Foundation - too dated? (issaac Asimov)

[Connavar]

Exactly sometimes i cant stands the view of everything modern must better than the old....


90% of my SF books are my written by Asimov,Heinlein,Clarke,Vance etc

That they make me love thier books and buy their books as much as i do is proof that they are still hard to beat.

 

[Shell_Kracker]

Exactly sometimes i cant stands the view of everything modern must better than the old....

Bear in mind im not saying that.

90% of my SF books are my written by Asimov,Heinlein,Clarke,Vance etc

That might be the issue dont you think?

Does the 10% reflect the best in modern sci-fi?

 

[Connavar]

I didnt say you did



Just cause i dont own them doesnt mean i havent read you know.

There is a thing called a library. I borrow any new author i read from the library first to try him. Then if he is good i buy his books.

The modern SF writers compete with Asimov,Heinlein etc for my money and the ones i have read arent as good. Its as simply as that.

There are a few i buy as much asimov and co. That is D.Adams,Card.

To me there arent as many great modern SF writer as you claim. I havent read them all of course.

For example i read Dan Simmons Hyperion. Good first book but too much about the characters for my taste. Not good enough SF for me to get the rest of the series.

I wished he went Asimov way with Foundation. Where the story,the world was more important than the characters. Sure its not fair comparing him to Asimov's Foundation but thats who he has to compete for my cash. Im not Richy Rich



P.S Dont think i have 100's of books. Im a new collector of books. Own tops 50-60 books. Maybe 10-20 SF. So 90% isnt 90 books or something.

 

[j d worthington]

And, just to be fair, I'd like to clarify: we do have writers in the field who are quite excellent, and whom I think will continue to be read as long as the Golden Age writers. It's just that a lot of what is viewed as "better" now over what went before isn't necessarily better... just more to contemporary taste.

 

[Pyan]

And, just to be fair, I'd like to clarify: we do have writers in the field who are quite excellent, and whom I think will continue to be read as long as the Golden Age writers. It's just that a lot of what is viewed as "better" now over what went before isn't necessarily better... just more to contemporary taste.

I'd be interested to know who you have in mind there, j. d.
(no sarcasm intended - straightforward question!)

 

[j d worthington]

Hmmm. You know, I've not sat down and made a list in a long time... nor have I read as much of the more recent stuff as I should, I suppose (too little time with all the other reading I have to do for the foreseeable future ). However, a few names that come to mind (and these are rather scattershot as to how long they've been writing): Alastair Reynolds, though not entirely to my taste, has a lot to offer; Kim Stanley Robinson, though sometimes needing some trimming, has done some very good work; Michael Swanwick; Lucius Shepard, Connie Willis, Joe Haldeman, Jack MacDevitt (again, I think a little compression might help here, but nonetheless impressive, I think), Ursula Le Guin (of course), several of the writers who came out of the cyberpunk movement, especially Bruce Sterling and a fair amount of Gibson I find very worthwhile (if not always to my taste, again); Robert Silverberg, Lois McMaster Bujold, Suzie McKee Charnas, Dan Simmons (on the whole), Mike Resnick, Harry Turtledove, Charles Sheffield (though I've only read scattered pieces there), Neal Stephenson (a bit bloated now and again, but not much so), Vernor Vinge (at least a respectable amount of)...

That's all I can think of at the moment. Some of them I've not kept up with, and there may have been a drop (or rise) in quality; but I recall being impressed enough with what I have read to consider them writers I'd like to keep up with, had I the time....

 

[Shell_Kracker]

It's just that a lot of what is viewed as "better" now over what went before isn't necessarily better... just more to contemporary taste.

True I guess.

In that case, I would try to explain my perticular taste - but it is hard to define.

 

[j d worthington]

True I guess.

In that case, I would try to explain my perticular taste - but it is hard to define.

Oh, indeed. It always is. But it's frequently very interesting to try ... and certainly makes for some meaty discussions.

At any rate... welcome, and glad to see your input here...

 

[Shell_Kracker]

Oh, indeed. It always is. But it's frequently very interesting to try ... and certainly makes for some meaty discussions.

At any rate... welcome, and glad to see your input here...

Thanks - I guess I could give it a go:

Apart from what ive said about Asimov's writing (compare it to say, Tolkien), one of the things I like about modern literature, is that it tends to be more nihilistic, and showing charecters that are unconventional or interesting, or who are slaves to human nature, becomes more important than the concept that goes with the story. Much (but not all) older sci-fi dosent incorporate this kind of charecter complexity I think. Thus I find an author like JG Ballard, or Chuck Palahniuk, or Ryu Murakami, much more interesting to read than someone like Asimov - not just because their books are full of debauchery, but because I think good fiction is about compeling charecters reacting to events around them.

I grew up on Star Trek, and the most compelling Star Trek episodes were not the ones where the highest concepts or best villains were presented - they were the ones where charecters showed the most emotional reaction - if Kirk or Picard were rendered speechless by something on the viewscreen, it was compelling due to their shock, not yours - this tought me that good drama/fiction is more about the reactions of the people to the events, rather than the events themselves.

Perhaps Foundation wanted to emphisise that individual humans are small in the scheme of things - but ironically, could have accomplished this better by making more compelling charecters. Because when some collosal heart-wrenching tragedy happens, and is forgotton about after 100 years, its far more compelling than if it goes unwritten. And although you may think that this is unneccecary, I think that is the point of writing Foundation as a book instead of a description on a piece of paper.

 

[Connavar]

Shell_Kracker

Before we got little of topic i was wondering who you thought has surpassed Asimov and Foundation in Space Opera. Which writer you were talking about when you said it has been done better these days.

I really have no interest to talk about why modern SF is better or worse than the old.


Its funny you dont like the thing i like most in Foundation.


I like that invduvidual humans are small in the scheme of things. Even though there are many characters that i liked alot in Foundation series they werent the focus or the best thing in the series.

 

[Shell_Kracker]

I was only replying to jd's interest, I dont really want to talk about it if there are Asimov fans here who are drawing ire from this.

To answer your question about who I was thinking of, I didnt have anyone specific in mind, because to be honest, most Space Operas since have been more compelling - Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate, Babylon 5, Dune, Ringworld, Revelation Space, etc (list goes on) - Space opera has been done by a ton of writers, from TV, film, video games, and of course novels - and they have all expanded on the original Space Opera concept that was first introduced in Foundation - thus surpassing it. Cant beat Foudation for originality of course - if I had been born in the 20s I might have found it fresh - but not after all that has come since - sorry. The Rise and Fall of civilization concept has been explored too.

 

[Connavar]

I was only replying to jd's interest, I dont really want to talk about it if there are Asimov fans here who are drawing ire from this.

To answer your question about who I was thinking of, I didnt have anyone specific in mind, because to be honest, most Space Operas since have been more compelling - Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate, Babylon 5, Dune, Ringworld, Revelation Space, etc (list goes on) - Space opera has been done by a ton of writers, from TV, film, video games, and of course novels - and they have all expanded on the original Space Opera concept that was first introduced in Foundation - thus surpassing it. Cant beat Foudation for originality of course - if I had been born in the 20s I might have found it fresh - but not after all that has come since - sorry. The Rise and Fall of civilization concept has been explored too.

Heh i thought you were talking about good space opera novels that are so good that they are much better foundation .

I didnt know you were talking about other medias, i was thinking about space opera novels.



It would have been interesting if you said how it has been surpassed. I mean you dont have to say "ooh the new ideas" thats a given people see what have been done and do thier own type of space opera.

You are talking about that its age is the bad thing about Foundation. You dont think people will find today's good space operas dated in the future thats natural


So it seems i misunderstood you bigtime. I was interested in you giving an example of a novel and you are talking about the new ideas of space opera that are so great and not an actual novel and why its so good.

 

[manephelien]

I haven't read many space opera novels, but my problem with the Foundation series is that it depicts a galaxy filled with humans (and to some extent during some eras, metallic and humaniform robots), and no truly alien species. Asimov himself said that it was mainly to avoid running into John W. Campbell's xenophobia against non-human races. That's why I find B5 and Star Trek much richer tapestries to weave stories against. That's not to say that Foundation is bad, however.

 

[Shell_Kracker]

So it seems i misunderstood you bigtime. I was interested in you giving an example of a novel and you are talking about the new ideas of space opera that are so great and not an actual novel and why its so good.

I did provide a couple - but im not bound by medium.

 

[Connavar]

I did provide a couple - but im not bound by medium.

You provided examples sure but you were all about them bring new ideas and not why you thought them being so good. Other than them focusing more on characters.


Also its hard comparing to other mediums.

It will be too much like i have heard for example about Bladerunner. People going crazy about the great visuals and stuff when they compare it to the book version.

Anyway i know what you meant now and dont have any interest in comparing it works in other mediums.

Would have been more interesting if you said what made Dune,Ringworld great as space operas cause those you can compare .
​

 

[j d worthington]

I haven't read many space opera novels, but my problem with the Foundation series is that it depicts a galaxy filled with humans (and to some extent during some eras, metallic and humaniform robots), and no truly alien species. Asimov himself said that it was mainly to avoid running into John W. Campbell's xenophobia against non-human races. That's why I find B5 and Star Trek much richer tapestries to weave stories against. That's not to say that Foundation is bad, however.

Asimov made several different statements about why he didn't use aliens much in his work (save for some of his earliest stories, where they do crop up a bit). Yes, part of it was Campbell's approach -- not so much xenophobia, but that the humans always had to win out, which Isaac saw as simply not feasible. But also because he himself said he felt he couldn't really do a good alien character -- one that truly felt alien, that is, so he was always uncomfortable with it in his own work (though liking quite a number of such characters in the work of others).

Shell Kracker: Thanks for the information. Much appreciated. One point I'd like to address, though, is that Space Opera was actually something that came along quite a bit before Isaac's Foundation stories -- different people have been credited with inventing the form, but the most famous (and one who certainly deserves serious consideration as the one who gave us the space opera as we know it) is E. E. "Doc" Smith, which his Skylark of Space series, back in the 1930s. And you're right: space opera has undergone some major metamorphoses since (and the vast majority of these are much better written than Smith's, much as I'm fond of the man and his work; Phil Farmer once compared Smith to Grandma Moses, and I think the comparison is quite accurate), including quite a few of Samuel R. Delaney's novels, which used the post-modernist approach to the material.

I have serious doubts about nihilism being any better, but I do think it fits the current Zeitgeist much more; though I think there's not only room for idealism (at least, of a sort) but that it is actually helpful in some ways ... as long as it's not done naïvely. And there are any number of good writers with that approach -- I share your liking for Ballard, for instance, whose work has always mightily impressed me on many levels. I've a strong liking for many of the New Wave writers, for that matter -- I still find that that was an exciting time in this particular branch of literature... and the arts in general, actually. A lot of fluff came out of it, but there was a vigour and willingness to experiment that broadened the writer's range of tools quite a bit, and produced some very good work.

At any rate... good discussion. I don't see ire here, particularly (though there is disagreement -- a different thing), and hope that you'll feel comfortable about contributing any further thoughts you have on this (or any other) matter...

 

[Shell_Kracker]

j. d. worthington[/COLOR]]Shell Kracker: Thanks for the information. Much appreciated. One point I'd like to address, though, is that Space Opera was actually something that came along quite a bit before Isaac's Foundation stories -- different people have been credited with inventing the form, but the most famous (and one who certainly deserves serious consideration as the one who gave us the space opera as we know it) is E. E. "Doc" Smith, which his Skylark of Space series, back in the 1930s. And you're right: space opera has undergone some major metamorphoses since (and the vast majority of these are much better written than Smith's, much as I'm fond of the man and his work; Phil Farmer once compared Smith to Grandma Moses, and I think the comparison is quite accurate), including quite a few of Samuel R. Delaney's novels, which used the post-modernist approach to the material.

I have serious doubts about nihilism being any better, but I do think it fits the current Zeitgeist much more; though I think there's not only room for idealism (at least, of a sort) but that it is actually helpful in some ways ... as long as it's not done naïvely. And there are any number of good writers with that approach -- I share your liking for Ballard, for instance, whose work has always mightily impressed me on many levels. I've a strong liking for many of the New Wave writers, for that matter -- I still find that that was an exciting time in this particular branch of literature... and the arts in general, actually. A lot of fluff came out of it, but there was a vigour and willingness to experiment that broadened the writer's range of tools quite a bit, and produced some very good work.

At any rate... good discussion. I don't see ire here, particularly (though there is disagreement -- a different thing), and hope that you'll feel comfortable about contributing any further thoughts you have on this (or any other) matter...

Thanks jd, this is a pretty interesting topic - and also I didnt know about Smith until now, so thanks again.

You are right that beliefs arnt neccecarily bad if they are constantly examined with an open mind, but I guess people like me think that humans cant ever examine their ideals with a totally open mind, and thus holding an ideal at all is to always invite nieve fanaticism. I believe this because as much as a human might try, their 'id' or evolutionary instincts or human nature or whatever is constantly preventing their consious mind from being totally objective - people thus slip into fanaticism because vigorously defending their point of view is fullfilling, and having the respect of peers is also fullfilling - basically fanaticism is fullfilling, which is why so many people who think they are 'rebels with a cause' exist (from religious extreamists to Maoist insurgents).

After being a fanatical idealist about things in life myself, I also witnessed it first hand from others - talking to people who were fanatic about one ideal or another in light of my own experiences allowed me to see their motivations - allowed me to see the same human desires getting in the way of their objectivity - made me believe humans cant be objective - even when one thinks they are being practical, as all fanatics do.

Hence my own preference for post-modern aparthy toward ideals, and how when they are portrayed, they are often the subject of satire (like Tyler Durden's Operation Mayhem in 'Fight Club). I know my own tastes are definative, and we tend to follow ideals whether we know it or not - but its one of the reasons I have a hard time getting into some settings.

I haven't read many space opera novels, but my problem with the Foundation series is that it depicts a galaxy filled with humans (and to some extent during some eras, metallic and humaniform robots), and no truly alien species. Asimov himself said that it was mainly to avoid running into John W. Campbell's xenophobia against non-human races. That's why I find B5 and Star Trek much richer tapestries to weave stories against. That's not to say that Foundation is bad, however.

I dont think Space Opera neccecarily needs aliens - especially when they end up playing steriotypical human roles anyway

 

[Shell_Kracker]

I tried posting a long reply yesterday, but it hasnt appeared for some reason Sorry about that. Basically the gist of it was this: While in priciple, ideals and beliefs shouldnt be dangerous if they were reasoned and examined, people like myself tend to believe that no human is capable of being objective, because their subconsious desires or 'id' or whatever, gets in the way.

 

[j d worthington]

I tried posting a long reply yesterday, but it hasnt appeared for some reason Sorry about that. Basically the gist of it was this: While in priciple, ideals and beliefs shouldnt be dangerous if they were reasoned and examined, people like myself tend to believe that no human is capable of being objective, because their subconsious desires or 'id' or whatever, gets in the way.

Eh? I'm assuming that you're referring to the debate?

 

[Shell_Kracker]

I think there's not only room for idealism (at least, of a sort) but that it is actually helpful in some ways ... as long as it's not done naïvely.

Just replying to that bit, sorry for the confusion.