<p>he was an amazing writer and this generation of kids needs to read his stuff</p>
<p>his science books are amazing</p>
<p>I bought a copy of “Foundation” for a friend of mine when we were 14. I knew he liked SF and a clerk in a bookstore recommended it. Starting what has become a filthy lifelong habit, I read it before wrapping it for his birthday. I was hooked, and bought the two sequels before the birthday. The good doctor started my collection that now fills a wall in the library. So, you’re right.</p>
<p>also his “academic” books are so clear and easy</p>
<p>got me through algebra and chemistry with bad teachers</p>
<p>My 14-year-old son has read most of the Foundation series.</p>
<p>A nice series to pass down to my kids.</p>
<p>I had the privilege of hearing to him speak during one of my graduations. He was as witty, knowledgeable and personable as his writings indicate.</p>
<p>And don’t forget that he wrote about subjects other than science and math. He wrote about history and Shakespeare, too, and probably other topics I don’t recall.</p>
<p>If you haven’t already, you might want to read his “Robot” series (“I, Robot” the movie bears no resemblance to his story), particularly if you like the Foundation series - including the ones written later than the original trilogy. His “Three Laws of Robotics” have been used in a lot of other writers’ stories as well.</p>
<p>He came to speak to the reporters at the newspaper where my father worked, back when I was 16. I took a book for him to sign and asked him to shake my hand. He grabbed me and said “I’d rather kiss you,” and did. I haven’t felt the same way about his books since.</p>
<p>dmd - Ugh! This reminds me of my disenchantment with an author of a classic math text that was my favorite during grad school. I did not have a personal encounter with this man, but I learned to my dismay that he was a well-known lecher. I did not feel the same about his book, and now I don’t feel the same about Asimov’s books!</p>
<p>One must always distinguish between a writer [or other artist] and his or her works. (Applies to politicians, too, for that matter.) I’ve met writers whom I think are wonderful people and who I pray never ask me what I think of book X, and there are writers of very good & enjoyable books who leave me cold for one aspect of personality or another.</p>
<p>I’ve been at the business meetings of a writer’s organization and have been appalled at how some of them speak. I once muttered something to that effect and the Very Big Name sitting next to me quietly observed, “The trouble is that they’re speaking in first draft, which you don’t often encounter.”</p>
<p>Fwiw, the story goes that famed Gestalt psychologist Fritz Pearl once was seated next a nicely endowed young lady at a dinner party and said, “Say, those aren’t bad…fish them out and let’s have a look at them.”</p>
<p>Anet writers and apropos of this week’s event, I’ve met JK Rowling and she’s a sweetheart. Of course, anyone gets a long way with me by doing something nice for my D.</p>
<p>Ah! The welfare queen made good! Now if they’d only consider taking the Queen off welfare… (well, nice work if you can get it…)</p>
<p>At least the Queen isn’t doing any active harm, unlike some world leaders…</p>
<p>TheDad, I absolutely agree with you, in principle… but somehow, I don’t really want my book dollars going to someone I can’t respect.</p>
<p>Slippery slope, DMD. If you have enough info, there are only three authors you’d buy books from (probably a different three for each reader). There’s what’s widely known, what’s known among the cognoscenti, and what’s known in a fairly closed circle. (See also, no man is a hero to his valet.)</p>
<p>Fwiw, I’m good to read the Earl of Rochester, am not at all in sympathy with some of his private, urr, tastes. Of course, he’s in public domain, which might mitigate the problem for you.</p>
<p>Gosh, TheDad, I wonder what business meeting of a writer’s organization you could <em>possibly</em> be talking about? :)</p>
<p>I asked an acquaintance a long time ago, he had minor influence, if there was a First Foundation somewhere to oversee the world. - He didn’t know. I ask him again recently this same question, he just, sighs. But to know if there was a First and 2nd Foundation defeats the purpose of these Foundations, doesn’t it. </p>
<p>I asked him, Isn’t prophetic that one man, can upset the the world, cause millions of deaths and misery for 100’s of millions and possibly billions, The One Man, unpredictable, can have so much influence and power; Yet the science of psychohistory can only forecast the trends of the masses and then only within statistical boundaries and the loner can change it all in an instant.</p>
<p>MiM, you know <em>exactly</em> which business meeting that I filed off the serial number from. And you’ll notice that I didn’t even mention the behavior of a certain overaged enfant terrible at a recent awards ceremony. </p>
<p>TOM, there have been postulated certain notions of Conservation of Historical Momentum where the influence of individuals damps out over time. Then again, there’s Roger Zelazny’s “The Game of Blood and Dust,” which is one of the niftiest short shorts I’ve ever read. Oddly enough, I’ve been recently contemplating assault upon a novel that in some ways is a response to FOUNDATION, threads of which started percolating, urm, 40 years ago.</p>
<p>Oh, TheDad, I do agree with you. Which is why I avoid bios of famous people as much as possible. I hate thinking Floyd Landis might have taken drugs, I don’t want to know if JK Rowling is a (rhymes with witch)… etc. Before I met Asimov, such cynicism never occurred to me; it was a sad day.</p>
<p>Dmd, there’s an old cartoon I remember from somewhere, of a priest in a confessional listening to a parishoner. Taped on the wall on the priest’s side is a sign that said, “Don’t sound surprised.”</p>
<p>For me, a rather thorough reading of history and biography leads to neither hero worship nor cynicism. People are people, period, with all their flaws and highlights, and their humanity doesn’t detract from their works and quite often adds to it. Sexual proclivities, in particular, aren’t any kind of litmus test for me…I mean, I have little tolerance for pedophiles and yet I’m not about to write off any number of Greeks, for instance, who swung from at least three different sides of the plate. If da Vinci was gay and Michaelangelo had a mistress, it’s of no import to how I regard their work. Once you start drawing lines of social acceptability around art and artists then it’s hard to stop…and you can as easily wind up with Soviet Realism or the ghastly Maoist stuff as anything else.</p>
<p>Oh, TheDad, what tales we could tell . . . but it would be wrong.</p>
<p>I generally don’t let the character of the writer/artist deter me from enjoying the quality of their work, and knowing a bit about their history can inform and deepen the experience of reading/looking.</p>
<p>Re telling tales: any number of (dead) authors, artists, and musicians come to mind…their um, peccadillos were part of their personalities, amusing to us now but certainly painful to those who loved them.</p>
<p>Where I draw the line is paying for any book or movie experience that enriches those I drastically disagree with. If an author or actor is a bigot, or wife-beater, sorry, but I am generally not going to read or see their work. Likewise if I find the profits go to some cult that is all the rage in Hollywood, or perhaps to some bigoted organization they are a part of, I Just Say No. Maybe future generations will judge them differently (or maybe their work won’t be remembered past the current one) but I don’t have to support them now.</p>