Leaving all sci-fi bias behind and going purely on writing skills who is better: Michael Crichton or Isaac Asimov?

Crichton is my favorite author so he wins my vote, what about you guys?

Have you read any of Asimov, though? I read the first book of the seventeen-or-so Foundation Series. It was pretty awsome, hmmmm, Crichton or Asimov....damn that's tough [for a SciFi guru like myself].

i have to say definatley asimov.
it just seems to me that though crichton is a smart cookie,
that his books seem to sound the same.
asimov

how many of Crichton's works have you read? Because I really have to disagree with you when it comes to them all being simmilar. But if you think Asimov is a better writer that's cool because that's what the post is here to find out.

What do some other guys here think?

Asimov, hands down.

ASIMOV

While his writing is entertaining for me,
I'm not a big fan of Michael Crichton. He's
not a bad writer, but none of his books
has ever made me say, "Wow!"

In my humble opinion.

Peace.

I did enjoy Michael Crichton's
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0345353145.01.__PE_PIm.arrow,TopLeft,-2,-19_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpghttp://images.amazon.com/images/P/0345417623.01.__PE_PIm.arrow,TopLeft,-2,-19_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

ASIMOV

I don't know why this was moved to the Scifi section, it kinda gives Asimov the advantage. But then again I knew he probably would have it anyway on this site, just that friend and I have an ongoing debate. I think part of it is just some people "get" different writing styles, I love Michael Crichton's work and hated Asimov. Not because he was a bad writer necassarily I just didn't like it.

Thanx guys for your opinions, Cactus

I think my vote goes to Crichton. I liked his better than Foundation, even though both were excellent.

I have read Every Asimov. I thought it was kinda nice when he tried to tie all his novels together and make them all into one large single saga. I thought it very sad when he died just before he could complete the final stories.

A great loss. In the same ilk was Robert Heinlein, my other favorite.

Off topic I suspect but Asimov was just a very good read. His robot books inspired me, when I was 15, to pursue a career in computing. And Heinlein in Time Enough for Love inspired me to seek a way to conquer death.

I find it very satisfying that the visions of these two great writers may soon be actually realized as technology moves us into the fields of AI and anti-aging treatments.

Cris

My vote goes for Asimov.

Crichton is very well grounded in science fields that are more up to date but no more so than Asimov within his time. I have read works from both authors and enjoyed them both. Asimov fires the imagination more though. His scopes tend to be more farsighted.

Asimov was in many ways an originator, we often forget that the "Foundation" series was truly ground-breaking in its scope for the early 1940s when the first three books were published in sci-fi mags. He was truly an influential innovator.
Crichton is an excellant author who has done a few commercial works but also written some very good science fiction. He does not, in my opinion, qualify as a true originator, rather his books tend to crystallize, solidify and further expound on concepts found in older sci-fi, which is admirable in itself.
Innovators in Sci-fi include authors like Asimov, Clarke, and for newer authors people like William Gibson and Vernor Vinge.
IMHO one of the problems with many sci-fi writers is that they rely too heavily, at times, on technology and innovative concepts while putting aside deep charecterizations and to a lesser extent, a good, stong plot. This is were an author like Crichton excels.
I guess what I'm saying is that its not really a fair comparison for either author, a better comparison might be Asimov/Clarke.

Asimov has some nifty ideas, but he's not really a great writer. Crichton has slightly less groovy ideas but is a better writer.

Oh! I get it....it all depends on how old you are....The older ones prefer Asimov....

An interesting thought, and could very well be
accurate! We grew up on Asimov, so the formative
years were greatly influenced by his writing.

Peace.

Oh! I get it....it all depends on how old you are....The older ones prefer Asimov....

In my case, I have read works from both authors and the collaborations that they have done together.

IMHO, Crichton lacks depth of vision to inspire. He makes up for it with technical scientific knowledge but that does not replace the inspired vision and the ability to pass that sense of wonder on to the reader. (Something that Asimov does well.)

Originally posted by kmguru
Oh! I get it....it all depends on how old you are....The older ones prefer Asimov....

I must be the exception that prooves the rule!!! I am 18 and prefer Asimov, (But I have only ever read two Crichton books)

Originally posted by kmguru
Oh! I get it....it all depends on how old you are....The older ones prefer Asimov....

Thanks for the personal Assault.!!!!;)

I love ASIMOV
I love his ideas.
i love his style....

He's father of all the things.Gee,is that tough?
really tough?the comparison i mean.


:cool:


bye!

Originally posted by goofyfish
An interesting thought, and could very well be
accurate! We grew up on Asimov, so the formative
years were greatly influenced by his writing.

Peace.

So are we.;)


bye!

all those guys like Chric would have ended up writing bad things about AI and robotics,and thus hinder a great study,had Asimov wouldnt have been there.



bye!

The thread should have been between Arthur and Asimov.isnt it KM?;)




bye!

I've only read one Asimov book and that was the Naked Sun. I'm just about to read the Caves of Steel though. I also just read a collection of 3 early novels by Phillip K Dick (The Man who Japed, Dr Futurity, and Vulcans Hammer). They were supposed to be more straightforward then his later work, but they're incredibly easy to read and get into. Has anyone read JG Ballards 'The Voices of Time' ?

Originally posted by zion
The thread should have been between Arthur and Asimov.isnt it KM?;)


You are free to start one, you know...