Herbert vs Asimov

[Egeides]

This movie more or less representing Asimov's book but wearing the same name (I, Robot) brang more articles on the subject of Asimov's litterature. I also read somewhere that Frank Herbert, in front of Asimov's technological future, reacted with disagreement and went into a not-very-technological Dune. One thing is sure, our present era is more oriented towards scientific and technological progress than the Duniverse.

I wondered if anyone knew more about the subject of Herbert vs Asimov. I do not know more than what I just wrote, and I'll know a little more the day I'll read I, Robot and maybe even see the movie to look at how it was interpretated. So anyone could fill the blanks that I have with any kind of detail that is knowned? I'm pretty curious about this aspect of Dune; tech vs anti-tech, and "unproductive biologic humans" vs "herbertian ubermensches".

[TMA_1]

hmm unlike the prequels, I would have to say that during the time right before Paul atreides in Dune, people didnt hate technology, as much as they feared it. THey used it as a means, but didnt charish it. Technology was certainly not a blasphamy, but anything that could be construed as similar to a human being. (THe prequels make this mistake when they show that mek that has a body similar to that of a man, and has a primitive artificial intelligence that reacts to a person sparring with it based on tactics and whatnot) I like Frank's idea because unlike many science fiction writers, he pictures a unvierse that is so beyond our own that technology is really no longer the main picture. See humanity never focus' on some specific thing for too long. Our fixation on technology will not last forever, which is my opinion, and this is why I like Frank's writing so much. I also dont like asimov's writing style, and dont usually like his stories too much. There is one short story he wrote though that I thought was pretty darn creative. Basically every 1000 years or so the stars come out in the sky, and because of it people go mad with awe. It basically shows us that if things are always in front of us, even if they are amazing and spectacular, that they just become common place, and kinda teaches us not to take things for granted. A great short story.

but in general I just am not a fan of isaac asimov, and think frank really has something unique about him and his views that really taps into the mindset of a lot of creative people.

[Imperial Sardaukar]

You also have to remember that in Dune, technology isn't exactly needed. There were people smarter than today's computers in the book (mentats and bene gesserit)

But advanced technology is still seen in the book, such as the ornithopter (Which is ironic, as the idea of the ornithopter was invented around the 1500's)

[TMA_1]

err technology is definitely needed in the duniverse. Without things like the holtzmen engines, heighliners, personal shields and whatnot, the duniverse would be much different. You are right though that the emphasis is not as focused on technology. Also people werent smarter than todays computers, but they just took the place of thinking machines that used to do what mentats and others did. Really after the butlerian jihad, people had to find many different replacements. They werent necissarily superior or inferior, just different, and both had their advantages and disadvantages.

[Caid Ivik]

To be sure, as I Robot movie tried to put ideas from whole robotic trilogy to one 2,5 hour sequence, I wouldn't say it can be compared with Asimov's work. [hide]Like nullth robotic law was in fact defined in Robots and the Empire, what was rather further future than 21th century.[/hide] It wasn't bad, but it wasn't something useful for comparing of these two giants. Some say that Asimov is lesser class because Foundation series were crap when compared to Dune (what I silently agree on), but robots have also strength, especially the third part. It is far better than any of Herbert's books, of course but first Dune and Godmakers  ;D

[Egeides]

I didn't communicate my interrogations well I think.

Where is Herbert and his work situated into this, historiographically? Historiography = what was written on a given subject. I know that I read somewhere that Herbert oriented his Dune series as a future that's not tech-oriented as Asimov. He disagreed and decided to show the other side. I wish to know what we know of this relation between Herbert and Asimov's work, or between what Herbert wrote and Asimov's work.

I'd wish to know everything that is accessible about this relation Herbert vs Asimov, and Dune vs Asimov's work.

Also, I am interested into this relation/opposition between the two worlds and the two types of humans it brang: "unproductive biologic humans" vs "herbertian ubermensches. By bringing the machines up, humans look as needing an upgrade, while in a not tech-oriented world as Duniverse it goes the way round.

Why, where, when, how?

[Caid Ivik]

I can say I agree with this ansicht. We could find even deeper problems inside it. Asimov's universes are more like that of modern theories (renaissance, illuminates, Hegel...), where human is creating a tool (let it be a scientifical database Foundation, self-aware creative robots, cyber-communism of Gaia or such) with some awareness of great omega, where the mankind will turn itself to perfect society, thanking to science and of course technology it produced. It is a true show of future evolution, following some higher intellect, νους could we say, some reason "to make a perfect world". Human aware of his own imperfection makes a robot, robots find a perfect human, perfect human leads mankind to ethernal pleasure. Simple, that's how νους works, and was made to work.

Herbert looks in this comparision more like postmodern tradition, actually the early one like we could see in Schopenhauer's universe. In the world is chaos, human is the only sapient being able to create an order in it. However, he is limited, so if he can't set a good tradition, a strong elitist family (Bene Gesserit), his art will perish in the time. As time goes, only carriers of the tradition can be viewed as on "higher level" than other humans, but not improving themselves, like Asimov's two Foundations. They only master the art to adapt and thus survive. They had a higher target too once, but how this Kwisatz Haderach ended up you all know...

[TMA_1]

yeah I would tend to agree with the idea that they are incomparable. I think I was wrong in trying to compare the two. THey write and think completely differently. It isnt that asimov is bad or anything to me, it is just that i dont like his style, the way he tells his stories, and the way he writes them.

[Moose212]

I've read the "Foundation" trilogy several times as well as Frank Herbert's DUNE novels. I absolutley love both of their writing styles and their stories. If I had to pick which was better, I think I may go mad with indecision.:O The thing i always found interesting with the Foundation trilogy was that the best power source they could come up with was nuclear fission. It really is hard to compare the two authors. They are both god's among insects.

Should I read Battle of Corrin next or Foundations Edge, the fourth book in the Foundation series?