[General Battuta]

io9 has been running a retrospective on the classic Foundation series in recent weeks, and it got me thinking about the similarities between Foundation's narrative and Blue Planet's.

Obviously there have been nods towards Foundation in the BP continuity before - namely the GTVA's psychohistorical projections. But aside from this wink, I don't think Foundation has ever been mentioned, either internally or externally - or, hell, even in the minds of any of the writers - as an influence on Blue Planet.

Which is strange. Because if you look at the stories being told - one society focused on hard power and the physical, another on soft power and the sociomental, both battling over a program for the survival of human civilization, both challenged by the emergence of individuals with unusual capabilities - there's really quite a lot of commonality!

It's an interesting case of convergent evolution, and I wonder how deep the parallels go.

[SypheDMar]

Soft Power, Multilateral Hegemons for the win! We do not want a government that acts like a mafia. We do not want to bully the weak. We do not want allies that disrespects us! We do not want another Iraq!

[PsychoLandlord]

Never read any Foundation books.  Have a feeling I should do so.

[General Battuta]

They're incredibly dry and old-fashioned but still carry a weird sort of power.

[Ypoknons]

I've always loved the series. Whilst from time to time the micro stuff - the cigars held by the men - do jump out at you and say 'woah! so 50's' the story itself has held up well over time.

Spoilers for Foundation and Earth

Spoiler:

Parallels can be drawn between the Shivans and the threat of extragalatic invasion that made Golan Trevize ultimately go for Gaia. Both are alien and cannot be neogotiated with, both are powerful, both have the ability to divide the current population (HoL and later Bosch), and both cannot be handled by the socio-prediction systems because they are alien

There are fruther parallels. With soft power the leaders at top are not democractically elected by the populace, at least not in regular elections. They are academically accomplished and they need to be. With the hard powers it's more difficult to say. The BP GTVA seems to have democractic insitutions but we don't how it works. The Foundation changes from time to time.

As I said in another thread, psychohistory is in some ways merely the pinnacle of what we have today in large-scale social sciences. That there would be some parallels is not a surprise. But Foundation, as Battutan noted, is not concerned merely with psychohistory. It is also, amongst other things, concerned with the larger themes of power and the individual versus the historically inevitable. And... well... I'll leave it there for now.

[Liberator]

Psychohistory is an interesting concept, but assumes a lot.  It's basically a scientific approach to prophecy and fortune telling.  Leaders who base they're position, either in part or in whole, on prophecy are dimwitted at best.  For prophecy to exist, it would have to negate free will, and I'm not willing to accept that.

[Herra Tohtori]

More like a statistical approach to predicting group behaviour rather than trying to predict the actions of a single person.

Kind of like quantum mechanics, but for people. you can predict the behaviour of a large amount of photons with quite a high accuracy, but predicting the path of an individual photon precisely is impossible.

[headdie]

Never read any Foundation books.  Have a feeling I should do so.

They are good books, The original three, Foundation's  Edge and Foundation and Earth should be on every hardcore Sci-fi readers list and good reads for the casual reader.
...
Aside from the level of military conflict (necessary in the medium the story is being told) I can see what you are getting at Battuta about the conflict in governing and social styles and striking an effective balance between them.  (disclaimer only played AoA so a bit sketchy on this next bit and how it is handled in WiH but) There is also elements of the greater plan beyond the UEF and GTVA which the vast majority of the people effected are at best vaguely aware of and for the most part have no knowledge of it.

[Luis Dias]

They did won the Hugo award for "the best all time series"... which Asimov always thought it was created to coronate TLOTR, and was quite surprised when he saw he won it .

But yeah, I agree with Battuta that this series' influence is indeed subtle but existent in BP universe.

There is another parallel to be made. Each chapter in Foundation, there is a different protagonist, who symbolizes a different kind of specialist or culture that "wins" in their own turn. First the psychohistorian, then the "scientists", the "preachers", the "merchants", etc. In BP, we do play mr. Bei from the GTVA first, and then we play ms. Laporte from the UEF. Perhaps after WiH2 we could play even another different character from another "tribe", with a completely different culture.

Foundation was quite cruel in the character developments, in the sense that each subsequent "culture" was quite different from the last and went to subdued it, made the previous one obsolete and ridiculous. In BP we have less of that, it seems that "UBUNTU" way is somewhat in favour by both campaigns, first by Bei and his "harmonious" relationship with Vishnans et al, and then Laporte. One could make the case that there is a different arc to them. Bei comes from a fighting tribe and learns "harmony" with the Vishnans, while Laporte comes from a harmonious peaceful background and learns to be a relentless assassin with Shivan's support (or smth).

So it depends greatly on how WiH2 finishes Laporte's arc.

There is another big difference. While Foundation's subsequent chapters and "levels" of society follow in a somewhat horizontal fashion (there is no moral choice between scientists and merchants), in BP it's all moralized, polarized and vertical, between an agressive war-bent civilization and a peaceful harmonious one (between the devil and christ, so to speak). Foundation is all about "what comes next?", where in BP it's all about "what will win, peace or destruction?"

Needless to say, I prefer amoralized Foundation's narrative structure, although both stirr my curiosity.

[Luis Dias]

Leaders who base they're position, either in part or in whole, on prophecy are dimwitted at best.

The best way to be correct at predicting the future is to build it .

For prophecy to exist, it would have to negate free will, and I'm not willing to accept that.

Apart from the irony of both "prophecy" and "free will" being religious concepts that are, as you correctly put it, inconsistent, we should be aware that our acceptance of something does not negate its existence or possibility. The world is not exactly confined to our own arbitrary judgements .

[starlord]

I would actually compare steele with the mule.. given the fact that he always seem to surprise us no matter what!

[General Battuta]

There is another big difference. While Foundation's subsequent chapters and "levels" of society follow in a somewhat horizontal fashion (there is no moral choice between scientists and merchants), in BP it's all moralized, polarized and vertical, between an agressive war-bent civilization and a peaceful harmonious one (between the devil and christ, so to speak). Foundation is all about "what comes next?", where in BP it's all about "what will win, peace or destruction?"

Needless to say, I prefer amoralized Foundation's narrative structure, although both stirr my curiosity.

I think that binary morality exists mostly in your head. The major moral conflict in BP is between deontology and utilitarian constructions of the good, not between good and evil. There is no attempt at polarization or verticality.

[Luis Dias]

Of course this binary morality exists mostly in my head, since it was my head who read it that way.

I think we are talking the exact same thing, albeit using very different words, probably because we see them in a different light. You just confirm me that what is at stake is a moral issue, what is "good" is what is being fought over the war. I merely characterized one side as being christian / probably even bhuddist (the whole Elder' stuff), overall quite liberal, while the other as "devilish", not as "EV1L" ( I don't see things that way), but as in fascistic, militaristic, egotistical.

This same ideological discussion took place in the second world war with different names. Who doesn't know how Hitler despised the "weak" christian liberal, "free" ideologies of the west, and how he declared that the Russians would win the long game since they had much more "strenght"? Nazism and Fascism also considered democracy and liberalism as masochistical weak ideologies that were like a disease that would destroy civilization, ideas that were born out of christianity, which were born out of judaism, therefore it's all the jews' fault.

Foundation has none of this. The dicussion therein is about a decaying gigantic empire that is corrupted against a small intelligent and thriving society, whose tactics and policies go through a development of different ideologies that aren't "moral", they are merely pragmatic.

[General Battuta]

I wouldn't say that the GTVA is really akin to Hitler. Nor would I say that what you're describing is the primary conflict in Foundation, or the one I was alluding to in the first post.

[Luis Dias]

It may be that GTVA "isn't" like Hitler, but it is behaving in a parallel manner, with surprisingly similar justifications.

Nor would I say that what you're describing is the primary conflict in Foundation, or the one I was alluding to in the first post.

You're alluding to the conflict between the first and the second foundation, then?

[General Battuta]

You're alluding to the conflict between the first and the second foundation, then?

Yes.

It may be that GTVA "isn't" like Hitler, but it is behaving in a parallel manner, with surprisingly similar justifications.

this is going to be a fun thread

[Snail]

but Godwin's

[Luis Dias]

Godwin only goes so far. We can discuss Hitlerism et al without falling into Godwin, if we all agree to see things in an amoral perspective, like a bird's eye view.

Even babyeater's own fiction had many things to say about nazism and stuff.

[redsniper]

We can discuss Hitlerism et al without falling into Godwin

Well, actually... by definition, no I don't think you can.

[Shivan Hunter]

No, Godwin's is about comparing your opponent's ideology to Nazi ideology (no matter how loose or nonexistent the connection) and using that as a (fallacious) basis for refuting the ideology itself. Luis Dias is (attempting to) do this to the GTVA but as the GTVA is not participating in the debate it doesn't count in the strictest sense.

(Luis Dias' argument is still fallacious, of course. GTVA policy must be judged on its own merit, its similarity to Nazi or Fascist or whatever policy is tangential.)