Isaac Asimov

[Alisdair]

Just found this fantastic interview on youtube. An interview of the brilliant Science Fiction writer Isaac Asimov which I thought would be worth sharing on this site the video is in three parts:

Part 1 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CwUuU6C4pk
Part 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJAIERgWhZQ
Part 3 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEHtt5sGbTw

A truly inspirational interview by one of the worlds great visionaries from the past. I think Asimovs views beautifully augment the views of Richard and hope those here who have not seen the interview enjoy it.

[Mclain]

A long interview of Isaac Asimov with Harold Channer. Its really great, enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYzj4yyM8Ws

[purethought]

Alisdair, thanks for posting this. I have a lot of time for Asimov - a great thinker, theorist and writer. I'll Look forward to watching it. Favourite Asimov book? I'd have to go with Foundation trilogy but outside of that The End of Eternity is excellent.

[athiocrat99]

The book "The Biographical Encyclopedia of Science And Technology" by Isaac Asimov is fine! It seems a terrible shame that he had died in 1992 at only the age of 72. As is recalled (?) Asimov had taught (biochemistry) at a medical university. The college (Boston Medical College?) had wanted to fire Asimov for his spending a lot of time writing. Asimov took them to court, I think, and won his case.

[Mclain]

Yes, indeed it is a very fine book. I must say that it is a matter of utter disgrace that almost all of his non-fiction work is forgotten. His contribution besides the fiction is at least as instrumental as it is in fiction, if not more. And yet, across the lengths and breadths of every age, it is his fiction that people chiefly recognize. He needs to be acknowledged for his non-fiction work only just as mightily.

[Silent.Bomber]

Yes, indeed it is a very fine book. I must say that it is a matter of utter disgrace that almost all of his non-fiction work is forgotten. His contribution besides the fiction is at least as instrumental as it is in fiction, if not more. And yet, across the lengths and breadths of every age, it is his fiction that people chiefly recognize. He needs to be acknowledged for his non-fiction work only just as mightily.

Yes, I agree totally. Not my favourite fiction writer by a long way but my favourite non-fiction writer by a very long way indeed. His science books are extremely good: some of them really should be reprinted. At the moment you can only get them in libraries which is a bit of a joke really.

[Elderito]

Asimov's guide to the bible started me out of theism.

Beyond that his other writing is great and prolific. He really explained science well and his science fiction was grand without being magical.

[Mclain]

Yes, both of you are right. I love Asimov's non-fiction work much better than his fiction. The books he wrote several decades ago are still good, despite the fact that so much has changed in science. The stuff he wrote on Quantum Mechanics is still very much in tune and a serious reader can go through it without having to fear outdated information. Then again, he has written a lot on Astronomy and all his articles on various topics are just awesome. I think he has written more than 200 articles, of which I only have a few. You are right also about the fact that it's really hard to find his books in stores these days. All they stock is his robot series. Even the libraries are not well equipped as far as he is concerned.

Anyway, I recommend his book, "Breakthroughs in Science", it has a very excellent description of major scientists and mathematicians in the last many centuries. Something that every science lover should read.

[j.mills]

When, as a spotty teen, I regularly riffled through the Asimov shelf in the bookshop, I would keep picking up a book of his astronomy essays (The Stars In Their Courses?) and putting it down again, disappointed that it wasn't SF. I wish I'd bought it regardless, by accident, as I'm sure now I would have been greatly engaged. Who Knows where I might be now?

[gerontion]

I read a lot of Asimov, particularly his fiction, when I was a teenager, and I think it ended up forming the core of my understanding of the physical world (maybe not the best sort of education, but far from the worst). Reading it in later years, I guess I have to agree that his fiction writing lacked a certain something. But I didn't really notice that when I was a kid-the power of his ideas was good enough, without perhaps the most noteworthy writing style, to keep my imagination occupied. And I'm glad, because the ability to appreciate ideas for their own sake is not something that every person learns. I have Asimov's fiction to thank for teaching me that.

[athiocrat99]

Yes, both of you are right. I love Asimov's non-fiction work much better than his fiction. The books he wrote several decades ago are still good, despite the fact that so much has changed in science. The stuff he wrote on Quantum Mechanics is still very much in tune and a serious reader can go through it without having to fear outdated information. Then again, he has written a lot on Astronomy and all his articles on various topics are just awesome. I think he has written more than 200 articles, of which I only have a few. You are right also about the fact that it's really hard to find his books in stores these days. All they stock is his robot series. Even the libraries are not well equipped as far as he is concerned. - - - - - - - Anyway, I recommend his book, "Breakthroughs in Science", it has a very excellent description of major scientists and mathematicians in the last many centuries. Something that every science lover should read.

athio says: Asimov's non-fiction books were/are great! I've had good luck finding many out of print books on the used books sites such as ABE dot com "Advanced Book Exchange". But recently that have been even MORE good used or out of print books found on the Amazon dot com book site - so in future we may start buying more books from there.

Asimov's non-fiction books were *loaded* with EASY to grasp information. The few which I've read were extremely clear, indeed. A year or two back I wanted to buy a newer copy of of Asimov's "Biographical Encyclopedia of Science And Technology" but was sorry to see the price (then) was over 10USD.

Asimov once wrote that he *knew* his writing was thought as unlovely - but he preferred to write *clearly* than to have his writing seem lovely. Near the end of Asimov's life he admitted to being an atheist & said he had probably always been one. It was once read that he had written over 400 books. I'd like to get the biography of Asimov that's been published. It was read he was a troubled youth.

[Mclain]

I think it’s very good news that these websites have Asimov's books now, good for us Asimov fans anyway. Asimov wrote two autobiographies, the first one is called "Its been a good life", (I don’t have it though) which he wrote a few years before he died. Then, just before he died he was in the process of writing "A Memoir", (I have this one!) and this I believe is more popular than the first one. It is because in 'Memoir' Asimov didn't write about his life's event in the strictest chronological order; sure they are in order but not in a very formal style. He wrote as he felt about the things that most affected him in making the man that he was. Anyway, I enjoyed it thoroughly and would recommend it to everyone.

It’s very true that his writing is exceptionally clear. When I didn't know anything about science, I could still understand the information provided in his books without much effort. I haven't yet found the time to read all his work. By an official count, he has written more than 500 books (including fiction and non-fiction in every genre). I think it's a world record, I haven't heard of any other writer who has been so prolific. In his memoir, he wrote that he could write 12 hours straight and never took days off writing, be its Christmas or Thanksgiving.

Another lesser known fact about Asimov is that he died of AIDS. His heart failed because of the complications due to the disease. I think he got it in 1984 through blood transfusion but was advised by his doctors to keep it a secret for the rest of his years (I don't know why, perhaps social stigma!) He passed away in 1992 at the age of 72. Another interesting fact about him is that he was almost scared of dying before he turned 70, he always thought people are going to think less of him if he died too soon. You can find out more about this on the web of course, now that the details related to his death are disclosed by his wife. Sad ending of a very fine man, indeed.

[j.mills]

I thought his first volume of autobiog was called In Memory Yet Green, and his second In Joy Still Fresh, or something like that? I haven't read 'em, but they were mentioned in Opus 200, an anthology of excerpts with his commentary that came out after he published his first 200 books. Though I could have my memories mixed up.

(Incidentally, romance hack Barbara Cartland wrote some 664 novels. And there are other claimants to the numbers throne here.)

I suppose I should dig up some of his non-fiction. But his book on how to use a slide-rule didn't do much for me.

*SPOILER ALERT!*
I did not know that about the AIDS. As I mentioned on another extensive Asimov thread we had on here a while back, I was greatly moved by the ending of Forward The Foundation, in which the death of Hari Seldon is so worded as to plainly pre-figure Asimov's own end just a few weeks later - "with the future he created unfolding all around him..."

[athiocrat99]

Another lesser known fact about Asimov is that he died of AIDS. His heart failed because of the complications due to the disease. I think he got it in 1984 through blood transfusion but was advised by his doctors to keep it a secret for the rest of his years (I don't know why, perhaps social stigma!) He passed away in 1992 at the age of 72. Another interesting fact about him is that he was almost scared of dying before he turned 70, he always thought people are going to think less of him if he died too soon. You can find out more about this on the web of course, now that the details related to his death are disclosed by his wife. Sad ending of a very fine man, indeed.

That AIDS info helps to explain something odd. A few of the pieces by Asimov I'd read showed rather clearly he *was* interested in maintaining his health. Obviously with a mind as good (!) as his, Asimov ought to have done a great job of avoiding the many health pitfalls that the rest of us tend to fall prey to. Asimov had once stated that to take a dose of bicarbonate of soda strongly tended to injure the liver, for example.

AIDS: There have been persistent rumors that some form of vaccinations that were widely supplied to Africa had been laced with a virus that causes AIDS. When I had read this info was being publicized by some black publisher or other, it was assumed by me that this extremely weird claim must merely be an outlandish form of the "We black people are being terribly treated by white people" discrimination syndrome. However some *other* information that was later read *also* agreed with that sickening theme. From what little was read (I did not delve into that matter deeply) it was being suggested that the HIV or AIDS virus was created as a biological warfare agent. Of course, this accusation would fall under the heading of "conspiracy theory" perhaps.

But one also should consider there are *many* people who firmly believe (perhaps with good reason) that the Lyme Disease illness *was* deliberately created to be a boiwar agent. That 'agent' was said to have been developed by Dr. Erich Traub who was an excellent German microbiologist who later was employed by the U.S. To read some interesting claims about that situation, you might wanna peruse the book "Lab 257" by Michael Carroll, who may be a lawyer, and who investigated that matter carefully.

[multivariable]

Isaac Asimov is the main reason I got into science as a profession.

I even named one of my kids after him.

[j.mills]

"I name this child, Asimov Multivariable"? Wish I'd been there for that one...

[Mclain]

My apologies..

The books I mentioned certainly exist but they are not the only ones. As rightly pointed out by j.mills, the books in the right order of publication are these:

* In Memory Yet Green, (1979, Doubleday)
* In Joy Still Felt, (1980, Doubleday)
* I. Asimov: A memoir, (1994, Doubleday)

It's Been a Good Life (published in 2002) is a book edited by Janet Asimov. The book is a collection of Isaac Asimov's diaries, personal letters, and pieces of his three earlier autobiographies mentioned above.

Also, I suggested the wrong year in which he contracted AIDS, it was not 1984, but 1983 when he went through a heart bypass surgery and had to have blood transfusion which of course then resulted in this terrible state of affairs for him.

I am not sure whether it is true that AIDS was created for warfare purposes, although I have heard similar theories about it. Perhaps Professor Dawkins would like to comment on it (if he reads this page) since being a biologist may enable him to decide whether a disease like this could pop up on its own; I doubt it though, in favor of its being fabricated by mankind. But I can surely be wrong. It would be nice to throw some more light on this matter.

[athiocrat99]

Isaac Asimov is the main reason I got into science as a profession.

I even named one of my kids after him.

Anybody who so greatly respects Asimov must surly be a 100 percent A-O-K individual.

[athiocrat99]

My apologies..

The books I mentioned certainly exist but they are not the only ones. As rightly pointed out by j.mills, the books in the right order of publication are these:

* In Memory Yet Green, (1979, Doubleday)
* In Joy Still Felt, (1980, Doubleday)
* I. Asimov: A memoir, (1994, Doubleday)

It's Been a Good Life (published in 2002) is a book edited by Janet Asimov. The book is a collection of Isaac Asimov's diaries, personal letters, and pieces of his three earlier autobiographies mentioned above.

Also, I suggested the wrong year in which he contracted AIDS, it was not 1984, but 1983 when he went through a heart bypass surgery and had to have blood transfusion which of course then resulted in this terrible state of affairs for him.

I am not sure whether it is true that AIDS was created for warfare purposes, although I have heard similar theories about it. Perhaps Professor Dawkins would like to comment on it (if he reads this page) since being a biologist may enable him to decide whether a disease like this could pop up on its own; I doubt it though, in favor of its being fabricated by mankind. But I can surely be wrong. It would be nice to throw some more light on this matter.

I also had contracted a nasty infection (or several) by being transfused with "dirty" blood during surgery. That had taken place about a two years after the great Asimov had his received his surgery that surely gave him the AIDS that killed him.

But it was fortunate that my infection(s) from the dirty blood did not include that deadly HIV virus! It was nearly six long years later (after that surgery) that just a major infection (one of several) of my joints was discovered and was treated by the antibiotic cephalexin [sic] or keflex. Only ONE night after I'd started taking that antibiotic, my severe hip pains were suddenly *gone* after taking that antibiotic.

That meant I'd been suffering for years with a case of bad hip infection - the real cause of which severe pains had been unknown. Up until I was given that Rx antibiotic nearly SIX years after getting infected by "dirty blood" it was presumed I was suffering arthritis of my hips. Bollocks!

Information from a trusted RN nurse once described for me how commercial blood banks are buying *infected* blood from the Street People. Thus we've got a percentage of the blood that's being used for transfusing people being operated on that's being bought from the druggies, alcoholic derelicts & prostitutes, etc. It's well known that a sizable portion of the addicted people who are frantic to get their drug "Fix" will sell their bodies for sex - plus the sharing of needles also spreads infections like wildfire among the street people.

We know that the commercial blood banks are NOT using the infected blood they're buying as red pigment for painting barns - don't we? That means such blood IS being put into hospital patients.

Later it was read that approx. 3 to 4 times as many women who have had open heart surgery are dying in the first 100 days after their surgery, compared to the number of males who are dying. The explanation for that nasty statistic was said to be because the women are more frequently getting BLOOD transfusions during their heart surgeries than are the men. The explanation of WHY the women *more* often are given blood transfusions is because their concentration of red blood cells which the women have typically is less than the level of red blood cells men have. However more than one source has been read which states that the *reason* why women do live longer, on average, than men - is because the level of IRON in their bodies is lower due to the blood loss they have experienced during their years of menstruation. Assuming that information surely is correct, the *alleged* reasoning that's being used for giving *many* women blood transfusions therefore seems highly improper.

it's also been read that a transfusion given in a U.S. hospital can frequently be billed at the rate of $20,000 -meaning it is a profitable thing for a hospital to give transfusions !!! Also there are some hospitals (or only one?) that now tries to *never* do any blood transfusions. Maybe that hospital is run by some religious organization?

The above information read from a reliable source suggests to me that a BIG reason why people are being given blood transfusions is so that the patient (his insurance co.) can be billed that approximately $20,000 for a blood transfusion. Thus the quesiton of "whether or not a patient needs a transfusion of blood" may NOT even enter the picture! Since there is virtually NO way at all that the "activities" and behavior the doctors and the hospitals (which are autonomous) can be controlled for the actual benefit of *patients* - it's my strong suspicion that whatever those "rascals" may decide to do is what happens.

Thus it appears entirely possible that Professor Isaac Asimov, PhD - the greatest science writer of all time - could easily have survived his surgery *without* receiving ANY blood transfusion. Furthermore - it's also been read that after being stored more that four days (whenever it was "donated" more than four days before being used for a transfusion) any blood given by transfusion to a patient then is a wholly *useless* measure by that time.

[Silent.Bomber]

I think Asimov's books have got a lot of people into science. If you only read one of his books, make sure you read ''Asimov's New Guide to Science'': one of the best general accounts of science ever written and well due for a reprint.

[j.mills]

Yesterday I came across his Extraterrestrial Civilizations on a second-hand stall. Toyed with it but figured many of his assumptions must be out of date after 30 years, and I already have hundreds of books I haven't read. So I expect it will lie on that stall to the end of eternity! (See what I did there? )

[War Arrow]

A few thoughts:

1) - Starting to think maybe this board needs an Asimov forum, given how frequently his name pops up.
2) - Is Fweddy okay? I'm surprised he is yet to post in this thread.
3) - End of Eternity and The Gods Themselves... truly great novels.

(oh and Mr. Mills - Fallen Dragon was wonderful so once again thanks for the recommendation!)

[j.mills]

Ha! I should get a commission from the publishing industry.

[athiocrat99]

As a teen I'd read quite a few of Asimov's short stories & thought they were great. As I'd been doing poorly as a kid (was from a broken home, etc.) the "lift" I would always get by reading good sci-fi helped me to believe the entire world was *not* completely screwed-up to a fare thee well. Among Asimov's stories I recall was one approx. "On Marsport Without Hilda" or similar. That story helped assure me that just because something (not only a story) was "bawdy" did not make it be worthless trash, as the super-Xtian goofs believed so strongly.

Asmov's "The Gods Themselves" was really excellent, I thought. While his "Foundation Trilogy" (the first three books) were very good - by that time I'd started to drift away from fiction totally & started taking an interest in non-fiction and the ridiculous Real World - which seems *stranger* than fiction.

In one of Asimov's earlier short stories there existed a fictional "substance" that had the peculiar property that it accurately "predicted" the future. This "substance" would automatically become a liquid at a time So Many Minutes Before Water Was Added To It. As an experiment (?) apparently a "professor"(?) fully had intended to add water to some of that "substance" at a certain future time. That sample of "substance" had then turned into a LIQUID so many minutes (?) *prior* to the time the water should have been added. Then that (now liquid) sample was securely *locked* in a strongbox or in a safe.

As the time approached when the water had been scheduled to be added to the substance - the whole planet began to react in what seemed like cataclysmic fury! In other words, some water WOULD BE added to the "substance" locked up so securely - by one means or another! That sample of "substance" WOULD be watered, even if Earth had to be utterly destroyed along with the locked container for water to wet that "substance".

I wish I could recall the title of that story by Asimov. Very inventive!

[j.mills]

Well, the original 'story' was a mock research paper, glorying in the title The Endochronic Properties Of Resublimated Thiotimoline. Apparently people actually asked in libraries for the other (made-up) papers he cited as references at the end - not twigging that a 'research paper' published in Astounding Science Fiction might be a tad dubious... The idea was simply that some substances begin to dissolve immediately when placed in water, whilst others didn't do so until a few moments later: Asimov merely extended the distribution in the other direction, positing a substance that began to dissolve before contact.

I think the idea was reused in three later stories - one of them somehow used the stuff to 'suck' a spaceship forward faster than light! - but I'm afraid I don't know the titles. - Oh, hang on, wikipedia has the full details. Clever fellow, that Asymptote!

EDIT: Incidentally, wikipedia links on from there to a list of fictional materials that is well worth a browse!