I think I was reading this book but...

[Shubhojoy]

Regardless of the time factor, in this case a few decades or may be a century at most, I wonder what SCFI will be for people say in 2100 or 2200. For sure, Star Wars will sound as simplistic and "fantastic" (that is full of fantasy) as it does even now, at least for the discerning reader. To be sure Asimov or even Verne or Hugo proposed things that were perhaps mind-boggling, and to informed readers, bordering on fantasy. Then again whether it is hyperspatial jump or travelling time on a contraption with levers and cranks, the concept itself is reviewed by serious scientists even now, and sometimes what is fantasy becomes common place in comparison to what is discovered by scientists every now and then. This much is certain that to discerning readers, whatever the defects in their science, it will prove by far more believable what we find in Clarke's or Asimov's writings as well as as Hugo or Verne than average Hollywood stunts about galactic warfare and exploration. Just because the visual media is more appealing does not mean that they are path-breaking SCIFI, no matter whichever generationX have nostalgic associations about them, or the notion that they are the true "SCIFI". I agree with Kevan completely about his comparison with crime fiction. I will also add that it would be possibly BladeRunner (if not for the book, DO Androids.. at least the movie version), or 12 Monkeys, or La Chite, or Michael Critchon's stories as well as the recent Matrix, etc. not to forget Sagan's Contact that will be remembered more as examples of, uh, serious SCIFI rather than Star Wars or Star Trek. Having said that, I must also point out that Star Wars and Trek of course made cinematic and TV history. When it comes to SCIFI literature, there's better.

[Philip]

I'm a huge fan of the Foundation series, though for more "casual" fans of this kind of hard SF, I might say leave it at the original trilogy. But all in all these are classics of the genre.

[Shubhojoy]

That's a very interesting point Kevan. Asimov has no or very little violence in the sense the movies have. Even in murder mystery thrillers like Currents of Space or Naked Sun, it's Elijah Bailey and R. Daneel Olivaw hardly resort to any violence. Asimov uses implied violence or psychological stress, and he resolves everything with such "believable" concepts that are truly in my humble opinion, the mark of a genius.

In contrast to other writers, the complexity of his plots, or I would call it the richness of using concepts, and developing a story in the some distant future world, Asimov seems to almost describe them *not* with grand sweeps of visual wizardry in text, but by the sheer volume of simply detailed observations and explanations of phenomenon. He sounds like an expert historian of those eras.

But at the same time, I think when it comes to imagining Asimov's future worlds, it can also be very elaborately visual too. The concepts are not just elegantly put. I have clear visions, almost like a sort of personal POV for his many different worlds: the Foundation capital planet, the seat of the Second Foundation, the people, the culture, the early settlers planets... it's as if that man has created one single alternate universe of the future: no matter which Asimov book you take up (in the SCIFI genre), they are related to that universe, sometimes a few centuries, and some times eons apart in time.

Asimov's technique, I think I read somewhere in his own words are using the Biblical style at critical places, and using history, psychology and sociology as the framework for his worlds and plots rather than pure science.

He is fuzzy when it comes to the explaining the concept of positronic brain, hyperspatial jumps or the blaster. These are motifs I think he just used as given in the genre. Asimov is more of a "Why" thinker rather then a "How". He arrives t the how and it's not always clear how the three laws were ingranined into positronic brains. But the sheds so much light on "why" and what can happen as a consequence, it's difficult not to be overwhelmed by it, and happily so.

On the other hand Clarke's work is purer science, and has more "prophesies" than Asimov. Hollywood's movie versions of Asimov classics like I, Robot or Bicentennial Man of course prove how visual his world can be look and feel although these are anything but faithful reproductions of the original stories.

Kubrick's Odyssey of course takes Clarke's vision to another level, almost high brow art, if you will, although that's not a fair thing to say but well, you know what I mean. After watching Spielberg's AI for the first time, I think the Foundation series could also be made into films if there's a director or a group ambitious enough. It could be a huge enterprise, and I think the world could do with a lot of less violence in form of Asimov's rambling and epic saga.

Yes, good reading has a charm that can actually take us beyond the sex-violence-horror thrillers which are easily bigger money spinners and which we are so unashamedly addicted to in these days,... but movies could also bridge the gap of perception between readers on one hand and just pure movie buffs... ... funnily enough, I read Contact after seeing the movie at least twice, and each media had it's place... usually for readers, they are often dismayed at the movie version (except of course Dan Brown... :P ) ...

Yes, I do agree, reading has it's place and it can never be replaced as some think... they don't know what they are missing unless they read the book... it's a complimentary relation that a successful movie adaptation has with the original written story... and it's best to do enjoy both if possible!

[Lucy]

Kevan wrote: "To me, Jules Verne and HG Wells are to SciFi what Edgar Wallace and Conan Doyle are to crime fiction. The original masters. But since science has moved on SO MUCH since these two gentlemen wrote, t..."

Wait a minute, that is just wrong. Christie may be of her time, but her work is full of colour and depth. She reads like a mondern writer were as Asimov really doesn't. This "well back then fiction wasn't as good" rubbish is exactly that. Wells and Christie (both good for different reasons) had the ablity to paint a world with realism and pointed drama and pace. I found Asimov just wanted to look clever and really didn't care if his reader enjoyed or engauged with his work. Asimov show very little understanding of people, character and interal motivations, all things Wells (what happens if I poke it with a stick) and Christie (he poked him with a stick for being in love with his brother) are better to read.

[Eyob]

Lucy wrote: "Kevan wrote: "To me, Jules Verne and HG Wells are to SciFi what Edgar Wallace and Conan Doyle are to crime fiction. The original masters. But since science has moved on SO MUCH since these two gent..."

One thing I can agree with you, is that Asimov somehow tends to neglect the details at the lower level (neglect as in not giving proper treatment). Personally, it's the themes he tries to explore that I like.

For example, in the Foundation trilogy I have a hard time imagining nuclear technology being the single most decisive factor in determining a civilization's state of advancement 30,000 years from now. Nuclear is today; the future will certainly have something more decisive. But the way he explores the pattern of human history, you gotta admit, that is rather impressive.

Same thing could be said about iRobot, especially considering that now humanoid robots are no more a fantasy for society that looks to project its view of the future. I wasn't impressed with the characters' interactions, or even with the way the plot was setup so that the robots could play a role in the book. Generally I didn't like the book much. But still, what I cannot deny is that he tried to show a perspective as to how humans and technology would be intertwined in the future (a point which is relevant today).

What he seeming lacks in the details, he makes up for in the concepts. I can understand if this writing style doesn't live up to some readers' exceptions (though I would want to make an exception for the Foundation trilogy), but nevertheless he does have his merits.

[Phil]

Just noticed this post while I was flipping back through the comments. Thanks for posting this. I've copy-pasted the list out. --Phil.

Michel wrote: "I loved the Foundation novels. But don't read them in sequence of publishing date. When I last read them, the correct reading sequence was as follows:

1952 The Currents Of Space
1951 The Stars, Li..."

[John]

Does anyone know if any of the other authors wrote novels or short stories that dealt with the last 500 years leading up to the Second Empire? Asimov dealt with the 1st 500 with all of his books ending with Foundation and Earth, then backtracked to Seldon's life with the prequels. I was just wondering if any other author took on the remaining 500.

[Eyob]

John wrote: "Does anyone know if any of the other authors wrote novels or short stories that dealt with the last 500 years leading up to the Second Empire? Asimov dealt with the 1st 500 with all of his books e..."

Personally, I think Asimov should've stopped after writing Second Foundation. It was never meant to be about the destination (what happens after the 1000 years) but rather it was supposed to be about the journey of humanity's history. The rational conclusion is naturally a bit boring - Seldon's psychohistory progresses as planned and succeeds, and life and civilization would continue as normal. I guess he could've written about it if he wanted to, but didn't see the point.

After reading Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth, I was a bit disappointed. Asimov deviated from the previous books' direction, which IMHO resulted in an attempt to merge two different storylines (with the robots) that lacked harmony. Not only that, I felt he somewhat undid the legacy of the previous books' perfect story. Seldon's psychohistory was no more the dominant decider of humanity's fate, which was what made the books great. Robots came into the picture and took over, in a manner I couldn't swallow.

Besides, he lessened the characters of the members of the Second Foundation. They were these mysterious people with highly advanced state of mind and had a wonderful mystical role to play in guiding humanity back to civilization. In the latter books, he degraded them to a bunch of manipulative politicians with their own ambitious agendas. This was contradictory to their previous characters.

I did like the plot and some of the new characters, however. In fact, I think he gave his characters here a little more human interaction which he wasn't that good at in other works. The journey was kinda beautiful. The end was intriguing too. But I really wish he didn't have to make the story a part of the Foundation series, or at least contradict some of the elements. After reading these two books, I didn't bother reading the other prequels as I didn't want to dilute my impression of the original books; I like to keep it that way.

Asimov himself said as much. He didn't want to write further Foundation books, but was pressured by his fans and publisher into doing so. Whatever inspiration he had to write the Foundation series, he exhausted it in the first three books. So when he proceeded to write further books, they became a bit impure.

I can understand the cliffhanger feeling at the end of the third book, but if think about it, really you cannot write a story that could genuinely represent the original Foundation trilogy's spirit.

[Gordon]

I'm not a fan of this as much as I am of his Robot series.