Bryson

Arguably the best travel writer of this, or any, generation (the only other great one off the top of my head would be Ian Frazier). Hysterically funny. I'd put "A Walk in the Woods" among the funniest books of the last 25 years.

Banks

Banks: 2
Bryson: 1

Anyone wanna talk about Banks (he said, waiting for a Lehman Bros punchline...)

Whilst Bryson is one of the best travel writers, I fundamentally just prefer Sci Fi as a genre.

Thoreau

By god I will shoehorn my correct opinion into your feeble uncultured minds if it kills me lol

Ibn Battuta was the best travel writer bro

Really?

I thought it was Thoreau! (Or McCarthy.) :p

Theaubro

Bob Ghengiskhan

And so Banks bests Bryson 2-1...in a match seemingly nobody cared about, lol.

But I think the next one will get some more interest...just a tad...

Isaac Asimov vs. Stephen King. ;)

Well, since the site will down for a little bit, I'll post early, and I vote for the great Asimov.

Asimov: 1
King: 0

as much as i really like reading king, asimov is just plain awesome.

asimov: 2
king: 0

Difficult choice, I really like Asimov, but if I had to choose to take 1 novel (unread) with me to a desert island I would be more likely to pick King.

Asimov: 2
King: 1

Please tell me why...

As my disdain for all things King is well-documented and well-ridiculed. ;)

I frankly see him the same way I see Philip K. Dick--

(Potentially) good idea people...but when it actually comes to executing those ideas...as well as crafting a fine literary sentence--no. Just...no.

The best example of his work I can think of is "Carrie," and even THAT--

Can't stand how he writes his characters. At all. The bully girls are too one-note, the mother is too one-note, Carrie herself is (you're NEVER gonna guess what I'm gonna say!) too one-note, and what's worse, I'd argue they all exist and act for the sake of the plot, which is almost always a good, quick way to create cardboard cutouts or little action figures to act out plots you have rather than develop fully-realized characters over the course of a STORY.

That IS something I give Tolkien an immense amount of credit for--as fat as he made those books, at least he gives you actual characters that you might actually WANT to spend 500 or so pages with (and I have no idea as to the page count of the LOTR books, Tolkien fans, and I'm sure different copies are different sizes, so don't get up in arms about that number...the books are long. I'm totally OK with long--again, reading "Vanity Fair" now, and my edition is 680 pages long--but, they're long. That's all I'm saying, long =/= bad, so let's not get into a fight, OK?) :p

But yeah...kaner, you voted for him--do you really like King's characters? If so, why?

Do you like his story ideas and approach--if so, why?

Do you like the way he actually crafts a sentence--if so...well, you get the idea.

That's a problem I have with Philip K. Dick, too..."Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" has some interesting ideas in it, for sure, but good GOD is it hackneyed and almost painful to read at times...it's a procession of cliches, especially when it comes to the dialogue.

By contrast, Asimov's short story "The Final Question" is wonderfully conceived, eloquently phrased the whole way through, touches on some of the issues regarding mutability and finality that are brought up in "Electric Sheep," and with the possible exception of some of his character names--which I can give him a break on, 1950s sci-fi names have a tendency to come across as really cliche and dated now--it's still as fresh and still rings true today without dating or muddling itself in hackneyed contrivances and cliches the way Dick's book does or, to switch genres, King's "Carrie" does.

Obi, I'm not sure your fair to Phillip K Dick. I think he comes up with good ideas, executes them well, until it reaches the end of the book, where everything falls apart. The man in the high castle being a perfect example of a great book until the very end.

Dick was, on a fundamental level, not all that interested in how the stories end. His interest was far more on what questions he could ask in the meantime.

Meanwhile, Asimov.

Well, Socrates, I disagree that he "executes them well."

Frankly, I find a lot of the logic of his world lacking, especially compared to others in the sci-fi/fantasy genre (I think Tolkien is fairly good at keeping up the logic of his work...Bradbury and Asimov as well...if we step outside this sphere and into more "literary" works, Orwell and Huxley made their dystopias play out in a very logical and well-thought out manner, something that's lacking in just about every dystopian novel I've read following after them, the exception being McCarthy's "The Road," though that focuses more on a father and son and the human element in the aftermath of such an event rather than the government and how such a society came to be.)

I don't find his characters convincing--Deckard is very "eh," and the rest are forgettable or just vehicles for the plot more than they are actual people...which is a problem when part of the theme of your book is trying to distinguish what it is that makes a person a person.

Frankly, I think Harrison Ford does far better with that (largely re-written) material in "Bladerunner," and a lot of that is just because he's Harrison Ford, he's so perfectly matched to a film noir character that, even when it's so stock as is Deckard, he can bring is own talent and aura to the role and make him just sound and feel more like a classic noir hero than the script really warrants.

(Hence one of the main reasons I think "Bladerunner" is either the worst good film I've seen or the best bad one...there's a lot to like about that film, from the incredible style to Ford's performance, but it drags terribly in places and I CAN'T *STAND* the happy ending version...other versions are better, but good GOD do I hate that version--but I digress.)

What's more...Dick is just embarrassing when it comes to word choice sometimes.

"World War Terminus?" O.o Really? THAT is what you name it?

How is that in any way even plausible? That's what a writer calls a war when trying to build it up to sound interesting, NOT what we'd actually call a war...it's not plausible, and so it makes me hard to take him seriously. That's obviously a minor example--a work isn't going to stand or fall just on what you call a war--but you know...

For as much as I've knocked parts of "The Hunger Games" for being completely implausible as well in my view--I can at least buy "Pan Am" as a name for the place. Sure..."Pan America," it's close and reasonable enough that I can buy that becoming a name for a region after governments fall and rise again and such. It's a name with a logic to it..."World War Terminus" sounds like a bad SNES video game.

"Dick was, on a fundamental level, not all that interested in how the stories end. His interest was far more on what questions he could ask in the meantime."

I largely agree...and I think that's, in large part, why his books suffer--he's far more interested in setting up a scenario than a fully-realized story.

Asimov: 3
King: 1

Asimov

I've found King mildly enjoyable, but never have I felt like a King book affected me in the slightest after I set it down. Asimov has always been both, more mentally gripping, and more lasting. King's books just don't have anywhere close to a lasting impression on me, other than that they were pretty good. Whereas, with Asimov, I vividly remember my experience in reading his stories, and love going back and rereading them--especially his short stories.

So, my vote is definitely for Asimov.

Another difficult matchup. The tough part is that in 100 years, people will still be reading BOTH authors. obiwan is an idiot if he thinks Carrie is King's best work - The Shining and It are far superior and legitimately scary books, even if Jack Nicholson did ruin The Shining a bit for anyone who has seen the movie. Both were prolific and both released a fair amount of crap. I think Asimov's redeeming quality is his nonfiction work, but on the other hand, King wrote possibly one of the best books on the craft - On Writing.

I'd love to vote for Asimov, but I'm not a huge hard scifi guy.

King

Am I the only one who likes King's Firestarter, Dreamcatcher and the Tommyknockers?

Dick is well, not enjoyable for me.

So my vote is for King, either against Asimov or Dick.

King is a great writer with great stories, but...that's all.

Asimov largely got me interested in sci-fi and fiction in general, King is just someone I read along the way.

+1 Asimov.

Phillip K Dick is more of a hit-and-miss author. Some good, some great, some looks like I wrote it :(
I agree that, for him, it was more about the ideas than the story.

I'll go with Asimov as well.

Asimov thought up some good stuff

Asimov

Asimov: 8
King: 3

What did Asimov write that was crap, 2WL?

I've yet to read a work of his that I'd call crap.

Conversely...I can't think of one time I've read King and have been made to think or moved to feel, it's just "So...that happened...and that...and that...OK, now THAT is just ridiculous, even for you...you know, I COULD be reading Joyce Carol Oats or Edgar Allan Poe right now, sir...in fact, why am I not doing that right now?"

Which is another knock against King--no way he's top of his field...Poe bests him in every way imaginable, and if we have to choose among contemporaries, the same may be said of the wonderful Joyce Carol Oates.

By contrast, while the Sci-Fi genre is loaded with great names--Mary Shelley, H.G. Wells, Ray bradbury, Douglas Adams--Asimov is right there near or at the top of them (Dick is noticeable far, far further down that list.)

So Asimov wins, I guess, 8-3.

Today's, another clash of favorites...both on my reading list, but haven't read either, so I guess this'll help me guide who to read first--

Terry Pratchett vs. Neil Gaiman. :)

Read Good Omens. It's a great little book written by both of them.

Damned harsh of you to put these two together. Going to have to be Pratchett though.