VERY well read!! Dude, the way you do the character voices is so bloody good, I often forget that it's just one person, just you, who's reading all the different parts for all the various characters. You bring them to life in such a realistic way, it makes it easy to immerse myself in the story. And since my copy of R.o.D (along with about 90% of my books) remains buried behind a mountain of accumulated crap, I'm genuinely glad that you made the experience of listening to the book (as opposed to actually reading it) worthwhile. Cheers, mate.
Read most of these when I was around 14-15. Approximately 1968 . This is a fascinating review. There was much I didn't originally grasp or remember. An enjoyable nostalgic journey. He, Robert Heinlein, and Andre Norton were my heroes.
The dialog on whether a robot can be killed is interesting. It sounds like in Asimov’s time the idea of “killing” a machine was still more of a philosophical idea.
As much as I'm enjoying Asimov's stories the "Georgia guidestone" edge of all the spacer world's and his own lack of understanding of population density is unsettling. All of earth's current population could live in the footprint of NY state with a population density of no greater than Tokyo. Even the large earth population he speaks of are unlikely to fill more than maybe 2 of these super cities he describes. Also the stunted populations of the spacer world's would in reality only serve to stunt their technological advancement and earth would overtake their technological prowess in very few generations. Of course we now have access to decades of research and a wealth of knowledge Asimov wasn't privy to.
IF, however, the Spacers are regularly living lives of over 400 years (as mentioned by Fastolfe), compared to the average 80 years of the Earthmen, it's entirely possible that what few scientists the Spacers have, will have multiple centuries in which to FAR outshine the scienctists on Earth. I mean, think what Newton, or Einstein might have accomplished if they had an extra 330 odd years of life... Would quantity really outshine quality in such a case? I'm not certain. But it does seem like Asimov put more thought into it than you seemed to have given him credit for. Having said that, I'd like to recommend a book to you. Way back in 1994, it inspired me to make a genuine effort in chemistry and eventually led to me becoming an Organic Chemist (though the book is more focused on biology). It's called Tuff Voyaging and was written by George R. R. Martin, of Game of Thrones fame. Anyway, there's a 'faction' in the book, who are consigned to a MASSIVELY overpopulated world, which fits the description you mentioned - That world has many billions of people, so it has millions of people at genius levels. There's tension with neighbouring worlds about possible expansionist aims of that overpopulated world... I don't want to get too much into it, but it's a great read. I HIGHLY recommend it
I’m always amazed by people who think fiction is a description of an imaginary reality (full stop). The themes Asimov explored were rich and interesting against a backdrop of imaginary technology. Taking his, or any other writer’s stories, literally is, well, impoverished at best.
@parlormusic1885 espousing ideas that at the time were believed to be understood truths about population density were not detriment to his stories when written. However they have become a psychological trope of the ignorant masses. My point had nothing to do with taking Asimov litteraly other than the fact that such far out beliefs so distant that they are part of past Sci fi becoming common beliefs is rather odd to me. This is no different than the feeling I get thinking about flat earth theorists. Ideas that while at the time made sense still being prevalent in today's society is what makes it unsettling. My jab was towards all those that read the comment who should know better not necessarily toward Asimov. The man was a product of his time while current society has no excuse for the ignorance. Obviously upon re reading my comment my point was unclear.
VERY well read!!
Dude, the way you do the character voices is so bloody good, I often forget that it's just one person, just you, who's reading all the different parts for all the various characters. You bring them to life in such a realistic way, it makes it easy to immerse myself in the story. And since my copy of R.o.D (along with about 90% of my books) remains buried behind a mountain of accumulated crap, I'm genuinely glad that you made the experience of listening to the book (as opposed to actually reading it) worthwhile.
Cheers, mate.
I was pleasantly surprised. Good reading style much appreciated.
This is just the audio book. Not this content shares voice.
@@KspekEvo I know, I was complimenting Dufris :D
@@dufung3980oh werd. He has one all the Asimov's audiobooks I've heard so far
Pffffffffffffffff
Great audiobook!!!!
Read most of these when I was around 14-15. Approximately 1968 . This is a fascinating review. There was much I didn't originally grasp or remember. An enjoyable nostalgic journey. He, Robert Heinlein, and Andre Norton were my heroes.
The dialog on whether a robot can be killed is interesting. It sounds like in Asimov’s time the idea of “killing” a machine was still more of a philosophical idea.
The most sophisticated robots in those days were conveyor belts.
Fastolf changed the universe.
As much as I'm enjoying Asimov's stories the "Georgia guidestone" edge of all the spacer world's and his own lack of understanding of population density is unsettling. All of earth's current population could live in the footprint of NY state with a population density of no greater than Tokyo. Even the large earth population he speaks of are unlikely to fill more than maybe 2 of these super cities he describes. Also the stunted populations of the spacer world's would in reality only serve to stunt their technological advancement and earth would overtake their technological prowess in very few generations. Of course we now have access to decades of research and a wealth of knowledge Asimov wasn't privy to.
IF, however, the Spacers are regularly living lives of over 400 years (as mentioned by Fastolfe), compared to the average 80 years of the Earthmen, it's entirely possible that what few scientists the Spacers have, will have multiple centuries in which to FAR outshine the scienctists on Earth. I mean, think what Newton, or Einstein might have accomplished if they had an extra 330 odd years of life... Would quantity really outshine quality in such a case? I'm not certain. But it does seem like Asimov put more thought into it than you seemed to have given him credit for.
Having said that, I'd like to recommend a book to you. Way back in 1994, it inspired me to make a genuine effort in chemistry and eventually led to me becoming an Organic Chemist (though the book is more focused on biology). It's called Tuff Voyaging and was written by George R. R. Martin, of Game of Thrones fame. Anyway, there's a 'faction' in the book, who are consigned to a MASSIVELY overpopulated world, which fits the description you mentioned - That world has many billions of people, so it has millions of people at genius levels. There's tension with neighbouring worlds about possible expansionist aims of that overpopulated world... I don't want to get too much into it, but it's a great read. I HIGHLY recommend it
I’m always amazed by people who think fiction is a description of an imaginary reality (full stop). The themes Asimov explored were rich and interesting against a backdrop of imaginary technology. Taking his, or any other writer’s stories, literally is, well, impoverished at best.
@parlormusic1885 espousing ideas that at the time were believed to be understood truths about population density were not detriment to his stories when written. However they have become a psychological trope of the ignorant masses. My point had nothing to do with taking Asimov litteraly other than the fact that such far out beliefs so distant that they are part of past Sci fi becoming common beliefs is rather odd to me. This is no different than the feeling I get thinking about flat earth theorists. Ideas that while at the time made sense still being prevalent in today's society is what makes it unsettling. My jab was towards all those that read the comment who should know better not necessarily toward Asimov. The man was a product of his time while current society has no excuse for the ignorance. Obviously upon re reading my comment my point was unclear.