Quote Originally Posted by Curtis
Asimov DID write everything, but he didn't write everything well. I love his histories, autobiographies (he wrote at least three) and science essays, and admire some of his mysteries (the longer ones, which aren't based on puns), but most of his science fiction and fantasy doesn't show well against modern competition. I liked one of the three novellas that made up The Gods Themselves (the one written from an alien viewpoint) and the short story, "The Ugly Child," but most of even his 'classic' works (like "Nightfall" and the Foundation trilogy) just don't make for enjoyable reading. His humor...well, the less said the better.

Speaking for Spike, I believe his point wasn't that Asimov, Heinlein, et al were poor writers, but that they were writers who apprentice writers should not be trying to copy. Their styles worked for them, but probably wouldn't work for others, especially newbies.
Asimov's "Opus 100" was one of my favorites; his bios really grounded one as to what his world looked like then. His humor had to be more a taste thing; his first treasury is an instruction manual on how to tell jokes. Never liked his work on limericks, though.

I would agree about how long it takes to emulate a writer; I'd like to write like Spider Robinson... but it'll take me another 50 years to break my current style. Whatever that is.