Asimov's Foundation: Am I the only one who likes the show more?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GTOM
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the differences between Asimov's Foundation book and its TV adaptation, highlighting the show's exploration of themes like climate change and societal decline, which are less developed in the book. Critics point out that the original novel lacks depth in explaining the anti-scientific mindset of the rim worlds, while the show provides a clearer narrative on the decline of civilizations. Participants note that the book's portrayal of technology feels outdated and that the adaptation has attempted to fill gaps by introducing more action and character development. Some express disappointment with the second season, feeling it strays too far from the essence of the original story. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the challenges of adapting complex narratives while maintaining the core themes of the source material.
  • #31
A minor gripe, but there it is. With regards to the original three volumes, I seem to recall somewhere in the narrative of one of them that the stars are described as twinkling (or sparkling?) whilst observed in deep space. If so this is no anachronism: instead it came across as a bit of a howler, the kind of elementary mistake I wouldn't have expected from a writer of Asimov's stature. I wonder if Arthur C Clarke or Robert Heinlein ever pulled him up about it afterwards.

Of course, it's always possible that the observation windows of the spacecraft in question simply needed a good clean.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Dr Wu said:
.. the kind of elementary mistake I wouldn't have expected from a writer of Asimov's stature...
Indeed it would be. Asimov was as prolific at non-fiction science as he was at sci-fi. I had his book written entirely on the physics of stars.
 
  • #33
Dr Wu said:
A minor gripe, but there it is. With regards to the original three volumes, I seem to recall somewhere in the narrative of one of them that the stars are described as twinkling (or sparkling?) whilst observed in deep space. If so this is no anachronism: instead it came across as a bit of a howler, the kind of elementary mistake I wouldn't have expected from a writer of Asimov's stature. I wonder if Arthur C Clarke or Robert Heinlein ever pulled him up about it afterwards.

Of course, it's always possible that the observation windows of the spacecraft in question simply needed a good clean.
To be fair, no one had ever seen stars from space.
Same problem about very low g on the Moon. And pre Michael Jackson too.
 
  • Haha
Likes pinball1970
  • #34
"Bridle and Saddle", June 1942, pages 27-28, Theo Aporat:
"In the name of the Galactic Spirit and of his prophet, Hari Seldon, and of his interpreters, the holy men of the Foundation, I curse this ship. Let the televisors of this ship, which are its eyes, become blind. Let its grapples, which are its arms, be paralyzed. Let the atom blasts, which are its fists, lose their function. Let the motors, which is its heart, cease to beat. Let the communications, which is its voice, become dumb. Let its ventilations, which is its breath, fade. Let its lights, which is its soul, shrivel into nothing. In the name of the Galactic Spirit, I so curse this ship.”
And with his last word, at the stroke of midnight, a hand, light-years distant in the Argolid Temple, opened an ultrawave relay, which at the instantaneous speed of the ultrawave, opened another on the flagship Wienis.
And the ship died!
For it is the chief characteristic of the religion of science, that it works, and that such curses as that of Aporat’s are really deadly.
Aporat saw the darkness close down on the ship and heard the sudden ceasing of the soft, distant purring of the hyperatomic motors. He exulted and from the pocket of his long robe withdrew a self-powered Atomo bulb that filled the room with pearly light.
He looked down at the two soldiers who, brave men though they undoubtedly were, writhed on their knees in the last extremity of mortal terror.
If the ship died and it was in deep space - how could the soldiers fall on their knees, rather than float off their soles for lack of gravity?
 
  • #35
Dr Wu said:
the kind of elementary mistake I wouldn't have expected from a writer of Asimov's stature.
Well, Asimov was a very thoughtful writer, but his expertise was not exactly about the hardest hard sci-fi.
And I would not hold that against him: those few writers who were, wrote far less books and had lot smaller impact overall.
 
  • #36
snorkack said:
"Bridle and Saddle", June 1942, pages 27-28, Theo Aporat:

If the ship died and it was in deep space - how could the soldiers fall on their knees, rather than float off their soles for lack of gravity?
How do we know the artificial gravity requires power?
 
  • #37
Rive said:
Well, Asimov was a very thoughtful writer, but his expertise was not exactly about the hardest hard sci-fi.
What we knew very well was science, especially astrophysics.
 
  • #38
snorkack said:
If the ship died and it was in deep space - how could the soldiers fall on their knees, rather than float off their soles for lack of gravity?
Well, Aporat didn't say "Let the gravitic compensators of this ship, which hold everyone to the floor, cease function." :wink:
 
  • Haha
Likes sophiecentaur and DaveC426913
  • #39
snorkack said:
"Bridle and Saddle", June 1942, pages 27-28, Theo Aporat:

If the ship died and it was in deep space - how could the soldiers fall on their knees, rather than float off their soles for lack of gravity?
Frankly I don't care. It's all allegory.
 
  • #40
Isaac Asimov was a professor of medicine for Boston University.
 
  • #41
Hornbein said:
Isaac Asimov was a professor of medicine for Boston University.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
was an American writer and professor of biochemistry at Boston University.
emphasis added
 
  • #43
ohwilleke said:
(although I do like the very metal poor world as a device as that is a very real thing of which most people aren't aware).
Hardin:
The planet, Terminus, by itself cannot support a mechanized civilization. It lacks metals. You know that. It hasn’t a trace of iron, copper, or aluminum in the surface rocks, and precious little of anything else.
How would you take these so-called taxes, your eminence? Would you take them in kind: wheat, potatoes, vegetables, cattle?
Terminus is a planet practically without metals. We import it all. Consequently, we have no gold, and nothing to pay unless you want a few thousand bushels of potatoes.
The problem is
Frabjous said:
He taught biochemistry
Er? Liebig Barrel was 80 years old in 1942.
If there was no trace of iron in the surface rocks of Terminus then Terminus should not have grown a single potato, or as much as lichen or alga.
Iron is irreplaceable biochemical requirement for all forms of life.
 
  • #44
snorkack said:
If there was no trace of iron in the surface rocks of Terminus then Terminus should not have grown a single potato, or as much as lichen or alga.
It could if the iron and other required nutrients were brought in from elsewhere, along with the crops themselves, when Terminus was terraformed, and continued to be imported to support agriculture. Hardin does say "we import it all".
 
  • #45
PeterDonis said:
if the iron and other required nutrients were brought in from elsewhere
Alternatively: there was just barely enough for vegetation but without any deposits worthy of mining.
Rocks without Al, with Al being the twelfth-most common element in the universe - well, we got some interesting setup there...

As I said, his expertise was not exactly about the hardest hard sci-fi: but actually he did more for science this way.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #46
Rive said:
As I said, his expertise was not exactly about the hardest hard sci-fi: but actually he did more for science this way.
Yes. The word 'fiction' is the clue. I wonder if the same fussiness about details in non-science fiction would take up so many pages of discussion. I guess it would, where topics such as Police Procedure or Medical Treatment are major plot lines. I guess the author has won when people read the books and complain about them at the same time.
 
  • #47
Rive said:
Alternatively: there was just barely enough for vegetation but without any deposits worthy of mining.
Rocks without Al, with Al being the twelfth-most common element in the universe - well, we got some interesting setup there...
In universe, Fe is more common than Si, too. And Mg is more common than Al (for obvious reasons).
For origin of elements, see https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/13873/
 
  • #48
Rive said:
Well, Asimov was a very thoughtful writer, but his expertise was not exactly about the hardest hard sci-fi.
And I would not hold that against him: those few writers who were, wrote far less books and had lot smaller impact overall.
Yes, I accept your pushback, Rive. To repeat a point another poster has raised, it could be that the absence of this kind of scintillation in the vacuum of space wasn't properly appreciated back in the late 1940s - understandable given what was known about space back then. A case of nit-picking overreach?
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #49
Dr Wu said:
the absence of this kind of scintillation in the vacuum of space wasn't properly appreciated back in the late 1940s -
It says a lot about Hollywood that 'their' version of Science is often assumed to be reality (in the absence of alternative evidence). Space travel reveals a load of 'facts' which would have been too subtle for Hollywood to include in pre Apollo films. I always smile that the conspiracy theorists so often make crazy assumptions about what a Moon Landing 'spoof' would have looked like if it had been concocted by film drama makers.

I don't remember the name of the(Space Race) film with James Kahn in which he lands on the Moon and walks (trudges) to a rendezvous point to an unmanned supply ship. Real Moon landings came very soon after and the film became a joke. Capricorn One (Elliot Gould?) involves a spoof attempt to show a fake Moon Landing and the studio Moon Simulation would have been what the public were shown in a phoney Apollo landing.
 
  • #50
Rive said:
Just as LOTR is considered one of the top must-reads in all fantasy and to be honest, I've met a decent amount of fantasy enthusiasts who pleaded guilty after a beer or two that they could not read it through and went for an abridged version instead.
Happens. Comes with good variety.
Perhaps they should have gone for William Morris' adult and much less prolix The Well at the World's End.
Prince Ralph goes on a quest on his horse Shadowfax to find the Well, which confers renewed youth but not immortality, heals all wounds and provides heart's ease, the only thing he needs, after her husband murders his first love.
He survives an encounter with the cowardly tyrant Gandalf and returns with his rather terrifying wife Ursula the vavasor and the friends he made on the journey, just in time to save his small kingdom from an invading army.
Tolkien and Lewis were very critical, particularly of the ridiculous idea that women could fight as soldiers.

Blatant plagiarism? Morris wrote The Well in 1895, 50 years before LOTR.
 
  • #51
Carrock said:
Tolkien and Lewis were very critical, particularly of the ridiculous idea that women could fight as soldiers.
What a gem!

Of course, we now know that there have been some notable and well-authenticated cases of women serving as soldiers in pre-modern time in cultures as diverse as sub-Saharan Africa and Japan.

Also, the concern about realism is a bit ironic among two authors who fictional works were deeply rooted in the pure fantasy genre. Further, both men lived through World War II, which was a decisive moment in pushing women into roles that had traditionally been reserved for men out of necessity (see, e.g. Rosie the Riveter). Even Queen Elizabeth II, e.g., did engine mechanic work in the military as part of her training for the throne.

Of course, women as soldiers are far more common in fiction than in reality. But that has more to do with the reality of the prospective audience for particular works of fiction. Women and girls are much more receptive to works with strong female heroines. And, strong female heroines engaging in combat doesn't repeal men and boys from the audience as they like action and combat, and they enjoy watching/reading about women so long as the activities those women engage are activities that they relate to/engage with.

In the same vein, fiction has long favored heroes and heroines who are in their late teens who are either orphans or have parents who are distant and disengaged, as it is plausible for them to have adventures, this demographic reads a lot and likes to read about themselves, and characters from this narrow demographic don't alienate younger or older readers, or readers with engaged parents in close families.

So, leading characters who are female soldiers (in their late teens or early twenties, without closely involved parents) expand the audience which improves sales which improves author wealth. So they are pretty much the modal main character profile in the action genre.

But, this insight into the commercial side of speculative fiction wasn't widely known in their day and, in any event, wasn't a major driver for Tolkien or Lewis to write. Tolkien's fiction started off with an audience of his children, and as a creative diversion from his work in linguistics (Tolkien also had no talent whatsoever for developing romantic interests). Lewis's fiction was branching off from what he would have seen as his main day job as a Christian apologetic writer (and while Lewis scoffed a bit a female soldiers, he also did write with more strong female leads who weren't just damsels in distress or princesses than Tolkien did).

Also, it is worth noting that these views are not independent of each other. Tolkien and Lewis were not just contemporaries. They both lived in Oxford, England, knew each other, and were regular drinking buddies at the pub who would talk about things like this together. I've been to that pub myself.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Lewis' last work is the autobiography of a female soldier queen. Possibly my favorite book. Tolkien also has a soldier heroine.

This trope has been around since ancient Greece, at least.
 
  • #53
pines-demon said:
Edit: I will skip some of your comments as I have not watched season 2.
Rive said:
Just had some time for the second season, and ... well, it's just no longer the Foundation.

To be honest, it still could be a good series. The ideas they put in would be enough for that. But the changes - no, these are no longer just 'changes'. Would be a stretch to call it a 'rewrite', even :confused:

So whatever good could it be, I could not finish it as 'Foundation'.
Oh boy I finally got to watch season 2. What a fabulous... mess. I can say that:
  • I liked most of the fabricated new plots related to Empire.
  • Disliked most of the fabricated new plots related to Seldon and Gaal Dornick.
  • As for the original plot, it covers everything from third chapter of Foundation to the first half of Foundation and Empire. However everything is remixed and fused together so that characters of one story remain characters of the other stories. Also none is in order. This could have been clever but:
    • They messed up the timeline making features like the air of superstition and legend of the Foundation pointless. Everything is happening very close to the first season events, so it makes no sense. There was no point of having magicians, incomprehensible technology or any mystery surrounding the Foundation.
    • They do not understand the whole premise of the books. Seldon made predictions, these predictions have to happen no matter what, no individual event can change it (at least not under certain conditions...). Seldon should be just recordings. Seldon being actively engaged in keeping his predictions together misses the main point of the books entirely.
I am still trying to watch the third season, which seems to be only the last half of Foundation and Empire, but at this point I am more interested in the fabricated plots than in the plot points by Asimov.
 
  • Like
Likes nasu, Rive, PeterDonis and 1 other person
  • #54
ohwilleke said:
What a gem!

Of course, we now know that there have been some notable and well-authenticated cases of women serving as soldiers in pre-modern time in cultures as diverse as sub-Saharan Africa and Japan.

Also, the concern about realism is a bit ironic among two authors who fictional works were deeply rooted in the pure fantasy genre. Further, both men lived through World War II, which was a decisive moment in pushing women into roles that had traditionally been reserved for men out of necessity (see, e.g. Rosie the Riveter). Even Queen Elizabeth II, e.g., did engine mechanic work in the military as part of her training for the throne.

Of course, women as soldiers are far more common in fiction than in reality. But that has more to do with the reality of the prospective audience for particular works of fiction. Women and girls are much more receptive to works with strong female heroines. And, strong female heroines engaging in combat doesn't repeal men and boys from the audience as they like action and combat, and they enjoy watching/reading about women so long as the activities those women engage are activities that they relate to/engage with.

In the same vein, fiction has long favored heroes and heroines who are in their late teens who are either orphans or have parents who are distant and disengaged, as it is plausible for them to have adventures, this demographic reads a lot and likes to read about themselves, and characters from this narrow demographic don't alienate younger or older readers, or readers with engaged parents in close families.

So, leading characters who are female soldiers (in their late teens or early twenties, without closely involved parents) expand the audience which improves sales which improves author wealth. So they are pretty much the modal main character profile in the action genre.

But, this insight into the commercial side of speculative fiction wasn't widely known in their day and, in any event, wasn't a major driver for Tolkien or Lewis to write. Tolkien's fiction started off with an audience of his children, and as a creative diversion from his work in linguistics (Tolkien also had no talent whatsoever for developing romantic interests). Lewis's fiction was branching off from what he would have seen as his main day job as a Christian apologetic writer (and while Lewis scoffed a bit a female soldiers, he also did write with more strong female leads who weren't just damsels in distress or princesses than Tolkien did).

Also, it is worth noting that these views are not independent of each other. Tolkien and Lewis were not just contemporaries. They both lived in Oxford, England, knew each other, and were regular drinking buddies at the pub who would talk about things like this together. I've been to that pub myself.
i dont mind if there are heroines who can fight, but nowadays they tend to be ridicolous marysues, thougher than six men, flawless etc.
 
  • #55
pines-demon said:
Oh boy I finally got to watch season 2. What a fabulous... mess. I can say that:
  • I liked most of the fabricated new plots related to Empire.
  • Disliked most of the fabricated new plots related to Seldon and Gaal Dornick.
  • As for the original plot, it covers everything from third chapter of Foundation to the first half of Foundation and Empire. However everything is remixed and fused together so that characters of one story remain characters of the other stories. Also none is in order. This could have been clever but:
    • They messed up the timeline making features like the air of superstition and legend of the Foundation pointless. Everything is happening very close to the first season events, so it makes no sense. There was no point of having magicians, incomprehensible technology or any mystery surrounding the Foundation.
    • They do not understand the whole premise of the books. Seldon made predictions, these predictions have to happen no matter what, no individual event can change it (at least not under certain conditions...). Seldon should be just recordings. Seldon being actively engaged in keeping his predictions together misses the main point of the books entirely.
I am still trying to watch the third season, which seems to be only the last half of Foundation and Empire, but at this point I am more interested in the fabricated plots than in the plot points by Asimov.
i have to say i didnt like first half of Foundation and empire, i even think that was the weakest part.
Why couldnt some not so good generals finished the job started by the antagonist, when he already done the big part?
The characters basically changed nothing, and surprise, in the second half, the no one, especially not a single man can change history part was ditched.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
GTOM said:
i have to say i didnt like first half of Foundation and empire, i even think that was the weakest part.
I liked this half more than most of the stories at the end of Foundation 1.
GTOM said:
, in the second half, the no one, especially not a single men can change history part was ditched.
Sure but a reason was given. In the TV series there is no indication yet on why psychohistory fails (and kind of does not matter, Seldon is manipulating everything actively in the TV series).
 
  • #57
pines-demon said:
I liked this half more than most of the stories at the end of Foundation 1.

Sure but a reason was given. In the TV series there is no indication yet on why psychohistory fails (and kind of does not matter, Seldon is manipulating everything actively in the TV series).
But it worked, the empire was stopped.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K