I'm in the middle of reading Pride & Prejudice. The only other Austen's book I've completed is Sense & Sensibility. And judging with these, I'll say Austen isn't a very good writer. There are flashes of brilliance here and there. But overall, her stories aren't compelling. And her prose is cumbersome and bloated.

You simply went in with wrong assumptions and expectations of sci fi as a genre, it's one that is more thoroughly rooted in its ideas than for its literary merit. If you're getting into fantasy and want to look at it's roots you can go back to milestone titles like Lord of the Rings that itself builds on themes and archetypes that go back centuries and millennia. This isn't so with sci fi where it's core is rooted more in its technological themes so generally its a genre constrained by time seeing as the industrial revolution was only a few centuries ago.

Foundation is part of the Golden Age sci fi starting around the cusp of the start of WW2 onwards, an era of unprecedented technological development. Major sci fi works of this era aren't known for producing much of literary merit, in part because many works were published piecemeal in magazines over the course of many years, they aren't cohesive novels in themselves as you are reading them today. What makes works from the likes of Asimov stand the test of time as a piece of sci-fi is simply that his generation were the first to reflect on this post war political climate where technology was being seeing as the driving force of societal development and prosperity so became key milestone works within the genre.

If you seriously want to get into sci fi it's probably better you read modern titles and work yourself backwards rather than chronologically unless you're prepared to do a bit of background reading to understand the climate of when particular works were written. Likewise with other milestone titles like Dune, the sci fi equivalent of LoTR; it's hardly good literature itself either but it's a milestone title because it reformulates the scale and depth of themes that sci fi is capable of being relative to its contemporaries that were being published that were still coming off quite pulpy.

If you would prefer something of more literary merit, I suggest you drop the classics and pick up The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe written in the 80s; a sci fi tetralogy, starting with the Shadow of the Torturer, that is actually known for its literary merit.

Pride and Prejudice wouldn't be published today, does that make Jane Austen a bad writer?

Speaking of science fiction, always keep in mind Sturgeon’s Law, "ninety percent of everything is crap.” Or really, ninety percent of everything isn’t for you.

It's not about whether I enjoined it or not. It about if it is a good story. Just ask yourself a question. Do you think that this book will be published if it were written today?

It's not intended to be a character driven story. Lack of character development doesn't matter because the story is focused on big picture ideas over the course of a very long time frame.

If you're not entertained by it, that's one thing. But to say nothing happens for 10,000 words is just ignorant and makes me question if you actually read it or just posting here to be contrarian.

I read it recently as well. I do think you are right about the sentence structure. But I heard it on audible, do maybe they made it better to listen to.

This isn't a ya book

I don't really see anything here which really makes it 'bad' literature, it just sounds like it isn't for you. Nothing is universally liked.

She is a good awful writer

I read it as a child, and I remember I really enjoyed it

Yeah...I hated this book. I am not a horror fan anyway and it was just so awful.

I’ve found I largely don’t have the patience for over half of the stuff I’ve read that’s considered “literature.” Ain’t nothing wrong with a well paced plot and straightforward character development

Oh btw, I just did a quick search on Insta and someone posted 16 hours ago that they ended up getting their copy, they said they ordered in 2011.

So it looks like it really is finally shipping out, for real this time haha

I thought this book was below average. Everyone was telling me to read it, and when I did I couldn't see what they were on about. It's amateur, I could have written it. Maybe I'm just used to reading books with more depth but I don't read romance either. The unnecessarily graphic death, the unnecessarily graphic sex, and the amateur plot...? Blah I can't believe I wasn't two days on it.

I guess my observation is that given the number of people and serious writers who disagree with you, you might be lacking the self awareness to measure the difference between "I don't like" and "is bad".

I couldn't get through the first season of breaking bad, it doesn't mean the writing, acting or production was terrible. I just didn't like it.

'Hoover' didn't give it away?

I didn't say I don't like Sci fi. I said Foundation is bad literature.

>When I wanted to get into Sci-Fi,

>I'm a writer myself

Traditionalist writers not liking sci-fi/fantasy is such a well worn path that it's a trope all of its own.

You don't have to like it but its success and accolades speak for itself.

people online keep saying this book is brilliant and one of her best books, was planning to read it to see how good it....now Im not sure

If there is a better description of this book, I don't know it.

I personally think it's a masterpiece, but it's extremely bleak. Do not read it while depressed as I did. Would not recommend.

None of the responses so far look at the relationship between the boy and the man. And that is what the book, at its core, is all about. The relationship is quite beautifully depicted. And this is despite - and frequently in response to - the situation they're in.

If you accept the dystopic, post-apocalyptic setting, there are a few pitch-black, horrific events that will probably not go down at all smoothly. I've not read The Stand, and can't really comment about the events in that, but will say that as a writer McCarthy typically has more ability than King to make an event hit you like a ton of bricks.

When is the word “triggering” going to make an exit from everyday vocabulary? Does anybody know?

This book haunts me. It’s a Great Book in the timeless, immortal sense. It’ll be around a long time.

But it is as dark as it gets. I’ve never read anything that comes close to it. It’s credible. One has the sense that this is indeed what the first years of a post apocalyptic future would really look like. It fills you with a unique kind of terror. Dread. Hopelessness. Despair. Fear. It means something more than all of that.

It’s devastating. It’s profound. It’s a masterpiece.

It's such a short read too! Great stuff. Not his best but certainly the most shock value.

Dammit but I wish Iain Banks was still with us. Every year I'd check if he'd put out a new novel and sure enough, more often than not there was a fresh great read waiting.