djohn37050.TakeThisOut@aol.com (DJohn37050) writes:
>Multiple levels of meaning, what? Yes, Asimov was clever, but I do not
>think he was THAT clever.
Well ... yeah, I know. When he wrote the story that became "The
Encyclopedists" he didn't have any idea for the Second Foundation in mind,
just that Campbell advised him to include a second because it might turn
out to be handy later. I was just marveling that Asimov chose, in making
things as wide-open as possible, something that was exactly right for how
he did later use it.
> However, he had to keep spinning twist after twist after
>twist into the foundation storyline to keep it interesting. There is no
>story in wait a 1000 years and say hooray.
But there is in the fact that things don't just happen; people
have to *do* them. Even if you know the outcome, the process by which
one gets there is still interesting; else, why would anyone ever reread
a book? Or why would anyone read history for the narrative?
> In fact, I like to read each
>story as a way to deny the basic foundation to the foundation stories.
>The march of humanity, a pig's eye. Individuals are important.
Of course individuals are important. That doesn't mean that
populations aren't predictable as well. Much as one might rail (rightly)
against a government than can "predict the future", or even choose it to
their liking, I expect such abilities would generally make life better
and fairer for all.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: Boy, Asimov was a clever writer 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
