Talk:Isaac Asimov

Big Three -Vandalism

The Big Three are, according to Brian W. Aldiss in Billion Year Spree, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Ray Bradbury. Robert A. Heinlein never was one of them, this claim is "alternative facts" and this vandalism doesn't seem to be recent. Please correct. 2001:7E8:C29C:2400:983E:960F:67FC:EB6 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

On which page do you see this? I did a search for "Big Three" in a PDF copy of Billion Year Spree and I don't find that phrase. Also there are numerous sources that say that Heinlein rather than Bradbury was the third member of the Big Three, so even if Aldis did say this, I don't know that we should give it a lot of weight. CodeTalker (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The Big Book of Science Fiction identifies the "big three" as Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein, as does The Rise and Fall of American Science Fiction, from the 1920s to the 1960s, Science Fiction Literature Through History: An Encyclopedia, and Fifty Key Figures in Science Fiction (which notes that van Vogt was replaced as one of the "big three" as his popularity waned and Clarke's grew). (See also: Talk:Robert_A._Heinlein#Big_Three_-Vandalism and Talk:Arthur_C._Clarke#Big_Three_-Vandalism) Schazjmd (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As I stopped reading SF around 1995, never ever Heinlein had been related to as one of the Big Three of SF; Asimov, Clarke and Bradbury was canonic and never questioned, so that now I have difficulties finding written sources ... actually, I learned that from one of my teachers. Bradbury was known for the TV-serial Martian Chronicles and the Truffaut-movie Fahrenheit 451, Heinlein had nothing comparable until late 80s action flick Starship Troopers. And Heinlein wasn't read in Europe due to his political views.2001:7E8:C29C:2400:BCE9:F89E:C42E:1B87 (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, you still need a source, not just something your teacher told you. And Heinlein started writing in 1939, and it's irrelevant which films were being made in the 80s. Richard75 (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

(copying from Talk:Robert A. Heinlein as the IP started the same conversation on multiple articles.) I finally got hold of a copy of Billion Year Spree. I cannot find the phrase "big three" anywhere in the book. I looked up each mention of Bradbury in the book, and it is never paired with Asimov and Clarke in any meaningful way. Do you have a page number for your reference? Schazjmd (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Talking after death

In the bibliography section there is a quote of him in 1994...well he died in 1992. 194.65.43.51 (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The date is the date of the source, not the date he made the statement that is quoted. That is, the book in which the quote is printed was published in 1994. This is the correct form for citations albeit potentially confusing I agree. MarcGarver (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Believing" ???

One sentence reads as follows:

"When the family arrived in the United States in 1923 and their name had to be spelled in the Latin alphabet, Asimov's father spelled it with an S, believing this letter to be pronounced like Z (as in German), and so it became Asimov."

This is a ridiculous statement, because S is often pronounced like a Z.

Consider the words "is", "as", "was", "does", "words", "trains", "cars", "cans", and many, many others that are not even slightly exceptions to any rule.

So Isaac Asimov's father did not merely "believe" that S is pronounced like a Z in English.

Rather, it very frequently is pronounced like a Z.

(Conversely, there are many cases where a Z is pronounced like an S, like "waltz". In its plural, "waltzes", the Z has an S sound and the S has a Z sound.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c082:2ea0:9cf0:82c3:f2ea:74c4 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Misbegotten sentence

"Asimov refused early suggestions of using a more common name as a pseudonym, believing that its recognizability helped his career."

This sentence contains no antecedent for the pronoun "its". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c082:2ea0:9cf0:82c3:f2ea:74c4 (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is going to be in any doubt about what it is referring to. Richard75 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggested new section: "Controversy"

The following paragraph is hidden in "Writings > Other Writings," and I would strongly recommend that a new "Controversy" section be created to house it. I had to search the word "harass" to find it, so a reader who doesn't already know may not see it, and it's important. The wording of the paragraph itself is already very mild compared to the extent of his behavior, but at least it should be in a more logical category.

"Particularly in his later years, Asimov to some extent cultivated an image of himself as an amiable lecher. In 1971, as a response to the popularity of sexual guidebooks such as The Sensuous Woman (by "J") and The Sensuous Man (by "M"), Asimov published The Sensuous Dirty Old Man under the byline "Dr. 'A'"[181] (although his full name was printed on the paperback edition, first published 1972). However, by 2016, Asimov's habit of groping women was seen as sexual harassment and came under criticism, and was cited as an early example of inappropriate behavior that can occur at science fiction conventions.[182]" 142.115.97.35 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)