I can suggest four ways to make Asimov's future history less implausible and/or more interesting. All four would make his history more like Anderson's.
(i) A much smaller empire.
(ii) An original rationale for the "hyperspace" cliche, like Anderson's multiple quantum jumps.
(iii) A multi-species galaxy. (This is more interesting but not more plausible.)
(iv) Not a predictive science of society but an evidence-based theory of historical cycles.
Although Anderson linked van Rijn and Flandry, he did not subordinate all subsequent volumes to the need to rationalize the linkage.
If you like Asimov, then read Anderson. If you have not read Anderson before, then you will be surprised.
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I am not entirely sure I can agree with your point "iii." I find the idea of our galaxy having one intelligent race, ours, far more implausible than thinking there are many intelligent races in the galaxy. Never mind, for now, the untold billions of other galaxies!
I agree with your other numbered points, esp. number "iv."
I only wish more readers, even of SF, would give Anderson a chance, instead of sneeringly dismissing him was writing "1970's" science fiction.
Sean
Kaor, Sean!
As it happens, there’s an article in the June issue of COMMENTARY (a conservative magazine of politics and culture) making the case that Earth may be the only planet in the universe with life, and especially with intelligent life, even more especially with intelligent life having technology for interstellar communication. Maybe so, maybe not; at present, we simply don’t know, either way.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
I agree. We don't.
Post a Comment