The estate of legendary science fiction author Isaac Asimov, who passed away in 1992, has authorised a trilogy of sequels to his seminal I, Robot short story series, to be written by fantasy author Mickey Zucker Reichert.
There are nine I, Robot stories, first published in the 1940′s and then in compendiums after that date, They feature quirks of robot behaviour that often lead to ethical or philosophical questions about the existence and treatment of robots, especially revolving around three central laws that all robots must follow, known as Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics.
Several of the stories also feature Dr Susan Calvin, the fictional chief robopsychologist at U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men, Inc, who is involved in troubleshooting problems that crop up with the robots.
The official press release about the move doesn’t appear to be available online, but UK newspaper The Guardian reports the first book will be called Robots and Chaos, and will follow Calvin’s medical internship. Further information at Entertainment Weekly.
Reichert has written a number of fantasy series and novels, including the Renshai trilogy, which focuses on a world governed by Norse mythology, as well as a continuation, the Renshai Chronicles, and the Nightfall series. Her latest novel appears to be Flight of the Renshai, published in 2009.
Commentary
I am totally and utterly opposed to the idea of someone publishing “official” sequels to Isaac Asimov’s classic I, Robot stories, for several distinct reasons.
Firstly, who the hell is Mickey Zucker Reichert? I’ve been reading science fiction and fantasy novels for the past three decades and I’ve never heard her name mentioned. To think that a low-profile author could do justice to some of the best-loved work by one of science fiction’s grand masters is simply preposterous.
Secondly, these books are absolute classics of the genre and stand on their own. As some of the first fiction to explore the possible ethical implications of relationships between robots and humans, they should be left on their own as a signpost in the genre. They should not be followed up and continued. Isaac Asimoc died forty years after they were first written. If he had wanted to follow them up, he would have. The author’s intentions need to be respected here.
This is one of the most ridiculous attempts I have yet seen in the speculative fiction genre to cash in on some of a dead author’s most famous work.
The Asimov estate should be ashamed of this naked cash grab. I don’t know whether the estate is governed by descendants of the great writer, but I assume it is. In that case, I have to say that they obviously have no understanding that their famous relative’s work wasn’t simply a money making venture.
Isaac Asimov’s writing was art and should be treated as such. You wouldn’t try to follow up Rembrant or Picasso’s paintings with “authorised” sequels.
So leave Asimov’s beloved I, Robot stories alone.
And yes, the dodgy movie tie-in featuring Will Smith was just frakking terrible as well.
Jesus. I am so mad about this, if there was a protest march about this, I would think about flying to the goddamn United States to march in it. How dare they?
Related posts:
59 Comments
Trackbacks
- 阿西莫夫继承人批准新《我，机器人》三部曲 « 每日IT新闻，最新IT资讯，聚合多站点消息，保证你与世界同步
- 传奇科幻小说家阿西莫夫 | BING必应CHENG
- Estate of Asimov okays new “I, Robot” books – really now, that’s in poor taste
Asmiov had expressed interests in continuing his Robots and Foundation series in the introduction to Foundation and Earth (indeed, he even mentioned the posibility of books between I, Robot and Caves of Steel) but the quality of the works commisioned vary wildly (The Second Foundation Trilogy being the worst, and perhaps Mark W. Tiedemann’s Mirage being my favourite)
I have to admit, I have been living in a bit of a cave (of steel, haha!) and wasn’t aware of the fact that so much of Asimov’s work had been followed up in such a way. I really don’t see how you could write more in the Foundation series without it causing a few problems, but maybe that’s just me …
Is this a different Foundation series than Prelude/Forward/Edge/Earth? I don’t think those books are as good as the originals, but they were still written by Asimov.
To be honest, I’m still waiting for some final revelation in that series. Forward was particularly disappointing in that respect. I wouldn’t mind if someone else continued that series, but they’d have to be really really good, and not just do it for cashing in.
Dune somehow springs to mind…
I won’t disagree with this …
“Firstly, who the hell is Mickey Zucker Reichert?”
I can remember asking myself a similar question: “WhoTF is Kevin J. Anderson?!”
So, did the Asimov’s discover some long-forgotten safety-deposit boxes? Or boxes and boxes of notes in an attic? (snort)
I wonder if the “success” of the Herbert Leech Parade in milking their legacy had any influence on this…
Shameful. But par for the course these day, it seems.
As far as I know it has nothing to do with plotlines devised by Asimov himself, no boxes found etc. Just new stories set in the same “universe” as per normal etc. *puke*
Not only was Dr Asimov an incredible writer, but if you read the commentaries written by him in “The Early Asimov” volumes you realise that he was driven to write from a very young age. His gift just kept giving throughout his life – he hated holidays, sunny days and outdoor stuff and so everyone said he should be like everyone else when he just wanted to write write write!!
Unfortunately money talks and the world is run by lawyers & accountants – who have the dullest minds & viewpoints in all the multiverse : and indignant comments on blogs won’t change that. So just pretend it isn’t happening cos it’ll never float and will be the literary equivalent of Highlander 2.
Just remember the great man – there’ll likely never be another like him.
It’s true — I’m not sure there has ever been anyone else like him in science fiction. He wrote a book in every Dewey decimal category — not just sci-fi. An amazing man. Sometimes I feel like him, I just want to stay inside and write all day … “but why don’t you go outside!” the haters cry :)
In terms of sheer output, ignoring subject matter, Robert Silverberg beat him.
Don’t worry, they’ll vanish tracelessly. Think of Sherlock Holmes. I’ll be there have been more Sherlock Holmes stories written by “Holmesians” then were ever written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle himself. And outside of a tiny circle of fandom, people don’t even know that they exist.
I suspect there are people reading this who haven’t even heard of “The Seven Per Cent Solution,” a 1974 ersatz Sherlock Holmes story that was a bestseller at the time.
So Asimov’s heirs will make a few bucks out of it. Asimov probably wouldn’t mind that.
Oh good gawd, you mean that was a book? I thought it was just a movie. Rrrrrolph!
Okay,
Sorry, but I have to rant now.
There are plenty of writers who would actually welcome someone else extending their work after their passing. I count myself among them, mainly because the alternative is a museum, a ‘perfect collection’ of the Great One’s work, slowly deteriorating and becoming less relevant with time. The Good Doctor wrote or edited over 500 books. What makes you think he’d want it to stop?
And honestly, what makes you think that you are a better judge of Dr. Asimov’s legacy than his own heirs?
Hear, hear to that.
Whether the new books are considered true sequels or simply further exploration of the concepts in the original stories will be a subjective for everyone. I’m not going to can an unknown author before I’ve even seen the story synopsis.
But doesn’t the principle of the thing disturb you?
That may be so, but there are also plenty of writers who would not welcome someone writing fan fiction and having it passed off as an authorized (if second-hand) continuation of their work.
And honestly, what makes you think that Dr. Asimov’s own heirs are a better judge of his legacy than some random person on the internet? (and “better” in what sense?) For one thing, RPI doesn’t have a financial stake in this literary endeavor. That certainly makes him a more impartial judge, at the very least.
@Scott Watkins
Maybe that argument might apply to mediocre writers, but to Asimov? I choose to believe, that like Tolkien or Frank Herbert, his books will be being re-discovered by new young fans forever.
That is what being a master means. There are only so many of them. A finite supply.
And I am able to say that I am better judge of Asimov’s legacy than his heirs because I don’t know them at all — but I do know Asimov’s work extremely well, and through his work, I know the author himself :)
@Renai
His heirs by definition would know the man better than you do. Sorry.
To say you know the man better than they do reminds me of a story Dr A told in one of his columns of being at a panel discussion discussing the symbolism of the Foundation series. A number of participants went on at length about certain symbolic tropes, and he had said, “Wait a minute. I never put any of that in there.” The reply that came back was “How would you know? You’re just the author.”
I don’t think Asimov-the-man would put himself on the pedestal you do. And he was always a supporter of other author’s work. I cannot name a single instance where he said he felt that his work was an immutable whole, perfect in every way. His own writings give lie to that sentiment.
In a bit over half a century his work will enter the public domain and anyone will be able to write a sequel to the ‘Robots’ books. That his family decided that one current writer could do it now is their business. Not yours.
I agree with others here. Let the new books stand or fall on their own.
Hmm. I don’t disagree with many of your points Scott, particularly about fans etc. I don’t claim to be more knowledgable than the average sci-fi/fantasy fan.
But as to whether it’s my business whether or not there are I, Robot sequels … it certainly is. I am a sci-fi/fantasy book critic and journalist, and also a consumer of such products.
There is a shocking trend towards “authorised sequels” in our industry that is resulting in a lot of shocking books masquerading under legendary monikers.
As a critic, I certainly feel a need to point out how dangerous this trend is towards the art form that we all love. And as a consumer, I feel obliged to make my opinion known to the manufacturers of such products.
And, in many cases, “manufacturer” is indeed the right word. Many of these series are not being treated as art. They are being treated as “brands” and churned out en-masse.
And I, for one, exercise my right to object.
“There are plenty of writers who would actually welcome someone else extending their work after their passing.”
How many is “plenty” again? Can you name five? Besides yourself, I mean, since I can’t recall ever having heard of you. :)
@SandChigger – How about this. I will name my 5 if you can name 5 undisputed Masters of science fiction who considered themselves to be masters in their own lifetimes.
Again, we’re not counting you, right?
Care to leave the ad hominems at the door, oh Master of the Blog Comment? I never said a thing about my own writing, or even expertise on the subject.
I’m getting tired of feeding the trolls here.
Hehe Scott I should warn you … SandChigger can be a little bit … *playful* at times.
Your mileage may vary :)
Touche`, SandChigger? ;)
PS: Troll-feeding is a time-honoured internet practice!
(snort)
Touché, Renai, mais pas blessé. ;)
I hate the idea of continuing “Robots”. They were classics. The short stories were brilliant. The movie was “passable”, in the sense that it used the 3 Laws…took too many liberties with the actual written word. And Will Smith? Puhleeez! Overacting!
I enjoyed Asimov’s Robot stories, but I can’t get worked up over the Asimov estate authorizing Mickey Zucker Reichert to do new Robot stories. For one thing, her Bifrost Guardians novels weren’t too bad for science fantasy written in the 1970s/1980s. For another — I can always ignore these new Robot stories as I ignored Brian Herbert’s Dune books, the new Amber novels that the Zelazny estate authorized, and Brandon Sanderson’s attempts to end The Wheel of Time.
As long as the original stories are still in print, serious sci-fi fans will read them. So what’s the problem?
hey Matthew,
WHAT? The Zelazny estate authorised new Amber novels? Jesus Christ, will the madness never end? I didn’t know that … he’s one of my favourite writers. Guess I really need to pay more attention. I need to seek out these books and rate them immediately.
The new Dune books are awful.
As far as Brandon Sanderson goes, though, that’s a different case. You can read my review of the new Wheel of Time book at the link below. Unlike Kevin J. Anderson, Sanderson has done an awesome job (so far) of finishing Robert Jordan’s work.
http://is.gd/4JWBa
Why? Because that’s what the author (Jordan) wanted. What he prepared for. And he prepared his wife to find the perfect, deeply respectful, author to follow up his work after he died.
Can we say the same for the Asimov estate? The jury is obviously out so far … but my bet, because they told the world about this through a press release and not by speaking to the fan community more directly, is a resounding “no”.
I’m only ignoring Sanderson’s WoT works because I ignored Jordan after reading The Eye of the World. I don’t care much for Tolkien or for Tolkien-esque fantasy. I lean more towards Michael Moorcock, Roger Zelazny, and China Mieville. :)
Heh well you still have very good taste Matthew! All those authors are awesome!
This is far from the first time that other authors have written books in the Robot/Foundation universe. Byron Preiss published a number of books in the Robot City series. Asimov himself challenged authors to write them and authorized their publication.
In other words, it’s far to late to get worked up about someone besides Asimov writing about Robots (with a capital R). That train left the station over two decades ago.
Interesting. I didn’t know about this. Will have to research more. Do you have any useful URLs on this matter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov%27s_Robot_City
Hmm. It’s important to note here that this writing was not an “authorised sequel”. These stories were set in the same universe, or used the same principles. But they did not claim to be part of the canonical I, Robot series.
They were authorized by Asimov himself. Lotta people just didn’t like em so a lot of fans don’t consider them canon. Just like no one has to consider these new books authorized by the estate to be canon either.
But Asimov did continue to write “I, Robot” stories: the nine in the “I, Robot” collection were chosen in 1950 from those that had been published in magazines, and he didn’t stop writing for magazines. “The Complete Robot” has 31 stories, mostly written after 1951, and the later “Robot Dreams” have another selection, including the title story, featuring Calvin and written in 1986.
Hmm interesting. My memories are a big foggy. Will have to investigate this!
I am surprised by some of the comments. I believe it is a good idea because:
1. Entire purpose of science fiction is to broaden the horizon of our imagination. Even if a writer is not well known does it means that he cannot write well.May be it will be good opportunity for all of us to experience.
2. I think new writer should even incorporate some new advanced in sciences.
I saw mention of this on Slashdot. It’s been years–no, decades–since I read any of Asimov’s “Robot” stories. I have seen the movie.
Why all the alarm? Dr. Asimov has been dead 17 years. Do you for one think _he_ cares about what’s going to be done with themes and characters he originated? Is his work a closed canon now? Can we not have works derived from his original fiction done with the authorization of his heirs? The works this new author will create will in no way diminish the quality of Asimov’s original stories.
More to the point, do you think that other authors whose work has inspired sequels or derivative work feel imperiled by these works? For instance, there’s a lively body of fans who deal in pastiches of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Great Detective. Star Trek, in its numerous embodiments, has inspired legions of fan fiction, not even to mention volumes of authorized novelizations and derivative works.
Admittedly, the website that Dr. Reichert has up looks beyond lame. It’s in alpha development, for heaven’s sake, and apparently hasn’t been updated in over 8 years. This does not appear to be the site of an author who really lives in the twenty-first century.
All that said, though, let’s try this. Sit down, take a few deep breaths, and try to calm down. “I, Robot” will live on. And if the work that Dr. Reichert produces is any good, it will only be enhanced. And then, we all benefit.
Hi Dennis,
in fact there is harm done to the original author’s work in some cases. For example, I believe that the arguably poor quality of the new Kevin J. Anderson/Brian Herbert books has the postential to diminish the entire series in the eyes of uninformed readers, because the new books are considered part of the entire series.
And yet, many critics, such as myself, consider the new Dune books to be not part of the Frank Herbert legacy at all.
Well, while I am surprised (not much, just a bit) that people are feeling so strongly about this, I have to say that if one would like to have Asimov’s works exposed to a new, younger readership one way to do so is to get it back in circulation with a fresh take. I’ve read Reichert and while I’m a tiny bit surprised she was chosen to write new Robot books, she is a decent author. Anyway, I am familiar with a number of younger readers (later teens and early twenties) who became exposed to Herbert by virtue of Anderson’s sequel, which in turn led them to read the originals; if Reichert’s books do the same, then it was a good thing, I say. And the good news for the aging SF readership and Asimov fans out there is that we’re already privileged to have enjoyed his works; new stories derived from his own are not a requisite to our own enjoyment, and can be ignored if we so desire. So I don’t really see how this is a bad thing….unless, of course, the spin-offs are atrocious and actually turn people away from reading the originals! That would be bad.
I don’t disagree with this, but I’ll say again:
It’s not that I object to later writers writing in the same universe, or that I object to fan fiction, or that I object to homages to deceased or alive authors’ work.
What I object to is the notion that anyone other than the original author can publish a true “sequel” to their own books.
Write what you want. But don’t pretend it was part of the original author’s series. Because it’s not. And you’re not them. And fans notice.
Having been a beneficiary of the extended Robot franchise, I’d like to point out that in the early 80s Asimov, in conjunction with Byron Preiss (also now deceased) came up with the Robot City series, which had a two-fold purpose. (A) to give new writers an opportunity to get a bit more exposure than they might otherwise get publishing only under their own name and (B) to tease at the Three Laws. Asimov wanted to see people try to break them in new and interesting ways. The franchise was very popular—Robot City, Robots and Aliens, Robots in Time–culminating in the Caliban Trilogy by Roger MacBride Allen and my own Robot Mystery series, Mirage, Chimera, and Aurora, with a final volume by Alex Irvine called Have Robot Will Travel. All this was done with Asimov’s knowledge and, until mine were commissioned, his participation (at least in the form of notes regarding the stories left after his death). Mine were pretty much cut from whole cloth. So this was not done originally as a money grab to cash in on Asimov’s name.
Secondly, Mickey Zucker Reichert achieved a fair reputation in the 80s and early 90s with her fantasy novels. She is not a hack. It may give people pause that she’s about to write about Dr Calvin, but let us be honest, Susan’s character was not particularly fleshed out by Asimov himself—characterization was not his strong suit and he knew it, though he handled it better than many of his contemporaries. Even the details of the early days of U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men was sketchy at best. This could be a fun series.
Thirdly, people have been writing in other peoples’ sandboxes in science fiction for a long, long time. Most of the Doc Savage books were not written by Lester Dent, the Lensman spawned follow-ups after Doc Smith’s death, L. Sprague de Camp wrote Conan novels after Howard’s death (as did several others) and so on and so on. The only difference here is that Asimov is iconic and we’re all jaded from the era of media rip-off, but it’s neither new or especially a bad idea.
Finally, one of the best Asimov “homages” is the underappreciated “Psychohistorical Crisis” by Donald Kingsbury, which takes the entire Foundation universe and does it as based on the Byzantine Empire rather than on Asimov’s Roman Empire. It is a marvelous piece of work which would not have been done if we were all religiously loyal to primary works.
I concur wholeheartedly with Mark Tiedemann. Were it not for other writers contributing to franchises these past 30 years, we would not have the wonderful stories we have enjoyed, in the continuation of character and story lines.
I am an original Trekkie and Foundation fan, and only started reading the Robot series after Forward. I was completely enthralled with the series, and had hoped there were un-published volumes to continue my enjoyment. However I will enjoy with the memories of the reading I have finished time and again.
It reminds me of Time Swept City, at times, by Thomas F. Monteleone
I am hoping that the Foundation Movies can be produced. I fear that because of the intricacies of the storyline there would also preclude the screenplay from being that which we KNOW is great work, yet try and sate ourselves with a less than mediocre outcome, hence we are left with I, Robot starring Will Smith.
Unfortunately, I fear that the populace would only be satisfied with a G.I.Joe style movie….
The problem you will run into with any Foundation movie is this: the original three volumes of connected novelettes and novellas were almost entirely dialogues. The “bold sweep” of Asimov’s vision occurred almost entirely off-stage, which meant readers did what readers ought to do—created it all in their own imagination. If you analyze the stories, there’s very little description and almost no action. So the films will be constructed of a scenarist’s and a director’s vision of what they think it looks like, unsupported by anything Asimov wrote, and it will automatically fall short of most fans’ expectations.
Unless they do it (as I think they should) as a Masterpiece Theater sort of miniseries.
Hey Mark,
thanks for commenting!
I would agree with you … if I could find a single example of a series which had been followed up with a truly worthy “authorised sequel” after the author’s death.
The new Wheel of Time books by Brandon Sanderson don’t really count in this regard … in many ways Sanderson is using the notes and already written sections of Jordan’s work to finish the series and give fans closure.
It’s not that I object to later writers writing in the same universe, or that I object to fan fiction, or that I object to homages to deceased or alive authors’ work.
What I object to is the notion that anyone other than the original author can publish a true “sequel” to their own books.
Write what you want. But don’t pretend it was part of the original author’s series. Because it’s not. And you’re not them. And fans notice.
I can agree with that with one proviso…think of it as a kind of archaeology. The original builders may be long gone, but one can get a pretty good sense of what they were trying to do from what they left behind. It’s all, however, an interpretation.
Hey Mark,
I agree with everything you say, but I still hold to the sanctity of someone’s work :) The notion that someone’s descendants or legal copyright holders can “authorise” a sequel to their work, without their consent, after their death … it’s simply not possible in my definition of art.
Imitations, derivatives, writing in the same world … it’s all fine. But there is always one unique artist at the heart of every artwork. And their cannot truly be sequels by anyone else.
This kind of vision isn’t transferrable.
I should also note that according to my poll above, which so far has more than 100 responses, more than 50% of readers say this is a bad idea and the Asimov estate “will go to hell” for this action.
Doesn’t that go some way towards indicating how fans feel about “authorised sequels”?
@ Renai
Re: Poll
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#ad-captandum
Heh you may have a point there!
Oh silly fanboy, Rembrant and Picasso’s paintings HAVE been followed up by their students, by people making copies, by artists imitating the style or making derivations…
Mickey Zucker Reichert’s books I’ve seen in bookstores for years (well, back in the 90s anyway), so it’s odd you hadn’t ever heard of her. Not that I’ve read her books, but they were hard to miss if you perused the sf/fantasy section of any american bookstore in that decade.
Indeed, imitation is a high form of praise, and all successful art involves imitation and derivation. I suggest a few Art History classes for perspective.
Now go build me a robot.
Imitation and derivation is fine :) But claiming something is part of a series started by someone else isn’t ;)
Wow … the same old excuses and justifications the McDune hacks and fanboys have been using.
Jehosaphat! I know just how old Isaac felt there!
That’s the whole fun of fanficcing: being able to ‘flesh out’ a character, setting or situation, and filling in gaps. And naturally, carrying on from a cliff-hanger ending. And then giving the whole thing a bit of a new slant (or even a good old send-up!)
(sorry if this is double posted and/or comes out a mess – there’s no preview and the XHTML stuff doesn’t work for me either!…)
quote from Sam Mason “he hated holidays, sunny days and outdoor stuff and so everyone said he should be like everyone else when he just wanted to write write write!!”
Jehosaphat! I know just how old Isaac felt there!
quote from Mark Tiedemann “but let us be honest, Susan’s character was not particularly fleshed out by Asimov himself—characterization was not his strong suit and he knew it,”
That’s the whole fun of fanficcing: being able to ‘flesh out’ a character, setting or situation, and filling in gaps. And naturally, carrying on from a cliff-hanger ending. And then giving the whole thing a bit of a new slant (or even a good old send-up!)
I have no problem with fan fiction Cat ;) But when it becomes an authorised sequel … that’s when I start to wonder whether it is really appropriate!
No, it certainly shouldn’t be ‘an authorised sequel’ – it should be an alternative slant; an imaginative fleshing-out/gap-filler; and/or an equally imaginative continuation from a cliff-hanger. And, of course, well-written by a thinking and genuinely talented writer.
Personally I like a wry sense of humour and good (appropriate) sensual visual descriptions too – which Asimov, being a cerebral intellectual, was not strong on (though, as a person, he did have a sense of humour I believe).
Well, at least the Asimovs will maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. And hey, all those nu-Dune fans are going to need something else to slobber over in a few years, once Anderson and Herbert-the-Younger have finished fulfilling Frank’s destiny.