Interesting extract from a longer /Film interview with in-demand director Roxann Dawson.
I appreciate how she speaks with respect for the shows of the new era.
Now that I pissed off as well the fans of the series, as the ones of Asimov, let me explain:
Asimov set milestones for SF:
His Laws of Robotics and Foundation are cornerstones of the genre.
When I say: “His literature is mediocre” it’s because he is not truly interested in his characters. He has no love for them. His stories are ideas driven, not character driven.
I’d still recommend him to anybody, even mildly interested in SF.
I can get behind this take.
I don’t think we should over-exalt 20th century science fiction literature that was fantastic at communicating concepts and ideas but made no genuine effort to do that with well developed characters.
The awe factor was great, and it did inspire, but even for avid readers, it can be a slog. If one takes the position the value of science fiction lies in engaging a broader audience than those of us who can read the math and follow the science, then it needs to be engaging enough that it attracts and holds the interest that audience.
At this point in my life, I expect both good ideas and good characterization and storytelling. Otherwise, I’d rather just read stories and models in real math. I have no criticism at all of the show’s EPs effort to make the ideas in Foundation more appealing and accessible with better storytelling.
I first read the Foundation series in my teens, after Dune and Dune Messiah, having graduated out of John Wyndham and run out of Arthur C Clark at my school and public libraries. Foundation held my attention, the ideas were cool, but I was also reading anything I could when I wasn’t doing schoolwork. I find it hard to imagine it would have held my interest in the face of the kinds of diversions kids can take with them now.
