It's going off-topic but that's one of the things about PKD that's always puzzled me. Because he writes humanities-based SF about philosophical issues of reality that academics can wrap their heads around and write papers on, he's very popular with them. Makes perfect sense to me. But he wrote zillions of words of amphetamine-driven copy to pay the bills and was not a good writer on a word/line basis. His overall conceptual structures were amazing and his prose served to get them across without too much obstruction but it's hardly beautiful on the one hand, or translucent on the other. So that's one thing I'd say, regardless of any comments on any other author. But, when it comes to Asimov, while he was definitely not a sesquipedalian poet, his objective was to write clearly and concisely and he accomplished it perfectly. If you define someone like Vance or Zelazny as "good" and people who deviate from that in any way as "bad", then a lot of people are bad, including Asimov (and Dick). But if your definition of types of excellence include a tone suited to subject, an aim hit, a style that puts story front and author back, or a harmonious elegance, then Asimov was great.
Similarly, though less often argued one way or the other, if characterization is taken as an element of the good writing, then Dick usually had the somewhat put-upon almost-loser character and the shrewish, problematic, yet somehow attractive-to-the-protagonist female character (much like Rucker's women), and the Manipulator Secret Master Whatever character and so on. I don't especially recall any character's name (beyond Deckard, for extra-literary reasons). Again, this goes without any comparisons. But, while they might not have Dostoeskian depths (to borrow Poul Anderson's example phrase), Susan Calvin, Lije Baley, Daneel Olivaw, and others are unforgettable Asimovian characters. And Susan Calvin, Jezebel Baley, and Arkady Darell are three female characters who are all interesting, believable and nothing alike. (I'm not saying all Dick's female characters were alike, but that there is a definite predominant archetype for most of them and not a readily identifiable one for Asimov's.) So, again, I'd give the laurel to Asimov.
It's just a commonplace to describe Asimov as "plain prose, poor characterization" and Asimov did nothing to combat this, cheerfully arguing the primacy of "idea" over "character" and having no pretensions to being a "stylist". But that didn't prevent him from having style or developing characters. And having great ideas and telling great stories.
