jss (02/17/83)
yes, i read Foundation's Edge, and was very disappointed. it would have made a fine short, or maybe medium length, story, like all the stories that made up the first three parts. it was padded out with repetition after repetition of the same material. furthermore, i could hardly tell the two 'heroes' apart, as characters. sadly, judit h !decvax!brunix!jss
preece (02/18/83)
#R:nmtvax:-18200:uicsl:10700006:000:522 uicsl!preece Feb 18 10:43:00 1983 I enjoyed FE a lot. I was amazed at Asimov's ability to write in the same style he used 30 years ago. One of the previous responses complains that the book would have been ok in 1952. That's high praise by the reasonable standard that a book in a series should mesh in texture and style with the rest of the series. IF, on the other hand, the book were a stand-alone, its feel would have been anachronistic. I don't think I could honestly evaluate the book in those terms; its context is too much a part of my SF frame.
mat (02/21/83)
QUADTILOGY ??? Wa this word invented recently, or for these books? If not, there exists a much older word, which ought to be used. It is TETROLOGY and has been used when refering to, i particular, The Ring of the Nibelung. Please, let's be a little moderate in our desire to create new words. You reqsure cprethyse sigkew, krnjwe your?
preece (02/22/83)
#R:nmtvax:-18200:uicsl:10700008:000:88 uicsl!preece Feb 21 14:32:00 1983 Actually, it's tetrAlogy, but 'tetrology' is a lot closer than the other suggestion...
notes@zeppo.UUCP (10/17/83)
#R:nmtvax:-18200:zeppo:11700001:000:37 zeppo!mmc Feb 20 20:25:00 1983 Actually, the word is "tetralogy"...