Dune versus Foundation

[Demerzel]

I remember reading the comparisons from Omphalos' book review site. To me, Asimov's stories are more like 'concepts', and thus he shines as a short-story writer (even though his text does sound a little outdated). Herbert is more of a worldbuilder and offers much more depth to his stories, even though none of his Dune stories have any sort of 'suspense building' or smack-in-the-face conclusions. If his works were music, I'd say it could be considered 'progressive'. What are your opinions?

[Omphalos]

There was about 25 years difference there too, from the beginning of the Golden Age of SF to the beginning of the New Wave; from the last pre-war years to the early Age of Aquarius. Plus they're the writings of a scientist compared to the words of a dreamer and man of letters. And both pushed by Campbell, who himself had 25 years to change. On top of all that, it's art. Its akin to comparing a Renaissance cantiga to Beethoven to Yngwie Malmstein. It's apples and oranges in the final result, IMHO. But I will admit its also fertile ground for navel gazing. As you can tell, I get lost doing it myself.

BTW, was that you recently I was chatting with over there? If so, glad to have the company. I've been ignoring that place recently because I was wondering if anyone was still using it.

[Demerzel]

Chatting? No . I was just passing by. Good stuff you have there.

[Freakzilla]

Tim O'Riley wrote that Dune was a commentary on the Foundation Trilogy. I think that's partly true.

http://tim.oreilly.com/herbert/ch05.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Shaitan]

Tim O'Riley wrote that Dune was a commentary on the Foundation Trilogy. I think that's partly true.

http://tim.oreilly.com/herbert/ch05.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They certainly share certain elements of culture-building and history-shaping-through-foresight/prescience.....but you could also look at them as opposite polar ends of a conceptual axis: a scientific approach to understanding of future-history versus a mystical approach to understanding of future-history.

[Demerzel]

I don't agree with the comparison of BG and Second Foundation psychohistorians. The quote from Herbert's essay, well it piques me. It makes sense, but Asimov's stress on the term 'probability' also makes a lot of sense - why should science be incapable of raising the odds against any surprises for humanity, especially science based that far in the future?

A subjective common trait would be that while both stories are incomplete, they end up with something I was uneasy about. The last paragraph from Foundation and Earth as well as the last chapter of CH:D were both very climactic, foreboding and ultimately quite disturbing.

[Crysknife]

There are a ton of similarities between the two works. I wrote a post about it a long time ago but can't find the link. Some of the things I remember are "Reverened Fathers" , personal shields that play key roles, and that religion is used by those in power to manipulate. There was a bunch of other stuff but can't recall it at the moment.

[Freakzilla]

I don't think it was meant to be similar, Dune was meant to be a contrast.