[melagonster]

>Nor did he foresee any difference in the role of women or any weakening of the feminine stereotype of 1949.

This is funny for me. The most common type of criticize for Asimov's work is that people complain Asimov did not add enough women in his book. The world is changing so quickly.

[harry8]

I enjoyed reading "Foundation" recently. The total lack of female characters was jarring to say the least. Worth the read if you haven't. Not much like the AppleTV series.

[globular-toast]

You can't just stop with the first book. Keep reading...

[gerikson]

Or don't. There's so much more better SF out there.

[globular-toast]

The point was more that the female characters turn up in books two and three. Three in particular.

If you like SF you can't go wrong reading all of Asimov IMO. The entire Robots/Empire/Foundation series is fantastic. It doesn't mean you can't also read other, "better" SF either. Asimov's main SF work will take a few months to read at most.

[willis936]

Are you referring to the literal planet rather than a woman? That character felt particularly of self insert fantasy (oo a hot 20 year old in love with the aged professor).

Regardless, stopping at the first book is a good recommendation. Asimov demonstrated he didn't understand what made his own work interesting. Granted mystery boxes are hard, but he took an immediate about-face on psychohistory and retconned any bit of intrigue with rather vanilla stuff. The first book is outstanding.

[globular-toast]

I read books because I enjoy them. I enjoy reading about hot 20 year olds and big breasted women in space actually. Women are allowed to have 50 Shades, I'm allowed to enjoy books too.

[gerikson]

I have read a lot of Asimov. That's why I said there's better stuff out there.

Even his contempories were better - Bester and Simak run rings around him.

[globular-toast]

Feel free to make more recommendations. I record every single one I get and usually read them eventually.

[int_19h]

Try "The End of Eternity" to see how Asimov dealt with female characters when they were there...

[melagonster]

His work is not misogynistic. So I really cannot understand this type of criticism.

[harry8]

The criticism is that an aspect of the work is jarring. In my life, women feature. I can't think of any shared enterprise in which I have taken an interest where they do not. So for me it is jarring when in 3 separate short stories there are none. (Why? Is it a choice? Is it limited by author ability? Something else?) It damages the hell out of suspension of disbelief at the minimum.

The film Amélie "Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain" is not a racist screed. In fact it is a hugely entertaining and charming movie I do not hesitate to recommend to just about anyone. Set in Monmatre, the homogeneity of the heritage of both the characters and extras is jarring because Monmatre is just not like that. If you know Monmatre noticing this will crash right through your suspension of disbelief in the story. You will recover. Still absolutely worth the watch.

Foundation is still worth the read despite the glaring and obvious fault.

Your assertion on whether the work is or is not misogynistic is something you can perhaps discuss with someone else. I am sure there are two schools of thought on the point, but it is not at all relevant to this criticism.

Maybe that helps you understand?

[melagonster]

Thank you, I can understand. Sorry, I should understand more details in your opinion.

[harry8]

No worries and no need to be sorry. Also no need to agree with me. Always nice to be understood. Best.