A Planet In Space III

Extraordinarily, the mere similarity between the titles A Stone In Heaven and Pebble In The Sky led to yet another comparison between Poul Anderson and Isaac Asimov, repeating points made in earlier posts. It is remarkable that quite a long list of parallels between these authors' future histories can be compiled although the gestalts of the two series are very different.

Another example of such similarity with difference is Perelandra by CS Lewis and A Case Of Conscience by James Blish. Each of these novels is a volume of a theological trilogy and, in each, a Christian and an atheist scientist disagree and argue on a sinless planet... But the differences are far greater.

A Stone In Heaven is certainly an evocative title. Taken literally, it suggests something like the Black Stone of the Kaaba before it fell to Earth, a fitting subject for a mythological fantasy by Anderson. Sometimes, the title of a novel turns out to be a brief phrase used casually in the text of the novel. When the reader comes across the phrase, it gains an additional significance because it is recognized as the title and thus as somehow encapsulating the theme of the novel. I had remembered that the stone in heaven of the title was a planet seen from space but which planet? While rereading the novel, I was looking out for the phrase and wondering if I had missed it.

As it happens, in Baen Books' The Technic Civilization Saga, Volume VII, Flandry's Legacy, pages 1-188 are A Stone In Heaven. Page 171 ends:

"Elaveli [a moon of the planet Ramnu] filled much of the scene, its lighted three-quarters a jumble of peaks, ridges, scarps, clefts, blank plains, long shadows - airless, lifeless,"

and page 172 begins:

"a stone in heaven."

Thus, Elaveli is the titular stone. We turn the page and find our title. But then Flandry reflects on the bright blue Ramnu as a "sapphire" and "a precious jewel" because it holds awareness and because he thinks that his journey here has been his "last expedition..."

So Ramnu is the important planet but Elaveli gains significance because its description becomes the title of the novel.

A Planet In Space II

To continue the comparison:

(i) Poul Anderson's 400 light year diameter Terran Empire a thousand years in our future is like a less implausible version of Isaac Asimov's galaxy-wide Galactic Empire tens of thousands of years hence.

(ii) Asimov wanted a galactic population only to make psychohistorical predictions mathematically accurate, which they wouldn't be anyway. Thus, he gave the impression of millions of planets with identical environments and interchangeable inhabitants whereas Anderson presented variety and complexity in his imagined environments, including even details of planetary masses and orbits and local equivalents of grass.

(iii) Anderson's earliest attempt at a future history had already addressed the Heinleinian themes of a future history with a time chart, the quest for physical immortality and slower than light multi-generation interstellar spaceships and the Asimovian themes of humanoid robots and a practical science of society.

(iv) Asimov's future history was stretched and diluted by the addition of extra volumes by other authors. I used to think that a multi-authored future history would be a good idea and maybe it would be in theory but Heinlein's Future History and Anderson's Technic History each works perfectly with its single author.

For all these reasons, the History of Technic Civilization deserves to be more widely read and better known than the Foundation Trilogy.

A Planet In Space

What do Pebble In The Sky by Isaac Asimov and A Stone In Heaven by Poul Anderson have in common? They invite comparison because both titles mean "a planet in space."

Each is a futuristic sf novel featuring faster than light interstellar travel through hyperspace and a human interstellar empire that parallels the Roman Empire, even to the extent of, literally, an enthroned Emperor;

each is a single volume of a long future history series;

each of these future histories is an amalgamation of two previously independent series;

thus, each features a pre-Imperial period followed by the long rise, decline and eventual Fall of the Empire;

in both series, a theoretician predicts the Fall and an attempt is made to prepare planetary populations for the subsequent chaos and barbarism;

in both cases, we see something of the post-Imperial period.

The differences are far greater than the similarities:

Anderson writes better prose and novels with better characterization;

Asimov presents a humans only galaxy whereas Anderson imaginatively describes many other intelligent species;

Anderson realizes that even terrestroid planets will not necessarily be places where human beings can simply breathe the air and drink the water etc without needing dietary supplements, environmental modifications etc;

Asimov's hyperspace is an unexplained sf cliche whereas Anderson plausibly rationalizes his as millions of quantum jumps per second;

Anderson understands religion and treats it sympathetically whereas the only religion in Asimov's future history is a cynical social manipulation that has not happened in any real history;

Asimov's Hari Seldon is a mathematician who predicts the Fall because sufficiently large populations are predictable in the way that mechanical interactions between macroscopic objects are predictable despite the randomness of individual particles whereas Anderson's Chunderban Desai is, more plausibly, a student of Terrestrial history;

Anderson applies a real, complex theory of history to his fiction and manages to say something substantial and interesting about how societies change and develop;

Seldon schemes to manipulate society in order to reduce the period of the interregnum whereas Anderson's Flandry, again more plausibly, just tries to prolong the Empire.

Why do I keep dumping on Asimov? Would any Asimov fan like to reply?