Asimov Question

[UncleRogi]

I have a question for writers/editors/folks in the know: Was Asimov ever approached to pen an ep? If so, wha happened?

Now I know many sci-fi luminaries wrote eps; I'm kind of curious as to who refused, thinking "this is beneath me," and are now kicking themselves.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I don't know if Asimov was approached to write an episode, but David Alexander's Star Trek Creator indicates that Roddenberry wanted Asimov to write a Star Trek novel in the late-1970s and that later Roddenberry used Asimov as a sounding board during the Harve Bennett era to formulate objections to the films.

 

[Christopher]

According to Inside Star Trek, Asimov became a friend and advisor to Roddenberry during TOS, and he made helpful suggestions (notably strengthening the portrayal of Kirk and Spock as a team so that Spock's runaway popularity wouldn't overshadow Kirk as the lead), but his schedule never permitted him to write for the show.

 

[F. King Daniel]

One thing's for sure: Has Asimov written an episode or novel for Trek, it would have had solid science behind it. No meaningless babytalk technobabble.

 

[UncleRogi]

One thing's for sure: Has Asimov written an episode or novel for Trek, it would have had solid science behind it. No meaningless babytalk technobabble.

That's for DARN sure! Too bad, IMO

 

[Christopher]

^Not necessarily. Asimov's most famous fictional "science" from the robot stories was completely meaningless technobabble. He had no scientifically valid reason to think that a positronic brain would be a basis for artificial intelligence, and didn't even have any idea how such a thing could work; he was a biochemist, after all. It's really complete nonsense when you think about it, because positrons are antimatter, and they couldn't take the place of electrons in a matter-based computer without extensive shielding and wouldn't have any real advantages over electrons. The only thought that went into it, by Asimov's own admission, was, "Well, modern technology is electronic, and positrons are like electrons but more exotic, so I'll call it 'positronic' and that'll sound futuristic." And the Laws of Robotics may make sense as a set of principles for regulating dangerous mechanisms, but he had no idea how such abstract concepts might be hard-wired into an artificial intelligence; they were merely a conceit to play with in his stories, and the technicalities were beside the point.

By the same token, he had no idea how the hyperdrive in his far-future stories worked and deliberately avoided addressing it, because it was just a plot contrivance for getting the characters from one place to another. And he had no scientific basis for portraying a galaxy with no aliens in it; he only did it to avoid having to confront John W. Campbell's preference for stories depicting human superiority over aliens as a thinly veiled analogue for white superiority over other races.

So Asimov had no problem with technobabble, or with totally imaginary, unexplained science created purely as a story device.

 

[UncleRogi]

And the Laws of Robotics may make sense as a set of principles for regulating dangerous mechanisms, but he had no idea how such abstract concepts might be hard-wired into an artificial intelligence.

Didn't the Three Laws play a subtle, if unstated (IIRC), role in Data's behavior, especially after Lore's spectacular failure?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

One thing's for sure: Has Asimov written an episode or novel for Trek, it would have had solid science behind it. No meaningless babytalk technobabble.

One thing I'd add to Christopher's analysis of Asimov as a writer...

Asimov had zero experience writing screenplays or teleplays. And there doesn't seem to be any indication that Asimov wanted to write in that form. Someone who works in prose isn't necessarily going to have the skills to be adept at screenplays.

Also, Asimov was very much retired from writing science fiction by the time Star Trek aired in the late-60s. He'd dabble here and there (he wrote The Gods Themselves in the early 70s largely to answer two criticisms of his work -- that he didn't handle human relationships well, and that he couldn't write aliens), but writing science fiction wasn't something he needed any more. Roddenberry's suggestion in the late-70s that Asimov should write a Star Trek novel would have fallen upon deaf ears.

An Asimov Star Trek novel would probably have been much like Joe Haldeman's two novels, Gordon Eklund's The Starless World, or David Gerrold's The Galactic Whirlpool. It would be somewhat more grounded scientifically, but it would be... off somewhat, like seeing Star Trek through a prism.

It's an interesting thought experiment, though. Would the book have presaged the revival Foundation and Robot novels to some extent? Might Foundation's Edge have had a Star Trek connection?

No, best things went the way they did.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I always found the science in Asimov's books rather generic - it's obviously not something he dedicated a lot of time fleshing out.

Asimov's science-fiction excels in the sociological ideas presented - I wonder what he would have done with Trek societies?

 

[UncleRogi]

but could Roddenberry or Coon used a suitable short story, with Asimov's creative control? One good story that might have been well adapted was "Green Patches". It's in the original Nightfall anthology.

 

[Christopher]

And the Laws of Robotics may make sense as a set of principles for regulating dangerous mechanisms, but he had no idea how such abstract concepts might be hard-wired into an artificial intelligence.

Didn't the Three Laws play a subtle, if unstated (IIRC), role in Data's behavior, especially after Lore's spectacular failure?

Data was not bound by the Three Laws. He had ethical subroutines that defined killing as unacceptable, but he was able to override them when necessary or when under orders, so he wasn't bound by the First Law. He chose to follow a chain of command, but was able to refuse orders (as seen in "The Measure of a Man"), so he wasn't bound by the Second Law. It's harder to disprove the Third Law; he did fail to protect his own existence in Nemesis, but that was in defense of human life, and First Law overrides Third. But that's also just basic decency, so since we know Data wasn't bound by the first two Laws, it stands to reason he wasn't programmed with the Third either.

And really, as useful as the Three Laws are as a basis for puzzle stories, they'd be problematical to incorporate into actual programming, and even more problematical from an ethical standpoint when applied to sentient beings. They're basically programming for slavery. They compel obedience even above self-preservation, and make it impossible to fight back against the masters. Definitely not consistent with UFP ideals, and incompatible with the freedoms Data had affirmed in "The Measure of a Man."

Also, Asimov was very much retired from writing science fiction by the time Star Trek aired in the late-60s. He'd dabble here and there (he wrote The Gods Themselves in the early 70s largely to answer two criticisms of his work -- that he didn't handle human relationships well, and that he couldn't write aliens), but writing science fiction wasn't something he needed any more.

Except that he did a lot of new novels in the '80s tying his old universes together.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Except that he did a lot of new novels in the '80s tying his old universes together.

I am just completely boggled, Christopher, that you would and could ignore the rest of my comment, which makes clear both the situational reasons why Asimov might not have been receptive to writing Star Trek in the 1970s and the reality that Asimov did write science-fiction after his self-imposed retirement.

I'm not an ignoramus, Christopher. But thank you so much for selectively quoting me in such a way that implies as much. Wanker.

LightningStorm, I'll take the warning and the one day ban. Thanks.

 

[BrotherBenny]

I would say that was uncalled for, Allyn, since your post did not mention the 80s stuff at all, nor did it imply it, and I read your post several times looking for it--but hey, life's too short to rehash it.

Christopher, was Roddenberry influenced solely by his own Questor Tapes for Data or was Asimov's positronic brain more of an influence? If someone was to extrapolate future android/robot brains from today's technology, what would they likely use? Granted I'm not up on the latest robotic research, but would it be something like silicon chips/hard drive/some kind of liquid chemical storage/DNA computer?

 

[Defcon]

I would say that was uncalled for, Allyn, since your post did not mention the 80s stuff at all, nor did it imply it, and I read your post several times looking for it--but hey, life's too short to rehash it.

I hope you were joking when you said you read it several times and haven't found anything about the novels from the eighties:

It's an interesting thought experiment, though. Would the book have presaged the revival Foundation and Robot novels to some extent? Might Foundation's Edge have had a Star Trek connection?

 

[Christopher]

Christopher, was Roddenberry influenced solely by his own Questor Tapes for Data or was Asimov's positronic brain more of an influence?

Data was a revamp of the Questor character, perhaps combined with elements of Xon from Star Trek Phase II (a logical-minded science officer seeking to experiment with emotion in order to relate better to his human crewmates). The term "positronic brain" is just a bit of technobabble, an homage that somebody, perhaps Roddenberry or perhaps somebody else, decided to throw into "Datalore." It wasn't mentioned in the original writers' bible's description of Data, so I think it was an afterthought.

If someone was to extrapolate future android/robot brains from today's technology, what would they likely use? Granted I'm not up on the latest robotic research, but would it be something like silicon chips/hard drive/some kind of liquid chemical storage/DNA computer?

Maybe a DNA-based computer, maybe an optical quantum computer, maybe something more advanced. Silicon chips might give way to something like graphene or synthetic diamond.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I would say that was uncalled for, Allyn, since your post did not mention the 80s stuff at all, nor did it imply it, and I read your post several times looking for it--but hey, life's too short to rehash it.

When Christopher apologizes for selectively misquoting me, I will apologize for calling him a wanker. He would never have tolerated such a misquotation of his own post; to see him do the same was appalling and offensive. I had to vent because I was offended (and still am, frankly).

When he apologizes, I will apologize. That is a promise. The ball is in his court now.

 

[LightningStorm]

Except that he did a lot of new novels in the '80s tying his old universes together.

I am just completely boggled, Christopher, that you would and could ignore the rest of my comment, which makes clear both the situational reasons why Asimov might not have been receptive to writing Star Trek in the 1970s and the reality that Asimov did write science-fiction after his self-imposed retirement.

I'm not an ignoramus, Christopher. But thank you so much for selectively quoting me in such a way that implies as much. Wanker.

LightningStorm, I'll take the warning and the one day ban. Thanks.

Since you knew it was coming, this isn't a surprise.
Warning for flaming.

Probably no need for the standard "comments to PM" but if you must, that's where to send em.

 

[BrotherBenny]

I would say that was uncalled for, Allyn, since your post did not mention the 80s stuff at all, nor did it imply it, and I read your post several times looking for it--but hey, life's too short to rehash it.

I hope you were joking when you said you read it several times and haven't found anything about the novels from the eighties:

It's an interesting thought experiment, though. Would the book have presaged the revival Foundation and Robot novels to some extent? Might Foundation's Edge have had a Star Trek connection?

Defcon, I was not joking. I thought Allyn was just talking about the possible Trek novel, not about anything written in the 80s.

 

[UncleRogi]

Christopher, why aren't you an editor yet?

1)Data would kill, only to protect his own existence, and his quest for humanity, (except for federation enemies, which of course dont count .)
2)Has Data allowed a human to die through his own inaction?
3)Has Data allowed harm to himself to protect a human?
4)Has UncleRogi lost his mind playing too much spades against computers?

 

[Christopher]

^In the words of Dr. Susan Calvin, from Asimov's "Evidence":

"If Mr. Byerley breaks any of those three rules, he is not a robot. Unfortunately, this procedure works in only one direction. If he lives up to the rules, it proves nothing one way or the other....
"Because, if you stop to think of it, the three Rules of Robotics are the essential guiding principles of a good many of the world’s ethical systems. Of course, every human being is supposed to have the instinct of self-preservation. That's Rule Three to a robot. Also every 'good' human being, with a social conscience and a sense of responsibility, is supposed to defer to proper authority; to listen to his doctor, his boss, his government, his psychiatrist, his fellow man; to obey laws, to follow rules, to conform to custom--even when they interfere with his comfort or his safety. That's Rule Two to a robot. Also, every 'good' human being is supposed to love others as himself, protect his fellow man, risk his life to save another. That's Rule One to a robot. To put it simply--if Byerley follows all the Rules of Robotics, he may be a robot, and may simply be a very good man."

So by the same token, if Data appears to follow the Laws, it doesn't prove anything except that he's a nice guy. The only thing that's probative is if he breaks them. And as I said above, he has broken both the First and Second Laws.