On the contrary, most sci-fi fans know that Asimov's characters and dialogue are terrible. He's the shibboleth for sci-fi fans precisely because his characters are so terrible: if you can appreciate Asimov, it proves that you can appreciate the things sci-fi fans value - worlds, ideas, even plot - because there's nothing else to like about his works. They're made great solely by virtue of their ideas.
Even just within sci-fi, there are plenty of writers who are far, far better than Asimov at characterization or prosecraft. But if you judge solely by characterization and prosecraft, as too many fans of classic literature seem to, then that too is a very superficial way of appreciating reading.
Conversely, I still remember : Arcadia Darell, Golan Trevize, Bliss, Janov Pelorat, Hari Seldon, Raych, Joseph Schwartz (and his poignant final lines in the associated novel), Rik... I could go on, and on.
All strong characters, with genuine personality, that have resonated through decades of my reading. (And, I've read very widely.)
Just because Asimov didn't spend pages on introspection (Frank Herbert was the opposite in this regard) doesn't make his characters any weaker. They were part of a much wider story than 'mainstream' writers dare to tackle, often set in a far future where dialog (often from very rational characters) should be thought of as contemporary. That's what science fiction is about, surely?
Comments
On the contrary, most sci-fi fans know that Asimov's characters and dialogue are terrible. He's the shibboleth for sci-fi fans precisely because his characters are so terrible: if you can appreciate Asimov, it proves that you can appreciate the things sci-fi fans value - worlds, ideas, even plot - because there's nothing else to like about his works. They're made great solely by virtue of their ideas.
Even just within sci-fi, there are plenty of writers who are far, far better than Asimov at characterization or prosecraft. But if you judge solely by characterization and prosecraft, as too many fans of classic literature seem to, then that too is a very superficial way of appreciating reading.
Conversely, I still remember : Arcadia Darell, Golan Trevize, Bliss, Janov Pelorat, Hari Seldon, Raych, Joseph Schwartz (and his poignant final lines in the associated novel), Rik... I could go on, and on.
All strong characters, with genuine personality, that have resonated through decades of my reading. (And, I've read very widely.)
Just because Asimov didn't spend pages on introspection (Frank Herbert was the opposite in this regard) doesn't make his characters any weaker. They were part of a much wider story than 'mainstream' writers dare to tackle, often set in a far future where dialog (often from very rational characters) should be thought of as contemporary. That's what science fiction is about, surely?