Subject:
|
Re: Dune, Foundation, and other critics of Empire
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:50:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
221 times
|
| |
|
|
I read "Childhood's End" a few years ago and, I know it was written
something like the 50's[1], but the end struck me as completely counter to
what I think I was supposed to feel. "Childhoods End"
:::SPOILERS WARNING:::
It could be a that steady diet of Star Trek that blows it out for me. The
Borg make a singular consciousness and the loss of identity into a monstrous
idea. How horrific to lose your entire self to a single consciousness.
Yet, the Overlords are pitied because they're an evolutionary dead end.
Unable to experience the Overmind (wait? is that it, or is that from
Starcraft?!?). I just kept asking why? You realize that you're not the
height of evolution so you just stop trying? (I know they were studying
other races for the why). It seemed a little obsessive to me. Like you're
whole race is completely deject over the idea of not changing up into that
great singular consciousness, so you pretty much give up on every other
possible endeavor? And why would anyone one want that in the first place?
The more I thought about it, the more horrified I think I am with the concept.
I know that ACC is referring to far east philosophy (sorry, can't remember
which one. Buddhist?), so there's back to that theme of keeping ideas alive.
It just that I felt so very opposite to what was intended. I don't really
think that's ever happened to me before or since.
-Evil Wayne
[1] And it had it's share of anachronisms. The biggest one that stands out
in my head is the death of conventional marriage. One of the things it was
based on was the invention of a blood test that confirmed/denied paternity.
That somehow a foolproof system would create or deter proper relationships.
(mmm.. I'm sure I've just explained that poorly %P)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> 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 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
