Who creat Dorse?

"David Cross" <dcross1 RemoveThis @nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:YMY2b.856951$3C2.19265126@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...

 > It was closer to 50 robots, and yes, Amadiro had created them in order to
do
 > space exploration. Dr. Fastolfe agreed to help raise public support for
the
 > project but was unable to do so. They were put in storage and reactivated
 > about 175 years later when Amadiro needed "field agents" (as it were) to
 > conduct his revenge-against-Earth-by-making-it-radioactive project.
 >
 > Daneel must have then located those robots and found a way to reprogram
them
 > and give them new identities. He could then have shut them down as
necessary
 > to preserve them until needed.
 >
 >

and then the little devils went and terraformed all those Galaxy worlds for
humans to follow, and drove off the memes and made life very difficult for
other species out there in the Greg Bear and David Brin books . . . but that
isn't really canon I suppose - or is it?

Amanda<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Who creat Dorse? 

 >
 > and then the little devils went and terraformed all those Galaxy worlds for
 > humans to follow, and drove off the memes and made life very difficult for
 > other species out there in the Greg Bear and David Brin books . . . but that
 > isn't really canon I suppose - or is it?
 >
 > Amanda
 >

NO, NO of course it isn't canon. Those books are fine, but not in the Foundation
Universe. Asimov is still probably rolling in his grave.

Stan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Who creat Dorse? 

oooh sorry. Didn't meant to upset anyone!
I wasn't sure if the Asimov galaxy HAD a canon but your reply is my answer I
guess.

Amanda

"Stan Pope" <stpope DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TbidndVM_87SAc6iU-KYuA@comcast.com...
 >
  > >
  > > and then the little devils went and terraformed all those Galaxy worlds
for
  > > humans to follow, and drove off the memes and made life very difficult
for
  > > other species out there in the Greg Bear and David Brin books . . . but
that
  > > isn't really canon I suppose - or is it?
  > >
  > > Amanda
  > >
 >
 > NO, NO of course it isn't canon. Those books are fine, but not in the
Foundation
 > Universe. Asimov is still probably rolling in his grave.
 >
 > Stan
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Who creat Dorse? 

"Ozwitch" <ozwitch.TakeThisOut@somewhere.com> wrote;
 > oooh sorry. Didn't meant to upset anyone!
 > I wasn't sure if the Asimov galaxy HAD a canon but your reply is my answer I
 > guess.
 >
 > Amanda

lol
I don't know about anyone else. But I wasn't upset. In fact, I was relieved your
first instinct was that the books weren't canon.

Stan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Who creat Dorse? 

"Ozwitch" <ozwitch.RemoveThis@somewhere.com> said (on Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:41:22
GMT):

 >oooh sorry. Didn't meant to upset anyone!
 >I wasn't sure if the Asimov galaxy HAD a canon but your reply is my answer I
 >guess.
 >
 >Amanda
 >
 >"Stan Pope" <stpope.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
 >news:TbidndVM_87SAc6iU-KYuA@comcast.com...
  >>
   >> >
   >> > and then the little devils went and terraformed all those Galaxy worlds
 >for
   >> > humans to follow, and drove off the memes and made life very difficult
 >for
   >> > other species out there in the Greg Bear and David Brin books . . . but
 >that
   >> > isn't really canon I suppose - or is it?
   >> >
   >> > Amanda
   >> >
  >>
  >> NO, NO of course it isn't canon. Those books are fine, but not in the
 >Foundation
  >> Universe. Asimov is still probably rolling in his grave.

Stan's reply, while some would agree, is merely his own personal
opinion. You can make an argument either way, so maybe the best
thing to do is make up your own mind about it.


--
Kevin B. O'Brien
zwilnik.RemoveThis@zwilnik.com<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Who creat Dorse? 

"Kevin B. O'Brien" wrote;

> >> NO, NO of course it isn't canon. Those books are fine, but not in the
> >>Foundation Universe. Asimov is still probably rolling in his grave.
>
> Stan's reply, while some would agree, is merely his own personal
> opinion. You can make an argument either way, so maybe the best
> thing to do is make up your own mind about it.
>

Yes and no. The fact the books aren't canon is not an opinion. There are
numerous very basic incompatibilities between the 2nd trilogy and Asimov's
books. Whether it's factual errors like the length and nature of the lifespan of
Gaia, or the philosophical change of Daneel from benevolent to malevolent, this
trilogy is fundamentally un-Asimovian.

But yes, it is still my opinion that those books are fine and fun to read. It is my
opinion that the Foundation Universe shouldn't be changed so drastically. And
it is my opinion that one should be pre-warned of the fact that there are so many
changes before a person reads any of them. Finally, it is my opinion that these
changes should not be applied to Asimov's version of the Foundation
Universe. However, some people do, and that is their choice.

Stan
 >> Stay informed about: Who creat Dorse? 

> Yes and no. The fact the books aren't canon is not an opinion. There are
> numerous very basic incompatibilities between the 2nd trilogy and Asimov's
> books. Whether it's factual errors like the length and nature of the
lifespan of
> Gaia, or the philosophical change of Daneel from benevolent to malevolent,
this
> trilogy is fundamentally un-Asimovian.
>
> But yes, it is still my opinion that those books are fine and fun to read.
It is my
> opinion that the Foundation Universe shouldn't be changed so drastically.
And
> it is my opinion that one should be pre-warned of the fact that there are
so many
> changes before a person reads any of them. Finally, it is my opinion that
these
> changes should not be applied to Asimov's version of the Foundation
> Universe. However, some people do, and that is their choice.
>
> Stan

I understand your pov, but I don't know that anyone needs to be 'warned.' I
wasn't warned that the books were different, in fact I was hoping that
someone would at least take apart Isaac's Foundation and see whether it
stood up. I expected that three very well known sf authors would have their
own interpretations and I did find them great to read, a reasonable attempt
to explain psychohistory and some very interesting challenges to robotic
philosophy. It didn't take away my appreciation of Asimov, though, in fact
it rather increased my fondness for his universe, and I thought it stood up
rather well after a bit of a grilling from Bear in particular. I felt a bit
sorry for Dors though, I thought she got shortchanged in the end, but
overall, I liked the addition to the Asimovian universe. I suppose they
aren't canon in that Asimov didn't write them, but I don't think they were
heretical. As far as I am concerned, Asimov's Foundation still stands, but
now I have a different reading or two on it, which is all to the good, I
think.

They did provide for me a great deal of food for thought, as did all of
Isaac's books, so I'm happy for one that they were written.

Amanda
 >> Stay informed about: Who creat Dorse? 

"Stan Pope" <stpope.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message , or the philosophical
change of Daneel from benevolent to malevolent, this
> trilogy is fundamentally un-Asimovian.

I'm not sure I'd call Daneel malevolent. Ruthless, maybe, misguided
certainly, but malevolent implies intent to cause harm and really Daneel's
motives were to NOT cause harm i.e. guarantee a 'safe' future for humanity.
The fact that he managed to stifle and in the end attempt to change humanity
to something other than human is a philosophical problem I have with his
plan, not his motives. And I think Brin put it perfectly at the end when
Hari implies that Elijah Baley would have hated Daneel's 'safe' organism
concept anyway, which was a nice irony. I liked the explanation of the
fundamental difference between robots and humans - robots cannot take a risk
with humanity - they are programmed not to do so. Humans, of course take
risks all the time, and in doing so, grow.

Amanda
p.s. I appear to have wandered away from the scope of this ng in discussing
other writers' books. Does anybody mind?
 >> Stay informed about: Who creat Dorse? 

"Ozwitch" <ozwitch.TakeThisOut@somewhere.com> wrote:

 >oooh sorry. Didn't meant to upset anyone!
 >I wasn't sure if the Asimov galaxy HAD a canon but your reply is my answer I
 >guess.

Actually three, sort of canons, the robots, the "empire", and the
foundation, later jury-rigged into a sort of single canon with the
later Foundation novels. Which he only undertook after endless
browbeating by his publisher/editor, who in turn had been browbeaten
by a fan base screaming for a "return to the Foundation".

Haven't read the Three Bees efforts, but they *were* undertaken with
the approval of Janet and the Asimov literary estate. But from what
I've read in this forum on their efforts, it just goes to show that
some SF settings - canons if you will - are best left to their
originator because they don't lend themselves to exploitation [in the
good sense] by others, however well-intended.

OJ III<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Who creat Dorse? 

"Ogden Johnson III" wrote;
> Haven't read the Three Bees efforts, but they *were* undertaken with
> the approval of Janet and the Asimov literary estate. But from what
> I've read in this forum on their efforts, it just goes to show that
> some SF settings - canons if you will - are best left to their
> originator because they don't lend themselves to exploitation [in the
> good sense] by others, however well-intended.
>

The thing about the second trilogy is that the authors SAID they intended to
inject their own views and solutions to some of the unanswered issues in
the Foundation Universe. That is why the series is not canon. Other authors
can write canon, but they have to intend on remaining true to the original
series in order to do so. The fact that the authors were not Asimov, irregardless
of whether they did so at the request of Janet or not, has nothing to do with a
book or series being canon or not. They could have remained canon, but they
chose not to by inserting views that contradicted what Asimov wrote. Even then,
new views could have even been canon is they didn't contradict Asimov. But that's
not what happened.

And the reason people need to be "warned" about the second trilogy is that
most people, I would think, start to read them expecting to read stories that
don't contradict the plots of Asimov's books (and I'm not talking about trivial items
like wormholes either). Those people will be confused. Others will read the second
trilogy and come away with a view of Daneel, Seldon, Psychohistory, Gaia, etc, etc,
that are different than the view Asimov protrayed.

People need to be "warned" that these books, for better or for worse, significantly
change the nature of the Foundation Universe. A reader can accept these changes
and decide they like the B's version better. But if you want to reconcile what the
second trilogy said to what Asimov wrote, then you are forced to consider some of
the deeper aspects of the Foundation Universe in a manner that is only shallow and
superficial. Which is what the B's did.

A single case in point is the erroneous idea that Daneel acted in a farreaching and
controlling manner over every planet in the Galaxy in order to keep humans safe from
themselves. This is contrarty to Asimov's version where Daneel acted minimally and
sparingly in order to not violate the "action" clause of the Zeroth Law.for fear of
causing himself to become inactive as Giskard did when he acted. The stated fact that
there were many injustices, wars, risks, etc, is further evidence to support Daneel's
words describing the nature of his 20,000 years of actions. I guess the B's must have
missed that part.

Furthermore, the truely ironic and completely Asimovian solution to the Gaia problem rests in
Daneel's own words regarding the Zeroth Law and psychohistory (words written by
Asimov). Not some sentimental throwback to contemplating what Baley would think.

Stan
 >> Stay informed about: Who creat Dorse? 

"Ogden Johnson III" <oj3 DeleteThis @cpcug.org> wrote in message
news:72ublvc45piri2rir1fd3gmm0d0b7hmio2@4ax.com...
> "Ozwitch" <ozwitch DeleteThis @somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> >oooh sorry. Didn't meant to upset anyone!
> >I wasn't sure if the Asimov galaxy HAD a canon but your reply is my
answer I
> >guess.
>
> Actually three, sort of canons, the robots, the "empire", and the
> foundation, later jury-rigged into a sort of single canon with the
> later Foundation novels. Which he only undertook after endless
> browbeating by his publisher/editor, who in turn had been browbeaten
> by a fan base screaming for a "return to the Foundation".
>
> Haven't read the Three Bees efforts, but they *were* undertaken with
> the approval of Janet and the Asimov literary estate. But from what
> I've read in this forum on their efforts, it just goes to show that
> some SF settings - canons if you will - are best left to their
> originator because they don't lend themselves to exploitation [in the
> good sense] by others, however well-intended.

Mark Tiedemann's trilogy, while loosely based on a 'canon-type' collection,
being the Derec Avery stories of the Robot City novels, just lacks any basic
similarity to Asimov's description of Earth in the Robot novels. By
contrast, Roger MacBride Allen's trilogy is at least passably similar, and
this lends it an additional color of realism when reading the three.
 >> Stay informed about: Who creat Dorse? 

>"Ogden Johnson III" <oj3.DeleteThis@cpcug.org> wrote in message
>news:72ublvc45piri2rir1fd3gmm0d0b7hmio2@4ax.com...
>> "Ozwitch" <ozwitch.DeleteThis@somewhere.com> wrote:

>> >I wasn't sure if the Asimov galaxy HAD a canon but your reply is my
>answer I
>> >guess.
>>

>> Haven't read the Three Bees efforts, but they *were* undertaken with
>the approval of Janet and the Asimov literary estate. But from what
>> I've read in this forum on their efforts, it just goes to show that
>> some SF settings - canons if you will - are best left to their
>> originator because they don't lend themselves to exploitation [in the
>> good sense] by others, however well-intended.

I don't want to read them because I think Asimov himself already told me as
much as I'll ever want or need to know about Selden the man. The series
really needs a continuation past _Foundation and Earth_, to answer some of the
ambiguities left at the end (some time ago I posted to this group my solution,
but nobody seemed to like it). As well as some more Empire books to link the
existing ones and to better link that series to the Robots and Foundation.

>Mark Tiedemann's trilogy,
(snip)
just lacks any basic
>similarity to Asimov's description of Earth in the Robot novels.

I really hate _Isaac Asimov's Robots in Time: Predator_ by William F. Wu (after
reading that book, I want to call him "William F.U."). Again, I posted my
reasons for this to this NG some time ago, but failed to get a positive
response (and the total number of responses I got was 1).
And I have less desire to read its sequels than to read the Killer Bs.

Mike Donovan
 >> Stay informed about: Who creat Dorse? 

 >Actually three, sort of canons, the robots, the "empire", and the
 >foundation, later jury-rigged into a sort of single canon with the
 >later Foundation novels. Which he only undertook after endless
 >browbeating by his publisher/editor

In _I. Asimov_, he said that Lester and Jody-Lynn Del Rey, who ran the Del Rey
PB imprint at the time, and were close personal friends of his, hated the idea
of merging the Robot and Foundation storylines when he first told them of his
intensions.


Mike Donovan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Who creat Dorse?