If I can say "Holy Toledo" and "Bloody Hell," I have no problem with somebody 22,000 years from now saying "Great Galloping Galaxies." It just shows that the Human Race has moved beyond contemporary mundanes who can't manage anything more creative than "shit," "fuck" or "d'oh." Lost me by including I, Robot and nuTrek. I haven't seen the others. So the books that once won a special Hugo for "Best All-Time Series," beating out even Lord Of The Rings, is now only to be remembered as inspiration for Star Wars and X-Men? Great Galloping Galaxies!
I have the original collection in one SF Book Club volume with this cover: http://www.amazon.com/Foundation-Tr...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266536954&sr=8-3 RAMA
Galactic empires, falling or not, are hand me down conventions that don't bear scrutiny any more. They're still going great guns though and it's extremely unlikely that the presence of a galactic empire is turning off new readers. Besides, as I said before, the original trilogy is about the rise of a new empire. As historical speculation it is done with considerable freshness and some insight. In a contemporary scene where Harry Turtledove is the king of Alternate History, it is also extremely unlikely that lack of political sophistication is turning off new readers. The psychic powers of the Mule and the Second Foundation are absurd. They are "explained" by handwaving references to mutation and technology of unspecified sorts, which makes them SF instead of fantasy. Like galactic empires, they don't bear scrutiny. But, also like galactic empires, psychic powers are still going great guns. It is also extremely unlikely this is turning off new readers. I still expect that the whole notion of social forces carrying more weight than the heroic individuals, the basic "hard" SF idea in the original trilogy, is a turn off to the reader who approaches every work as an aid to daydreams. Or seems to, anyhow. On a related note, in the original version of The Day the Earth Stood Still, Jesus Christ aka Mr. Carpenter (played by Michael Rennie in a performance hailed as equal to Barrymore or Olivier,) enters the temple of democracy called the Lincoln Memorial and praises mankind. This is surely more satisfying than the new version where mankind gets treated like the moneychangers in the Temple. But I suggest that it really is easily understandable how someone might think less of sentimental self praise. Why ever pretend the thought is incomprehensible?
Come on. Do you really think that's even close to what I meant or implied I meant? It's possible to write a story where at least passable fake curses are used, or failing that, not use any at all. And almost anything, "Great Scott", anything is better than "Great Galloping Galaxies."
^In your opinion, from your perspective as a reader in the early 21st century. But that kind of euphemism was hardly uncommon in science fiction of the era, so it's just plain invalid to cite it as some unique failing of Asimov's. The way people approached cursing was different back then. I don't think you're understanding how fluid a society's approach to profanity and oaths can be.
Overvaluing context can make judging it at all inherently meaningless. I think War of the Worlds is an excellent work of sci-fi and I'm removed from it by a full century; I think The Monk is a scurrilously good read and now we're approaching two; somewhere down the line I must admit a desperate fondness for Euripides and now that two is two millennia plus interest. But so what? I can't evaluate whether or not Euripides was a good playwright, can I? Nonsense; I can simply judge it on its own merits and through my numerous lenses of biases just like absolutely everyone else. Because judging fiction is hardly an objective business. Nonetheless it's fairly commonsensical to assert 'Great Galloping Galaxies' is silly, and I think it's bordering on ahistorical - approaching the past as something inherently unkowable and beyond understanding - to believe otherwise. I've never claimed it was unique to Asimov, in fact, I did state it was typical of something. You could infer it as a slight against a lot of sci-fi writing if you like... and you'd be absolutely correct. 'But everyone's doing it!' is no excuse.
What would you think of a writer who used silly stuff like "I bite my thumb at thee" or "Thou frothy, tickle-brained popinjay?"
Out of context, nothing, of course. And something like "Great Galloping Galaxies" would be perfect for a goofball yarn or a comic beat.
Not a Nick Hornby fan, then? He wrote a wonderful book on being an Arsenal fan, Fever Pitch. The book is actually a lot more than that; there's philosophy and autobiography and history, too. It's Hornby before he really became Hornby; High Fidelity hadn't defined him, yet. The American film "adaptation" (and I use that word loosely) of Fever Pitch is an atrocity. It should have been called something else. I had naught to do with Hornby's memoir. The Colin Firth/Ruth Gemmell adaptation is closer to Hornby's intent, though it loses a great deal of the charm. Christopher, this isn't mockery, I promise. That is the funniest thing I have ever seen you write! "Holy Buddha on a bicycle." I'm going to start using that.
Re fake swearing: The original trilogy was published in pulp magazines which were sold as family material, at a time when censorship was still widely accepted as the norm. I believe that people regarded it as a convention, like a string of punctuation marks in cartoons standing in for cursing. Modern fake swearing, such as "frell" or "frack" or their inspiration, "felgercarb," is indulged when there is no censorship and the real thing is quite common. (By the way, the fake curse words are often misused, inappropriate to context and character!) Complaining about the first while blithely accepting the latter is insane on the face of it. Making the simple assumption that no one's really that stupid, the likeliest explanation is that "psychohistory" sounds too much like Marxism for some people's comfort level.
^^ Good point about the contemporary Sci Fi swearing. I'm not sure if you missed my point or you're being obtuse, so I'll be more direct; both of those examples were from Shakespeare.
On modern sci-fi swearing: Ah, but that is a reaction to censorship. If Battlestar Galactica could simply get away with the characters saying fuck on Sci-Fi, it would have. But they want to keep their rating at a certain level, as it were. I find frak, frell and dren fine, but that may be just be me. Felgercarb, though? Well... I really don't want to know why the new series decided that this is a toothpaste brand. Not that Asimov should have used his powers of precognition and started to steal words from sci-fi TV. That should be only used for good, not for evil. Alright, that was cute. I was being obtuse. If I just said 'but that's Shakespeare!' I felt I wouldn't be giving it a proper response.
Oh, c'mon Kegg - there are much better reasons to bash Foundation. One of my favorites was Asimov's take on his bad guys. Most of them in the initial pulp stories were quite frankly absurdly stupid to the point of ludicrousness. Look at Prince Regent Wieness. He's suckered by the Foundation, can't get their priests to fix his battle cruiser, despairs and commits suicide. The bad guy is inordinately dumb yet has a position of power, and clearly Asimov doesn't understand the concept of force or the fact that military leaders aren't inherently unintelligent simply because they are in the military - an assertion Asimov actually explicitly states in the work IIRC. In context of the times, written right after WWII when military science was born and application of science in the military was at an unheard of height, it was a conceit that showed more of Asimov's prejudices than it did anything else.
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. 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.