Subject:
|
Re: Dune, Foundation, and other critics of Empire
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:54:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
125 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Y'know, I think that some people read things like the "Dune" series, or
> Asimov's "Foundation" series as if they were supposed to closely identify
> with certain characters and as if that were the point. To me the point of
> these stories is to make thinly veiled attacks on existing governments and
> political ideas alive and well on planet earth -- I hope this is actually
> obvious to all readers, but I really don't know. Sometimes one hears people
> talk about Dune as if you were supposed to be cheering Paul Atriedes various
> efforts -- and I think that's a huge mistake. Paul, like every leader, is a
> kind of monster corrupted by his position and power. His later role as a
> desert wanderer is an attack on his earlier career as political leader and
> prophet -- that his ambitions were all wrong and deeply misquided.
>
> On a side note, I happened to be watching a series on PBS the other night
> called "Queen Victoria's Empire" and boy did it ever run long. More can be
> found here: http://www.pbs.org/empires/victoria/about/series.html
> Of particular interest to me were the struggles of the Zulu warriors and the
> Al-Mahdi' attack of Khartoum. These guys had almost nothing, and like say
> T.E. Lawrence, won against overwhelming odds using sheer bravery and
> uniquely insightful strategies. Pretty amazing stuff. The political
> division between Disraeli and Gladstone was pointedly reminiscent of the
> struggle today between pro-war and anti-war factions of the populace. I
> hadn't really considered this time in history in years, possibly not since
> high school. The reminderm, as provided by this series, was refreshing.
>
> What can we learn from these sources of literature and history? I invite
> others to note ideas and quotes worthy of specific attention by other readers.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
So as I pick up my very well-read copy of the Foundation Trilogy, and
looking at the ripped cover and bike grease (I was biking home from school
one day and it slipped outta my hand and right into the bike chain!), I
fondly recalled all the discussions I had with my friend, Gerry.
Gerry (valedictorian in his 4th year in high school, and getting a pure math
scholarship to Waterloo University just to lay the groundwork) is a very big
fan of sci-fi and fantasy. When he was in university was also around the
same time that Asimov was releaing Forward the Foundation (80's-ish).
Gerry starts going on about how Isaac 'built' this alternate universe in
which the mathmetician is 'smarter' than the emporer--where they have long
debates in which the emporer is 'educated' by the superior math guy, and
where math people are, well, not necessarily worshipped, but well respected
by the general population.
I thought that was kinda funny.
Up until last night, it's beenn about 10-15 years since I picked up any of
Asimovs books, but iirc, there's the original trilogy, which was a bunch of
serial 'articles' published in magazines in the '40's and '50's, brought
into 3 books--Foundation, Foundation and Empire, Second Foundation, that
covered eons of galactic civilization.
Then there was Foundations Edge, and Foundation and Earth (think I'm missing
one there--grr! can't remember) that covered just a few years.
Then there were the 'prequel books', that covered Seldons life (again,
covering just a few years)
Asimovs writing style definitly changed from writing a galactic history to a
'biography' of a person across multiple novels.
But, again iirc, the monumental decision (right at the end of the 'galactic
timeline in the books) is when whazzisname had to make the choice b/w the
galactic empire (modernity) and Gaia (post modernity), and he chose Gaia.
Again, it was a very long time ago when I read these books. But Asimov, in
his storytelling, pointed out that science and technology can only get us to
a certain point, and no further, and that some sort of "Gaia" spirituality
combined with technology, with neither claiming dominance, was the way for
human kind to progress.
Anyway, this is what stuck in my mind.
One of the other things to note, that across the Robot series, the Empire
series, and the Foundation Series (all sets of books partaking in the same
"universe" of time and space--a point I really thought was unique) is that
humanity met no other 'intelligent' life form in their expansion thru the
galaxy.
Is there intelligent life out there? Not in this galaxy according to Asimov.
Here's another debate--Arthur C Clarke or Asimov? I dunno--I love ACC's
short stories with the zinger at the end, and things like "Childhoods End"
and "Fountains of Paradise" were good. Maybe it's a comparison with 'fun
little sci-sci stories' to "Galactic sweeping epic" that is Asimov.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Dune, Foundation, and other critics of Empire
|
| Y'know, I think that some people read things like the "Dune" series, or Asimov's "Foundation" series as if they were supposed to closely identify with certain characters and as if that were the point. To me the point of these stories is to make (...) (21 years ago, 26-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
