[srean]

I might be unusual in the sense that in my teens I absolutely adored Asimov as a writer of non-fiction rather than as a sci-fi author.

For the current generation, I never miss a chance to mention Gamow's non-fiction.

It's unfortunate that works of great non-fiction writers evaporate away from our cultural consciousness after their death.

It makes me sad that there will be a generation, or maybe it's already upon us, one that has not delighted in Martin Gardner.

[akashshah87]

>> I might be unusual in the sense that in my teens I absolutely adored Asimov as a writer of non-fiction rather than as a sci-fi author.

That's because he was only the second-best sci-fi writer but the best science writer in the world at the time [Clarke-Asimov Treaty of Park Avenue|https://sfandfantasy.co.uk/php/the-big-3.php]

[srean]

Ha!

I did not know about this. Arthur C Clarke was indeed my favourite at that time (even now).

Asimov, however, killed it with his two goosebump-good shorts, Nightfall and Last Question.

[pavel_lishin]

I don't remember reading any Clarke short stories, though I do remember a few books favorably - but Asimov's stories were incredible, and stick with me to this day. I should get a few more of his short story collections for the kiddo, I think I have a few of his non-fiction ones on a bookshelf somewhere.

[throwaway81523]

The 9 billion names of God is very famous.

[addaon]

> I don't remember reading any Clarke short stories

Stop what you’re doing and read The Star.

[pavel_lishin]

Oh yeah, I remember that one! I forgot that Clarke wrote it.

[zem]

brilliant stories both, but my two favourite asimov shorts are "profession" (I really, really love the trope that a regimented society depends on outcasts and outsiders for any sort of innovation) and "the martian way" (one of his more minor shorts, but it captures the joy and optimism of golden age solar system exploration fiction like nothing else I've read)

[lo_zamoyski]

If Lem was there, he would likely have agreed to dedicate his books to "the best third-rate scifi writers", given his generally critical view of American/Western scifi as naive, "commercial trash", and shallow entertainment.

[__rito__]

Not all Western sci-fi are gadget dangling spaceship displays. That might have appeared as the trend to Lem, and I don't blame him. I have only Solaris that's by him, and gotta admit- it's on another level.

[srean]

Too bad that I wouldn't be able to read Lem in the original. It's not an easy language to learn, is what I hear.

[the__alchemist]

Sagan's books are still very popular, long after his time.

[veqq]

Which of Gamow's do you recommend? Physics Foundation and Frontiers looks nice.

[srean]

My favorite is one two three ... infinity.

[zem]

martin gardner stood head and shoulders above everyone else for me, but asimov did indeed have some great works of non-fiction.

[mmooss]

> It's unfortunate that works of great non-fiction writers evaporate away from our cultural consciousness after their death.

That's a bit of an overstatement? There's Confucius, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, ... Darwin, Newton, Einstein, ... Jefferson, Decartes, .... (you get the idea).

It is a competitive field; what's sufficient to win attention in the current generation is often not enough for future generations, which have their own contemporary writers.

[asimoff]

> I absolutely adored Asimov as a writer of non-fiction rather than as a sci-fi author.

I am the same, though frustratingly he still somehow managed to weave his casual misogyny into even his non-fiction works.

[fn-mote]

This would be a much more appreciated comment if it included even one example.

I’m willing to believe it, but I didn’t notice any in the time I was reading his fiction.

[carbarjartar]

One example off the top of my head...

In The Building Blocks Of The Universe's section on Calcium:

> Another way of getting round the problem of hard water is to manufacture compounds that behave like soap but don't form insoluble compounds with calcium. Many types of such detergents have been put on the market in the last ten years, and hard water is far less of a problem for the housewife than it used to be.

Reads like '90s era comedy, ala "women be cleaning, amirite?", without even the lazy backdoor of "its just a joke".

[chmod775]

This is such an uncharitable reading. "Housewifes" were extremely common then and were marketed to quite extensively in those product categories. Acknowledging them in some form is not the same as saying "I have deeply thought about the state of our society and have come to the conclusion that all is as should be."

[sam_lowry_]

Says an account created just to post this horseshit.

[asimoff]

Clearly you and I have different definitions of "horseshit".

Is this your immature way of asking for an example of what I am addressing in my comment?

[falcor84]

I don't know if it says good or bad things about me, but I never noticed that.

But maybe it's just because I started reading his works long after their initial release. In particular, I was quite surprised to later learn that "Asimov's New Guide to Science" was originally published as "The Intelligent Man's Guide to Science".

[opo]

The title was chosen by the publisher:

>...The book's title was Svirsky's, chosen as a deliberate homage to George Bernard Shaw's The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism (1928). Asimov feared the title would be seen as elitist and condescending, and he suggested Everyone's Guide to Science as an alternative, but Svirsky refused. Years later, when he was confronted by annoyed feminists who asked why the book was restricted to men, Asimov would claim that the "intelligent man" of the title referred to himself;[3] thus anticipating the title Asimov's Guide to Science adopted for the third edition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intelligent_Man%27s_Guide_...