Tolkien and Asimov

[littlemanpoet]

Granted this is a very tenuous link, but I am intrigued by it nonetheless. In Letter # 294 Tolkien writes, "I enjoy the S.F. of Asimov." I finally read Foundation and am eager to read more of the series. But I find it interesting that Tolkien was reading Asimov by 1967. What effect, if any, might Asimov's vision and themes have had on Tolkien's rethinking Arda in terms of Morgoth's Ring? Is there any connection possible? ...plausible? I realize that this may be tenuous, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see what others think.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Granted this is a very tenuous link, but I am intrigued by it nonetheless. In Letter # 294 Tolkien writes, "I enjoy the S.F. of Asimov."

Oh, I found this a fascinating note too, when I read the letters. A somewhat related tangent is Asimov's knowledge of Tolkien. I haven't read Asimov's autobigraphy, It's Been a Good Life, (but I do know the Foundation trilogy and much love the I, Robot stories) but I seem to recall reading somewhere that he had read Tolkien something like five times.

What might make for a common point of reference is the theme of change. (Brevity, thy name is Bethberry these days.)

[HerenIstarion]

There are many common points there (per instance, does Gaia equal Lorien - preservation and harmony of nature etc etc?). But they seem to differ in one of their main points, though, namely, freedom of Men (or individual man, to be more precise) (I deliberatly do not mention Eru/lack of corresponding being with Asimov, since it's obvious):

In Tolkien, humans progress from 'watched/guided/protected' mode to independent Dominion of Men, and are 'free to shape their life...' etc. In Asimov, the process is reversed - humans start off as individual free agents, the transitions being Foundation - seemingly independent society, but its actions are Mene Takel Fares, and Gaia - common Intellect, something like mental anthill, with the higher mode of existence seen as future union of the whole Galaxy (and probably whole universe further on) into one 'Consciousness', with the idea that process is part of necessary progress, part of the road to survival, and should be undergone despite of incontestable unwill of many individual humans to be so united. Besides, Robot/Valar parallel may be drawn, but robots are: A. Man's own creation B. Become Valar-like entity (i.e. Power behind the events in the Galaxy/protector/conductor of Fate) only by the end of the series. Idea is plausible - to the great extent, Valar are servants themselves, but not in the mode Asimov developed his robots.

I very much like idea of Fate being rendered and calculated mathematically, though . Imagine Mandos doing equations, typing feverishly on his 'Fortunium IV ('Valintel Inside)' PC's keyboard? And all those elves thinking he is being prophesying...

[Eorl of Rohan]

My heart almost stopped at this topic. Tolkien, good Eru grief, liked Asimov? Asimov. And Tolkien. Since I've grown out of childhood tales, my whole literary life has revolved around those two authors. They are so different, yet same. Asimov, in his refreshing brevity and quick-paced narrative, Tolkien with his fantastic descriptions and gentle flow - Asimov, his imagination reaching into the future, Tolkien, placing emphasis on bloodlines and histories and building a world of the past, the flowing years from the sea - yet, pick them apart bit by bit, and there is one fascinating similarity about their works, which is _____...

Well, the answer to the blank must be different to all. I leave it open.

PS. Why do people neglect his ROBOT NOVEL series? I think they're the best of the lot, although this is just my opinion. I recommend the following (with + to the specially good, - to the not so good): Foundation, Foundation and Empire(+), Foundation's Edge(-), Foundation's End, Prelude to Foundation(+), Forward the Foundation(-), Caves of Steel(+), Robots of Dawn(+), The Naked Sun, Second Foundation, I Robot, Nemesis, and the various other non-fictions of his are just as good.

[drigel]

Wow I thought I was all alone with these two favorite authors of mine...

Thinking about commonalities of the authors, for me it's a "purest" angle. While there have been great ones over all decades, my take on SF is that the best stuff was written in the mid 20th century. "Classic" SF as it were... whats appealing to me is that the vision of the future, while relfecting some of the nuclear drama of the time, is more forthright. Less encumbered by techno babble and futurist speak. There is a real feeling of vision of the future IMO. Real people in a real obtainable future. Likewise, I (purest again) feel that the best fantasy fiction was - well - Tolkien and RE Howard. All written in mid 20th century again. History was (to me) more alive during this pre-technological age to us as a culture. Asimov was as grounded as a Humanist, as Tolkien was grounded as a Catholic, and both used that foundation in their writings.

For the body of works - well the pattern was the same in both authors. Tolkien had his legendarium, where the attempt to fit the pieces together was made to incorporate the body of work as a whole. Asimov had his Foundation novels, which was a microcosm in itself, but the Empire novels, Robot novels, most of his short stories, all fit, or had a natural place in his "legendarium". In his novel "The End of Eternity", he even explains why, in his future, mankind is the only intelligent space faring species around.

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks for the intriguing responses.

I should mention that I ran across an article in Mythlore magazine (dedicated to the creative work of Tolkien, Lewis, Charles Williams, and other Inklings) in which Tolkien and Lewis's interest in the current sci fi of their own time (30s/40s) got them to thinking about writing time travel and space travel stories of their own. So for Tolkien it was a longstanding love affair, as it were. It's also interesting that in that Letter I mentioned above, Tolkien said that he pretty much avoided fantasy of the 60s as pretty bad stuff, but liked sci fi. What does that tell you?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

I very much like idea of Fate being rendered and calculated mathematically, though . Imagine Mandos doing eqautions, typing feverishlty on his 'Fortunium IV ('Valintel Inside)' PC's keyboard? And all those elves thinking he is being prophesying...

Agreed. Always liked the idea of determining group (not individual) behavior via mathematics. In theory it would work; you would just need to be able to gather, analyze and interpret the data in an efficient and timely fashion. On the other hand, Mandos may have just taken great notes during the Music...

Read something recently regarding a god that could know what every atom (or even quantum) in the universe was doing and so would do in the future. This would mean that the god or 'Mandos' computer' would have to be larger than the universe that it was modeling. Anyway, future prediction/prophecy is something that is easier to accept than to understand.

Read Asimov as a teen and again as an adult. Though I think that he is 'one of the greats,' I now see Asimov's stories, especially the Foundation series, as simplistic. Don't see Tolkien's works like that, and am not sure if it's due to the writing, content, or that one is science fiction in the future and the other is fantasy in the past. Asimov's stories always are pasteurized, and everything just seems to work out just so in the end. Does anyone know of an example of a Boromir-like character death in the Foundation series?

Just some rambling thoughts.

[Bêthberry]

"Liar", short story in I, Robot. No Boromir, but ...

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So for Tolkien it was a longstanding love affair, as it were. It's also interesting that in that Letter I mentioned above, Tolkien said that he pretty much avoided fantasy of the 60s as pretty bad stuff, but liked sci fi. What does that tell you?

That Tolkien, like me, was pickier about his Fantasy than his Sci-Fi?

I can't speak for Tolkien, but personally speaking, I am a lot more tolerant of poorer Sci-Fi than I am of poor "fantasy". Perhaps Tolkien is to blame. My first fantasy was Narnia, shortly following by The Hobbit, and then the entire legendarium. I was raised on the finest fantasy mankind has yet to offer. As a result, any other attempts often seem paltry, or off-key...

Sci-fi, on the other hand, was not encountered through the best of the best, and it has not captured my heart the way "Ye Olde Days" have. As a result, I can sit down and read a less than perfect book, and not be bothered by how it fails to compare with the great master(s).

Perhaps it was the somewhat the same for Tolkien. He was, after all, the one to whom his Legendarium was most dear- whatever some of us may feel. He had put decades into his work, and as his written results can attest, he had a pretty good feeling on what made a good yarn and on what made a good yarn memorable, even if it was only an instinctive knowledge. With all this behind him in the fantasy field, is it any wonder that he was dissatisfied with the then-current offerings in fantasy?

What I find interesting in the context of this is Tolkien's famous statement to C.S. Lewis, back in the earlier 1930s, about not being able to find the books they liked, and so they must write them themselves. And they did- they set out to write science-fiction. Lewis got the space travel novel, which became Out of the Silent Planet, and its two sequels, while Tolkien got the TimeTravel novel, which ended up getting sucked into the Legendarium, and ultimately coming to rest in the Silmarillion as the "Akallabeth".

My point in bringing it up though, is that Tolkien obviously liked Sci-Fi from fairly early on, but was unable to find "the books he liked". Perhaps Isaac Asimov finally filled that need in the 1960s.

[Aiwendil]

An interesting topic. I've always enjoyed the fact that my favorite author was apparently a fan of second favorite author; Asimov is the only writer for whom my reverence approaches that for Tolkien.

But I must say that I've never seen any particular similarity or connection between the works of the two. In fact, I was rather surprised to find that Tolkien enjoyed science fiction. His own work, while I wouldn't call it anti-scientific, does not strike me as being particularly similar in spirit to the rational, scientific attitude of much (or most) science fiction. The rather absurd image of Mandos calculating the fate of Arda by means some complicated equation embodies this discrepancy perfectly.

But, then, I suppose there must be some reason that it is these two authors, and none other, that are my favorites. And judging from the response to this thread so far, I am not alone. Could it be, I wonder, that there is some very deep similarity between the two, difficult to discern but responsible for both their mutual regard and our apparent tendency to enjoy them both?

[drigel]

Read Asimov as a teen and again as an adult. Though I think that he is 'one of the greats,' I now see Asimov's stories, especially the Foundation series, as simplistic. Don't see Tolkien's works like that, and am not sure if it's due to the writing, content, or that one is science fiction in the future and the other is fantasy in the past. Asimov's stories always are pasteurized, and everything just seems to work out just so in the end. Does anyone know of an example of a Boromir-like character death in the Foundation series?

Good points. I suppose the Mule would = Sauron/Morgoth eh? Paseurized is a good term to use. Makes for less emotional dramatic reading I suppose (esp when comparing to current works of SF), but I just wonder if we will ever make it to that Asimov universe with all that conflict, drama and angst - that stuff usually gets in the way of progress, doesnt it?

I do like the Mandopsycho-history thing ..

[alatar]

Originally Posted by drigel

Makes for less emotional dramatic reading I suppose (esp when comparing to current works of SF), but I just wonder if we will ever make it to that Asimov universe with all that conflict, drama and angst - that stuff usually gets in the way of progress, doesnt it?

Not sure what you mean - having my brain realigned, and so am using a 'loaner' today.

Remember somewhere in the Foundation trilogy there was the girl who had to 'speak' a paper into existence, and just wasn't that the biggest issue? Yikes! Almost as bad as having 200,000 orcs of your doorstep.

Think that it's funny that we (almost) have the speak-write technology today, though I have yet to use it effectively ("I said 'Balrog' not 'ball rug,' not 'bail rock' you insipid machine..."). What might be odd is that Asimov was extrapolating into the future and Tolkien into the past, and I find it easier to 'buy' Tolkien's world than the one that Asimov presumes. I don't think that the reason is the direction of time nor the genre (spaceships vs horses) but due to the inherent abilities of the authors. I can feel Tolkien's world but feel like I'm getting the 'student reader' (Does anyone remember the publication, "Boy's Life?" If so, please substitute.) version of the future from Asimov.

Again he's a great author, yet I think that the king of science fiction is Frank Herbert (though his son's works show that an apple can fall way, WAY far from the tree...).

[littlemanpoet]

I find myself quite enlightened by the various responses so far.

I guess the particular thing I'm curious about is whether reading Asimov's science fiction helped Tolkien along toward a rejection of the Flat Earth mythology for Arda. I suppose there's no way to answer that, but it appears that the contemporaneity of enjoying Asimov and changing his mind toward a Round Earth mythology supports the plausibility of it.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Seems to me that there's one very definite similarity insofar as each author sought to create a fictional race of beings (Elves and Robots) which they saw as the idealised (but not necessarily ideal) form of humanity.

Not people-improved but people-as-they-ought-to-be in their fullest and most human(e) state.

What's neat is how alike Elves and (the very advanced) Robots are: immortal, enigmatic, withdrawn, absolutely committed to abstract ideals that are really rules engraved in the mists of time by their creators, helpers to humanity but not necessarily all that helpful (I am tempted to say "perilous"), and -- as Bethberry has noddingly indicated in her brief note -- both are absolutely anathema to change. They don't like it, they don't want it, they do everything they can to arrest it.

[drigel]

A thought did occur to me on influences. I have always thought that the idea Asimov promoted about how we as a species went forth into the galaxy to colonize and develop civilizations to the point that our planet of origin became at first a memory, then a myth, then forgotten and totally lost in obscurity does seem to remind me of something... ... ....

I wonder if the Professor had a slight influence on the Doctor's premise, and how he developed that in the Foundation novels.

Of course, that idea begins with the earth becoming totally uninhabitable because of a nuclear war (there was a robotic twist that Ive forgotton - intentionally made that way or something..?). But, it also draws on the theme of Hope for mankind as well.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by drigel

A thought did occur to me on influences. I have always thought that the idea Asimov promoted about how we as a species went forth into the galaxy to colonize and develop civilizations to the point that our planet of origin became at first a memory, then a myth, then forgotten and totally lost in obscurity does seem to remind me of something...

Another difference that I found between the two authors is that it seems (at least to me) that you can 'backtrack' the history of Earth in Tolkien's world more readily than in Asimov's. One frustration with the Foundation series is that we never get to understand what really happened to Earth (if memory serves) whereas in the Silmarillion I can see what happened, and can work out how we got to here.

Was it that Tolkien decided earlier on the fate of the world whereas Asimov wrote some cool stories then had to deal with 'loose ends,' figuring out and filling in later what 'happened' in the mythology of Earth?

[Aiwendil]

Alatar wrote:

One frustration with the Foundation series is that we never get to understand what really happened to Earth (if memory serves) whereas in the Silmarillion I can see what happened, and can work out how we got to here.

Actually, we do - I believe the explanation is partially revealed at the end of Foundation and Earth and is actually shown in Robots and Empire, the last book in the Robot series.

But I do think you may have a point - Asimov's first purpose was not world-building. At least, not in the same sense as Tolkien. I'd say that Asimov's interest was primarily in society whereas Tolkien's was in history.

[Eorl of Rohan]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

But I must say that I've never seen any particular similarity or connection between the works of the two.

There must be something. It seems that I am not the only one who loves those two authors, even those (like me) who ONLY likes these two authors and no one else. I can't quite put my finger on it - but still. Maybe it is the combination of all the comments of similarity between the two.

I'd say that Asimov's interest was primarily in society whereas Tolkien's was in history.

Er, to quote Asimov, "I am not sure I can handle a heavily sociological story."

In a way the Foundation series ARE simplistic - it was written when Asimov was still in college. However, it doesn't mean that they aren't great. I still like the 'Caves of Steel', however. Best book Asimov wrote, in my opinion.

[Aiwendil]

Eorl of Rohan wrote:

Er, to quote Asimov, "I am not sure I can handle a heavily sociological story."

He may have said that, but that doesn't mean it's true. I think he had a real gift for developing interesting and believable futuristic societies, and generating plot through those societies - look at the contrast between Earth and the Spacers. Look at Solaria. Look at Gaia.

Incidentally, here's one similarity that comes to my mind - both Asimov and Tolkien tell stories that stretch over vast time periods, that do not have a single core group of characters but rather encompass many generations. And both effectively tell a very large, somewhat loose, but cohesive story over those time scales.

[drigel]

There must be something. It seems that I am not the only one who loves those two authors, even those (like me) who ONLY likes these two authors and no one else. I can't quite put my finger on it - but still.

There is apparantly something to that - because Im that way too. Lots of stuff out there that is written well, but very few capture those rare elements in a sturdy enough bottle in such a way that transcends whatever milieu that happens to be popular at the time of publication.

And both effectively tell a very large, somewhat loose, but cohesive story over those time scales.

Definately a major factor for me - massive time scales.

[Rumil]

Hi All,

another Downer who also likes Asimov!

A few thoughts occurred to me;

Do the two great writers perhaps represent their respective countries in that Tolkien favours the idyllic countryside of the past while Asimov writes of the energetic city of the future?

Their differences in 'publishing policy' seem quite extreme! Asimov was a notoriously prolific writer and frequently refers in the forwards of his short stories of his satisfaction in publishing in one of the 50s Sci-Fi magazines, and may even be viewed as regarding publications as victories regardless of the quality of the tale (I believe that much of Asimov is excellent, especially the Caves of Steel, but some earlier stories have a clunky, unpolished feel about them). On the contrary, Tolkien has tormented us latter day fans by continually re-working and altering his stories, never finishing the Silmarillion etc, which meant that his published Middle Earth works were masterpieces, but few and far between.

I wonder if some of this may be due to their different academic backgrounds, English, where books are revered (or used to be!), versus Biochemistry, where you have to publish as many scientific papers as possible. Indeed Asimov sent up the whole scientific paper concept in 'The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline', which will amuse anyone who has the misfortune to consult primary scientific literature on a regular basis,