Heinlein does better character development, possibly because he re-uses the same half dozen characters over and over again.
He preachs too much though. There's a good many things bad about RAH's work, including his politics which he tends to pound into you with the subtlety of a 10 lb sledgehammer, but if you can get beyond that, he pushes some great emotional buttons.
And, _some_ of his politics are agreeable to me.
Asimov is a better writer, in my opinion. Tells a better tale, is more balanced between character development and plot, and doesn't have the Victorian emotional baggage that Heinlein seems to be carrying (and overcopmpensating for) in most of his work.
I also like Asimov more than Clarke, because Clarke can't develop (in me) an emotional attachment to (m)any of his characters. Clarke's stories are excellent hard-science style fiction, and I enjoy them for that, but Asimov makes a better story-teller. |
