Richie Ramos (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:11:48 +0800
>Both Herbert and Asimov were cheats with reagrd to history. Asimov simply
>repacked Gibbons' THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, with Trantor as
>Rome and whatever the hell that little outpost with the steel credits was
>as Ultima Thule. Herbert did the same thing, only he used the much less
>familiar Byzantine Empire as his model.
OY! that's a fact! but it does make for a good read, neh?
>Otherwise, the two writers are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Asimov
>always strove to incorporate the science of his day into his works.
>Science is an unfolding process, so much of what was scientifically
>accepted in early Asimov works has been scientifically discredited today
>(oceans of Venus, for example). Herbert, on the other hand, while capable
>of hard science (his DRAGON IN THE SEA, for example, is a very accurate
>portrayal of nuclear submarine warfare), went off on a flight of fantasy
>with DUNE. Ornithopters? Sandworms? Oy!
>DUNE's still a great book, but it's only SF if you spell it out as
Well, considering the way a lot of people keep on trying to justify this
and that in gundam, we could also label gundam speculative fiction, at that...
Dune was always meant, I think to be a flight of fancy, which had some
science fiction thrown in...but, as said earlier, it's a good read.
"Magic is the hand of faith..."
Svengali, Artificer and Spellcrafter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Jan 28 1999 - 17:49:07 JST