Sci-fi/fantasy Reading Recommendations

[Gabo]

Some of the Foundation characters take issue with their own, alleged, irrelevance. I don't know how seriously Asimov took such views. But I'll say this, if I were writing about a totalitarian society, the characters on the wrong side would argue they're right.

I don't quite see what you mean.

As for the strenght of the individual in the novels, I maintain what I had said before. There is an explicit recognition of the importance of the individual (expressed by the Second Foundation), I don't think it's just because of practical necessities. Of course, the way the subject is treated doesn't give us enough material to judge Asimov's complete ideology, I think (supposing he has one).

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I don't quite see what you mean.

As for the strenght of the individual in the novels, I maintain what I had said before. There is an explicit recognition of the importance of the individual (expressed by the Second Foundation), I don't think it's just because of practical necessities. Of course, the way the subject is treated doesn't give us enough material to judge Asimov's complete ideology, I think (supposing he has one).

He was pretty much a run-of-the-mill "Secular Humanist" Atheist but political "liberal"

You can't get that from the Foundation trilogy but I have read a LOT of his other stuff including his autobiography.

[D'kian]

I don't quite see what you mean.

Evil characters, and real evil people, do not acknowledge their own evil (except in cartoons or satire). Either they're true believers who think they're doing right, and evade knowing the consequences of their actions. Or they know they're bad people but try to justify their actions some way or another (usually invoking altruism).

If I were to write about such people, I'd portray them that way. They'd be exposed to the reader by their actions, but not by their words (unless they break down like Jim Tagagrt finally does).

Contrairly, if Asimov sees individualism as evil (and he does to some extent), then his individualist characters will try to justify their actions somehow, usually by invoking altruism (that's the problem with mixed premises).

Asimov wrote the Foundation Trilogy when he was quite young. You'll notice the writing is a bit rough and pulpish (it was written for the pulps, after all). His characters are independent individuals. That is, they rely on their own reasoned judgement. That's good. But is it purposeful on Asimov's part? Or is it only a means to portray semi-villains (they are on the Foundation's side, every one of them)?

Of course, the way the subject is treated doesn't give us enough material to judge Asimov's complete ideology, I think (supposing he has one).

Steve's description is a fair one. Except Asimov was optimistic and a confirmed technophile (even if he clung to old-fashioned technology himself). You should read his robot stories. He was perhaps the first serious SF writer who realized robots were tools (ergo the 3 laws). In writing about his robot stories, and comparing them to earlier stories in which robots invariably destroyed or enslaved humanity, he said "If a useful invention poses a problem, the answer is not ignorance but wisdom." He does this, too, with a different, problematic invention in another novel, "The Gods Themselves," which is my second favorite Asimov work.

But I digress.

[Gabo]

I see your point now and I agree with your premises, but I wouldn't come to the conclusion that Asimov thinks individualism is evil from reading the Foundation novels. The heroes like Hardin, Mallow and Bayta are naturally the characters that the reader will admire most... unlike the self-sacrificing and puppet-like Second Foundation, which even within the third book are extremely disliked by practically everybody.

I've read some of the Robot stories and they are indeed very interesting.

[D'kian]

I see your point now and I agree with your premises, but I wouldn't come to the conclusion that Asimov thinks individualism is evil from reading the Foundation novels.

Not as far as Second Foundation. We can talk about it when you go further.

[Gabo]

Not as far as Second Foundation. We can talk about it when you go further.

That's fine by me

[D'kian]

I forgot to mention you may want to read the Robot Novels, too. These center around an Earth detective named Baley who gets embroiled in cases involving interstellar politics. Originally they were a separate series, but Asimov decided to join them to the Foundation universe. The Empire novels, three of them altogether, are really stand-alones set in the First Empire, and thus are part of the Foundation universe as well. But they don't impact Foundation's story one bit.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Every time I see a bad piece of science fiction I need to purge the memory by reading something good. Any recommendations?

Just about anything by LaGuinn. For guys my age, Heinlein was the best.

Bob Kolker

[Gabo]

I forgot to mention you may want to read the Robot Novels, too.

OK, I'll take them into account.

What do you think of Arthur Clarke?

[D'kian]

What do you think of Arthur Clarke?

He's best with short stories.

In his novels he tends to wonder all over the place, and the endings are rarely satisfying. He has a few good novels. I recommend "The City And The Stars," set in the really far future, and "The Fountains Of Paradise." In some of his works he goes far into the paranormal (he even did a short TV series about it, which wasn't too bad as such things go; in any case he's more skeptical about such things now).

His non-fiction is sparse and riddled with socialist politics. But he has some interesting tomes. I recommend "Profiles of The Future," and a book he did for Time-Life called "Man And Space." When he sticks to space travel he's one of the best there is. And, of course, he was the first to propose placing communication satellites in geosynchronous orbit, now called Clarke orbit in his honor.

[Gabo]

Thanks for your recommendations and insights.

There are some points in Clarke's writings that I consider consistent with Objectivism. For instance, his definition of religion as "psychopathology" in 3001: The Final Odyssey, or his portrayal of religious fanatics interferring with scientific solutions in The Hammer of God (even when it was a matter of life or death.)

Recently I've been reading his short stories from The Wind from the Sun. Of particular attention so far to me has been The Light of Darkness, in which an African scientist willingly blinds a tyrant through scientific means. I was pleasantly surprised by this story, since it goes against the trends of tolerationism and political correctness... it is never implied that disposing of the despot would be wrong, and the hero blinds him instead of killing him just for the sake of irony, not compassion.

[D'kian]

Thanks for your recommendations and insights.

You're welcome.

There are some points in Clarke's writings that I consider consistent with Objectivism. For instance, his definition of religion as "psychopathology" in 3001: The Final Odyssey, or his portrayal of religious fanatics interferring with scientific solutions in The Hammer of God (even when it was a matter of life or death.)

I recall very little about 3001, or 2061, or 2001 for that matter. 2010 was ok, the rest... well, read what I said about his novels.

For a better portrayal of fanatics involved in a matter of the planet's life or death, try Niven and Pournelle's "Lucifer's Hammer." I warn you, though, it's a very hard read. The story goes from one gruesome calamity to the next for about 3/4 of the book. But it is about the only optimistic novel about the end of the world I've ever read (ok, the world doesn't actually end).

I was pleasantly surprised by this story, since it goes against the trends of tolerationism and political correctness... it is never implied that disposing of the despot would be wrong, and the hero blinds him instead of killing him just for the sake of irony, not compassion.

Well, it was written long before PC was conceived. And I don't think the nature of the despot is ever spelled out (communist, fascist, strong-man, whatever). As for the blinding, it struck me that was a fate worse than death for the villain. I approve.

[Gabo]

This is a very famous book, but just in case someone hasn't read it, I recommend Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a strange land. While I many not agree with every specific point suggested in the book, overall the story

- presents Man as having the potential for greatness

- shows that absolute happiness is possible on this Earth

- advocates a life of productivity, self-government and self-discipline

- portrays evil as ultimately impotent, and therefore focuses more on conflicts of values between the heroes than in hero-villain struggles

All this in the form of a very entertaining and ingenous plot with extremely likable characters.

[D'kian]

This is a very famous book, but just in case someone hasn't read it, I recommend Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a strange land.

I like Heinlen. When he's good he's really good, but most often he wavers. He was also a faddict (addicted to literary fads), and this shows precisely in "Stranger." The style is unfocused, muddled and hard to get through. I read the book over 20 years ago and have never wanted to re-read it (and I re-read most books). To be frank I don't remember much of what it was about.

My favorite Heinlen is "The Door Into Summer." That's a good example of a man who gets by on his mind, literally, overcomes obstacles and adversity and achieves exactly what he wants out of life (if not with whom he wanted it).

[Gabo]

I like Heinlen. When he's good he's really good, but most often he wavers. He was also a faddict (addicted to literary fads), and this shows precisely in "Stranger." The style is unfocused, muddled and hard to get through. I read the book over 20 years ago and have never wanted to re-read it (and I re-read most books). To be frank I don't remember much of what it was about.

My favorite Heinlen is "The Door Into Summer." That's a good example of a man who gets by on his mind, literally, overcomes obstacles and adversity and achieves exactly what he wants out of life (if not with whom he wanted it).

The first part of Stranger I found very well-plotted and entertaining... the second part lingered on a bit, specially the part concerning the "Church of All Wolrds"... but the ending is satisfactory, so that and the overall message redeems it quite well.

I haven't read The Door Into Summer... I have just finished Double Star and it was very good, the theme relates to the positive influence heroes can have over our lives' directions.

[grizzly8566]

The first part of Stranger I found very well-plotted and entertaining... the second part lingered on a bit, specially the part concerning the "Church of All Wolrds"... but the ending is satisfactory, so that and the overall message redeems it quite well.

I haven't read The Door Into Summer... I have just finished Double Star and it was very good, the theme relates to the positive influence heroes can have over our lives' directions.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a freedom lover's classic. In a nutshell: Loonies declare independence and turn the moon into a sort of Galt's Gulch. Excellent!

[D'kian]

I haven't read The Door Into Summer...

I highly recommend it.

Have you read his books for the adolescent market? I recommend "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel."

[Gabo]

I highly recommend it.

Have you read his books for the adolescent market? I recommend "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel."

No, I haven't, though I'd like to. So far I've read only Stranger, Starship Troopers and Double Star. Thing is, it's quite difficult to find Heinlein books where I live, but I do my best

[intellectualammo]

I have a recommendation:

Truancy

It is a novel that has just been published a few days ago and was written by a Stuyvesant high school student in NYC named Isamu Fukui. He wrote a chapter for this novel every day for a month when he was 15. He is now 17. This is a dystopian novel that is to be made into a trilogy about "perfect control through education". Here are articles about it:

Here's one from The New York Daily News titled: "Stuyvesant student Isamu Fukui is in a class by himself"

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/a..._is_in_a_c.html

Here from Pop Syndicate titled "Book Tour: Why Education is Broken" which was written by Isamu Fukui:

http://www.popsyndicate.com/books/story/bo..._by_isamu_fukui

Here's another Pop Syndicate one titled "Book Tour: Introducing Isamu Fukui":

http://www.popsyndicate.com/books/story/bo...ing_isamu_fukui

Here is a review of Truancy titled "Book Review: Truancy Changes the Curriculum":

http://stuyspectator.com/2008/03/07/book-r...the-curriculum/

I read it in two nights and I already am rereading this novel.

[Gabo]

D'kian, I wanted to thank you for recommending Asimov's The End of Eternity. I think it's the best science fiction novel I've read so far.

To anyone here who still hasn't read it, you're in for a treat. It's about the downfall of the ultimate altruistic organization.

Strange how some of Asimov's books like this one and the first Foundation book seem like clear odes to individualism, yet others advocate collectivism, like the Second Foundation.

[D'kian]

D'kian, I wanted to thank you for recommending Asimov's The End of Eternity. I think it's the best science fiction novel I've read so far.

You're welcome. It is my favorite Asimov.

Strange how some of Asimov's books like this one and the first Foundation book seem like clear odes to individualism, yet others advocate collectivism, like the Second Foundation.

Well, I don't think Eternity is in favor of individualism as much as it is pro-liberty. Think about the ending and what Noys explains to Harlan. What was her ultimate purpose and that of her people? By what means does she justify her actions?

[Gabo]

Well, I don't think Eternity is in favor of individualism as much as it is pro-liberty. Think about the ending and what Noys explains to Harlan. What was her ultimate purpose and that of her people? By what means does she justify her actions?

The importance of the individual is showcased throghout, I think... the downfall of the entire organization is caused by a single indivudal's desire to be with the woman he chose. Even Noys' choice to operate in this reality was motivated by her personal love for Harlan.

[D'kian]

The importance of the individual is showcased throghout, I think... the downfall of the entire organization is caused by a single indivudal's desire to be with the woman he chose. Even Noys' choice to operate in this reality was motivated by her personal love for Harlan.

That's true in part. But consider the Time Noys came from. They were safe from eternity, at least for the time being. By sending Noys back to Primitive times they were undoing their own existence, right? Remember they know themselves to be a product of a low-probability timeline brought about by the existence of Eternity. So no Eternity means no world as they know it in the 100,000s. So what about all those other billions of individals who are not Noys?

Of course, if you start thinking along those lines the framework for the Eternity universe quickly falls apart. Taking the story in a direction of "what else could Noys' people have done?" would either leave you without a story, or with a vastly more complex one. And "Eternity" is Asimov's most complex background (amazing, too, that it was done with only three main characters, two secondary ones and few enough in the background).

I mean, the notion of physiotime works well enough if not examined closely, as it would have to be in a more complex story. So, too, does the notion of dividing Time into Centuries that are kept apart from each other (as if no one ever lived in two different centuries, the way you or I have done by now). And in Asimov's particular case, he would have had to delve on whether all Times exist at the same time or at the same physiotime, or what.

BTW I think I posted a lot of spoilers, but anyone who hasn0t read eternity simply wouldn't know it

[D'kian]

Gabo, I realized I'm nitpicking. I apologize, it's my Trekkie heritage. I'll just ask this: wouldn't you like to read a version of "Eternity" as written by someone familiar with Objectivism?

That asked, "Eternity" does portray the ultimate altruistic organization. One which is so subtle it goes unnoticed, and one which all its members, who serve it willingly, resent it harshly. Better yet, the people who serve Eternity are devoted to it and its purpose. They are not portrayed as "selfish" jerks out to ruin a good thing, but as concentious employees doing their best; only they're constantly bitter, resentful and full of longing for some other kind of existence.

There is a secondary character who schemes against a superior through a subordinate, but he's as devoted to the mission as everyone else. If anything he's even more bitter and definitely more unpleasant.

I think I'll re-read it soon. It has to be over three years since I re-read it last.

[Gabo]

That's true in part. But consider the Time Noys came from. They were safe from eternity, at least for the time being. By sending Noys back to Primitive times they were undoing their own existence, right? Remember they know themselves to be a product of a low-probability timeline brought about by the existence of Eternity. So no Eternity means no world as they know it in the 100,000s. So what about all those other billions of individals who are not Noys?

Well... to tell you the truth, I hadn't thought so deeply about that . I had understood that the people from Noys' time had sent her in their self-interest, to prevent Eternity from ultimately making their reality an impossibility. I would have to re-read this part.