Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the action

[lpetrich]

In "Future? Tense!" (From Earth to Heaven, 1965), Isaac Asimov noted about science fiction

Do you see, then, that the important prediction is not the automobile, but the parking problem; not radio, but the soap-opera; not the income tax but the expense account; not the Bomb but the nuclear stalemate? Not the action, in short, but the reaction?

Like for self-driving cars, the important issue is not how that is achieved, but what happens to manual driving. IA himself wrote a story, "Sally" ("Nightfall and Other Stories") where manual driving was outlawed as needlessly dangerous, though not without a lot of controversy.

He also considered what a SF writer might have written about cars in 1880. He gives two examples of dumb sorts of SF:

There could be the excitement of a last-minute failure in the framistan and the hero can be described as ingeniously designing a liebestraum out of an old baby carriage at the last minute and cleverly hooking it up to the bispallator in such a way as to mutonate the karrogel.

Technobabble, with the Star Trek version getting called treknobabble. IA didn't want to name names, but ST fans have not been afraid of doing so.

"The automobile came thundering down the stretch, its mighty tires pounding, and its tail assembly switching furiously from side to side, while its flaring foam-flecked air intake seemed rimmed with oil." Then, when the car has finally performed its task of rescuing the girl and confounding the bad guys, it sticks its fuel intake hose into a can of gasoline and quietly fuels itself.

One can point out a lot of similar absurdities about visual-media-SF spaceships, including Star Trek ones.

 

[Klaus]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

That goes well with the comments he made about restarting the Foundation story and rereading it after years:

I read it with mounting uneasiness. I kept waiting for something to happen, and nothing ever did. All
three volumes, all the nearly quarter of a million words, consisted of thoughts and of conversations. No
action. No physical suspense.

What was all the fuss about, then? Why did everyone want more of that stuff? – To be sure, I couldn't
help but notice that I was turning the pages eagerly, and that I was upset when I finished the book, and
that I wanted more, but I was the author, for goodness' sake. You couldn't go by me.
I was on the edge of deciding it was all a terrible mistake and of insisting on giving back the money,
when (quite by accident, I swear) I came across some sentences by science-fiction writer and critic,
James Gunn, who, in connection with the Foundation series, said, "Action and romance have little to do
with the success of the Trilogy – virtually all the action takes place offstage, and the romance is almost
invisible – but the stories provide a detective-story fascination with the permutations and reversals of
ideas."

Oh, well, if what was needed were "permutations and reversals of ideas," then that I could supply. Panic receded...

...and given that the Lije/Daneel books are probably my favorites of his, the "detective"-like quality is right on.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

A lot of Asimov's stuff is mostly about problem-solving and logic puzzles more than anything else, like figuring out why a robot appears to be violating one of the Three Laws (but really isn't). Heck the first third of The Gods Themselves is basically an extended conversation/debate about the existence of other universes. And "Nightfall" basically consists of a scientist explaining his shocking new doomsday theory to his skeptical colleagues--and being proven right at the end.

Probably why Hollywood has not been in a big hurry to adapt his books until recently. They're not particularly cinematic or action-packed.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

Yup, Asimov pretty much epitomizes "the literature of ideas."

And he's right on about the definition of Science Fiction. I forget if I read it somewhere or made it up, but this is the way I put it: It's the effect of science or technology (applied science) on an individual or society.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

And "Nightfall" basically consists of a scientist explaining his shocking new doomsday theory to his skeptical colleagues--and being proven right at the end.

Probably why Hollywood has not been in a big hurry to adapt his books until recently. They're not particularly cinematic or action-packed.

Have you ever seen the Nightfall movie from 1988? It bears a very minimal resemblance to the book, and a very strong resemblance to porn.

There are a lot of excellent authors who would have the same problem with adaptation to the screen. Take David Weber - a character walks into a room, and their eyes land on a ship, or a flag, or whatever - and here comes 17 pages of exposition involving history and technology and any other related thing. Followed by, "Hello," said $character. Great for a book, but I'm not sure how you'd handle that for a movie. Highlander-style screen wipes, maybe?

 

[Reverend]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

A lot of Asimov's stuff is mostly about problem-solving and logic puzzles more than anything else, like figuring out why a robot appears to be violating one of the Three Laws (but really isn't). Heck the first third of The Gods Themselves is basically an extended conversation/debate about the existence of other universes. And "Nightfall" basically consists of a scientist explaining his shocking new doomsday theory to his skeptical colleagues--and being proven right at the end.

Probably why Hollywood has not been in a big hurry to adapt his books until recently. They're not particularly cinematic or action-packed.

I pity anyone who attempts to adapt the Foundation saga for the big screen. A miniseries would be a slightly less challenging prospect, but not by much. The whole thing has a very strange meandering narrative that doesn't really go anywhere in the end and have very few memorable characters.

I only read them a few years ago and they reminded me very much of the (admittedly, 20 years younger) 'Berserker' series of books/short stories by Saberhagen. Quite literally a series of logic puzzles expressed as prose.

Engaging on the page, but it'd be terribly dull on screen without taking *massive* liberties. The same is true for most of Asimov's work. Which is fine IMO. After all he was writing books, not Hollywood screenwriter bait like a lot of you young adult fiction that seems to get produced these days.

On a slightly related note, I'm actually surprised that when I thought about it, it seems the only "Titan" of literary sci-fi to get the most exposure (for better or worse) in cinema is Phillip K. Dick. Probably followed by Wells & Verne, those most of that seems to be re-makes of the same two or three stories over and over.
You'd think given the lighter more adventurous tone of his earlier work that more of Heinlein's stories would have been adapted by now.

 

[Mysterion]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

Yup, Asimov pretty much epitomizes "the literature of ideas."

And he's right on about the definition of Science Fiction. I forget if I read it somewhere or made it up, but this is the way I put it: It's the effect of science or technology (applied science) on an individual or society.

Agreed, and why I still think the movie Sneakers is an over-looked science fiction classic. On the surface it's a caper flick but it's really about what a device that can instantly break any code would do to society.

As for adapting Foundation to the screen? Let Aaron Sorkin have a crack at it. He makes "talky" stories pretty entertaining, IMO.

 

[Admiral2]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

There are a lot of excellent authors who would have the same problem with adaptation to the screen. Take David Weber - a character walks into a room, and their eyes land on a ship, or a flag, or whatever - and here comes 17 pages of exposition involving history and technology and any other related thing. Followed by, "Hello," said $character. Great for a book, but I'm not sure how you'd handle that for a movie. Highlander-style screen wipes, maybe?

It wouldn't be that hard.

The Honor Harrington series is essentially just Horatio Hornblower IN SPACE! You can establish that with the opening battle scene, with vaguely galleon-shaped starships with energy sails firing missile broadsides at each other. About 80% of the exposition in those books is universe building at the minutia level. Nobody needs to see thirty minutes of exposition about treecats and humans. Just CGI a treecat on its human's shoulder. Problem solved.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

Engaging on the page, but it'd be terribly dull on screen without taking *massive* liberties. The same is true for most of Asimov's work. Which is fine IMO. After all he was writing books, not Hollywood screenwriter bait like a lot of you young adult fiction that seems to get produced these days.

Perhaps you've hit on something here: with the trimmed down nature of a screenplay versus that of a novel, and the need for a little more action, perhaps the Asimov works Hollywood should be looking at adapting are the Norby books? Or maybe those books where he let other authors play in his universe - the "Robot City" and "Robots and Aliens" books?

The Honor Harrington series is essentially just Horatio Hornblower IN SPACE! You can establish that with the opening battle scene, with vaguely galleon-shaped starships

Well, except that the shape of the ships is well-established and not "galleon-shaped", to start with. No offense, but the sort of suggestions you're making here sound like how we get truly *terrible* adaptations of things. I'd rather see an adaptation that is much truer to the original material even if it had to be marketed to a smaller niche through Netflix or similar, than to see someone just hack hell out of it on the big screen.

And the same goes for Foundation.

I don't see the primary problem with adapting the Foundation series as being that it is "too literary" or whatever (which was just as true for LOTR) - it would just take a director and screenwriter with the vision to interpret the material like Peter Jackson did with LOTR: in a way that makes it screen-ready without disrespecting the source material.

No, I see the bigger problem being that it would be in danger of being seen my the mass market as derivative of other works that are actually derivative of it, since it is an older work and many other authors and movies have cribbed the interesting ideas out of it in the meantime. I'm almost surprised I didn't hear more people suggesting LOTR was a D&D ripoff. (Sadly, I did hear that more than once, though.)

 

[Admiral2]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

The Honor Harrington series is essentially just Horatio Hornblower IN SPACE! You can establish that with the opening battle scene, with vaguely galleon-shaped starships

Well, except that the shape of the ships is well-established and not "galleon-shaped", to start with.

Yes, I know. Hammer-headed spindles. I've read the books too.

No offense, but the sort of suggestions you're making here sound like how we get truly *terrible* adaptations of things.

That depends on the kind of adaptation you want. I want the adaptation that depicts the HH series as what it is: The future science fiction version of the Napoleonic Wars. That's what it is, with the Star Kingdom standing in for the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of Haven standing in for the Republic of France. Honor herself stands in for Horatio, who's stories are set during that time. For that, you don't need a completely faithful adaption of the billion and one words David Weber insists on adding with each successive book. For that first movie, you only need two fleets of hammer-headed spindles firing broadsides at each other interspersed with Honor's first days as a midshipman.

I'd rather see an adaptation that is much truer to the original material even if it had to be marketed to a smaller niche through Netflix or similar, than to see someone just hack hell out of it on the big screen.

Frankly, you might as well just read the books again. A truly faithful adaptation would be boring as shit. It is politics and debate and more politics and dead history and cultural nonsense. That's all great for the printed page. You can't put it all on the big or small screen in detail. Nobody would watch.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

I feel like movie execs who think like you do are the reason we can't have nice things.

 

[Triskelion]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

Funny, reading Asimov's mounting tension with Foundation's lack of action, that James Gunn quote was ths first thing that came to mind. (I couldn't tell you what I wore yesterday, but this I recollect).

"Here comes your Snotty" HH with some exposition about her battle thought processes would make for good viewing, if you could get the pacing right.

I would like to see any Harry Harrison adapted for the screen. He hit just the right balance between juvenile fun and scathing social commentary. Probably not too hard to update for contemporary sensibilities. Stainless Steel Rat, or West of Eden's sapient dinosaurs, or the Deathworld Trilogy, especially.

Heinlein - Starship Troopers was a stretch, and its sequels boggled the mind - not in a good way.
But I tend to think his stuff is too irreverent (sexually, too) for wide acceptance. And heady.

Sigh. We never got a Neuromancer. Maybe that's a good thing.

Keith Laumer's Retief series might make for a cool sort of James Bond of the Future.

Or Piers Anthony's Incarnations series for the fantasy crossover set.


CGI does open a Pandora's Box of possibilities for movies with mass appeal - provided it is not the film's central subject....

 

[USS Triumphant]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

I would like to see any Harry Harrison adapted for the screen. He hit just the right balance between juvenile fun and scathing social commentary. Probably not too hard to update for contemporary sensibilities.

I would LOVE this...

Or Piers Anthony's Incarnations series for the fantasy crossover set.

...or this (although they would probably need to cut the ephibophilia from the later books.)

And I'll go ahead and throw his Apprentice Adept series on this esteemed pile, as well.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

On a slightly related note, I'm actually surprised that when I thought about it, it seems the only "Titan" of literary sci-fi to get the most exposure (for better or worse) in cinema is Phillip K. Dick. Probably followed by Wells & Verne, those most of that seems to be re-makes of the same two or three stories over and over..

I suspect that Richard Matheson can give PKD a run for his money when it comes to Hollywood adaptations: The Incredible Shrinking Man, I Am Legend (three times), The Legend of Hell House, Somewhere in Time, What Dreams May Come, Stir of Echoes, Real Steel, The Box . . . and that's not even counting umpteen TV adaptations of his work.

Granted, most of those are more horror/fantasy than sci-fi, but Matheson has always been hard to pigeonhole.

And Wells has had more adaptations than you might think: The Invisible Man, The Island of Doctor Moreau (three times), Things to Come, The Man Who Could Work Miracles, The Time Machine (three times), The War of the Worlds (twice), The Food of the Goods (twice), and The First Men in the Moon.

As for Verne, we've had adaptations of Twenty Thousand Leagues Beneath the Sea (at least twice), Around the World in Eighty Days (twice), The Mysterious Island (twice), Journey to the Center of the Earth (twice?), Master of the World, and Five Weeks in a Balloon.

Meanwhile, Harry Harrison's "Stainless Steel Rat" books have been optioned forever, but we're still waiting for the movie.

 

[drt]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

Other than On a Pale Horse, I think I like the idea of the Incarnations series better than the actual execution.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

I've always thought the best way to adapt Foundation is to take the Masterpiece Theater approach: Establishing shots, simple sets, talking heads. It would be wonderful and fail utterly.

 

[lpetrich]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

There's a popular visual-media genre that includes a lot of drama without much action: soap opera. Including prime-time soap operas like Dynasty and Dallas. So one could get some hints from there as to how to do a good visual-media adaptation of the Foundation trilogy.

One will have to flesh out the characters, make them more interesting. Give them personality quirks and complexities.

Something that may raise hackles with some viewers is the series's treatment of religion. Early in the original novels, the Foundation cloaks its technology in a religion that it uses to manipulate the inhabitants and the leaders of the nearby planetary systems. This includes installing a supposedly very holy "ultrawave relay" in the Wienis, a refurbished Imperial cruiser.

Spoiler: What the relay does

Foundation priest Theo Aporat aboard the Wienis:

"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 nuclear blasts, which are its fists, lose their function. Let the motors, which are its heart, cease to beat. Let the communications, which are its voice, become dumb. Let its ventilations, which are its breath, fade. Let its lights, which are 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.

That ship was named after Prince Regent Wienis, and I'm concerned that this name will sound like a word for a certain prized male body part.

 

[lpetrich]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

The BBC has already done a radio version of the Foundation Triology, and you can find it on YouTube and Spotify.

Isaac Asimov’s Foundation novels: are they really filmable? | Books | The Guardian
'Interstellar's' Jonah Nolan Developing 'Foundation' Series for HBO, WBTV (Exclusive) - TheWrap
'Interstellar' co-writer Jonathan Nolan is adapting Asimov's 'Foundation' for HBO | The Verge

Let's see how well that does.

 

[lpetrich]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

As to SF being about the reaction and not the action, IA notes the issue of positronic brains, which is what his robots have. He introduced that as a future-tech detail, though it must be conceded that a positronic brain would be impractical. It takes a *lot* of energy to make a positron, energy released when a positron combined with an electron. About a MeV of energy, the energy that an electron or a proton will get when dropped through a million-volt potential difference. That's far more than the amount of energy necessary to knock an electron out of the outer layers of atoms, and such knocking is indeed what ionizing radiation does.

But what's important is now how the hardware is constructed, but what one does with it. He got tired of robots killing their creators, so he decided that they must have safety mechanisms. His Three Laws of Robotics. Even here, these have no special connection with robotic hardware, so they may better be called the Three Laws of AI Systems. They can be further generalized as Three Laws of Tool Design, though those laws are often used implicitly. I've turned "robot" into "AI system" here, since one would likely need strong AI to implement them explicitly.

1. An AI system may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. An AI system must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. An AI system must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

There are lots of difficulties that arise when implementing these laws, difficulties that gave IA plenty of story possibilities.

Three Laws of Robotics - Wikipedia
The Myth of the Three Laws of Robotics - Why We Can't Control Intelligence - Singularity HUB
Why Asimov's Three Laws Of Robotics Can't Protect Us
Asimov's Laws of Robotics Are Total BS

 

[lpetrich]

Re: Isaac Asimov on what science fiction is: the reaction, not the act

Here's an example that IA cited about how it's the reaction, not the action. In 1941, Robert Heinlein under the pseudonym Anson MacDonald wrote a story, "Solution: Unsatisfactory". In it, the US had developed radioactive dust as a weapon, and the hero of the story considered what would happen if other nations got it. It would be an all-offense-no-defense stalemate, with every dust possessor dependent on the goodwill of every other one. Pretty much what happened with nuclear bombs.