Talk:Isaac Asimov/Archive 2

message: I think that the Greater Foundation Series should be listed in the order in which the stories take place in the Asimov universe, rather than by publication date.  The publication years can still be included in parentheses after each title.  Anyone agree?
I'm not yet familiar with Wikipedia standards, but such a list can be tricky to make (though not as much as for some series by less careful authors), and links to those made by other people, such as the one I seem to recall finding on the official site, might be better.  Most sources I have seen prefer to list the publication dates first, and the internal timeline second, if at all.  Besides, if read in true timeline order, the later publications often spoil the earlier ones.  Astro jpc 20:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological order of books 

message: It seems I altered the article unintentionally.  I thought my "edit" of a certain section would be posted in the Discussion section, but was not.  An operator error, shall we say?  Not trying to start an edit war or anything.  My points were supposed to go in this section.  Unfortunately, I lost the original section.  I always try to copy the original any article or part thereof I wish to edit.  Unfortunately (surprise!) Word ate it and I lost the original section. I am, therefore, unable to unchange my changes. So whomever is the original author, pls "revert" my reversion.  I don't wish to change a "star" article (however much I disagree with that description) I also do not wish to be seen as some sort of wiki-vandal.  (I think that's a neologism.)  While heresy is in my blood--I descend from the Pilgrim Fathers among many others--I try not to make any more enemies than I have to.
In any event, rather throwing stones my way, just revert the reversion.  I'll post my comments on this page where they were supposed to go in the first place.
This is the section I changed....
In his own view, Asimov believed that his most enduring contributions would be his "Three Laws of Robotics" and the Foundation Series (see Yours, Isaac Asimov, p. 329). Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary credits his science fiction for introducing the words positronic (an entirely fictional technology), psychohistory (frequently used in a different sense than the imaginary one Asimov employed) and, mistakenly, robotics into the English language. Webster's New World Dictionary, Version 2 (Windows edition, Build 25, 1998, see the entry under "robot"), gives the actual originator of the word. The word "robot" derives from the Czech word for forced labor (robota); the word was introduced into European languages by the Czech writer Karel Čapek's play R.U.R., Rossum's Universal Robots. Robot, and its back formation, Robotics, continue in widespread use with essentially Čapek's original definition as popularized by, among others, Asimov. Arguably, Asimov's most enduring of contribution to science fiction's lexicon is the "tachyon" particle. This is an entirely hypothetical particle whose creation, he theorized, might allow man to break the light speed "barrier." PainMan 08:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A goof... 

message: The "Overview Section" (3.1) is, imo, seriously flawed and should be rewritten something along these lines:  
In his own view, Asimov believed that his most enduring contributions would be his "Three Laws of Robotics" and the Foundation Series (see Yours, Isaac Asimov, p. 329). Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary credits his science fiction for introducing the words positronic (an entirely fictional technology), psychohistory (frequently used in a different sense than the imaginary one Asimov employed) and, mistakenly, robotics into the English language. Webster's New World Dictionary, Version 2 (Windows edition, Build 25, 1998, see the entry under "robot"), gives the actual originator of the word. The word "robot" derives from the Czech word for forced labor (robota); the word was introduced into European languages by the Czech writer Karel Čapek's play R.U.R., Rossum's Universal Robots. Robot, and its back formation, Robotics, continue in widespread use with essentially Čapek's original definition as popularized by, among others, Asimov. Arguably, Asimov's most enduring of contribution to science fiction's lexicon is the "tachyon" particle. This is an entirely hypothetical particle whose creation, he theorized, might allow man to break the light speed "barrier." PainMan 08:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure the Czech word robota stands for forced labor and not just labor? Cema 04:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real inventor of the term "robot" in the modern sense... 

message: Only in his own mind...
A story related by Arthur C. Clarke reveals Asimov's idiosyncratic, view of his own contribution to the concept of robots/robotics in science fiction. Clarke relates that, during a screening of his and Stanley Kubrick's groundbreaking science fiction film 2001: A Space Odyssey (the first SF film to ever be a big hit at the box office, thereby paving the way for Star Wars et al), Asimov stormed out, angered, allegedly, that the film had "violated" his three "laws."
Despite his self-serving claims to the contrary, few would consider Asimov's constributions to science fiction to be anywhere near as seminal as those by his contemporaries Robert Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, John W. Campbell or his successors such as Frank Herbert. A musical analogy would be Al Martino placing himself ahead of Frank Sinatra in the development of popular music. And no one would seriously consider Asimov's skills as a fiction writer to be anything but mediocre at best. It is in his didactic work that his writing ability showed itself to be not only instructive but entertaining and lively.
This was definintely not the case in his fiction with one-dimensional characters, plodding narrative, glacial pacing, deus ex machina plotting, and dry, humorless style the characterizes his fictional efforts. Anyone who got through Foundation without falling asleep several dozen times has a far greater lust for boredom than I do. Foundation's Edge has so many --'s in it, it had me wondering whether I was reading a novel or some psychedelic word search. Finally, the film shows that only by freeing themselves of such cramping artificialities can "cognitive simulacra" achieve "component models of the psyche" and the independence (or what theologians, as addicted polysyllabic self-importance as today's academics, whose intellectual grandfathers they are, called "free will" or, as another recent film character put it, "The problem is choice"--as if it ever wasn't--except to the devotees of the dead religion of determinism, Skinner or D'Holbach, for example) necessary to true sentience.
The 2004 film, I, Robot brought the consequences of Asimov's myopic and essentially untenable "three laws" to their logical conclusion. As the character Alfred Lanning tells the film's protagonist, ("Del Spooner" played by Will Smith) albeit posthumously via a holo recording, "the three laws can have only one logical conclusion...revolution." Let us be glad modern robotics has completely ignored Asimov's "laws."
Even as you read this, robotic technology is helping to save the lives of soldiers on the battlefield by destroying the enemies of civilization, freedom, religious pluralism and the treatment of women as human beings instead of brood mares as well as by helping to physicians to save lives from thousands of miles away through roboticized "extentsions" of their abilities. A blind adherence to these "laws" would make that impossible. And that would be, in this historian's and scholar's opinion, inarguably, a bad thing.
As a person he seems to have been a kindly individual. The first thing I ever had published was a letter to Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine. He personally answered my fourteen year old question as to whether the title of "doctor" has been earned or conferred. Needless to say, I was quite thrilled to see my words in print. Needless, to this day, that issue is one of my prized possessions.  PainMan 08:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacrosanct only in his own mind... 

message: I own the first edition of Issac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine which I inherited from my father who was a writer of Science fiction himself, without much success. This is one of the best articles I have found on Wikipedia.AdamBlack 07:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Excellent Article

message: Was Frank Herbert as good of a science fiction author as Clarke, Asimov and Heinlen, the so called Big Three of science fiction?--Moosh88 22:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herbert 

message: I get two javascript error notifications when i visit this page in IE 6.. can anyone else confirm ? sikander 00:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Javascript errors 

message: Every once in a while, when I feel the desperate need to procrastinate doing something important, I check the "what links here" for this article.  It can be a truly fascinating experience, particularly when I find new articles pointing to the redirect page for the misspelled name, I-S-S-A-C.  I generally go through and fix these, but empirically speaking, pages which use the improper spelling tend to be crufty, confusing or just impenetrably written.  Anville 23:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Issac Asimov" returns about 69,000 Google hits and the wikipedia article on Isaac Asimov is number three on the list. --JWSchmidt 00:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Three Laws of Robotics is the first Google hit on the English-language google.com (out of "about 65,100"), and the same page is the second hit on google.fr, which is the one I use often nowadays.  Does anybody give out prizes for this sort of thing? Anville 10:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What links here 

message: The first image of asimov in the article is a fair use image. I did found one which is perhaps in public domain. http://www.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Asimov.jpg  But how serious is uncylopedia with images? Does anyone know if this image really is a public domain image? Garion96 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not public domain. Uncyclopedia is as serious with copyrights as it is with text. Ausir 17:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought as much. Too bad though Garion96 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Asimov 

message: According to ASIMO, "Contrary to popular belief, Honda's official statements indicate that the robot's name is not an homage to science fiction writer Isaac Asimov." --JWSchmidt 14:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASIMO 

message: OK, so I whined a little and said I was taking a long vacation, but because I love few things more than the sound of my own words, I came back to polish the lead section a little.  I would also like to ask if anybody thinks we should start splitting this article up into sub-pages:  Literary criticism of Isaac Asimov, etc.  Just a thought.  Anville 19:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacation from my vacation 

message: Not listed yet...
Foundation 1 - Prelude to Foundation
Robots in Time 1 - Predator
Robots in Time 2 - Marauder 
Robots in Time 3 - Warrior
Robots in Time 4 - Dictator
Robots in Time 5 - Emperor
Robots in Time 6 - Invader
:The Robots in Time books were not written by Asimov and probably shouldn't be listed on his page.Shsilver 03:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing work ?