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

  • Thread starter Thread starter GTOM
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread 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 Participants note that the book's portrayal of technology feels outdated and that the adaptation has attempted to fill gaps by introducing more action and character development.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.
GTOM
Messages
963
Reaction score
66
After i watched the first season that is based of Asimov's Foundation, i started to read the first Foundation book.
I stopped when i read, that they could simply resolve the conflict with Anakreon, because Terminus had nuclear technology... So Anakreon starships ran with gasoline or what??
Okay i restarted. Then Salvor Hardin said, that they trained Tech-Priests on Terminus. Okay they are cool in Warhammer40k universe, since there, demons and magic are real. But the first Foundation book didnt bother to tell anything, how rim worlds reached that level of anti-scientific, superstitous state.
The show had something: we could see how Synnax was destroyed by climate change, then smart people fled, stupid superstitous ones remained. There were an exact root of evil, the Genetic Dynasty, not just we have to accept, that humans only become more and more stupid except the ones in the Foundation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
GTOM said:
But the first Foundation book didnt bother to tell anything, how rim worlds reached that level of anti-scientific, superstitous state.
The show had something: we could see how Synnax was destroyed by climate change, then smart people fled, stupid superstitous ones remained. There were an exact root of evil, the Genetic Dynasty, not just we have to accept, that humans only become more and more stupid except the ones in the Foundation.
True. Original novels do limited amount of painting the world behind.
We have a bit of hints scattered, but it is not clear how the world around them goes. But some...

Anselm haut Rodric recognizes the smell of Vegan tobacco. And asks how Hardin could get it. Implying that Anselm now could not.
Anselm is Subprefect of Pluema. We hear that Anacreon itself is a prefecture. Most likely explanation is that Pluema is a planet and Anselm is a governor of a planet. We do hear of him in the capacity of envoy, and of a military commander, but it is historically common for regional governors to be sent to travel out of their bailiwick on missions like that.
Which means that Anselm is in charge of several hundreds of millions of people, one of a few tens of planetary governors (Bridle and Saddle gives the number of planets in Anacreon as roughly 32) and maybe a few tens of same rank people in central government - top hundred of Anacreon. And Anacreon can no longer import exotic luxury goods for his class. (While in his living memory, they still could).
In Bridle and Saddle, we hear of marker of the end of old good times - Zeon rebellion, then 190 years ago (160 years ago as of Foundation). We never hear if Zeon was a place or a person, but the result was that after it "Anacreon minded mostly their own affairs".
In the speech of Hari Seldon in Foundation, he says that he tricked the people of Foundation into staying until "their retreat had been cut off". The implication was that the normal reaction of people of Foundation to shrinking trade would have been to emigrate back to the inner Empire, like Trantor.
Chances are it happened to the smart people on Anacreon... over the extended period of decline.

Who leave, who stay?
Imagine that both Delicass and Anacreon are exporting cows to Trantor. A cow sells for 100 credits on Trantor. Carrying a cow by starship to Trantor costs 6 credits from Delicass, 60 credits from Anacreon on the rim.
In good times, both Delicass and Anacreon are earning. 94 credits for a cow on Delicass, 40 on Anacreon. Still a lot of money.
Now economic crisis happens on Trantor, so the cow only sells for 50 credits on Trantor. But the costs of interstellar travel are unaltered.
Trantor still gets cows, and Delicass still gets 44 credits per cow. But a cow on Anacreon is now worthless.
Even though the Vegan tobacco is low volume, high value compared to cows, so the transport costs of Vegan tobacco are low - say, a box of Vegan tobacco costs 100 credits on Trantor, 101 credits on Delicass and 110 credits on Anacreon - since Anacreon´s exports were low value high volume, they are now worthless, Anacreon has no credits at all and cannot afford any imports at all, not even high value low volume ones.

And there are more vital stuff than Vegan tobacco. Like, say, chloroform, iodoform, nuclear engines, trained specialists...

Who are prominent people at Pluema? Say... a baron and a surgeon.
When the trade is drying up, the baron´s cows lose value in hard currency.
He can still be a baron. He can still produce butter on Pluema and he can still command milkmaids. But he cannot get any credits for either cow, butter or milkmaid, and therefore he cannot import anything - not Vegan tobacco, and not chloroform.
Now, the surgeon also cannot do much useful work when he runs out of either chloroform or iodoform.
So the last ship comes, and the baron and the surgeon consider what to do with their last credits.

The thing is, the surgeon has an usable skill. If there is a starship visiting and he has the credits left for the one way ticket to Trantor, he can go to Trantor, get a job as a surgeon on Trantor and earn his living.

The milkmaid and the baron cannot. The milkmaid does not even have the credits for the ticket out of Pluema, nor a skill competitive on Trantor. The baron may have the credits left - but he also does not have a skill competitive on Trantor.

Which means that either milkmaid or baron, if they did get to Trantor, would not get a job and would die of hunger before hospital door.

If the surgeon has the choice to get on ship and go work on Trantor, or spend the rest of his life milking cows on Pluema because there will be no more chloroform imports, what would he choose?
If the baron has a choice to die of hunger on Trantor (because cows on Anacreon are worthless on Trantor and so are his skills) or of clogged arteries on Pluema (because the last medic took the last ship out), what would he choose?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis and BillTre
GTOM said:
Asimov's Foundation, am i the only one, who like the show more?
No.

The original book was a very special kind of riddle even way back. As the author once said (at least, as I recall it was him) that even he had a weird feeling that something is completely missing: and later he found that it was - direct action. Everything what happened had been only just told by (Sorry. I hope I got that linguistics maze right...)
And that made it very challenging to turn it into a show.
Also, it made the number of people who could actually like it limited.

The show apparently filled up that gap and invented some action to build up the word around the story through that. I would say it's a wise choice (although I did like that book very much).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis, martinbn and BillTre
Rive said:
The show apparently filled up that gap and invented some action to build up the word
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'.
 
GTOM said:
After i watched the first season that is based of Asimov's Foundation, i started to read the first Foundation book.
I don't think I even knew there was a show / film / series / ?? version. Anyway, this thread got me to dig out my paperback copy and start to re-read it again.
 
  • Like
Likes RobertoV and martinbn
I think the additions for the TV series (like the three-headed emperor) are very interesting ideas! But I think that the series lacks on things that I liked from the book. This is a hard series of book to adapt because they want to create a continuous narrative.

All that said, I think the Foundation books have not aged well, the books all full of very doubtful nuclear technology and interstellar transportation. I think the robot series would be more impactful to revisit in today's AI boom.

Edit: I will skip some of your comments as I have not watched season 2.
 
pines-demon said:
All that said, I think the Foundation books have not aged well, the books all full of very doubtful nuclear technology and interstellar transportation.
On the contrary, I think it's still fine these days.
Regarding the nuclear tech and such - well, compared to the usual senseless word-salads of quantum and whatever from the books of the recent years, it's cute 😂
 
pines-demon said:
I think the Foundation books have not aged well
As I re-read the first book, what strikes me is the story is all men, who spend a lot of time smoking cigars.

interstellar transportation
I actually like the way Asimov explains it in two or three sentences. To paraphrase: hyperdrive allows instant travel around the galaxy, because otherwise interstellar travel is impossible.

I also like his Encyclopedia Galactica quotes, as a way of explaining things to the reader without having the characters talking.

An annoying habit is having the characters use "space" as a mild oath or swear: "Space knows when we'll get more Vegan tobacco!" ugh.

EDIT - per the forward in the first book, Asimov started writing Foundation in 1941, more than 80 years ago, and a busy 80 years at that.
 
  • Like
Likes pines-demon
gmax137 said:
as a way of explaining things to the reader without having the characters talking.
...any more than they already are. :smile:
 
  • #10
GTOM said:
But the first Foundation book didnt bother to tell anything, how rim worlds reached that level of anti-scientific, superstitous state.
This has an explanation in the Foundation series. I don't recall when it is revealed.

The Second Foundation of psychohistorians devises/commisions a highly engineered brain virus bioweapon which infects almost all people of high IQ that impedes developments in civilization that screw up their plan.
 
  • #11
pines-demon said:
All that said, I think the Foundation books have not aged well, the books all full of very doubtful nuclear technology and interstellar transportation. I think the robot series would be more impactful to revisit in today's AI boom.
Two points:

1. The Robot series is eventually tied into the Foundation series.

2. The nuclear and interstellar space technologies are window dressing that aren't meant to be hard science. The Foundation series is mostly about the psychohistory part and was heavily influenced by Gibbon's multi-volume Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It is about how civilizations evolve and what drives the process and to what extent the process is theoretically possible to understand and under what conditions since social sciences create feedback loops.

All of the technologies are just toys inserted to present obstacles and means for the larger historical evolution and guidance of civilization story, not for their own sake (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).

Another cute techology that was very prescient is the voice recognition software that a young character uses to do her homework before going on a grand star crossing adventure.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Hornbein and pines-demon
  • #12
ohwilleke said:
Two points:

1. The Robot series is eventually tied into the Foundation series.
I never read that part of the series. How organic is the merging of the two series?
 
  • #13
pines-demon said:
I never read that part of the series. How organic is the merging of the two series?
It works quite well for what is basically a retcon. Most of each respective series takes place in different time periods, so aside from some key illuminating ways that they are linked, there isn't a whole lot of room for them to interfere with each other.

A key character who implements the psychohistorians' plans in the Foundation books is revealed to be a robot from the Robot books whose longevity makes its very long time frame of the plan more manageable. IIRC the motive for the robot to shorten the length of the dark ages is also motivated by the three laws of robotics.
 
  • Like
Likes pines-demon
  • #14
ohwilleke said:
It works quite well for what is basically a retcon.
I first heard the term "retcon" just yesterday. Weird. OK, back to the thread...
 
  • #15
It's helpful to remember that the original Foundation novels are closer in time to those by H G Wells (indeed just shy of some of the more notable ones by Jules Verne: think "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" published 1869/70) than they are to our present time. Laden as they are with their many anachronisms, at least there's no "cavorite" in them. That counts as real progress. The point, of course, is that allowances should be made, given the milieu in which they were written. It's quite possible that someone of a certain mindset, and who came of age during the Edwardian era, would have found them outlandish, even incomprehensible - even allowing for all the palls of cigar smoke wafting through them. Times change.

PS. There's also the "Lensman" series by Doc E E Smith, among other SF writers of that period.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
I think Foundation and Earth is the last one that I read. It was ages ago, but quite interesting.
 
  • #17
Rive said:
direct action.
That's not quite true. There are some direct action scenes. But it is true that they are very few. Much more is told indirectly than would be the norm in more recent SF. (Or even in SF of the same period by other authors--Heinlein, for example, is much more direct in his storytelling.)
 
  • #18
GTOM said:
Anakreon starships ran with gasoline or what??
Hardin mentions "oil and coal" at one point, but either way, yes, that was one aspect I always found very difficult to fathom. I suspect Asimov didn't bother actually trying to run numbers for the energy requirements of a starship--even one whose propulsion is as hand-waved as his are. We are never told in the first three novels how starships are propelled through ordinary space (and in Foundation and Earth, while we are told that Trevize's ship has "gravitic drive", a very new and advanced techology, we are never told what it replaced), and hyperspatial jumps appear to be so cheap energy-wise that ships think nothing of making many of them without any sign of having to refuel.

In one of Asimov's other novels in the "Foundation universe"--The Stars, Like Dust, I think--it is briefly mentioned that "ships are fueled by the total conversion of mass to energy". But we are still never told how it is done (no dilithium crystals or other such things), nor are we ever told how this process results in propulsion. And of course this offhand statement appears to contradict what is in the Foundation novels.

There is one way to sort of reconcile this: to view the talk about nuclear ("atomic" in the originals--I never liked the rewording in more recent editions) energy, at least as far as starships are concerned, as applying to weapons, not propulsion. So Anacreonian ships, and also Foundation ships, presumably, would still be using the "total conversion of mass to energy, plus somehow translating this into propulsion" process to move through space and make hyperspatial jumps, but without the extra nuclear technology that only the Foundation has, their weapons would be greatly inferior and they would be completely outclassed in a fight. But even this doesn't fit very well with many passages in the novels.
 
  • #19
Decades ago, I read it - or tried to. I got about halfway through it before I realized the preamble was not going to give way to the story - this was the story. I gave up.

Finally, decades later I decided to force my way through it, like some sort of Labour of Hercules.
 
  • #20
DaveC426913 said:
decades later I decided to force my way through it, like some sort of Labour of Hercules
In many ways, being technology savvy can be very limiting with Scifi. If the story is good enough then it will be the story that you get into. There's a good sixty years between when I read the trilogy first and last. The few tech details are nonsense but his ideas are fine if you think in terms of everything happening on earth, (GOT?)

Serious PFers will be aware of the Drake Equation and suchlike. We should realise that 'hopping about' the galaxy is a nonsense idea and that any interstellar trip is one way. But so what? Azimov gets away with cigarette smoking travellers and other anachronisms because his characters are just like us. He avoids trying to teach the reader about serious Physics. There's absolutely no point in 'spotting his mistakes'.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre and phinds
  • #21
I read the books when I was a kid and thought they were the greatest. I haven't watched television for the last 20 years.
 
  • #22
sophiecentaur said:
In many ways, being technology savvy can be very limiting with Scifi. If the story is good enough then it will be the story that you get into.
To be clear, it was not the technology I had any problem with; not at all. In fact, the retro-futurism is one of the things that can make a story give me the warm & fuzzies.

Rive hit it on the head. There was no direct action. The whole thing was not so much a story as the recounting of a story.
 
  • #23
DaveC426913 said:
There was no direct action. The whole thing was not so much a story as the recounting of a story.
That's what some of us like about it. Not all stories are for everybody.
 
  • Like
Likes Rive, ohwilleke and DaveC426913
  • #24
pines-demon said:
That's what some of us like about it. Not all stories are for everybody.
True, but Foundation is considered one of the top must-reads in all sci-fi - i.e. maybe not for everybody, but apparently for almost everybody. A bit intimidating.
 
  • Like
Likes AlexB23, Rive, ohwilleke and 1 other person
  • #25
DaveC426913 said:
A bit intimidating.
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.

Regarding the Foundation (book) and its apparent lack of laser shootouts, I beginning to appreciate its style more and more in the recent years. It became too frequent in new movies (and books too) that nothing really happens in lengthy blocks of intensive and repetitive but totally story-irrelevant pew-pew-bang-bang actions.
 
  • #26
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.
Pish posh. LotR is formative reading - required reading at least thrice. (And I'm not even a fantasy reader). It is the benchmark: All other high fantasy is rated as either "like LotR" or "not like LotR".


For me, That Which is Unreadable is Herbert's Dune. Tried so many times. Fell asleep by page 60 every time.
 
  • #27
Rive said:
Regarding the Foundation (book) and its apparent lack of laser shootouts, I beginning to appreciate its style more and more in the recent years.
Counting the cases where a blaster was fired:
"Bridle and Saddle", Astounding June 1942, page 20 - the Narrator:
Wienis screamed a curse and staggered to the nearest soldier. Wildly, he wrested the atom blast from the man’s hand — aimed it at Hardin, who didn’t stir, shoved the lever and held it contacted.
The pale continuous beam impinged upon the force field that surrounded the mayor of Terminus and was sucked harmlessly to neutralization. Wienis pressed harder and laughed tearingly.
Hardin still smiled and his force-field aura scarcely brightened as it absorbed the energies of the atom blast. From his corner, Lepold covered his eyes and moaned.
And, with a yell of despair, Wienis changed his aim and shot again — and toppled to the floor with his head blown into nothingness.
No collateral damage to wall this time.
"The Big and the Little", Astounding August 1944, pages 34-35, the Narrator:
For the first time, the tech-man became aware of the dimly- white illumination that hovered closely about his visitor, as though he had been dipped in pearl-dust. His blaster raised to the level and with eyes a-squint in wonder and suspicion, he closed contact.
The molecules of air caught in the sudden surge of atomic disruption, tore into glowing, burning ions, and marked out the blinding thin line that struck at Mallow’s heart — and splashed!
While Mallow’s look of patience never changed, the atomic forces that tore at him consumed themselves against that fragile, pearly illumination, and crashed back to die in midair.
Illustrated at page 40.
"The Dead Hand", Astounding April 1945, page 46, the Narrator:
But the sergeant recognized the monogram on the gun. He cried in choked fury, “You’ve killed the general.”
With a wild, incoherent yell, he charged blindly upon the blasting fury of the gun and collapsed in blasted ruin.
Illustrated page 50. Still no collateral damage
Pages 56-57, again the Narrator:
There was a glitteringly efficient blast-gun in his fist as he smiled. “There are greater men than you under arrest this day. It is a hornet’s nest we are cleaning up.”
Devers snarled and reached slowly for his own gun. The lieutenant of police smiled more broadly and squeezed the contacts. The blasting line of force struck Devers’ chest in an accurate blaze of destruction — that bounced harmlessly off his personal shield in sparkling spicules of light.
Devers shot in turn, and the lieutenant’s head fell from off an upper torso that had disappeared. It was still smiling as it lay in the jag of sunshine which entered through the new-made hole in the wall.
Collateral damage this time.
"The Mule" part II, Astounding December 1945, page 160, the Narrator:
Bayta, face frozen white, lifted her blaster and shot, with an echoing clap of noise. From the waist upward, Mis was not, and a ragged hole was in the wall behind. From numb fingers, Bayta’s blaster dropped to the floor.
XVI.
There was not a word to be said. The echoes of the blast rolled away into the outer rooms and rumbled downward into a hoarse, dying whisper. Before its death, it had muffled the sharp clamor of Bayta’s falling blaster, smothered Magnifico’s high-pitched cry, drowned out Toran’s inarticulate roar.
There was a silence of agony.
Again collateral damage to the wall. And an echoing clap of noise, not mentioned on any of the other descriptions.
However, the collateral damage (or lack of it) to bystanders is entirely inconsistent with shockwaves and flames to be produced by, say, rapid evaporation of tens of kilograms of an adult torso into tens of cubic metres or more of hot water vapour and organic wastes. Pretty obviously the Foundationverse blasters engage in casual nonconservation of mass.
Precisely what do the personal atomic shields protect against? If the wall behind the lieutenant of police in "Dead Hand" had happened to be a loadbearing one, and brought the ceiling down upon Devers´ head, would his personal shield have taken over as a loadbearing column, without restricting his escape?
 
  • #28
DaveC426913 said:
Rive hit it on the head. There was no direct action. The whole thing was not so much a story as the recounting of a story.

Well you are in sync with current practice. Over and over they tell you, show, don't tell. Well, I don't agree with that, which is one reason I don't read current fiction. I find it painfully verbose. (The worst though is The New Yorker magazine's long articles. Unbelievably verbose. Their audience must be trust funders killing time.) Gimme Thomas Mann.

On the other hand, I recently read Nostromo by Joseph Conrad. I thought his wordsmithing was terrific but 200+ pages of exposition was too much. That was the mode in 1904.

Yet again I thought that better than the modern style where the corpse has got to appear in the very first sentence. I seem to recall a book that began with "I woke up face down in a pool of blood."

I once joined a writer's web site. They didn't like any of my stuff and I usually didn't care for theirs. One day they asked what everyone's favorite writer was. I chose William Shakespeare. Nobody else chose any classic author. No Joyce, no Dickens, no Melville, nada. Most of them picked Stephen King. So...I gave them a short story I had written one day that had a mystical bent and a lot of the most depraved violence. Not sure what got into me, but there it was. They thought that was great. I left that site that day and never went back.
 
  • #29
DaveC426913 said:
Pish posh. LotR is formative reading - required reading at least thrice. (And I'm not even a fantasy reader). It is the benchmark: All other high fantasy is rated as either "like LotR" or "not like LotR".

LotR is the only book I have ever read twice. Though there were thirty years in between the two readings.

DaveC426913 said:
For me, That Which is Unreadable is Herbert's Dune. Tried so many times. Fell asleep by page 60 every time.

I found it very atmospheric, stylish. I liked those Anne Rice vampire novels. Harry Potter will live as long as does the human race. The book that made me fall asleep was The Greening of America. I kept a copy specifically for that purpose.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #30
Hornbein said:
LotR is the only book I have ever read twice.
I've read it a lot more than twice. It is one of a fairly small number of books/series that I reread periodically. I mention that because the Foundation series (the original three, and sometimes Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth--the other two "prequels", not so much) is also on that list. I have lost count of the number of times I have reread those books.

I think some people just get drawn into the fictional worlds of certain books or series, and once you're in, you want to go there from time to time, maybe as a sort of vacation. That's how it is with me.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes pinball1970 and sophiecentaur
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top