Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!JWHITE%MAINE.BITNET
From: JWHITE%MAINE.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: SF-LOVERS digest entry
Message-ID: <3585@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 10:41:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3585
Posted: Mon Sep  9 10:41:43 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 07:42:12 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 20

From: JWHITE%MAINE.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA  (Jim White)

While recommending some books for a neophyte SFLOVER to read , Jim Brunet
wrote ;

> Foundation Trilogy (but not #4, or Asimov's other recent crud)

While I don't quibble with his recommendation to read the Foundation Trilogy.
I am struck by the statement, 'Asimov's other recent crud'. If by other
recent crud he means the Foundations Edge and the Robots of Dawn then I
believe him to be off the mark.

I thought the Robots of Dawn was a fitting sequel to the other Robot Novels
and I look forward to the new one, which I've ordered.

Concerning the Foundations Edge, I WAS a little upset with the loose ends
at the end, ( can you say "Foundation 4"?), but believed to be many orders
of magnitude better than the typical 'crud'.

Why 'crud'?