Asimov's "FOUNDATION"

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Much as I love the concepts and the world-building in Asimov's books, especially Foundation, his characterisations are a little lacking. As for interpersonal relationships... If the bad sex awards could be applied to Elijah Baley and Gladia's dalliances. Oof!

I'm reminded of the homage in DS9's Far Beyond The Stars, with O'Brien as the Robot loving writer, awkward in every other respect.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

On the fake cursing dispute, I essentially agree with both sides.

I agree that it makes perfect sense that he would employ fake curses, and that it would not have been feasible for him to use real profanity.

But I also agree that "Great Galloping Galaxies" is truly wretched. An author of that period may have been forced to invent his own oaths - but we're entitled to judge the quality of those invented oaths. And as fake curses go, that one is really, really lame. So lame that it would be too lame even to be used as camp.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

As for "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", far from proving that 'Asimov doesn't understand the concept of force', is a defendable position: Asimov's statement implies that any problem can be overcome without appealing to violence; violence is the most inefficient/destructive means of dealing with a problem, and more often than not, it creates more problems than it solves.

It's a nice turn of phrase, but it's problematical -- and I'm not sure that it's defensible.

Salvor Hardin's phrase can be read, and quite easily, as the opposite of Asimov's intent. If violence is the "last refuge," then that implies that all other options (like diplomacy and compromise) have been exhausted, which leaves only violence as a course of action. It's not a utopian aphorism.

There's also Jerry Pournelle's retort: "The competent usually don't wait that long."

Much as I love the concepts and the world-building in Asimov's books, especially Foundation, his characterisations are a little lacking.

Even Asimov admitted that characterization in Foundation was lacking. Read his essay that was attached to the Del Rey paperback editions of the trilogy in the early 80s. His reaction to reading the trilogy when preparing to write "Lightning Rod" (which became Foundation's Edge) was that the books were a bit, well, dull.

As for interpersonal relationships... If the bad sex awards could be applied to Elijah Baley and Gladia's dalliances. Oof!

I'd rather read an Asimov sex scene than a Heinlein sex scene. Heinlein missed his calling as a porn writer, I think. There was a certain... chastity to Asimov's 80s sex scenes (his earlier work was pretty devoid of sex, while his 80s work acknowledged that his characters had sexual lives), and I wonder if that may have been influenced by his own HIV-mandated chastity.

 

[Christopher]

But I also agree that "Great Galloping Galaxies" is truly wretched. An author of that period may have been forced to invent his own oaths - but we're entitled to judge the quality of those invented oaths. And as fake curses go, that one is really, really lame. So lame that it would be too lame even to be used as camp.

It's not as invented as you'd think, and it's actually dirtier than it sounds. According to Partridge's A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, there were 19th- and early 20th-century phrases such as "raise a gallop" meaning to have an erection, "gallop one's antelope" meaning to masturbate, and "galloping knob-rot" referring to veneral disease. The Urban Dictionary website lists various "galloping" phrases referring to extreme diarrhea (perhaps "galloping" in the sense of runaway, out of control).

So I think what Asimov did there was to take an existing vulgar slang usage and sci-fi it up by adding "galaxies."

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

When these books were written, I bet no one ever though that the word 'gay' could be used as a derogatory term...

 

[stj]

"Frak" and "frell" and "dren" are not stylistically successful fake cursing. The standard convention for shows that want to appeal to a family television audience (implying the new BSG was aimed to be family viewing strikes me as clutching at a straw in itself!) is to simply limit cursing to the standard ones still acceptable, such as "hell" and "damn" and "pissed" and "bitch" and "bastard" and "crap." It works quite well. (And "shit" is making inroads as well.)

A clumsy circumlocution like "frack" is almost the same as the midddle schoolers' "frick" and close to "frig," which is creeping into public acceptability as ignorance grows, much like "galoping" did, as we are told above. It is horribly juvenile for no reason, unlike previous decades' fake cursing. Also, commercial considerations simply aren't censorship as it existed decades ago, when publishers could be and were haled into court. Censorship may return to US television but it's not here yet. Trying to latch onto bad taste in fake cursing in the original trilogy while ignoring the bad taste in modern fake cursing is ridiculous.

Asimov's second career as a novelist is a little bit of an embarrassment for me. He may have imagined he had started writing much better characters. But to my eye, Lije Baley on Aurora and Daneel Olivaw the Robot God and Golan Trevize the Arbiter of Destiny are not vivid characters but embarrassingly juvenile fantasies of characters.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

As for "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", far from proving that 'Asimov doesn't understand the concept of force', is a defensible position: Asimov's statement implies that any problem can be overcome without appealing to violence; violence is the most inefficient/destructive means of dealing with a problem, and more often than not, it creates more problems than it solves.

It's a nice turn of phrase, but it's problematical -- and I'm not sure that it's defensible.

Salvor Hardin's phrase can be read, and quite easily, as the opposite of Asimov's intent. If violence is the "last refuge," then that implies that all other options (like diplomacy and compromise) have been exhausted, which leaves only violence as a course of action. It's not a utopian aphorism.

There's also Jerry Pournelle's retort: "The competent usually don't wait that long."

Asimov's phrase is "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
I take this to mean that, for Asimov, any problem could be solved without appealing to violence.
And a competent person would find this non-violent solution.
Only the incompetent can't find these other options; only he can't see any way out outside violence - the crudest, least elegant and, very often, least efficient solution.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

As for "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", far from proving that 'Asimov doesn't understand the concept of force', is a defensible position: Asimov's statement implies that any problem can be overcome without appealing to violence; violence is the most inefficient/destructive means of dealing with a problem, and more often than not, it creates more problems than it solves.

It's a nice turn of phrase, but it's problematical -- and I'm not sure that it's defensible.

Salvor Hardin's phrase can be read, and quite easily, as the opposite of Asimov's intent. If violence is the "last refuge," then that implies that all other options (like diplomacy and compromise) have been exhausted, which leaves only violence as a course of action. It's not a utopian aphorism.

There's also Jerry Pournelle's retort: "The competent usually don't wait that long."

Asimov's phrase is "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"

I'm well aware of the wording of Asimov's quote. Pournelle's point is the competent people aren't likely to be forced into a position where violence is their only option, or they're able to take advantage of their opponents through violent action before their opponents themselves use violence. Pre-emptive war, then.

I take this to mean that, for Asimov, any problem could be solved without appealing to violence.

Be nice to think so. Too bad history doesn't read that way.

Really. Just look at the last decade. The Iraq War was Bush's "last refuge" only in the sense that he unwisely took all other options off the table.

It's a nice utopian aphorism. It's also unworkable, and it can be read in a dire fashion.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

It's a nice turn of phrase, but it's problematical -- and I'm not sure that it's defensible.

Salvor Hardin's phrase can be read, and quite easily, as the opposite of Asimov's intent. If violence is the "last refuge," then that implies that all other options (like diplomacy and compromise) have been exhausted, which leaves only violence as a course of action. It's not a utopian aphorism.

There's also Jerry Pournelle's retort: "The competent usually don't wait that long."

Asimov's phrase is "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"

I'm well aware of the wording of Asimov's quote. Pournelle's point is the competent people aren't likely to be forced into a position where violence is their only option, or they're able to take advantage of their opponents through violent action before their opponents themselves use violence. Pre-emptive war, then.

'Pre-emptive' war IS violence, Allyn Gibson.
According to Asimov, anyone who resorts to 'preemptive war' is either too incompetent to find the other solutions or, due to this same incompetence, put himself in a position where violence is inevitable.

I take this to mean that, for Asimov, any problem could be solved without appealing to violence.
And a competent person would find this non-violent solution.
Only the incompetent can't find these other options; only he can't see any way out outside violence - the crudest, least elegant and, very often, least efficient solution.

Be nice to think so. Too bad history doesn't read that way.

Really. Just look at the last decade. The Iraq War was Bush's "last refuge" only in the sense that he unwisely took all other options off the table.

It's a nice utopian aphorism. It's also unworkable, and it can be read in a dire fashion.

'Too bad history doesn't read that way.'
You're oversimplifying a very complex issue.
History showed that violence worked in some cases; however, in many other cases, violence failed to achieve the desired results.

Violence seems to work only when you're overwhelmingly powerful (this is a VERY restictive condition, especially in today world) and can afford to assimilate the conquered people after centuries of occupation (I doubt this is still feasible today, though) or just exterminate your enemies (the Roman Empire, for example). It also works when you apply it with scarcity and accompany it by positive stimuli (help for the defeated nation, etc).

But when you're NOT overwhelmongly powerful, violence is, at best, a gamble, one whose negative consequences will be felt by you in the future, regardless of the immediate result.

'The Iraq War was Bush's "last refuge" only in the sense that he unwisely took all other options off the table.'
Aka Bush was too incompetent to solve the Irak problem in a non-violent fashion. The result - what happened and is happening in Irak. A textbook example of Asimov's maxim.

 

[Demiurge]

I disagree.
In Foundation: The Mayors, Wienis was completely defeated and he knew it. Which is why he comitted suicide.
And he was defeated because true power lied with the priests - loyal to the foundation - and not with him; a situation he could not have changed, even if he realised it prior to his defeat.

History is replete with countervailing examples, and a priesthood that was one or two generations old is extremely unlikely to be able to cope with force of arms specifically wielded against it. Ask totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union how much influence you can have over the priesthood and scientists with the proper application of force.

Indeed, it often supplants the religion in question. Christianity became a world religion because it was adopted by Rome. And it was adopted by Rome because it gave them an advantage in war.

And of course as stated earlier, Asimov was writing before the information age. The concept that a insterstellar empire would no longer have the technical concepts necessary to maintain itself is a bit hard to believe now - information is readily at everyone's finger tips. Thus said technical priesthood becomes significantly less plausible (though granted, a very cool idea).

It would be one thing if Asimov simply kept that conceit and somehow the galactic empire arose without the computer age, but he later adapted computers extensively into the galactic empire. It's difficult to see a dark age of ignorance and apathy and a galaxy with telecommunications and computer databases coexisting.

As for "Violence is the last refuge of the incommpetent", far from proving that 'Asimov doesn't understand the concept of force', is a defendable position:
Asimov's statement implies that any problem can be overcome without appealing to violence; violence is the most inefficient/destructive means of dealing with a problem, and more often than not, it creates more problems than it solves.

Certainly the candy coated version of history. We get to live with that illusion because we live an the age where we've gotten so incredibly good at violence we can eliminate the entire human race in an afternoon.

Before MAD, the world was constantly at war, and periods of peace were few and far between. Even now wars are constantly raging, we just choose to ensure that they no longer get to the point where nuclear powers come into direct competition - millions still die.

What we see from history is that violence is only inefficient when its equal. Ask the indigenous american peoples about what happens when one side is clearly not the equal in said ability.

 

[Demiurge]

'Pre-emptive' war IS violence, Allyn Gibson.
According to Asimov, anyone who resorts to 'preemptive war' is either too incompetent to find the other solutions or, due to this same incompetence, put himself in a position where violence is inevitable.

Of course it's violence. The question isn't what Asimov said, but whether such a maxim is true. And it certainly isn't, because he doesn't say that in some cases violence shows ineptitude, he expanded it to a maxim that said that was the case in all situations.

While it might not be moral, that has nothing to do with competence or intelligence. Indeed, some of the most competent and intelligent individuals in history have been frighteningly good at violence.

'Too bad history doesn't read that way.'
You're oversimplifying a very complex issue.
History showed that violence worked in some cases; however, in many other cases, violence failed to achieve the desired results.

Indeed. Thank you for acknowledging that asimov's aphorism was simply wrong.

'The Iraq War was Bush's "last refuge" only in the sense that he unwisely took all other options off the table.'
Aka Bush was too incompetent to solve the Irak problem in a non-violent fashion. The result - what happened and is happening in Irak. A textbook example of Asimov's maxim.

Is there any question that without violence of some sort either committed or the threat of overwhelming capability of it Sadaam Hussein would still be the dictator of Iraq and in a position to pass on his position to his children?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Demiurge

"History is replete with countervailing examples, and a priesthood that was one or two generations old is extremely unlikely to be able to cope with force of arms specifically wielded against it."

What arms?
In Foundation: The Mayors, the priests controlled the weapons. They turned these weapons off at will. The political leadership's oppression had no teeth.
That's the difference between them and the scientists under the soviet union.

"The concept that a insterstellar empire would no longer have the technical concepts necessary to maintain itself is a bit hard to believe now - information is readily at everyone's finger tips."

In the foundation universe, information is not at everyone's fingertips and the fall of the central power started a general decline. And all characters in the foundation universe operate under these laws and conditions - Asimov's laws.
Incidentally, this has nothing to do with our discussion - unless your argument degraded to - 'the foundation universe is highly improbable and that's why Wienis acted stupidly'.


"Even now wars are constantly raging, we just choose to ensure that they no longer get to the point where nuclear powers come into direct competition - millions still die."

And what is gained from these wars - these deaths, Demiurge? Do you actually consider the decisions of starting these wars inspired or competent?

"Ask the indigenous american peoples about what happens when one side is clearly not the equal in said ability."

Demiurge, READ my posts before answering them. I already answered this:
History showed that violence worked in some cases; however, in many other cases, violence failed to achieve the desired results.

Violence seems to work only when you're overwhelmingly powerful (this is a VERY restictive condition, especially in today world) and can afford to assimilate the conquered people after centuries of occupation (I doubt this is still feasible today, though) or just exterminate your enemies (the Roman Empire, for example). It also works when you apply it with scarcity and accompany it by positive stimuli (help for the defeated nation, etc).

"Indeed. Thank you for acknowledging that asimov's aphorism was simply wrong."

I did nothing of the sort.
I pointed out that violence only worked when a very restrictive set of conditions was achieved. Which is a large disadvantage of this 'shoot first, ask questions later' mindset.

"Is there any question that without violence of some sort either committed or the threat of overwhelming capability of it Sadaam Hussein would still be the dictator of Iraq and in a position to pass on his position to his children?"

Is there any question that USA helped this very dictator in the past strengthen his hold on power, in exchange for very short-term gains?
Or that MILLIONS died - and are dying - in Irak, during this war?
Or that the irakian population resents USA for invading them, in order to steel their oil (a correct assumption on their part)?
How much did this war cost USA? For what gain?

 

[Kegg]

Oh, c'mon Kegg - there are much better reasons to bash Foundation.

Oh absolutely. And many have given lengthy reasons. I was using a punchline for the series' rather, uh, non-excellent prose. I'm really not much of a fan of Asimov's handle on prose or character generally (though I do like his Robot stories.)

there were 19th- and early 20th-century phrases such as "raise a gallop" meaning to have an erection,

I suspect it was created in a similar manner to "Jumping Jupiter"; a rhyming phrase about movement about something in space.

 

[Christopher]

Actually "Jupiter" or "Jove" were often used as euphemisms for "Jehovah" or "Jesus" in real-life oaths in centuries past -- "by Jupiter" or "by Jove" were fairly common oaths. (After all, the planet Jupiter is named for the Roman god of the same name.) "Jumping Jupiter" seems to be a variant on "Jumping Jehosaphat," and here's an apropos link about that (emphasis mine):

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-jum2.htm

The phrase Jumping Jehoshaphat is first recorded from Mayne Reid’s Headless Horseman of 1866, but is probably older. It seems to have been in the tradition of exotic imprecations that Americans of that period were so fond of, with the repeated initial sound greatly helping its acceptance.

People back then really did like to use elaborate, alliterative oaths. SF writers just substituted astronomical terms into phrases that already existed -- like, say, substituting "Holy comets!" for "Holy cow!"

 

[Kegg]

"by Jupiter" or "by Jove" were fairly common oaths.

There's even a "by Jingo." But not a "By Jumping Jingoistic Jove" used as a dead serious expression of awe.

 

[Christopher]

^As they said in the 1930s, "Vas you dere, Charlie?"

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

I just read on mania.com that Roland Emmerich plans on adapting "Foundation" using the same techniques that Cameron did with Avatar so we'll see how it turns out.

But then, the whole idea of Foundation as a Roland Emmerich blockbuster is a bizarre mismatch. Ideally, it should be done as a medium-budget BBC miniseries or some such thing, since the whole series is basically a whole bunch of conversations about stuff.

It'll probably star Will Smith and have very little to do with the source material.

 

[Christopher]

Well, what they did with I, Robot wasn't something I have a problem with, because it was handled more as a prequel than an adaptation. I, Robot was a blanket title for a collection of nine distinct robot stories, including most of the Susan Calvin stories (and not even the title Asimov wanted). The movie was an original Susan Calvin story serving as a loose prequel to the others, so I have no problem with it being given the same blanket title. And as summer action blockbusters go, it did a pretty good job of incorporating Asimovian concepts.

So maybe that is a good model for Foundation as a film. As others have pointed out, the books are more about the stuff that goes on between big events than about the events themselves. So maybe telling original stories that fill in the gaps, that complement the text rather than retelling it, is the way to go.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ It's almost certainly the way they will go. But then, it won't really be about the Foundation.

There's even a "by Jingo." But not a "By Jumping Jingoistic Jove" used as a dead serious expression of awe.

What, too many syllables?

 

[Christopher]

^^ It's almost certainly the way they will go. But then, it won't really be about the Foundation.

Why not? It's not as if the Foundation only existed during the events of Asimov's stories. There's a lot of stuff in between that could be told. I wrote a Star Trek novel that took place between TMP and TWOK; was it not really about the Enterprise?