Isaac Asimov Panel 2- February 2024

Science Fiction Book Club

Interview with Frank White and Robert Godwin February 2024

Frank White is best known for his writing of the 1987 book The Overview Effect — Space Exploration and Human Evolution, in which he coined the term “the Overview Effect.” The book has now gone through four editions. He has appeared on The Space Show hosted by Dr. David Livingston, and has given numerous speeches at space events. He also co-authored "Think About Space: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?" and "March of the Millennia," with Isaac Asimov.

Robert Godwin is also a super-fan of Asimov. He owns over 400 of his books. He owns every single SF book he wrote, including first editions of Foundation and Nightfall which Asimov signed for him many years ago. He also has almost all of his early Pulp appearances back to the 1940s. Sadly, when Asimov died, Godwin's letter of condolence was the very first one published in Asimov's SF Magazine. He has edited over 200 books, mainly on space exploration. He is the author of Manned Lunar Landing & Return, and the Lunar Exploration Scrapbook and is co-author of Outpost in Orbit (a history of ISS) and 2001: The Heritage & Legacy of the Space Odyssey.

Bill Rogers: Frank and Robert, did Asimov ever claim inspiration from his time in the Futurians and if so, did he specify of what sort? Thank you!

Robert Godwin: I am unaware of him claiming any “direct” inspiration from his relationship with the Futurians. I’m sure purely by hanging around with that group he must have had some new thoughts, but it is my understanding that although he was the group’s secretary he operated on the periphery because he was less political than most of its members.  My guess is that more of his inspiration came from the stories they were all reading at the time. Oddly the first time he went to a meeting, where he met Cyril Kornbluth, Donald Wollheim and Fred Pohl for the first time, he had to ask permission from his mother to be able to attend! Evidently, he enjoyed the seriousness of the group and the parliamentary procedures, but he equally remembered the trip to the ice cream shop afterwards. At the second meeting he said there was much debate followed by ping pong. At that early stage the Futurians were like countless other small science fiction clubs around the US and the UK, mostly instigated by the efforts of Gernsback and his staff at his publications. The Futurians were far more politically motivated than similar groups (e.g. the SFA branches in the UK where Arthur Clarke and Eric Frank Russell convened were almost purely concerned with getting SF stories to read). By Asimov’s third Futurian meeting there was a long political debate that led to him leaving early. Unknown to him, when he first showed up the group had already had a schism with some of its members and split in two. It is my understanding that he tried to stay well out of the fight. The entire story of the Futurians can be gleaned from the book by Fred Pohl; another by Sam Moskowitz called “The Immortal Storm” (if you can find it) and Asimov’s own autobiographies. I have read all three but teasing out of memory (mine is not Yet Green) the details of anything other than the political machinations of the group is a real challenge.

Kevin Cheek: Did he ever talk about how he developed the alien characters in “The Gods Themselves”? In his fiction featured very few aliens, yet this is one of the most well realized alien races in SF.

Frank White: I never talked with him about that. However, as I recall, he told me that his editor wanted aliens who were in conflict with humans, and he didn’t want to write about that, so he began to develop the robots.

Robert Godwin: At the time he wrote The Gods Themselves he was taking some heat for having no aliens in his main fictional universe (i.e. Foundation Robots etc). Of course, that had been a conscious decision because he wanted to sell stories to John Campbell in the 40s and 50s and Campbell was notoriously against including aliens. In typical fashion Isaac decided to deliberately grasp the nettle and tried to create a truly alien species for The Gods Themselves. He was aware that getting inside the mind and purpose of an alien would be almost impossible; nevertheless, he tried. As you point out he succeeded beyond most expectations and won all the big awards for the book. Amazingly he said it was the first time in over a dozen years he had felt excited about writing science fiction, and it was all because of a dare from Robert Silverberg. He had originally planned a short story about an impossible isotope, but it got out of hand and ended up four times as long as he intended. It was then going to be in an anthology but when he handed it to the editor he was asked to turn it into a novel. He didn’t want to do that so almost jokingly he said the only way he could do that is if he told the same story again from the perspective of another universe. He then created his aliens, one of which he later stated was “the most interesting and sympathetic character” he had ever created. (Critics note, she was female.) That was also almost done on a dare. Apparently, the editor had shown the part he wrote first (about the isotope) to a publisher who asked if there would be any sex in the story! Evidently his editor, presumably to defend his honour, replied “No”. At which point Asimov took that as a challenge, so the entire second part of the book would be about the sex lives of some completely and utterly alien creatures.

Brad Snurr: Is Asimov the originator of the Laws of Robotics?

Frank White: Yes.

Robert Godwin: Asimov gets all the credit for the Three Laws, famously making the comparison to medieval sword makers who he said were smart enough to put a hilt on the blade “so the fingers didn’t slide down and fall off” thus contending that the robot makers would surely be just as smart.  However, he acknowledged that they came out of his conversations with his editor John W. Campbell. Some of the concepts in the laws had also appeared in works by Otto and Eando Binder, but ultimately Asimov could be said to have created an anti-Frankenstein when his artificial life didn’t turn against its maker because that was against its inbuilt nature.

Damo Mac Choiligh: ‘Unto the Fourth Generation’ is the only story I can think of by Asimov with anything like a Jewish theme and my understanding is that Asimov was an atheist. Is that all there is to it? Did his Jewish background influence him at all? I’m thinking for example of the strong Jewish-American tradition of involvement in the civil rights movement and other liberal causes.

Robert Godwin: This is a tough one for me because you really need to get into his head. I’m not Jewish, and I’m not from either Russia or New York! Understanding how those cultural motifs affected his thinking is incredibly hard for me to convey in any meaningful way. I know that he wrote often about his family’s Jewish heritage and his atheism. Here is the best I’ve got; in his own words, “On January 2 1933 I had turned thirteen. Even unbelieving Jews often saw to it that their sons went through a bar mitzvah—the occasion on which a young man accepts Judaism independently, rather than having it thrust on him by his parents. I did not undergo the rite. Nor have I ever felt any guilt over this, nor any urge to make up the lack. I have never felt anything but comfortable over my lack of religion. However, Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not a religious persecution, but one against anyone who could be defined as a Jew by those who were professional Jew-haters. Under those conditions, I qualified perfectly and the world grew a distinctly more dangerous place each year for me and for all Jews. It made me more than ever a liberal and a New Dealer, for liberals were openly anti-Hitler and conservatives seemed to me to be rather complacent about the Hitler phenomenon and to be interested in other things.”

That seems to be pretty profound, and I don’t see how this couldn’t have affected his storytelling.

Steven Heggie: I am a huge fan, but have always wondered how he rationalized his fear of flying?

Frank White: I don’t think you can rationalize it. Phobias are deeply rooted fears in the psyche and can become a challenge for anyone, regardless of status, educational attainment, or background. I think his fears went beyond that. I believe he was actually agoraphobic. I seem to have read somewhere that his situation was in part the inspiration for “Caves of Steel.”

Robert Godwin: I don’t think he ever did. As a young man he hardly ventured out of the six boroughs of New York. Vacations rarely ever went beyond the Catskills although he did go to Canada. He was also not entirely happy being on boats, but he did make it the Canary Island in 1973 and back to Europe in 1974 (both by boat). I suspect the only commercial mode he was really happy with was trains, which in New York would have been a necessity.

John Grayshaw: What makes Asimov interesting from a critical perspective? What first drew you to his work?

Frank White: I believe Asimov was the first science fiction writer I ever read, at about the age of 10. What drew me to him was his imagining something I had never really considered. He opened up my mind at a young age. Also, he was prescient. His ideas about psychohistory and robots seem highly relevant today.

Robert Godwin: There are mixed schools of thought on this. Critics by their very nature are looking for weaknesses or ways to improve on what they are criticizing. Many of today’s critics try and apply modern rectitude to things written 80 years ago. i.e. why so few female characters, or very little character development? To me this is a pointless exercise, you might as well criticize Shakespeare for not having machine guns in Henry V. Then there are critics who are genuinely fascinated by Asimov’s success and longevity, despite any shortcomings. They tend to focus on his strengths, which are many, not least his very deliberate clarity of thought and application of logic, combined with his ability to articulate those thoughts economically.

I was first drawn to him as a kid, mainly because the book shop at my school stocked up on SF. The first book I read was I Robot and it was the cover picture that drew me in. Whoever stocked that shop was pretty sneaky because they started racking his non-fiction side by side. Once I had been caught by Robots and Foundation I grabbed his “Understanding Physics” trilogy. I was immediately amazed at how clearly he explained all of the topics that my teachers were somehow managing to make boring. I drove my teachers nuts after that, constantly jumping ahead or second guessing their attempts to dumb down stuff.

John Grayshaw: What do you feel are Asimov’s most significant works? Do you have personal favorites of his work? And why?

Frank White: Everything about robots. I found his ideas about AI and robots were far-reaching and are now becoming real. It seemed to me that his robots were actually better than the humans they served, for the most part. I also marveled at how much literary mileage he got out of the simple “Three Laws of Robotics.”

Robert Godwin: Clearly his most successful works are his Robot/Foundation series. However, I would argue that Nightfall made his reputation (so it was significant to him). The Gods Themselves and Foundation’s Edge cemented his reputation to a new generation (therefore also significant.) On the non-fiction side most of his works on chemistry are incredibly informative and useful (chemistry was his forté.) One of my favorites is “The World of Carbon.”

John Grayshaw: What are some of Asimov’s works that you feel should be better known than they are?

Frank White: I can’t think of any, offhand, but his non-fiction has not been given enough attention.

Robert Godwin: The World of Carbon and, on the fiction side, “The End of Eternity”. The underlying concept behind time travel expressed in the latter is now seriously considered by many futurists to be the reason we may have never met a time traveler.

John Grayshaw: In a 1988 interview (with Bill Moyers) Asimov said, “I used to worry about that. I said, “I’m gradually managing to cram more and more things into my mind. I’ve got this beautiful mind, and it’s going to die, and it’ll all be gone.” And then I thought, “No, not in my case. Every idea I’ve ever had I’ve written down, and it’s all there on paper. I won’t be gone. It’ll be there.”

How much of Asimov’s many works are still read today? I believe that his fiction will still be read into the future, but I worry that his non-fiction will become outdated and forgotten?

Frank White: That is a good question. It is certainly difficult to find the two nonfiction books I co-authored with him.

Robert Godwin: I have the same concern. At the moment there is yet another renaissance for his fiction because of things like Foundation on TV. If you can still find a bookshop you can see that there is a healthy shelf of those novels back in print; but his non-fiction has not only disappeared it is veering into the realms of “collectibles” which is a terrible shame. Inevitably most of his scientific non-fiction has been dated by up to half a century of new discoveries, but given the opportunity to add a new foreword to those works, explaining when they were written, and perhaps adding footnotes pointing about new discoveries, or when his predictions proved to be correct, I believe that those books, as a library, could be viewed as a very cohesive snapshot of what “we” knew in the middle to late 20^th century.  Even if they are never printed again, it is my hopeful wish that they be perceived that way in the future. His calm logic is needed more than ever today.

John Grayshaw: Asimov said, “You can’t take a human being and put him to work at a job that underuses the brain and keep him working at it for decades and decades, and then say, “Well, that job isn’t there, go do something more creative.” You have beaten the creativity out of him. But if from the start children are educated into appreciating their own creativity, then probably almost all of us can be creative.”

Would Asimov think that we are taught to appreciate our creativity in today’s schools? How would he improve our schools?

Frank White: I suppose it depends on the school. My son went to an alternative school that depended almost entirely on the kids’ creativity in order to function. From what I know of public schools, they do not teach or support creativity. I believe Asimov would strongly advocate the use of computers and AI to help kid be creative and learn from experience.

Robert Godwin: Wow. Tough question. I think there are some instances where educators are taking great strides and making great efforts to bolster creativity, but we are becoming so immersed in technology it is becoming difficult to even pinpoint what is creative and what is just an algorithm doing the work for you.  I can’t begin to get inside his mind to suggest what he would propose if he was still with us. He was WAY smarter than I will ever be! My guess is that he would be disappointed with the abuse of technology, but he would still advocate its benefits and urge educators to apply them to solving the big issues that he voiced concerns about when he was alive. i.e. over-population, lack of resources, pollution, polarization, over-spending on weapons etc. I suspect he would have still been very concerned about the constant trend to impose religious beliefs into secular concerns.

John Grayshaw: Asimov said “That’s another trouble with education as we now have it. People think of education as something that they can finish. And what’s more, when they finish, it’s a rite of passage. You’re finished with school. You’re no more a child, and therefore anything that reminds you of school — reading books, having ideas, asking questions — that’s kid’s stuff. Now you’re an adult, you don’t do that sort of thing anymore.” Then later in the interview he said, “People don’t stop things they enjoy doing just because they reach a certain age. They don’t stop playing tennis just because they’ve turned forty. They don’t stop with sex just because they’ve turned forty. They keep it up as long as they can if they enjoy it, and learning will be the same thing. The trouble with learning is that most people don’t enjoy it because of the circumstances. Make it possible for them to enjoy learning, and they’ll keep it up.”

So how does Asimov suggest that more of today’s adults become lifelong learners? And/or how do we change society’s view of education as something you finish?

Frank White: I teach in Harvard Extension School and Boston University’s Metropolitan College. These are places that attract and engage lifelong learners. Harvard and BU have similar programs for elders who want to keep learning. I think we have made a lot of progress in the direction Isaac was advocating.

Robert Godwin: One of the things I admired about his philosophy, which I took to heart, was that you should never stop learning new things. He very obviously was like a sponge, absorbing and remembering everything that interested him. To me he was the ultimate polymath. However, he was blessed with the innate ability to share what he had learned through his writing. Just as importantly he did that when everyday people on the street were still willing to pay for knowledge and expertise. Sadly, I have personally witnessed how people with completely unique knowledge are no longer able to capitalize on sharing that knowledge, which they may have taken a lifetime to accrue. It seems to me that this is one of the biggest downfalls of the internet era. The so-called democratizing of knowledge has left many of those people behind. Why bother writing it all down and sharing it, if it is going to take months or years to do, and then you get no compensation for doing the work? As a writer, publisher, historian, and archivist, I could share many, many anecdotes about knowledge being lost forever.  It seems to me that most people are concerned about tenure at their jobs. Knowing how to do a job is one thing, knowing how to improve the work is something that only comes from expanding knowledge. If everyone adopted his attitude of looking forward instead of living in the moment, or worse, looking back; it would improve society immeasurably.  

John Grayshaw: Who were some of the writers Asimov grew up reading?

Robert Godwin: He would have us believe that it was the SF pulps that came into his father’s candy store that first captured his attention. The content in those early Gernsback magazines was surprisingly expansive. They would include Verne and Wells, but also things like Cornell astronomer Garrett Serviss, and many short stories by the early members of the American Interplanetary Society like Nat Schachner and David Lasser. I believe the first story Isaac read was by Harl Vincent called Barton’s Island. I can only imagine that he must have also had an eye for sifting the wheat from the chaff when plumbing the depths of Gernsback’s publishing empire.  Obviously, he must have read practically every book in New York’s reference library later in life!

John Grayshaw: Who are some writers that were Asimov’s contemporaries that he enjoyed/admired?

Robert Godwin: It seems that he was good friends with many of the golden age writers. The ones he wrote about most often were Fred Pohl, Robert Heinlein and Arthur Clarke. He knew Pohl since he was a teenager. I believe he was involved with Heinlein from the 1940s, both through their shared writing and their time working for the Navy. I don’t think he met Clarke until much later, sometime probably in the late 1950s or early 60s. It is interesting to me that his politics seemed to be far from Heinlein’s but he didn’t seem to let that get in the way. He shared a sense of humour with Clarke which bonded them for the rest of his life. Asimov was also a regular at the big science fiction conventions, so he often spent time with many of his other contemporaries at those events. His writing on this subject usually seems to be of fond memories.

John Grayshaw: Did Asimov have favorites of his own works?

Frank White: I think he loved the two he co-authored with me (LOL, just kidding).

Robert Godwin: It is so tempting to say that he liked all of them! I do recall that he rarely left any “unwanted children” behind. Even when people like Campbell refused a story, Asimov would frequently sell it to someone else. Of course, this was in the early days when it was out of necessity to pay the bills. I know that he was surprised and very happy when The Gods Themselves won the two big SF awards. He had said that he was concerned that he was being left behind by the New Wave of SF.

John Grayshaw: Who are some of the science fiction writers he had correspondence/friendships with?

Robert Godwin: Well, obviously Heinlein and Clarke. Also, Bradbury, Ellison, Silverberg, Pournelle, Bova, Del Rey, Roddenberry, Pohl. Probably dozens if not hundreds of others, not least through his monthly magazine. When it came to writing he wasn’t shy! He even replied to me!

John Grayshaw: Are there stories about Asimov at conventions or otherwise corresponding/meeting with fans?

Robert Godwin: Countless. My favourite, of course, was when he went to England in the summer of 1974 (I’m a Brit.) Somehow, he was persuaded to get aboard the SS France and cross the Atlantic (again). Inevitably he was feted everywhere he went. He spoke at Arthur Clarke’s alma mater (King’s College), he appeared on Parkinson which at the time was a hugely popular British TV talk show. He did book signings in London and Birmingham. But for me the highlight was his lecture to the British Mensa society, which thankfully was recorded and made available to the plebs like me outside. Arthur Clarke introduced him for almost 20 minutes! It was such a brilliant talk that he gave. Incredibly insightful and funny. Many years later I got permission from both estates to air it at an SF convention in Toronto. I put together a slide show to go with it. It was fascinating to see how many people showed up to hear him “speak” long after he was gone.

John Grayshaw: What are some of the most interesting things you’ve found in your research of Asimov?

Frank White: He was always writing. He had three typewriters, with different books going on each one. When he got tired of one, he turned to another draft on another typewriter. He was invited to watch the Apollo 17 launch, and he was out on a boat with other people to watch it. But he was in his stateroom just before the launch and they had to drag him out to take it all in. I am a lot like him, in that I am always writing, and I usually work on more than one book at a time. However, I would not have needed any encouragement to watch the launch!

Robert Godwin: Many of his interests became my interests. I have gone down so many rabbit holes because of him. My basic understanding of the universe is built on what he taught me. If he hadn’t been such a fun communicator I would never have learned as much as I did as a kid. I think one of the interesting things I’ve realized is how few videos there are of him speaking at conventions. There are quite a few TV interviews with him, but those off the cuff things in front of “his people” seem to be pretty thin on the ground. Of course, there were no cell phone cameras around while he was still with us, but I had a video camera in the early 1980s and I would love to know if anyone else out there shot convention video of him.  

John Grayshaw Asimov said, “Science doesn’t purvey absolute truth. Science is a mechanism, a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature. It’s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match. This works not just for the ordinary aspects of science, but for all of life.”

What would Asimov have thought of our technological and scientific advancement in the years since his death. Which advancement would have interested him the most? For example would he have been excited about the rise of the internet and cell phones, or the talk of mining asteroids, or the discovery of so many Trans-Neptunian objects?

Frank White: I would say he’d be most impressed by AI. It would fit closely with his vision of intelligent robots.

Robert Godwin: All of the above and undoubtedly other things that you and I have never heard of! Oddly, he never really immersed himself in the technology that might have made his own life easier. He ended up being supplied with an early Word Processor by Radio Shack in 1981. He took it very begrudgingly and apparently let it sit in the box for months until the Radio Shack people returned and set it up for him. Even then he STILL resisted using it. In the end he did some magazine commercials for Radio Shack, but he remained steadfastly loyal to his typewriter until the very end, using it for letters and shorter stories. As a so-called “futurist” most of the tech we now all use every day would have all been inevitable to him. He spent as much time studying the past as thinking about the future. I think everything was a process to him. It seems to me that if you know the history of things, it makes it a lot easier to understand the motivations to make things better. Not just with technology but also sociologically. Hand communicators (like our cell phones) were in the Dick Tracy comic strip when Asimov was only 11 years old. Mining asteroids was proposed as early as 1861 by William Leitch, who also suggested that the outer gas giants probably had dozens of moons when only three or four were known. Asimov could tap into that kind of historical knowledge, as well as understand how these things might be accomplished. I doubt he would have been surprised by much that has happened since he left us.

John Grayshaw: Asimov said, “Now science fiction uses a different method. It works up an artificial society, one which doesn’t exist, or one that may possibly exist in the future, but not necessarily. And it portrays events against the background of this society in the hope that you will be able to see yourself in relation to the present society… That’s why I write science fiction — because it’s a way of writing fiction in a style that enables me to make points I can’t make otherwise.”

This is one of the best definitions I’ve seen of Science Fiction. Was Asimov successful in making points with his science fiction. What were some of his messages?

Frank White: He was successful, indeed. I think he had a lot of messages about “otherness” that are relevant today.

Robert Godwin: It is a very succinct definition. I’m not sure how didactic he meant to be with his early material. Obviously the three laws were a clever mechanism which he subsequently used to make some points about the rights of any sentient creature. I suspect that we have not seen the last of this. Obviously, his notion of psychohistory is a fascinating concept which has planted seeds in quite a few attempts to create predictive models of society. I have no doubt that with modern computing we are able to get a better idea of how large systems work. Will AGI be able to apply that to people? With the advent of large language models, trained on the written works of history, we will almost certainly see some of his logic taking root. If we ever get to true AGI we should all hope that his books are part of that training input.

John Grayshaw: Asimov said, “Society is always changing, but the rate of change has been accelerating all through history for a variety of reasons. One, the change is cumulative. The very changes you make now make it easier to make further changes. Until the Industrial Revolution came along, people weren’t aware of change or a future. They assumed the future would be exactly like it had always been, just with different people… It was only with the coming of the Industrial Revolution that the rate of change became fast enough to be visible in a single lifetime. People were suddenly aware that not only were things changing, but that they would continue to change after they died. That was when science fiction came into being as opposed to fantasy and adventure tales. Because people knew that they would die before they could see the changes that would happen in the next century, they thought it would be nice to imagine what they might be.

As time goes on and the rate of change still continues to accelerate, it becomes more and more important to adjust what you do today to the fact of change in the future. It’s ridiculous to make your plans now on the assumption that things will continue as they are now. You have to assume that if something you’re doing is going to reach fruition in ten years, that in those ten years changes will take place, and perhaps what you’re doing will have no meaning then… Science fiction is important because it fights the natural notion that there’s something permanent about things the way they are right now.”

I’ve never heard this notion that societal change will continue to accelerate but I think that makes sense as you see more resistance to social change today because society is changing too quickly for some people. Would Asimov have any advice on how to make society more comfortable with the increasing rate of change?

Frank White: Yes, the change is exponential, and that is the acceleration. I think he would recommend that people read a lot of science fiction and educate themselves about STEM.  He would strongly recommend lifelong learning. In that way, they might be ready for the change that is coming.

Robert Godwin: Most of what you have quoted above was in his talk to the Mensa society in 1974 (which gives you some idea of how far ahead of us he was.) He made some amusing anecdotal points to reinforce this idea as it might have been perceived in medieval times compared to the 19^th century when (ostensibly) modern science fiction appeared. It seems to me that Isaac was fundamentally optimistic about how technology could be a force for good. He was obviously worried about the backwash (pollution nukes etc) but mostly he seems to have hoped for the best. His novels and stories of the 50s and 60s assumed that we might eventually be a multi-planet species. Once a society can reach that level of development, we must assume that resources (especially energy) would be ubiquitous and we could have societies like the “Spacers” who have nothing much to do but live calm tranquil lives being artistic or otherwise being creative. It’s a utopian vision for some and a very dystopian vision for others. I see no reason to think that Isaac would not have continued to pursue his same attitudes about society, i.e. that we need to live within our means (until we CAN get off planet), that we need to stop territorializing everything, and to acknowledge that we are all fundamentally the same if we shed the superstitions and posturing. Somehow, I think he would have been equally fascinated and appalled that an LLM might take his job away!

John Grayshaw: And relating this back to science fiction. Since advances in science are happening more rapidly, does that make writing science fiction easier or harder?

Frank White: I think it might be easier because people expect to hear about things that might have seemed impossible or outlandish in the past.

Robert Godwin: I think it might make it harder to apply the science to the fiction, but it shouldn’t make it harder to write a good story. Most SF writers claim that they aren’t trying to make predictions. So, applying current tech to a good yarn should be easy enough. It’s when you try to be like Jules Verne and make believable extrapolations that it is now much harder because there is just so much going on. No one person can possibly be well read on all of the interconnectedness that is happening.

John Grayshaw: Asimov said, “My objection to fundamentalism is not that they are fundamentalists but that essentially, they want me to be a fundamentalist, too.” Then later in the interview he said, “It’s perhaps not important that every human being think so. But how about the leaders and opinion-makers thinking so? Ordinary people might follow them. It would help if we didn’t have leaders who were thinking in exactly the opposite way, if we didn’t have people who were shouting hatred and suspicion of foreigners, if we didn’t have people who were shouting that it’s more important to be unfriendly than to be friendly, if we didn’t have people shouting that the people inside the country. who don’t look exactly the way the rest of us look have something wrong with them. It’s almost not necessary for us to do good; it’s only necessary for us to stop doing evil, for goodness’ sake.”

I hate to bring up modern politics, but it sounds like Asimov might have said these things yesterday instead of in 1988. What would Asimov have thought of the state of today’s politics? 

Frank White: He would have been appalled, but not surprised. He was a student of history as well as of the future. (One of the books I co-authored with him was about history, told in 1,000-year chunks.) He was well aware that modern Homo sapiens did not invent “man’s inhumanity to man,” as the saying goes.

Robert Godwin: I love this quote. It certainly beats by a mile the one that goes, “I really, really, really, really HATE extremists!” Isaac was always incredibly thoughtful about his choice of words, especially when committed to paper. When he was interviewed, he also never made any extremist proclamations. He always couched his replies clearly as his opinion, never as a declaration. It was a fundamentally liberal approach that left opportunity for discussion. It was a scientist’s approach. i.e. nothing is truly settled; everything is in a constant state of entropy and we can only try and navigate our problems in the moment. However, with science (and science fiction) we can try to get a glimpse of consequences. I think if he was alive today and he had a website or a blog, he would have been one of the only people online anywhere who posted his thoughts and then never rewrote them or changed them if they became inconvenient.  He would probably post a follow up saying something like “Hey I just realized that I might have been wrong about that and here’s why.” Until the internet arrived if you wrote something, you owned it. Now everything is ephemeral and about to become more so. Facts are only facts to someone if they trust the source. That’s why we need people like Isaac; someone who listens and is respectful of others, but that only works if it’s a dialogue. Fundamentalism is a profoundly disruptive problem for society, but I don’t REALLY hate it!

John Grayshaw: We know all about the current “Foundation” TV series, are any of Asimov’s other works currently under option for movies or TV?

Robert Godwin: Not that I am aware of. Frankly it’s a great shame. So many of the previous attempts have been…let’s say…difficult.

John Grayshaw: Did Asimov have any particular writing habits or routines he stuck with?

Frank White: As I mentioned before, he wrote constantly and worked on several books at a time.

Robert Godwin: Apparently, he got up in the morning and wrote assiduously until meal times. He worked every day. Clearly, he had a lot to say. As mentioned, he stuck with his typewriter. He rarely rewrote anything, often sending first drafts to publishers. He frequently stated that he was never happy to be away from his desk.

John Grayshaw: Asimov said, “The only thing about myself that I consider to be severe enough to warrant psychoanalytic treatment is my compulsion to write…That means that my idea of a pleasant time is to go up to my attic, sit at my electric typewriter (as I am doing right now), and bang away, watching the words take shape like magic before my eyes.” And he also said, “All I do is write. I do practically nothing else, except eat, sleep and talk to my wife.”

Is this an exaggeration? Did Asimov have other hobbies and interests other than writing?

Frank White: I think it is accurate. He must have done a lot of reading, to get the information for his books. He didn’t have Internet, of course. Again, I can relate to his statement. I once said to another writer, as we waited to be interviewed on the radio, “Writing is a terminal illness.” It is true, too. If you are a writer, you live to write, and the only thing that can stop it is the end of life.

Robert Godwin: Well, he did enjoy being in the company of his many fans. At conventions he could hold court. I suspect he also enjoyed being courted in turn…as an expert on countless things. People would frequently have him as a guest on talk shows, although I can’t say whether he liked that aspect. I think he probably loved sparring with his intellectual equals (who were few). People like Arthur Clarke or Robert Heinlein.

John Grayshaw: What is Asimov’s legacy? Why was his work significant at the time? And why is it still important today?

Frank White: Part of his legacy is the number of kids he inspired to become astronauts, rocket engineers, and writers.

For example, the late Astronaut Janice E. Voss said the following when I interviewed her for my book:

White: What did you take along to read while you were in orbit?

Voss: I took Asimov's Foundation. Except when I was exercising, I really didn't have time until flight day nine to read it. I curled up and read Asimov by Earthlight. It was an amazing feeling, floating there and reading science fiction in orbit. Since it was really science fiction that got me started, it was just a great experience.

And Astronaut Sandy Magnus said this when I interviewed her:

White: Could you talk about what influenced you to become an astronaut?

Magnus: The great science fiction writers, like Asimov, the Dune books, and similar works, played a significant role. The Foundation books really stick in my mind. In fact, I read so many of them that it’s hard to remember all of them.

With his science fiction, he showed us a future that seemed fascinating, but plausible, and he was right in that assessment. He was also not afraid to go into other people’s fields of study, like history and rummage around and write about things that were interesting to him. He was himself trained as a scientist, so he felt very comfortable writing about science. He was inspired by his work and he shared that inspiration with the world. I will always value the honor I had of getting to know him and of working with him. He selflessly helped my career (he did not have to have me listed as a co-author, but he did) and I have made every effort to do the same for others. In that sense, he is a role model for me.

Robert Godwin: It seems to me that when he wrote many of these stories the world was in a pretty dark place but then we emerged out of the darkness and there was a sense of optimism. I think that optimism was manifested in his work, and it inspired a couple of generations of people who then took us into space and built many of the marvels we see around us every day. I suppose every writer would give their right arm to create something that lasts after they are gone. His “invention” of the laws of robotics has certainly done that. His notion of humanity spanning a galactic empire is a fascinating dream that has been copied countless times in movies and books over the last 80+ years. I don’t see that going away. His words on artificial intelligence encompassed by his many robot books will likely be remembered. Let’s hope they aren’t remembered as a red light that humanity roared past.