Isaac Asimov: The Foundations of Science Fiction (Revised Edition) (78 page)
Read Isaac Asimov: The Foundations of Science Fiction (Revised Edition) Online
Authors: James Gunn
BOOK: Isaac Asimov: The Foundations of Science Fiction (Revised Edition)
2.17Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
(Asimov laughing) Because clearly you have thought about it and you've attended the Bread Loaf Conference and they must have talked about things which I'm sure did not go over your head. And you've mentioned the incident in which you noticed how Clifford Simak left gaps in his stories to indicate a change of place or action. First you thought that was offensive and then you realized that this was a good thing to do and so you learned how to do it yourself. You have picked up things and I just wonder whether you think a little bit more about this than your public pose would suggest.
A.:
Well, now, that's really hard to say. I swear to you that I don't deliberately set up a pose it's what I tend to think. There was a book recently called
Isaac Asimov
a collection of essays about me edited by Martin Greenberg and Joseph Olander, and I wrote an appendix called "Asimov on Asimov" in which I first denied that it was at all possible that I could possibly have inserted all that meaning in my stories, and then I presented the opposite view that maybe I could, at that, without even knowing it. So that it's possible that consciously I don't think much about the mechanics of writing. I don't sit down and brood about it or try to think it out or discuss it with people, but that without very much in the way of conscious thinking I manage to learn from what I read and from what I hear. For instance, I remember distinctly reading once that you have written that it is necessary to engage several of the senses. And whenever I can remember, I try to do so, you see? But it's very difficult for me to remember in the fury of composition.
Well, now, that's really hard to say. I swear to you that I don't deliberately set up a pose it's what I tend to think. There was a book recently called
Isaac Asimov
a collection of essays about me edited by Martin Greenberg and Joseph Olander, and I wrote an appendix called "Asimov on Asimov" in which I first denied that it was at all possible that I could possibly have inserted all that meaning in my stories, and then I presented the opposite view that maybe I could, at that, without even knowing it. So that it's possible that consciously I don't think much about the mechanics of writing. I don't sit down and brood about it or try to think it out or discuss it with people, but that without very much in the way of conscious thinking I manage to learn from what I read and from what I hear. For instance, I remember distinctly reading once that you have written that it is necessary to engage several of the senses. And whenever I can remember, I try to do so, you see? But it's very difficult for me to remember in the fury of composition.
Gunn:
The first time I learned that I put the five senses up in front of my typewriter so that I would be reminded (laughter). Carolyn Gordon taught me that a number of years ago. In Donald Wollheim's book
The Universe Makers,
he speculates that psychohistory is the science that Marxism pretended to be and I wondered whether you ever consciously thought about that in that relationship.
The first time I learned that I put the five senses up in front of my typewriter so that I would be reminded (laughter). Carolyn Gordon taught me that a number of years ago. In Donald Wollheim's book
The Universe Makers,
he speculates that psychohistory is the science that Marxism pretended to be and I wondered whether you ever consciously thought about that in that relationship.
A.:
Well . . . you know that's so difficult to answer because psychohistory originated in a discussion between myself and Campbell, as so many of the things in my early science fiction stories did. And I think Campbell must have been reading about symbolic logic at the time. There is some reference to symbolic logic in the first story and that was more or less forced on me by John Campbell; it didn't come naturally to me, because I knew nothing about symbolic logic. And he felt in our discussion that symbolic logic, further developed, would so clear up the mysteries of the human mind as to leave human actions predictable. The reason human beings are so unpredictable was we didn't really
know what they were saying and thinking because language is generally used obscurely. So what we needed was something that would unobscure the language and leave everything clear. Well, this
I
didn't believe, so I made it mathematical and
my
analogy was, of course, to the kinetic theory of gases, where the individual molecules in the gas remain as unpredictable as ever, but the average action is completely predictable, so that what we needed were two things, a lot of people, which the galactic empire supplied, and secondly, people not knowing what the conclusions were as to the future so that they could continue to act randomly. And that's the way it worked out. Now, when Wollheim says that it was what Marxism pretended to be, well when Wollheim was young he was very interested in Marxism and undoubtedly read a lot about it. I've never read anything about it, you see, so it's a case of his reading his bent into me. For me, it was the kinetic theory of gases and that was secondarily imposed and it was John Campbell who really started it with symbolic logic.
Well . . . you know that's so difficult to answer because psychohistory originated in a discussion between myself and Campbell, as so many of the things in my early science fiction stories did. And I think Campbell must have been reading about symbolic logic at the time. There is some reference to symbolic logic in the first story and that was more or less forced on me by John Campbell; it didn't come naturally to me, because I knew nothing about symbolic logic. And he felt in our discussion that symbolic logic, further developed, would so clear up the mysteries of the human mind as to leave human actions predictable. The reason human beings are so unpredictable was we didn't really
know what they were saying and thinking because language is generally used obscurely. So what we needed was something that would unobscure the language and leave everything clear. Well, this
I
didn't believe, so I made it mathematical and
my
analogy was, of course, to the kinetic theory of gases, where the individual molecules in the gas remain as unpredictable as ever, but the average action is completely predictable, so that what we needed were two things, a lot of people, which the galactic empire supplied, and secondly, people not knowing what the conclusions were as to the future so that they could continue to act randomly. And that's the way it worked out. Now, when Wollheim says that it was what Marxism pretended to be, well when Wollheim was young he was very interested in Marxism and undoubtedly read a lot about it. I've never read anything about it, you see, so it's a case of his reading his bent into me. For me, it was the kinetic theory of gases and that was secondarily imposed and it was John Campbell who really started it with symbolic logic.
Gunn:
At that time you may not have been aware of H.G. Wells' talk to the Sociological Society in which he said that a true science of sociology was impossible because there aren't enough people involved to make accurate prediction possible.
At that time you may not have been aware of H.G. Wells' talk to the Sociological Society in which he said that a true science of sociology was impossible because there aren't enough people involved to make accurate prediction possible.
A.:
No, this is the first I heard of it.
No, this is the first I heard of it.
Gunn:
You weren't aware of it?
You weren't aware of it?
A.:
No, not until now I haven't been aware of it. (Laughter)
No, not until now I haven't been aware of it. (Laughter)
Gunn:
There is a kind of parallel in that obviously I say obviously, it is obvious now obviously in the Foundation stories you supplied enough people so that the laws of physics can be applied to those numbers. H.G. Wells said there wasn't enough people to apply these kinds of laws to, so he suggested that sociology really ought to be concerned with a kind of setting down of utopian visions of the future and sociologists would then criticize them and judge whether they would work. As a matter of fact there is another parallel your autobiography brings out: Wells wrote in his autobiography that he was very much at home in biology because he took his first year at the Normal School of Science under T.H. Huxley. It was a shaping experience for him. His second year I believe was in chemistry, and it was OK, but he didn't have as good a teacher and his studies went downhill. His third year was in geology and was a total loss, and physics he knew nothing at all about, and of course he was great at history as you are. And almost the same kinds of parallels, it seems to me, were evident in your own interests in your college educational career. You have indicated that
the higher mathematics stumped you eventually when you got up to the upper reaches of calculus and physics was not really your field.
There is a kind of parallel in that obviously I say obviously, it is obvious now obviously in the Foundation stories you supplied enough people so that the laws of physics can be applied to those numbers. H.G. Wells said there wasn't enough people to apply these kinds of laws to, so he suggested that sociology really ought to be concerned with a kind of setting down of utopian visions of the future and sociologists would then criticize them and judge whether they would work. As a matter of fact there is another parallel your autobiography brings out: Wells wrote in his autobiography that he was very much at home in biology because he took his first year at the Normal School of Science under T.H. Huxley. It was a shaping experience for him. His second year I believe was in chemistry, and it was OK, but he didn't have as good a teacher and his studies went downhill. His third year was in geology and was a total loss, and physics he knew nothing at all about, and of course he was great at history as you are. And almost the same kinds of parallels, it seems to me, were evident in your own interests in your college educational career. You have indicated that
the higher mathematics stumped you eventually when you got up to the upper reaches of calculus and physics was not really your field.
A.:
No.
No.
Gunn:
I wondered if there is some similarity, not in the careers themselves, but simply in the kinds of minds that were involved.
I wondered if there is some similarity, not in the careers themselves, but simply in the kinds of minds that were involved.
A.:
Well, since I'm a great admirer of H.G. Wells, I find this funny. (Laughter)
Well, since I'm a great admirer of H.G. Wells, I find this funny. (Laughter)
Gunn:
To go back to
The Foundation Trilogy,
I am curious at what point in the whole series did the concept of the Second Foundation occur?
To go back to
The Foundation Trilogy,
I am curious at what point in the whole series did the concept of the Second Foundation occur?
A.:
Well, from the very start
Well, from the very start
Gunn:
Right from the first conversations with Campbell?
Right from the first conversations with Campbell?
A.:
Right, because I remember Campbell saying we'll need two foundations.
Right, because I remember Campbell saying we'll need two foundations.
Gunn:
Because it's never mentioned in the first foundation series it's mentioned in the introductory story that you wrote for the Gnome Press edition, but as I recall, and I could be wrong, I didn't see any mention of a second foundation until we get into the second volume.
Because it's never mentioned in the first foundation series it's mentioned in the introductory story that you wrote for the Gnome Press edition, but as I recall, and I could be wrong, I didn't see any mention of a second foundation until we get into the second volume.
A.:
Well, it's my impression, and I swear, I can't say for sure, that in the very first story, "Foundation," there was a casual mention of the Second Foundation, because it was there from the beginning. [Asimov was right. J.G.] I did not know what the function of the Second Foundation was to be. It was there as a safety measure, as a reserve, as a strategic reserve, in case something developed in the plot so that I needed a way out, that would be the Second Foundation. And as a matter of fact, it became necessary once we introduced the Mule. Now the Mule was introduced by Campbell over my virtually dead body which was in a sense a good thing it was one of the many occasions in which Campbell was right and I was wrong and I never try to hide those occasions. He wanted to upset the plan and I thought that was heresy. He said to me don't worry, think of all the fun you'll have trying to get it back on the track. And so I remember distinctly saying to myself, well if he's going to make me destroy the plan, the only way I could get back at him was to write the longest story I had written up to that time, and I did; I wrote 50,000 words. I'd never written a 50,000 word story before and he was glad to pay for it. Of course, it was the best piece, it was the best thing in
The Foundation Trilogy.
Well, it's my impression, and I swear, I can't say for sure, that in the very first story, "Foundation," there was a casual mention of the Second Foundation, because it was there from the beginning. [Asimov was right. J.G.] I did not know what the function of the Second Foundation was to be. It was there as a safety measure, as a reserve, as a strategic reserve, in case something developed in the plot so that I needed a way out, that would be the Second Foundation. And as a matter of fact, it became necessary once we introduced the Mule. Now the Mule was introduced by Campbell over my virtually dead body which was in a sense a good thing it was one of the many occasions in which Campbell was right and I was wrong and I never try to hide those occasions. He wanted to upset the plan and I thought that was heresy. He said to me don't worry, think of all the fun you'll have trying to get it back on the track. And so I remember distinctly saying to myself, well if he's going to make me destroy the plan, the only way I could get back at him was to write the longest story I had written up to that time, and I did; I wrote 50,000 words. I'd never written a 50,000 word story before and he was glad to pay for it. Of course, it was the best piece, it was the best thing in
The Foundation Trilogy.
Gunn:
You make the comment in your autobiography that he made you change the ending of "Now You See It . . . ," the sequel to "The Mule."
You make the comment in your autobiography that he made you change the ending of "Now You See It . . . ," the sequel to "The Mule."
A.:
Yes.
Yes.
Gunn:
To permit the continuation of the series. But you don't say what your ending was.
To permit the continuation of the series. But you don't say what your ending was.
A.:
I don't remember I don't remember.
I don't remember I don't remember.
Gunn:
Oh, I see. . . . (Laughter) You don't remember how you were going to end it. Maybe the Mule wins out maybe he was going to find the Second Foundation?
Oh, I see. . . . (Laughter) You don't remember how you were going to end it. Maybe the Mule wins out maybe he was going to find the Second Foundation?
A.:
No, no I was going to reveal what the Second Foundation was and have the Second Foundation triumphant as it was, but reveal where it was and no more. But I don't remember where I had said it was, that's the point, and Campbell made me take it out, because he wasn't going to let me finish, and then I wrote one more and after that nothing on earth could have made me continue; it just got too heavy.
No, no I was going to reveal what the Second Foundation was and have the Second Foundation triumphant as it was, but reveal where it was and no more. But I don't remember where I had said it was, that's the point, and Campbell made me take it out, because he wasn't going to let me finish, and then I wrote one more and after that nothing on earth could have made me continue; it just got too heavy.
Gunn:
Yet, in many ways the last book,
Second Foundation,
may be liked better by a lot of people because of the character of the girl.
Yet, in many ways the last book,
Second Foundation,
may be liked better by a lot of people because of the character of the girl.
A.:
Yes, yes, Arkady, she was good. It was the only time I ever tried extended treatment of a teenage girl and I enjoyed that very much. It was not that I couldn't write more about the Foundation, it was that the situation under which I wrote it, individual stories in magazines in which each one had to be self-contained where you have to assume that it was quite possible that somebody was going to start reading it that hadn't read any of the other Foundation stories you had to explain everything that went before it just got so hard. Now if I had written it in novel form, so that instead of having eight stories of different length I had three novels as a trilogy, I could undoubtedly have had a fourth one.
Yes, yes, Arkady, she was good. It was the only time I ever tried extended treatment of a teenage girl and I enjoyed that very much. It was not that I couldn't write more about the Foundation, it was that the situation under which I wrote it, individual stories in magazines in which each one had to be self-contained where you have to assume that it was quite possible that somebody was going to start reading it that hadn't read any of the other Foundation stories you had to explain everything that went before it just got so hard. Now if I had written it in novel form, so that instead of having eight stories of different length I had three novels as a trilogy, I could undoubtedly have had a fourth one.
Gunn:
It wouldn't have been as difficult.
It wouldn't have been as difficult.
A.:
Yes. But in those days, there were no novels, no books. Everything appeared in magazines.
Yes. But in those days, there were no novels, no books. Everything appeared in magazines.
Gunn:
This is one thing I want to deal with in my book, the influence of the medium of communication on the things that were not written they obviously influenced what was written.
This is one thing I want to deal with in my book, the influence of the medium of communication on the things that were not written they obviously influenced what was written.
A.:
Well, yes. Another thing was it was ephemeral. In other words, you expected a story to appear in a magazine and be there for a month, and then be gone forever, except for those who collected the magazines, and well, you know, that meant you were paid once for it. In fact, there was no concept of subsidiary sales. Never heard of such a thing. You sold a story, you got some money for it, a penny a word or whatever, and that was it, forever. So that the emphasis was writing it fast, on trying not to have to revise, because you wanted to write more and make more money, if you were trying to make a living. That was what enforced pulp writing, which is essentially first-draft writing and sure-fire writing. It gave the stories a lot of action. When you write nowadays,
even for the magazines, you know there are going to be anthologizations, there are going to be collections and so on. You can afford to take your time and do a little better, because you know that there's going to be considerably more money involved than just that initial sale.
Well, yes. Another thing was it was ephemeral. In other words, you expected a story to appear in a magazine and be there for a month, and then be gone forever, except for those who collected the magazines, and well, you know, that meant you were paid once for it. In fact, there was no concept of subsidiary sales. Never heard of such a thing. You sold a story, you got some money for it, a penny a word or whatever, and that was it, forever. So that the emphasis was writing it fast, on trying not to have to revise, because you wanted to write more and make more money, if you were trying to make a living. That was what enforced pulp writing, which is essentially first-draft writing and sure-fire writing. It gave the stories a lot of action. When you write nowadays,
even for the magazines, you know there are going to be anthologizations, there are going to be collections and so on. You can afford to take your time and do a little better, because you know that there's going to be considerably more money involved than just that initial sale.
Gunn:
In my own case I am convinced that the harder I work on something the more successful it eventually is. That isn't universal in all cases, but it generally pays off today to do as good a job of writing as you can, irrespective of how long it takes.
In my own case I am convinced that the harder I work on something the more successful it eventually is. That isn't universal in all cases, but it generally pays off today to do as good a job of writing as you can, irrespective of how long it takes.
A.:
Um-hum.
Um-hum.
Gunn:
To get back to the fact that the mystery may be your mode of writing fiction, perhaps this develops rather naturally from the fact that your writing generally shows the triumph of reason or the struggle of reason to triumph over various kinds of circumstances including emotional reactions to situations that are existing. So that, if this is true, if reason is going to eventually emerge triumphant, the mystery is the natural form in which it will be exercised. Does that make sense to you?
To get back to the fact that the mystery may be your mode of writing fiction, perhaps this develops rather naturally from the fact that your writing generally shows the triumph of reason or the struggle of reason to triumph over various kinds of circumstances including emotional reactions to situations that are existing. So that, if this is true, if reason is going to eventually emerge triumphant, the mystery is the natural form in which it will be exercised. Does that make sense to you?
A.:
Yes, it does.
Yes, it does.
Gunn:
The solution to problems is the way in which reason demonstrates its desirability.
The solution to problems is the way in which reason demonstrates its desirability.
A.:
Yes, it does make sense. And it reminds me that my villains generally are as rational as my heroes. In other words, it's not even a triumph of rationality over irrationality or over emotion, at least not in my favorite stories. It's generally the conflict between rationalities and the superior winning. The good guys, so to speak. In other words, if it were a western where everything depended upon the draw of the gun, then it would be very unsatisfactory if the hero shot down a person who didn't know how to shoot. In fact . . .
Yes, it does make sense. And it reminds me that my villains generally are as rational as my heroes. In other words, it's not even a triumph of rationality over irrationality or over emotion, at least not in my favorite stories. It's generally the conflict between rationalities and the superior winning. The good guys, so to speak. In other words, if it were a western where everything depended upon the draw of the gun, then it would be very unsatisfactory if the hero shot down a person who didn't know how to shoot. In fact . . .
Gunn:
It has to be an equal balance.
It has to be an equal balance.
A.:
That's right, where the measure of superiority is very small, where there is some question as to whether the hero will win. And occasionally, very occasionally, I have the side win in whom I don't believe, in other words there is a story I wrote called . . . oh, hell, what's the story called? . . . ''In a Good Cause," that's it. . . . "In a Good Cause," where the person who at the very end wins out is the person whom I consider the villain. What happened was that as I wrote the story, the winding paths of rationality made him win out against my will. (Laughter) Doesn't often happen; generally I'm in better control and the side I favor wins.
That's right, where the measure of superiority is very small, where there is some question as to whether the hero will win. And occasionally, very occasionally, I have the side win in whom I don't believe, in other words there is a story I wrote called . . . oh, hell, what's the story called? . . . ''In a Good Cause," that's it. . . . "In a Good Cause," where the person who at the very end wins out is the person whom I consider the villain. What happened was that as I wrote the story, the winding paths of rationality made him win out against my will. (Laughter) Doesn't often happen; generally I'm in better control and the side I favor wins.
Gunn:
It seems to me also that your fact articles, your science articles, are often written the same way your fiction is. You present a mystery. How did this happen, how did somebody come to this conclusion? And
then you show the reason it worked out that way, again, almost as if it were a mystery story.
It seems to me also that your fact articles, your science articles, are often written the same way your fiction is. You present a mystery. How did this happen, how did somebody come to this conclusion? And
then you show the reason it worked out that way, again, almost as if it were a mystery story.
Other books
Life Would Be Perfect If I Lived in That House by Meghan Daum
After the Rains by Deborah Raney
Taken by the Giant Spiders by Tessa Black
Wild Honey by Veronica Sattler
Deception on His Mind by Elizabeth George
Greatshadow by James Maxey
Believe by Sarah Aronson
Under Their Skin by Margaret Peterson Haddix
Pitch Black by Leslie A. Kelly
A Cowboy at Heart by Lori Copeland, Virginia Smith