From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: Asimov's nonfiction
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 11:42:38 GMT




In a previous article, ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) says:

>Since Isaac Asimov died a few days ago, I thought I'd see if anyone
>wants to get into a discussion about his nonfiction.  His fiction has
>been discussed quite a bit on, e.g., the sf groups.
>
>I'll just start by listing some of my favorites, with a few comments when
>I feel they're appropriate.
>
>Science:
>
>All of his collections of essays from _Fantasy and Science Fiction_,
>     especially "The Planet That Wasn't", "From Earth to Heaven", and
>     "Of Time and Space and Other Things"
>"The New Intelligent Man's Guide to Science" -- I must have read Vol. 1,
>     "The Physical Sciences" about ten times in the last years of
>     elementary school.
>"Inside the Atom" -- I presented a book report on this to my fourth grade
>     class.  My teacher had to stop me before the end because I was going
>     over the heads of the other pupils.  I couldn't understand why I
>     couldn't explain to the class what had been so easy for Asimov to
>     explain to me!

Delightful!  I work in the children's room of a public library.  Asimov has
done some beautiful books on the individual planets, the stars, etc.  The
pictures are fantastic, and the writing is--well, Asimovian.  It's a joy to
give one to a child who has to do a report on Neptune or something.  You
know, first of all, that the information will be clearly presented, and
second, that it may actually pique the kid's interest, so s/he comes back
for more.

I don't think Asimov can be beat for clear exposition, not even by
Oxbridge-trained English writers.  He had an enormous gift for it, honed by
much practice, and he didn't think it beneath him to be totally
understandable.  Sometimes you read a book by someone who seems to try to
(a) explain something and (b) impress the reader with his/her great
learning.  These goals are incompatible.  And some writers are so caught up
in the jargon of their profession that they can't drop it. 
Asimov had his failings, but he didn't fall into either of those traps. 
And (as you found out in fourth grade) it ain't easy.


>"The Human Body" -- I notice that a revised paperback version of this has
>     just come out.
>"The Human Brain"
>"The Universe -- From Flat Earth to Quasar"
>"Building Blocks of the Universe"
>"The Ends of the Earth -- The Polar Regions"
>"The Wellsprings of Life"
>"The Genetic Code"
>"The World of Carbon" and "The World of Nitrogen" -- What a terrific
>     introduction to organic chemistry this pair makes!
>"A Choice of Catastrophes"
>"Understanding Physics", recently reissued in a revised edition as "The
>     History of Physics".
>
>Other:
>
>"Words on the Map" -- I'm a geography book, and this is probably my
>     favorite book on the subject.
>"Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare"
>"In Joy Still Felt", the first volume of his autobiography.


His autobiography was -dreadful-.  I read as much as I could stand, then
skimmed a lot.  But I never felt after reading it that I would like the
person it was about.  It seemed to me (and it's been a good few years, so I
could have misrepresented facts in my memory) that he was obsessed with
"revealing" petty facts, like how many kidney stones he had, while not
revealing any of the reality of anything.  And such self-revelation as did
come through was kind of innocently horrible.  He would say things that
should cause shame, but he appeared to feel no shame.  I almost felt as if
he -had- no inner life, as if what was on the surface was all there was. 
And it wasn't much.

I don't remember statements in the form: "Then I said/thought/did
thus-and-so, but now I see that was wrong/evil/stupid," or "I believed my
motives to be A, but now I see they were really B, with a tinge of C."

Very odd indeed.



Bonita Kale