- This topic has 3 voices and 5 replies.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
05/31/25 @ 6:20pm EDT #54763 test
Russia has an interesting literary history, from Leo Tolstoy to Fyodor Dostoevsky and many in between. I have read many of that (pre-communist) era, but there are two who were born later and around the same time and who both left the USSR to go to the USA.
One was Ayn Rand was born in 1905 in St Petersburg and moved to America in 1926.
The Other who was my favourite author as a child: Isaac Asimov. He was born 15 years later in 1920 at the other end of the country, near to the border with Ukraine, and moved the USA in 1923.
Both came from Jewish families, both were atheists, but whereas Rand grew up before communism, experienced the Revolution and 9 years of its effects, Asimov was born after and left when he was 4 years old.
I think this is one factor in Asimov’s lack of opposition to statism and collectivism. He supported the new deal, social programs, wide taxation etc. He had never experienced the reality of collectivism, and he was a self-confessed emotionalist.
Asimov did not have anywhere close to a developed philosophy as Ayn Rand, he was an out and out “pure” scientist, for example in 1982 on God he wrote:
“I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”
Asimov’s fiction betrays his lack of developed philosophy or principled opposition to mysticism per se. His magnum opus, the Foundation series, is based on the development of a pseudo-materialistic/ deterministic mathematical future prediction called psychohistory, its planning used to found a galactic empire ruled by philosopher kings, and an ultimate (spoilers) decision to go for psychically connected galaxy where all living matter is connected as a single organism due to humans’ in built psychic powers, and to avoid the “problems” of individuality.
This said, it is well worth a read so long as you take it as fantasy fiction. His (chronologically) earlier books take his universe from the 1980s with the development of robotics and the moral and practical implications, through to the colonisation of the near galaxy in the 21st century through to the rise and fall of the galactic empire 20,000 years in the future.
One feature I particularly like is how he explores how events become history become legend become myth. The final couple of books for example are based on the search for the presumed mythological planet of human origin: earth.
The readability difficulty with many of his books is that as he is skipping across centuries between chapters, it can be difficult to follow characters and plot.
The final book explores the conflict between individualism and collectivism, and Asimov comes down firmly on the collectivist side.
In summary I would place Asimov’s fiction as close to classical Platonism as any fiction comes, in its science, in its politics, and its morality. I suspect it inspired the collectivist and mystical ideas in series such as Star Trek and Star Wars.
Did Ayn Rand ever mention or indeed meet Asimov?
-
06/01/25 @ 12:06am EDT #103815 test
Re: Gordon Gregory’s post 54763 of 5/31/25
I was also a huge Asimov fan when I was a teenager. His writing isn’t very good and the quality really falls off in the later Foundation sequels and prequels, but his ideas captivated me. I, Robot was a favorite of mine as well.
In fact, when I finished reading Atlas Shrugged in 2010 (my first of Rand’s works), the book it reminded me of the most was Foundation. The plot similarities are remarkable. Both are stories about a mysterious character who, using reason, figured out that society was collapsing and a new dark age was inevitable. Both characters convinced the best and brightest people they could find to hide away in a remote location to wait for the old society to fall, and to form the seed of a new and better society which would grow from the ashes of the old. The goal of both was to hasten the creation of that new better society. As I learned more about Objectivism, I realized that the similarities didn’t extend past those shared plot points.
I reread Foundation within the last few years and was disappointed at the philosophy, but still found the plot, especially the way that the people of Terminus (analogous to Galt’s Gulch) handled each subsequent crisis they found themselves in, to be interesting.
I would also like to know whether Ayn Rand had any opinion of Asimov and what it was, and vice versa.
-
06/01/25 @ 6:53am EDT #103816 test
Re: Garrett Garcia’s post 103815 of 5/31/25
The plot similarities are remarkable. Both are stories about a mysterious character who, using reason, figured out that society was collapsing and a new dark age was inevitable. Both characters convinced the best and brightest people they could find to hide away in a remote location to wait for the old society to fall, and to form the seed of a new and better society which would grow from the ashes of the old. The goal of both was to hasten the creation of that new better society. As I learned more about Objectivism, I realized that the similarities didn’t extend past those shared plot points.
I reread Foundation within the last few years and was disappointed at the philosophy, but still found the plot, especially the way that the people of Terminus (analogous to Galt’s Gulch) handled each subsequent crisis they found themselves in, to be interesting.
Yes, the up to the involvement of the Second Foundation it was fine: a secretive enclave of reason, trade, and freedom in a remote area, which enabled technological development so far ahead of the declining tyrannies around that they were untouchable, and the building of a new trade based empire. Then it turns out that they are subservient to the mystical psychics of the Second Foundation, and they to an even more mystical Gaia.
I have just finished re-reading the series. I would not say he was not a good writer, but rather his general approach is not conducive to important aspects of good writing, as I wrote, especially the jumping decades if not centuries between chapters and books, but if one is trying to cover thousands of years in a series, there isn’t any other option. Atlas covers 4 years in 1200 pages. The Fountainhead is 18 years, but it is all within the careers of the main characters. In this way I actually prefer the prequels and later sequels as they focus for longer on the same characters, even if the sequels focus more on the mystical.
-
06/01/25 @ 7:41am EDT #103818 test
Re: Gordon Gregory’s post 103816 of 6/1/25
I always preferred Asimov’s Robot books (especially the main trilogy, but also the short stories) to his Foundation books. Yes, by the end he was trying to knit them together, but that wasn’t his best idea.
In terms of writing quality — I mean craftmanship — I think he’s good, perfectly readable and interesting, although not as good as Tolkien. Separately from his crafting, I admire Asimov’s general viewpoint that technology is beneficial, a force for good in human progress (Tolkien thought the opposite). Yes, sometimes technological things go wrong in Asimov’s stories, but ultimately they get fixed and humanity benefits. Some years ago there was a mediocre movie called “I, Robot” that was “inspired” by Asimov’s robot stories. Unfortunately, the movie had almost nothing in common with the short story collection of the same name. Actually it was worse: the movie had a Frankenstein theme, a very poor understanding of Asimov’s positive view of technology.
However, Foundation in particular poses a lot of challenges (you mention some of them related to time), and maybe his skill wasn’t up to his vision. Or maybe the vision just can’t be turned into a sensible work of literature by anyone. There’s an Apple TV series based on Foundation whose third season should be coming out next month. I find that the most interesting characters are the emperors/genetic dynasty, who don’t appear in the books; one gets to know them as characters for longer.
-
06/01/25 @ 7:51am EDT #103819 test
Re: Garrett Garcia’s post 103815 of 6/1/25
I would also like to know whether Ayn Rand had any opinion of Asimov and what it was, and vice versa.
I’m not sure about Asimov, but James Clavell admired Miss Rand (link):
Clavell admired Ayn Rand, founder of the Objectivist school of philosophy, and in 1981 he sent her a copy of Noble House inscribed: “This is for Ayn Rand—one of the real, true talents on this earth for which many, many thanks. James C, New York, 2 September 81.”
Since she died within a year, I’m not sure if she ever read it, and I have no idea if the admiration was mutual.
If you haven’t read Clavell, I think his best two books are Shōgun and King Rat. Tai-pan is also good. King Rat is the shortest, based on Clavell’s experiences in the Changi prisoner of war camp, and is thus semi-autobiographical. It’s powerful but the subject matter is dark.
Shōgun has been adapted for TV twice, most recently in 2024; I haven’t had a chance to see the more recent adaption yet, but admire Hiroyuki Sanada, the actor who plays the pivotal character Lord Toranaga (closely based on Tokugawa Ieyasu, the founder of the Tokugawa shogunate).
-
06/01/25 @ 12:19pm EDT #103820 test
Re: Gordon Gregory’s post 103816 of 6/1/25
I would not say he was not a good writer, but rather his general approach is not conducive to important aspects of good writing, as I wrote, especially the jumping decades if not centuries between chapters and books…
I don’t think there’s anything inherent in the time jumps that would prevent good writing. When I say his writing isn’t very good, I mean the descriptions, characterization, dialogue, etc.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.