Science Fiction Aficionados discussion

I just want to get other people’s opinion about this. I just finished reading last books of Foundation series. There, Asimov tied together all of his Sci-Fi book. Everything starting from the End of Eternity and Pebbles in the Sky, following up with all of the Robots books, Caves of Steel, Galactic empire and Foundation, all of this is a part of a single universe. You can monitor evolution of humanity for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of year. Or if you take the time travel/alternate time line concept from the End of Eternity, than we are talking about millions of year.
And it wasn’t even Asimov’s idea from the start. It’s the fans who started to tie those things together first and he just went along with it.
I do not know any other author who was able to create such an extended and well developed fictional universe.

Boris, now you've got me itching to read Foundation. Should I go back and change my mind about the nomination again? Hmmmmm

to each its own :)
But in his last books "Foundation Edge" and " Foundation and the Earth" he did tied up all of his works together. He did the same in his Foundation prequels which he wrote after "Foundation and the EArth". To make the long story short, the ending in the "End of Eternity" was the begging of the entire Asimov universe.

Robert Heinlein also tied his books into one multi-dimensional universe when he started with the novel "The Number of The Beast." He then followed this up with a series of sequels to completely tie together his worlds (incidentely he gave a mention to Isaac Asimov). He alo brought in Gulliver`s Travels, Alice books, Lensman series and others I`m still trying to identify.

Boris wrote: "to each its own :)
But in his last books "Foundation Edge" and " Foundation and the Earth" he did tied up all of his works together. He did the same in his Foundation prequels which he wrote after..."

Foundation's Edge and Foundation's Earth are the only tow foundation books that I have not read.

He did the same with Robots of Dawn, tying the Foundation and Robert series together.

All of his books are no tied together. From End of Enternity to his robot stories, to Steel Caves, Robots of the Dawn, Galactic Empire and finaly Foundation.
He didn't plan to do that. That's why in early Foundation you can see some inconsistancies with his latter stories, but in the end. Its all 1 univenrse, 1 time line. 1 chain of events.

I never knew he tied all his books together.

I must say I did love how End of Eternity tied into the same universe as empire/foundation even though it was so very different.

In the last of Foundation books he answers the question "WHY HUMANS ARE THE ONLY INTELEGENT SPACEFARING RACE". And the answer was - "Eternals made it so". If you remember "End of Eternity", humans there were just one of the races who ventured out into space. And they also were always the last ones to get there. They were always to late. Other races beat them to every colony. So Asimov's universe started with End of Eternity

I just finished The Gods Themselves. Oh man were the aliens weird. It really makes me wish Asimov had done more aliens. It is my understanding that this is the only book that he did with aliens.

I enjoyed the plot the writing style was just not up to the robot books.

It is very different from most of his writings. But its not about aliens from outer space. Paralel universe gaverned by completely different laws of physics. Very cool concept.

Boris wrote: "It is very different from most of his writings. But its not about aliens from outer space. Paralel universe gaverned by completely different laws of physics. Very cool concept."

Yeah your right is it a parallel universe, but they sure feel like aliens. :)

Banner wrote: "Boris wrote: "It is very different from most of his writings. But its not about aliens from outer space. Paralel universe gaverned by completely different laws of physics. Very cool concept."

Y..."

That's the whole idea. They are more than aliens. Aliens would just be different. These guys are Unimaginable. Which kind of weird since Azimov managed to imagine them none the less

I loved Asimov's original Foundation and Robot stories when I read them back in the 50s and 60s. When he started tying them together at the end of his life, all the reviews were negative and suggested that reading the new books would devalue the originals. (I certainly hated Heinlein's Number of the Beast!) So I never read them. Do you guys think that the "tie them all together books" (like Robots and Empire) are worth reading, then?

Expanding the topic slightly, are there any other series which degenerate the longer they go on - like Ringworld and Dune - where even the later ones are still worth reading?

Of interest (?) - Asimov didn't write any fiction from 1958 to 1981, so there is a much clearer distinction between his early and late work than there is with many others.

Incidentally, just as a disambiguation, there is something called "Isaac Asimov's Universe" which is a shared universe he created for other authors to use. There are three anthologies and a couple of novels set in it. As far as I know it bears no relationship to his other work

Sffgeek wrote: "I loved Asimov's original Foundation and Robot stories when I read them back in the 50s and 60s. When he started tying them together at the end of his life, all the reviews were negative and sugges..."

I've been wondering about that too. I've just finished the original Foundation trilogy and wanted to know if the later-written books were worth reading. I have Prelude to Foundation. Any good?

I haven't read them for years. However: yeah, I quite enjoyed them. "Foundation's Edge" was probably the weakest and least memorable; "Foundation and Earth" has more world-inverting plot twists than any other book I've read - ymmv on whether that's a good thing. "Prelude to Foundation" feels more low-key and focuses more on characterisation.

They're all a lot longer than the original books, though, so they lack some of the punch. And of course, the characterisation isn't great. But I liked them.

I agree that characterization is fairly weak in the original trilogy. I'm hoping in Prelude we really get to know more about Hari Seldon.

Characters never was Asimovs strong point. But that goes for alot of great SF authors.

Bo wrote: "Characters never was Asimovs strong point. But that goes for alot of great SF authors."

To each its own. A lot of people don't like hte latest books in the foundation seriec or the prequels. Its all a matter of personal taste and opinion. I liked it. I do enjoy recognizing in a book that I am reading elements from the book I read earlier. This works the best with ASimov's universe.
And dure, Asimov stories and novels were never about characters but more about the human condition. Especiay when robats were involved. Elijah “Lije” Baley, R. Daneel Olivaw from Caves of Steel (and to some degree Foundation) are the most developed of his characters, but even they lack sertain depth. Dr. Susan Calvin from the earlier Robot stories is a complicated charcter but what makes her special is that she is more like a Robot than a person.

Boris wrote: "I do not know any other author who was able to create such an extended and well developed fictional universe. "

I don't know how I missed this thread before now! I loooooved all of those books and must have gone through Asimov's Galactic Empire 5 times, all of it, not just Foundation. Then when all these fanfic authors came along in the late 80s early 90s and started publishing "Foundation" books using his name -- and Asimov wasn't even reading them let alone writing them, I gave up.

I haven't read any of it in years and really have to get back into it because that universe, like you said, really ended up so well connected. Accidentally but nonetheless, well done.

There is, in fact, another author who has done this--also almost by accident, as she wrote totally out of order for a number of years.

Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan Saga is just that kind of universe. She spawned one planet after another, almost by accident and the universe expanded :)

Lois's quality of writing is superior to Asimov's if you ask me. She spends far more time developing balanced and believeable characters while some of Asimov's are so "dated" that their chauvinistic caricatures are laughable in 2012. Ironic that his future series is "dated" in the 21st century, huh? I still love Asimov's work, don't get me wrong, but Bujold? She's a mastercrafter. Kind of like the way Robert Heinlein once said to Asimov when they were discussing the topic of writing drafts (Asimov did multiple drafts while Heinlein one, possibly two and he was done), Just do it right the first time. Lois's work is so totally "right" though she does drafts. Repeatedly. To perfection. Some of the books in that series have so many layers to them, it's amazing how much you see the 3d or 5th time through that you never realized was even there the 1st time! The metaphors are so subtle, you really have to know every nuance of the characters to get everything the first time through.

I love a series you can read more than once, beginning to end. Asimov did it. Heinlein did it. Bujold definitely did it. Who else? Did Dick ever write in series form? I've read a dozen different Philip K. Dick books, loved them all equally, but I don't recall his ever writing a series of connected works.

-Friday
@phoenicianbooks

Mark wrote: "I agree that characterization is fairly weak in the original trilogy. I'm hoping in Prelude we really get to know more about Hari Seldon."

Sadly, even the book about Hari Seldon never really let the reader really get to know the man. Asimov just didn't know how to do that kind of work. His mind was clearly too big for his skull :) Galactic thoughts, not people-sized thoughts :-D

That's okay. I laugh at his caricatures today, but still rejoice in his brilliance and prophetic visions. He and Heinlein, between the two of them, probably foresaw half of the 20th century's most major technological achievements. I think we can forgive him for not knowing how to write really good characters :) He had the rest of it down pat!

Boris wrote: "I do not know any other author who was able to create such an extended and well developed fictional universe.
..."

Mike Resnick has a huge universe incorporating multiple series including the award winning Santiago, that would rival Asimovs over scope and material.

Actually, Asimov rarely planned ahead, even with series of short stories. Check out this postcard he sent to me in 1979, after I sent him an article I had published about the Foundation trilogy. http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2008...

Paul wrote: "Actually, Asimov rarely planned ahead, even with series of short stories. Check out this postcard he sent to me in 1979, after I sent him an article I had published about the Foundation trilogy. ..."


It was never any doubt that Asimov did not mean for all this works to work together. I am just glad that when he saw a possibility to do that, he took it and was able to build on it.

Boris wrote: "It was never any doubt that Asimov did not mean for all this works to work together. I am just glad that when he saw a possibility to do that, he took it and was able to build on it. "

Absolutely - and the results are wonderful.

By the way, I figured out how to post a jpg of the postcard from Asimov directly here -