Which series appeals to you more,and why?
Asimov's Foundation vs ST:Destiny.
- Thread starter Silversmok3
- Start date
While I'm flattered that anyone would even raise this question, I find it hard to believe my trilogy could possible merit comparison with one of the greatest of all SF literary series, by one of the genre's all-time greatest authors. So, um, thanks, but I dread to read others' reactions to this query.
It seems I've put you on the spot ,and that was not my intention.Rather,the two series' have much in common:themes about the main charachters acting over millenia to effect positive change in the human condition,although in the case of Star Trek Destiny the series focuses on a more specific threat than Asimov's Foundation.
I haven't read Destiny yet but of course I've read the Foundation trilogy, and I liked it a lot. But I don't actually find it entirely inconceivable that Destiny might well be stronger in some aspects. Foundation was written as a series of short stories that were only later grouped together in books, and that's certainly noticable when reading them: There's little in the way of strong character development, because each individual story doesn't afford much room for it. It also doesn't feel very cohesive, though that's not really a big problem because it goes hand in hand with the concept to a degree. From what I've read by Mr. Mack in the past I expect him to do better there given an opportunity Asimov did not really have due to the publishing format.
I think ultimately they're probably just too different in terms of structure and story emphasis that comparing them makes a lot of sense. What you'd be left with is commenting on how each made you feel and think, and that probably depends on mood and so on ... I think there's room for both to push different buttons.
But hey, I really only half-know what I'm talking about here.
I think ultimately they're probably just too different in terms of structure and story emphasis that comparing them makes a lot of sense. What you'd be left with is commenting on how each made you feel and think, and that probably depends on mood and so on ... I think there's room for both to push different buttons.
But hey, I really only half-know what I'm talking about here.
I really don't see how you can compare them. One started out as a sequence of eight novelettes/novellas that were then collected in three volumes, and decades later had two sequels and two prequels added, as well as being retroactively tied together with two other series by the same author. The other is a single work that was conceived as a three-part novel which would be an installment in a pre-existing continuity created by many authors and a crossover of several different prior series within that continuity.
Destiny. But not merely Destiny. I will take just about any piece of Trek over Asimov any day. The man may have had a brilliant mind, but for me he, much like Tolkien cannot write characters for anything. Any time I've tried to read anything by either I find myself bored to tears. Back when Tim Burton's first Batman film came out there were two anthologies of short stories released to try to capitalize on the movie. One focused on Batman, the other on the Joker. Asimov contributed a story that while interesting (His conceit was that Bruce Wayne had been a real person upon whom a fantastic comic book character had been based) I had to force myself to finish it. I just found it horribly horribly dry.
Well no dread here. You've crafted a Trek Literary event that is probably not going to be equaled let alone exceeded for some time.
Sorry but you are all wrong. ;-) For one very important reason. Go back and read the original post wherein the question is asked... "Which series appeals to you more,and why?"
This is not a question of compare and contrast. In which case yes it would largely be apples and oranges for all the reasons stated above especially by Christopher. But which appeals to you more, is a highly personal thing and really has nothing to do with anything as formal as structure etc. It would be a bit like asking someone "Do you want to eat an apple or an orange?" And them claiming that they can't answer the question because the two offerings are too disimilar.
In stark fact really there are only four possible answers to the first part of the question. Destiny. Foundation. Both. Neither. The why's of course can have infinite variety.
^ I acknowledged this when I wrote "What you'd be left with is commenting on how each made you feel and think". What I was trying to say in that middle paragraph is that because they're (presumably) so different, they likely push different buttons and so there's enough room in most reader's palate to appeal equally, but for different (or a different mix of) reasons.
But that's just what I mean. If two things appeal to me in different ways, it's not easy to rank them against each other in some kind of linear hierarchy. Which do I like better, chocolate or cats? I can't answer that because they fill different roles in my life. They're parallel likes, not points along a single line. So I just don't see any meaningful way to rank them relative to each other.
Which is completely valid and to be completely reductionist boils down to your answer appearing to be "Both, because..." But I still can't agree that it is quite as unparseable a question as some, yourself included want to make it out to be.
I might agree more readily if the question was comparing a Trek episode to a book. But even then when it comes down to personal preference it really is still just the four options. A. B. Both. Neither.
Now to be sure the more disimilar the items in question the more likely that many people are going to respond with "Both". But not always. I'm sure some people love dogs and loathe chocolate and vice versa and some care for neither and some adore both.
Maybe for you it isn't. For me it is. I've never been the sort of person who feels the need to rank everything in a hierarchy. It kind of runs in the family. My father always had trouble with the concept of having a favorite of a given category of thing.
And I think that's too simplistic a way of evaluating the question. I guess I see it more as an essay question than multiple-choice. I never did care for multiple-choice tests; all too often I don't find any of the answers truly correct because they oversimplify the matter too much.
I don't really think Foundation have much in common, plot-wise or thematically. I'd be more inclined to compare Mack's The Sorrows of Empire and Rise Like Lions to Foundation, insofar as both feature covert attempts to preserve the knowledge and wisdom of a dying, decadent empire and to restore a nobler civilization while avoiding an interstellar dark age.
Then read it! Read Ch. 9 of Mere Mortals and tell me you are not moved. I was genuinely moved. That was excellent writing.
I don't have it in front of me, but was that where...
Tuvok's son and daughter-in-law die?
If so, it was one of the very few times I was touched (like "eyes got a little watery" touched) by TrekLit. The other being Allyn Gibson's "Make-Believe" when you realize just what's going on (still gives me chills thinking about it).
The Foundation series is so broad that it beggars accurate description, let alone getting enough of a handle on it to compare it to other series. Its parts are so distinct from one another. The Destiny series is more focused, more cohesive, more intense -- because it had the virtue of being planned ahead of time. I can't imagine I'll re-read Destiny as many times as I've re-read the foundation books, though. (Especially the first collection, followed by Prelude and Forward.)
Similar threads
