us. They provide another perspective on the topics - something I found interesting given I think the first Wheel of Time book is a poor mans version of Lord of the Rings.
Would I read this book again - certainly. Would I read other Asimov books? - of course. This is the year where I want to re-read the entire Foundation, Robot and Galactic Empire series in order so, reading more Asimov is a given. But thanks to this I do want to try and search out some of his other books, and see if I can get any of the compilations that he helped to curate.
My father is a large Asimov fan and I recall him reading and re-reading the Foundation trilogy books - his copies are rather worn away and 'old' looking, they're clearly well read. In recent years my Mother and I had the rather smart idea (smart as it means I get to read the books too!) to buy first the remainder of the Foundation series, then the Robot series, the Galactic Empire trilogy and then this. I had veered away from the compilations of Asimov (with the exception being I, Robot) as I wasn't sure how well they would go down - but this book is just genius.
I was aware that the vast majority of Asimov books we had bought for my father were rather old (in terms of they were written before I was born and are therefore old by deafult) - I wasn't aware though that the first Foundation book was written during WW2, and given how many ... ideas he put forward that are now becoming or have become reality that is rather outstanding to me. Nor was I aware that Asimov was quite as prolific as he is. Asimov mentions how many things he has written a few times in this book, but I can't spot them as I skim through now - so, according to Wikipedia he wrote or edited 500 books... that's just incredible to me (although when I now look at the Wikipedia entry for prolific writers, although he is included there are others who have, apparently, written thousands!)
But, enough about the author and my families reading habits, and onto the book. This starts off with a number of previously uncollected short stories. The titualar one - Gold - appears last in this section and was certainly interesting but I wouldn't call it gripping. I found Hallucination, Kid Brother, Fault Intolerant and Cal to be rather interesting, thought provoking stories, whilst Battle Hymn and Feghoot and the Courts first made me aware that Asimov was quite a droll character (something backed up in the latter parts of the book where he says that if one can't be a writer they could always take up a lesser profession such as surgery (amongst other equally difficult jobs)).
The commentaries that take up the latter two-thirds of the book are also really absorbing. Split into comments on Science Fiction in general, and then writing it, you get to see how much work Asimov puts into his craft, and how his through process seems to differ from what I have always heard being the "done thing".
As I was reading this book mostly on trains and at lunch I wasn't really able to make notes on the parts I wanted to comment so - so relied on sticking train tickets near interesting parts... the first of these is the commentary on "Science Fiction Series" where Asimov discusses the trend towards the ongoing story as opposed to the standalone novel. I am a fan of series, as I do think that it gives greater time to build the plot and character and often, therefore, has a greater pay-off but I do hate it when the first book clearly requires you to buy a second to know how things finish - some loose ends are acceptable but, for me, there is a fine line between tempting you to read on and forcing you. Reading why authors are apt to do this, from the perspective of an author, was therefore really interesting to me.
The second, and last, comment I marked with a train ticket (last only because I had two old tickets and didn't think to rip them in half or anything...) is a commentary on what makes Science Fiction, and what makes Sci-Fi. In fact I will be (either after this review is out, or later today) be altering the name of my Sci-Fi shelf to Science Fiction as I don't think Asimov would appreciate being classed as Sci-Fi. To quote from the book directly "We can define "sci-fi" as trashy material sometimes confused, by ignorant people, with SF. Thus, Star Trek is SF whilst Godzilla meets Mothra is sci-fi". I *think* the books I shelve(d) as sci-fi all meet the SF requirement, so one bulk bookshelf change should be in order!
The comments on both Plagiarism and Originality also stand out to me as worth commenting on - the latter especially given the vast amount of books now available to us. They provide another perspective on the topics - something I found interesting given I think the first Wheel of Time book is a poor mans version of Lord of the Rings.
Would I read this book again - certainly. Would I read other Asimov books? - of course. This is the year where I want to re-read the entire Foundation, Robot and Galactic Empire series in order so, reading more Asimov is a given. But thanks to this I do want to try and search out some of his other books, and see if I can get any of the compilations that he helped to curate.
August 9, 2022
Two stories in Gold stood out to me - so much so that I’m starting to doubt my judgment of Asimov as a strong plotter but average writer (ironic that the foreward says exactly that Asimov favours a strong straightforward american writing style, over a more “literary” european one). Of course, the way that the plot developed and the structure might have influenced my impression somewhat; nevertheless, I was really impressed by these stories.
First, Cal was a great story about a Robot and its desire to write, which culminated in a hinted contravention of one of Asimov’s famous Three Laws of Robotics. While it would have been interesting to explore the consequences of breaking one of these three laws (afterall, robots in Asimov’s universe are generally portrayed as well-intentioned if paternalistic and rather scarily powerful), I am not disappointed at all that Asimov chose not to focus on this plot point but rather on the robot’s desire and ability to write, contrasted with his owner’s very human response and behaviours. While the story doesn’t quite manage to capture the gradual progression of Cal’s development of consciousness (skipping over the transition between stages with a simple mechanical fix by a robotician), i enjoyed seeing Cal slowly develop his ability to write, but perhaps more impressively, his desire to write. Already at the start, we sense that Cal is an exceptional robot, having the initiative to take up a task which his owner had not ordered him to do. This sense of self and self-importance is heightened by Cal’s self-insertion into the story, much like many human authors who insert themselves into their writing. I think the final blow, which was also what convinced me of Asimov’s literary flair, was the satire which Cal wrote.
The choice of satire is perhaps an astute one by Asimov, for the most oft-cited “human” characteristics that robots/AI are assumed to be unable to exhibit are creativity, humour and love. Cal’s (so actually Asimov’s) mastery of the language is evident by the way in which the characters are written, their respective personalities coming through strongly. The use of excessively formal language by Winthrop
Initially I questioned if it was really necessary for Asimov to include the entire story in this short story, but upon reflection, it was only by including the entire story that we could be convinced of the robot’s humanness - his ability not just to write, but to capture satire. The inclusion of the entire story also created the welcome side effect of building up the tension - as we progress through the short story, we are increasingly enthralled and convinced of the robot’s ability, and wonder whether there will be a slip-up before the end. But it never comes, and the short story ends by moralising that rules are perhaps absurd and causing unhappiness, not unlike what we could find in a human-written story. And with it, the stunning realisation that a robot has indeed written a very compelling story, casting doubt on the uniqueness of humankind.
Second, Kid Brother was a story more focused on humans than on robots, which made us question whether sometimes unemotive/bland robots could be more dear to us (and just better) than unpleasant human beings. Essentially the story was about an insufferable man who raises his son to be insufferable, so his wife eventually gets a robot to accompany her son in lieu of real friends, but gets more attached to the robot than her real rather mean son, culminating in saving the robot in favour of her son during a house fire. While we may be horrified at her action without context, Asimov brilliantly paints a picture of the narrator’s and his son’s horrid personality and arrogance through his writing, which makes us sympathise with the mum and wonder if we might not have done the same in her place. Is a human life really priceless above all? Or are some lives less worthy of saving? And if we accept this as the case, where do we draw the line? Who gets to make such a decision?
This collection also reminded me of why I love the short story format - the author is able to deliver an unexpected twist and leave the reader to consider the implications of this twist, rather than fully exploring it themself.
First, Cal was a great story about a Robot and its desire to write, which culminated in a hinted contravention of one of Asimov’s famous Three Laws of Robotics. While it would have been interesting to explore the consequences of breaking one of these three laws (afterall, robots in Asimov’s universe are generally portrayed as well-intentioned if paternalistic and rather scarily powerful), I am not disappointed at all that Asimov chose not to focus on this plot point but rather on the robot’s desire and ability to write, contrasted with his owner’s very human response and behaviours. While the story doesn’t quite manage to capture the gradual progression of Cal’s development of consciousness (skipping over the transition between stages with a simple mechanical fix by a robotician), i enjoyed seeing Cal slowly develop his ability to write, but perhaps more impressively, his desire to write. Already at the start, we sense that Cal is an exceptional robot, having the initiative to take up a task which his owner had not ordered him to do. This sense of self and self-importance is heightened by Cal’s self-insertion into the story, much like many human authors who insert themselves into their writing. I think the final blow, which was also what convinced me of Asimov’s literary flair, was the satire which Cal wrote.
The choice of satire is perhaps an astute one by Asimov, for the most oft-cited “human” characteristics that robots/AI are assumed to be unable to exhibit are creativity, humour and love. Cal’s (so actually Asimov’s) mastery of the language is evident by the way in which the characters are written, their respective personalities coming through strongly. The use of excessively formal language by Winthrop
Initially I questioned if it was really necessary for Asimov to include the entire story in this short story, but upon reflection, it was only by including the entire story that we could be convinced of the robot’s humanness - his ability not just to write, but to capture satire. The inclusion of the entire story also created the welcome side effect of building up the tension - as we progress through the short story, we are increasingly enthralled and convinced of the robot’s ability, and wonder whether there will be a slip-up before the end. But it never comes, and the short story ends by moralising that rules are perhaps absurd and causing unhappiness, not unlike what we could find in a human-written story. And with it, the stunning realisation that a robot has indeed written a very compelling story, casting doubt on the uniqueness of humankind.
Second, Kid Brother was a story more focused on humans than on robots, which made us question whether sometimes unemotive/bland robots could be more dear to us (and just better) than unpleasant human beings. Essentially the story was about an insufferable man who raises his son to be insufferable, so his wife eventually gets a robot to accompany her son in lieu of real friends, but gets more attached to the robot than her real rather mean son, culminating in saving the robot in favour of her son during a house fire. While we may be horrified at her action without context, Asimov brilliantly paints a picture of the narrator’s and his son’s horrid personality and arrogance through his writing, which makes us sympathise with the mum and wonder if we might not have done the same in her place. Is a human life really priceless above all? Or are some lives less worthy of saving? And if we accept this as the case, where do we draw the line? Who gets to make such a decision?
This collection also reminded me of why I love the short story format - the author is able to deliver an unexpected twist and leave the reader to consider the implications of this twist, rather than fully exploring it themself.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 23, 2019
Rating is 4 for some stories and 3 for others. I decided to round up to 4. This review is of the fiction only, which is pretty much the sole reason I got the book. I enjoyed many of the stories on some level. Even the simple ones that were more fun jokes than stories. Even though these weren't quite what I would cal good stories (as they're barely stories at all), I still can't quite say I didn't like them either. More a mild enjoyment. So they get three stars. A rating that covers perhaps more ground for me than any other, which makes sense given that three stars is average, and therefore would be the most common. The weakest stories in my opinion are "Left to Right" and "Feghoot and the Courts". Which as I've said, it isn't really fair in my mind to judge these as stories so much as jokes. The best stories more than made up for the weaker ones and raised my overal rating of the book to a four. These included a few stories that I considered particularly great. Cal, Fault-Intolerant, Hallucination, and Gold (the title story), were all fantastic and made one consider their implications in a future that may present us with such stories in real life. I think most science fiction fans would enjoy these stories the most. It was no coincidence of course that these were the longest stories in the collection, as Asimov took more time to flesh out the characters, ideas, and the implications of those ideas. Stories that may not be considered as stand out that I personally enjoyed were "The Instability", "Good-bye to Earth", and "The Smile of the Chipper". And to a lesser extent "Battle Hymn", "Kid Brother", and "The Nations in Space". For some reason in this last story, Asimov, chose to spell out the moral explicitly for the reader. It's a weird choice, and he makes comparable ones in a few other stories. I haven't read enough of his work to know if this was usual for him or not. In any case I still enjoyed the story. Anyone who has read Asimov won't be surprised to find alot of robot stories here. In the oresent day these stories might seem cliche, but that's because we are used to the stories which Asimov's work inspired. In many cases the original works are done better than the modern variations that focus on the humans fighting machines that have turned against them. Asimov has more unique tales, like a robot who wants to be a writer. Or (SPOILER) a computer that dislikes its users imperfections and decides to do what the user can do for them but better (END SPOILER). Overall, I recommend this book to science fiction fans, especially fans of hard science fiction and golden age science fiction.
September 22, 2017
Part 1 is a set of 15 short stories. The introduction says they've never been published in a book format before. I believe this means that they were published in a science-fiction magazine before. This is a eclectic collection of short-stories. They range from letters to earth from mars, politics, bionic humans and, of course, robots.
Reading "Cal" made me understand what satire was. His short-story "Feghoot And The Courts" is one page. Around 500 words. But it shows so much wit and humor. Same with "Left to Right" which is two pages long. "Gold" is the longest of the stories. It presents challenges to a futuristic movie/play production company. The story goes into creative challenges for the director and a casting director. I say casting director since I do not know what to call the profession of the character Cathcart.
Part 2 seems like his preface to anthologies that he presented. The anthologies are collection of stories by other authors. He publishes these anthologies as presented by him. This helps the books sell and hence help the authors. This is a very noble effort. The author claims that this is to get rid of the guilt. The guilt of being among the Big Three science-fiction writers. In his mind, this perception somewhat thwarts works by newer authors. I don't buy it. He was a good person. He did it since he empathized with the newcomers and lesser known veterans.
Don't be fooled thinking of this as mere prefaces or skip this part. Asimov gives his thoughts on alien invasion in the context of human history. He does this with flying saucers, travelling at the speed of light etc. They all make for excellent reads.
Part 3 is his advice to science-fiction writers. This is an amazing collection of his thoughts on suspence, irony, satire and how to use them in stories. Reading this will make you want to write something. It may as well be a good introductory course on science-fiction writing for. Were he alive today, Isaac Asmiov could lead a massive open online course on this subject. He uses his own work as examples to explain these concepts. Part three gives you a better appreciation of science-fiction writing. Even if you don't write anything.
Reading "Cal" made me understand what satire was. His short-story "Feghoot And The Courts" is one page. Around 500 words. But it shows so much wit and humor. Same with "Left to Right" which is two pages long. "Gold" is the longest of the stories. It presents challenges to a futuristic movie/play production company. The story goes into creative challenges for the director and a casting director. I say casting director since I do not know what to call the profession of the character Cathcart.
Part 2 seems like his preface to anthologies that he presented. The anthologies are collection of stories by other authors. He publishes these anthologies as presented by him. This helps the books sell and hence help the authors. This is a very noble effort. The author claims that this is to get rid of the guilt. The guilt of being among the Big Three science-fiction writers. In his mind, this perception somewhat thwarts works by newer authors. I don't buy it. He was a good person. He did it since he empathized with the newcomers and lesser known veterans.
Don't be fooled thinking of this as mere prefaces or skip this part. Asimov gives his thoughts on alien invasion in the context of human history. He does this with flying saucers, travelling at the speed of light etc. They all make for excellent reads.
Part 3 is his advice to science-fiction writers. This is an amazing collection of his thoughts on suspence, irony, satire and how to use them in stories. Reading this will make you want to write something. It may as well be a good introductory course on science-fiction writing for. Were he alive today, Isaac Asmiov could lead a massive open online course on this subject. He uses his own work as examples to explain these concepts. Part three gives you a better appreciation of science-fiction writing. Even if you don't write anything.
March 17, 2018
In one of the essays contained in this book, 'The Robot Chronicles' written in 1990, Asimov writes "Were the stories of your golden age really golden? Have you reread them lately? I have reread the stories of my own golden age and found the results spotty indeed. Some of the stories I slavered over as a teenager turned out to be impenetrable and embarrassing when I tackled them again."
I am finding this to be true for myself. In my search for good science fiction, I am often disappointed. After being disappointed many times, I will return to my favorite books of the past and then often find them not as striking as when I first read them as well. The faults loom large. The writing, at times, very poor. Characters that I only care about because of my history with them.
This book in interesting from the view of someone who loves the Author's Notes as much the novel in most cases. I like to peek into the head of the creator. This book will not make you love Asimov. If you have read nothing else of his, I highly recommend you do NOT read this first. A good thing for me is that Asimov explains, quite well, why his books no longer give me the thrill they did from my 10th through my 20th birthdays.
I am finding this to be true for myself. In my search for good science fiction, I am often disappointed. After being disappointed many times, I will return to my favorite books of the past and then often find them not as striking as when I first read them as well. The faults loom large. The writing, at times, very poor. Characters that I only care about because of my history with them.
This book in interesting from the view of someone who loves the Author's Notes as much the novel in most cases. I like to peek into the head of the creator. This book will not make you love Asimov. If you have read nothing else of his, I highly recommend you do NOT read this first. A good thing for me is that Asimov explains, quite well, why his books no longer give me the thrill they did from my 10th through my 20th birthdays.
May 16, 2023
#LibrosLeídosEn2023
5. Adiós a la Tierra (Isaac Asimov, 1995).
Una recopilación de relatos inéditos del buen doctor, aunque por desgracia ninguno realmente memorable. Sólo lo recomendaría a completistas de la obra de Asimov, entre los que me incluyo. Todos los relatos son bastante breves y algunos parecen más un pequeño cuento en forma de broma, por lo que no me extraña en demasía que fueran excluidos de anteriores recopilaciones. A destacar el relato "Adiós a la Tierra" que da nombre al título, donde incide en ideas de la expansión de la humanidad tratadas en profundidad en las conocidas sagas de la Fundación. Otro que es importante reseñar es "El hermanito", en la tradición de otros cuentos de Robots. "Oro" se señala como uno de los mejores relatos de esta antología, por ser ganador de un premio Hugo. Se me hizo un poco pesado de leer, aunque lo interesante fue entrever ideas de proceso creativo que imagino desembocaron en su novela "Los propios dioses". Hay algún relato menor más que apunta a algunas ideas de robótica mejor tratadas en recopilaciones como "Yo, Robot". En general me deja un sabor agridulce, aunque como todo lo de Asimov merece la pena leerse por cualquier amante de la ciencia ficción.
5. Adiós a la Tierra (Isaac Asimov, 1995).
Una recopilación de relatos inéditos del buen doctor, aunque por desgracia ninguno realmente memorable. Sólo lo recomendaría a completistas de la obra de Asimov, entre los que me incluyo. Todos los relatos son bastante breves y algunos parecen más un pequeño cuento en forma de broma, por lo que no me extraña en demasía que fueran excluidos de anteriores recopilaciones. A destacar el relato "Adiós a la Tierra" que da nombre al título, donde incide en ideas de la expansión de la humanidad tratadas en profundidad en las conocidas sagas de la Fundación. Otro que es importante reseñar es "El hermanito", en la tradición de otros cuentos de Robots. "Oro" se señala como uno de los mejores relatos de esta antología, por ser ganador de un premio Hugo. Se me hizo un poco pesado de leer, aunque lo interesante fue entrever ideas de proceso creativo que imagino desembocaron en su novela "Los propios dioses". Hay algún relato menor más que apunta a algunas ideas de robótica mejor tratadas en recopilaciones como "Yo, Robot". En general me deja un sabor agridulce, aunque como todo lo de Asimov merece la pena leerse por cualquier amante de la ciencia ficción.
April 30, 2019
You've got to hand it to Asimov. Beyond being one of the pioneers of science fiction, and maintaining his relevance all the way through his prolific life, I have never before seen anyone write an entire story all for the sake of a single pun. And it was an absolute groaner too. That kind of cheeky humour is as much an integral part of his writing as is his masterful prose and keen insights into humanity's relationship with technology, and it is what makes him unique even amongst the other masters like Bradbury and Clark.
Though, I wouldn't recommend this book as the jumping off point into Asimov's work. The short stories are all mostly top quality. Cal was probably my favourite of the bunch, and while the title piece "Gold" did not quite live up to the hype, it was still an engaging read. But the stories only account for a less than half of the book's content. The rest is all essays on a variety of subjects, and they vary widely in relevance and quality. If a person isn't an aspiring writer or an Asimov fan keen on getting to know him more personally, I don't think there is much value to be gleaned from the essays.
Though, I wouldn't recommend this book as the jumping off point into Asimov's work. The short stories are all mostly top quality. Cal was probably my favourite of the bunch, and while the title piece "Gold" did not quite live up to the hype, it was still an engaging read. But the stories only account for a less than half of the book's content. The rest is all essays on a variety of subjects, and they vary widely in relevance and quality. If a person isn't an aspiring writer or an Asimov fan keen on getting to know him more personally, I don't think there is much value to be gleaned from the essays.
June 20, 2017
The stories were definitely good. But, I think the 2nd and 3rd part are the best. A friend of mine said that it was Asimov thinking on paper, and that's great. I learnt a lot from the two parts and I'm sure it will help anyone who reads SF and wants to write. Not only wannabe SF writers, I think any writer can learn a thing or two from Asimov.
The first story, Cal, was kinda shocking. It makes me sad that such a great writer as ... (Bangladeshi) copied from Asimov. I'm soothing my mind by trying to believe that he did it unconsciously. From what I've read in Part 3 of this book, it's not uncommon. Even Asimov himself found himself plagiarising sometimes. The story that gives the book its title, Gold, was a great story. It's one of those stories you read which makes you use your imagination. The written words directly translate into images in your head. Made me see Hamlet like never before, a thrilling experience. There's even a moral to the story.
So, Gold was a great book. But, I can't vouch for it 'cuz I'm biased. I just love everything Asimov writes, so far.
The first story, Cal, was kinda shocking. It makes me sad that such a great writer as ... (Bangladeshi) copied from Asimov. I'm soothing my mind by trying to believe that he did it unconsciously. From what I've read in Part 3 of this book, it's not uncommon. Even Asimov himself found himself plagiarising sometimes. The story that gives the book its title, Gold, was a great story. It's one of those stories you read which makes you use your imagination. The written words directly translate into images in your head. Made me see Hamlet like never before, a thrilling experience. There's even a moral to the story.
So, Gold was a great book. But, I can't vouch for it 'cuz I'm biased. I just love everything Asimov writes, so far.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 162 reviews