#David asimov plus

White also is able to bring out the fact that some writers associated with New Wave science fiction in the 1960вЂ™s and 1970вЂ™s felt that Asimov was involved in an attempt to blackball them, something which seems out of character but (White speculates) might have arisen out of a misunderstanding.ДЄ number of modern sf writers donвЂ™t particularly care for AsimovвЂ™s style. AsimovвЂ™s infidelities were rather more frequent than he implied, and he was not as generous to Gertrude in the divorce as he wants us to think he was (or as he probably himself though he was). White is writing the history of Asimov, not of his marriage, so one shouldnвЂ™t expect him to give minute details of all the pain and agony back and forth. WhiteвЂ™s outside sources correct this to an extent. But there are still holes, and you can see them if you look. And heвЂ™s willing to admit that he was unfaithful to her. And he also admits that in the final analysis he was not the kind of husband Gertrude wanted. He lets some of his own bitterness regarding Gertrude and her family show on occasion, most particularly in Asimov Laughs Again, when Gertrude and her parents are all safely dead. On the other hand, there are places where Asimov is clearly holding back something, most notably in connection with the deterioration of his marriage with Gertrude. One could argue that it was all for show, of course, that the only weaknesses he showed were part of a careful ploy, but thereвЂ™s enough information independent of Asimov to know that this isnвЂ™t the case. Yes, he thought highly of his strengths but he also knew his weaknesses and didnвЂ™t really try to hide them. Asimov was unusually good at being honest about himself. This is related to the real strength of the book. That may be rather a harsh way of putting it, considering the artistry of вЂњ The Last QuestionвЂќ or the middle third of The Gods Themselves, but itвЂ™s basically true, as Asimov himself would have admitted.) (He even says near the end of the book that Asimov wasnвЂ™t an artist, but a wordsmith. White shows exceptional good taste in pretty much agreeing with me on Foundation and Earth he isnвЂ™t blind to AsimovвЂ™s weaknesses in his appreciation of his strengths. And some of the stuff he liked the best (like Foundation and Earth, of which he was very proud) was not his best. Some of the stories he hated were among his least works, true. He once quipped that he always thought the most recent thing he wrote was his best, but it wasnвЂ™t entirely false. He does, however, have contacts among GertrudeвЂ™s friends and some of the few people in sf who had bad feelings about the Good Doctor, which means he can give the other side of some stories, at least briefly.ДЄnd Asimov couldnвЂ™t always evaluate his own works perfectly. Granted, he doesnвЂ™t seem to get anything on AsimovвЂ™s early life from his surviving siblings, and he doesnвЂ™t seem to get anything from David or Robyn and very little from Janet. Secondly, and most importantly, White does not depend entirely on Asimov for material.

#David asimov plus

The overall result is that we get to see the whole picture of AsimovвЂ™s life better than would be the case otherwise, plus that one bit he was unable to record himself. Asimov was written by Janet who was still too devestated to cover the last painful year of AsimovвЂ™s life in any detail. Asimov: A Memoir, which isnвЂ™t in strict chronological order. This is something which is not available in any of AsimovвЂ™s works. Given that, itвЂ™s a darn good book, and we do need it.ДЇirst of all, this is all of AsimovвЂ™s life in one place. OneвЂ™s first response is what the heck do we need something like this for? Given the more than thousand pages that Asimov devoted to his formal biographies and the innumerable other pages he uses to talk about himself elsewhere, why do we need this? This is a short-roughly 250 pages-biography of the Good Doctor.