So, I tried to read Sci-Fi. It's a genre that I never was very interested in, but I decided to give it a try...

So, I tried to read Sci-Fi. It's a genre that I never was very interested in, but I decided to give it a try. Since Asimov is considered one of the best in the genre and since this book is considered one of his best creations, I thought "that's it".
After finishing it I'm very disappointed. The beginning is interesting, it's the best part in the book, I was really enjoying the thing until I got to the alien plot(the book is divided into 3 narratives: Earth/ parallel universe/ Moon). The alien plot is full of very boring stuff, but the end is cool so it was ok. The problem is the Moon narrative, that's when you're introduced to the two most boring characters in the history of literature: Denison and Selena. The dialogue between those characters is boooring and their "romance" is boooooring. The Moon narrative(the end of the book) is simply bad, it's a book that gets worse in the end and this leaves you with a very bad taste in your mouth.
I'll give 7/10 for the Earth plot, 7/10 for the alien plot and 4/10 for the Moon plot. It's really that boring.

Is Asimov overrated? Are there better Asimov books and I made an unlucky choice? Also, what are some good Sci-Fi books that I can read to forget this crap?

Dune is better, try Dune.

Ender's Game

Sci-Fi is absolute crap.

I am very far from expert on Asimov or sci fi, but I happened to pick up his The Caves of Steel, and it's a good read. Not earth-shattering, but a solid, engaging short genre novel.

I didn't like The Gods Themselves either. I was really disappointed. But I, Robot and the Foundation trilogy are much much better.

Don't read sci-fi for characters.

And for you in particular, don't read sci-fi.

I don't know much about sci-fi, but I really liked this. Solaris is also good, but the movie is better.

A lot of SF is strong on 'what if' ideas and weaker on literary excellence. Definitely the case with Asimov, whose dialogue and characterization are not his strengths. If you read more of him, the Robot novels are recommended, followed by the Foundation novels.

For highly literary SF, I recommend Stanislaw Lem. Others here will advocate Gene Wolfe. PKD would be another, although his prose is lousy, but you won't be bored. For older stuff, I like Verne's many fun adventures, moreso than Wells

OP here. Thank you guys for the feedback, I'll probably read the stuff you're suggesting.

Top recommendation: Star Maker by Olaf Stapledon. It's criminally unread nowadays. It's a long-form exploration of the history of the universe, from the perspective of an Englishman who has an out-of-body experience. As he journeys across the universe his consciousness expands and the perspective of the story becomes wider and wider. Probably the singularly most imaginative SF novel every written, you can find almost any SF concept that would ever be thought of in here somewhere. His writing inspired some of the next generation SF greats like Arthur Clarke and Brian Aldiss but nowadays is rarely read. His style can be slightly antiquated at first, but I didn't find it a problem overall.

Iain M Banks has some excellent space opera books. Try Player of Games or Use of Weapons to start. Any of the novels in his Culture series can be read in any order once you have an idea of the setting. They're about a powerful interstellar society, sort of like Star Trek's Federation, but higher tech, more anarchistic, and more interventionist in other societies. He essentially uses the setting to critique and explore his idea of Utopia. He has a great mixture of strong character writing, humour, grotesque and horrifying moments, sentimentality, etc. A true gem of a writer. Consider Phlebas is the only novel I've read of his that I wouldn't recommend.

Non-Stop by Brian Aldiss is an adventure story with a twist ending that was a good quick read, I'd give that a go if you want to try "classic" mid-20th century SF. Supposedly his other novels are also quite good.

Dune is a common recommendation, but it's written in a somewhat stilted style that can take some getting used to, and it can be tough wrapping your head around what's going on/people's motivations. IMO it was worth the read.

Neuromancer is the classic cyberpunk novel. It's written in a very baroque style, focusing on richly textured description. It might not to be to your taste, but I find that "golden age" SF writers have very sterile descriptive styles.

Philip K Dick goes for reality and identity bending fiction. VALIS is his best novel that I've read. It's a sort of semi-autobiographical story about a possibly insane man searching for ultimate truth after he experiences what he believes is a satellite, VALIS, beaming information directly into his mind. Dick generally goes for trippy experiences.

Read Star Maker.

The Gods Themselves is one of Asimov's drier books. He does have a good feel for people at times but this one's just dull despite the neat ideas. Asimov's best work is easily his 'Foundation' trilogy. It moves super-fast and has lots of fun ideas. There are plenty of better science-fiction authors but Asimov is renowned for a reason. Gene Wolfe is probably supreme as far as novels go. If you want to try him look for 'The Fifth Head of Cerberus'.

If OP needs characters to latch onto he's not going to find anything in Star Maker.

I found the narrator's tribulations had a good amount of emotional resonance. It's not a detached recounting of events, it's embedded in the experiences of the traveler.

thank you theodore sturgeon

OP: try a few others, for god's sake. Bruce Sterling's "The Caryatids", for example.

a lot of sci-fi authors are literally autistic because they are autistic they cannot write characters one such author is isaac asimov

and a lot of sf writers aren't austistic, but are excellent judges of human nature and can even write characters that seem real because they are able to empathise with other points of view. unlike you, Dr Cooper.

asimovs magnum opus was foundation. his characyers are always bland but most sci fi writers are closer to metaphysicists or ontologists in how they write

even Killdozer?

Start with Clarke.

As an Asimov fan, I gotta admit he is terrible on character development and overall character driven-plots. I hate him for always trying to shove a superfluous romantic interest with stupid dialogues worthy of a tumblr fanfic.

That beig said Caves of Steel, Foundation and I robot are excellent reads.

Nice to find another fan of Chairman Bruce on these pages

Sci-fi is absolute shit.
Even its self-proclaimed classics (Dune, Ender's Game, Rendezvous with Rama) are autistic juvenile tripe.

Anyone read Too Like The Lightning by Ada Palmer? Is a little what OP wants.