Question
Why is J.R.R. Tolkien more famous than Isaac Asimov?
Answer
Joshua is right, it's because of the movies. If the Foundation series is ever adapted well for the screen, it will probably blow both Star Wars and LOTR out of the water. The literary quality is poor (like Harry Potter), but the grandeur of the space opera world of Foundation is probably an order of magnitude more than any other popular series. Its 2-dim characters would allow directors an amazing canvas. If Heath Ledger had lived to play the Mule, maybe the actors who played young/old Magneto as Hari Seldon... I'd line up to watch that. The story arc from the spacers/robots world of the near future to the ultimate fate of humanity as they seek earth eons later, and the time travelers thrown in... Goosebumps territory. Especially the brilliance of a robot being the main continuity character, starting with the I, Robot world all the way to eternity. That's positronic evolution-to-God stuff that transcends the naively malevolent AIs of say Terminator type universes.
Asimov is under-appreciated because he is not subtle. Not in the least. Nor was Clarke actually, but where Clarke was also pedestrian and not very bold in his imaginings (Childhood's End is a possible exception), Asimov at least cannot be faulted for lack of ambition.
In fact, for my money, Asimov is far better cinematic material than too-self-important stuff like Dune. Asimov had a rare quality for a sci-fi writer: a sense of humor without necessarily writing overtly humorous stuff. This lends a certain lightness to his work that I really enjoyed. Most other sci-fi/fantasy writers are far too serious and humorless.
If he'd had a slightly better sense of the absurd, Asimov would have been the Joseph Heller of sci-fi.
Finally, a genuine love and appreciation for the sheer beauty of science shines through Asimov's work. Even though his stuff can seem a little dated in its scientific imagination, it does not have the narrowly human self-absorption of later eras of writers. There is an "Ooh! Black holes!" quality to his work that can seem childlike and retro-charming to those who've never experienced the sheer romance of science first hand and are limited to the human drama in sci-fi. I'd recommend Asimov's non-fiction to such folks.
Asimov is under-appreciated because he is not subtle. Not in the least. Nor was Clarke actually, but where Clarke was also pedestrian and not very bold in his imaginings (Childhood's End is a possible exception), Asimov at least cannot be faulted for lack of ambition.
In fact, for my money, Asimov is far better cinematic material than too-self-important stuff like Dune. Asimov had a rare quality for a sci-fi writer: a sense of humor without necessarily writing overtly humorous stuff. This lends a certain lightness to his work that I really enjoyed. Most other sci-fi/fantasy writers are far too serious and humorless.
If he'd had a slightly better sense of the absurd, Asimov would have been the Joseph Heller of sci-fi.
Finally, a genuine love and appreciation for the sheer beauty of science shines through Asimov's work. Even though his stuff can seem a little dated in its scientific imagination, it does not have the narrowly human self-absorption of later eras of writers. There is an "Ooh! Black holes!" quality to his work that can seem childlike and retro-charming to those who've never experienced the sheer romance of science first hand and are limited to the human drama in sci-fi. I'd recommend Asimov's non-fiction to such folks.