I am an avid fan of bradbury, my bro is a rabid fan of asimov, i was doing some research and i noticed of course that they were friends, i was wondering if they were close, or used to hang out etc etc, does anyone know of any info about the two,.,,.
i think its pretty cool that they were both born in 1920....it must have been a great year, anyone have any article, book, etc that talks of them together....any help would be appreciated

so sayeth the greenlantern

Well, RB was part of what was known as "The Group" from what was known as "The California School". Whereas, IA was part of a group that was known as "The Futurians" in New York City. But, you probably knew that.

RB and Asimov first met at the First World Science Fiction Convention in New York City in July 1939.

I don't know any more than that.

It's odd that with two men famous for writing about spaceships and such, one was terrified of flying in airplanes(IA) and the other terrified of driving a car(RB). Since they lived on opposite coasts this must have made it difficult for them to see each other very often.

In the introduction to FOUNDATION'S FRIENDS(a tribute to Isaac Asimov) RB writes:

"One night two years ago, I dreamed I was Isaac Asimov. Arising the next day, it was noon before my wife convinced me that I should not run for President."

[This message has been edited by grasstains (edited 03-01-2005).]

quote:

Originally posted by grasstains:
It's odd that with two men famous for writing about spaceships and such, one was terrified of flying in airplanes(IA) and the other terrified of driving a car(RB).

In fact, Ray used to be terrified of flying, too!

Phil
www.bradburymedia.co.uk

Isaac Asimov also wrote the introduction to THE BRADBURY CHRONICLES: STORIES IN HONOR OF RAY BRADBURY (Roc, 1991), which provides some additional information about their friendship.

[This message has been edited by Richard (edited 03-01-2005).]

Mr. Bradbury on Mr. Asimov:

One could call him a jackdaw, but that wouldn't be correct, jackdaws focus on and snatch bright objects of no particular weight. Isaac is in the mountain moving business, but he does not move them, but eat them...

People have said Isaac is a workaholic. Nonsense. He has gone mad with love in ten dozen territories... when Isaac departs earth and arrives Up There [he'll] write twenty-five new books of the Bible. And that only the first week! (1989)

-----------------------
PS: Richard, thanks for the ideas a few weeks back on getting a copy of "Fireman." I followed up a lead and now have a copy in my files!! f

As far as I have ever heard, Asimov was a complete atheist. In fact, that's what kept me away from so much of his work for so long. I thought, "What can someone too ignorant even to believe in God tell me?" (That, and just keeping up with Bradbury's past and current output is a full-time job in itself.) It's interesting that when Bradbury wrote this, he seemed to believe in an afterlife where people do arrive with their basic personalities intact, ready for continued existence. Were he really a firm believer AGAINST the concept of individual human souls or the existence of an afterlife, he wouldn't write such a thing, even jokingly. Thank you so much for posting it.

Frank Herbert was also born in 1920. What people did before then I shudder to think! It certainly must have been a bleak, uninteresting, and ultimately cheerless world before this group became old enough to write!

A Bradbury-Asimov collaboration would have been great. Imagine the ideas of Isaac (The Great Explainer) Asimov combined with the prose of Bradbury.

I think the closest to that is Clifford D. Simak. Throw in his religious robot stories and you have a Bradbury/Asimov/Herbert collaboration, almost.

Next to some of Sturgeon's work, I think Simak reminds me most of RB.

Asimov's work certainly takes the prize as most frequently mistaken for RB's which is why I do now plan to read some of it.

I love Asimov's stuff and I've read a lot of it. Almost everything thing he wrote(fiction wise) is a mystery disguised as science fiction. His strong points are his ideas and their ramifications as well as his ability to put tech-speak and scientific theory into layman's terms. His shortcomings(if you can call them that) are his flat characters, his inability to create bad guys, and his layman's writing skills(he's not very poetic). His short story THE FUN THEY HAD is very Bradbury-esque.

You should also try STURGEON IS ALIVE AND WELL by Theodore Sturgeon. Some of his stuff is a little offensive(risque), but nothing in that collection.

...And Simak, Simak, Simak. His writing comes across like a lazy float down a slow river or a liesurely stroll with an old friend. He's ALMOST as good as RB.



[This message has been edited by grasstains (edited 03-02-2005).]

One sure can't be well read in the Sci-Fi genre without having read the Foundation Trilogy (Asimov) and Childhood's End (clark). These are the stories that originally made me shy away from The Martian Chronicles as being too un-scientific. Of course, having read TMC many times over in several stages of my life's experience, I have grown to appreciate it for the liturary excellence and look around the lack of science fact.

I have loved Bradbury since high school (45 years ago now). When I first heard in my mind's ear the Fog Horn cry out to the lonely creature in the sea, I understood what empathy meant, having heard a fog horn many times on the Santa Monica pier, it brought me to tears. I have appreciated the other Authors in the same lifetime, with amazement, though not with the love I have felt for Ray's poetic words.

In looking at "Martian Chronicles" it's important to keep in mind that Bradbury NEVER saw it as science fiction, but as fantasy. The lack of "science" in it is only a flaw when the book is judged for something it was never meant to be.

On Asimov's atheism, a quote, rather long, taken from his "I, Asimov: A Memoir" (Published posthumously by Doubleday in 1994)is pretty typical:

"If you read John Milton's "Paradise Lost" you will find that his heaven is described as an eternal sing-along of praise to God. It is no wonder that one-third of the angels rebelled. When they were cast down into Hell, they then engaged in intellectual exercises (read the poem if you don't believe me) and I believe that, Hell or not, they were better off. When I read it, I sympathized strongly with Milton's Satan and considered him the hero of the epic, whether Milton intended that or not.
But what is my belief? Since I am an athiest and do not believe that either God or Satan, Heaven or Hell exists, I can only suppose that when I die, there will only be an eternity of nothingness to follow. After all, the universe existed for 15 billion years before I was born and I (whatever "I" may be) survived it all in nothingness.
People may well ask if this isn't a bleak and hopeless belief. How can I live with the specter of nothingness hanging over my head?
I don't find it a specter. There is nothing frightening about an eternal dreamless sleep. Surely it is better than eternal torment in Hell or eternal boredom in Heaven." (p. 333)

Leave it to Asimov!

Childhood's End was fantastic. I also enjoyed a lot of the short stories, among which were the robot stories and the three laws of robotics.

The catalog of books Asimov has written at the end of this edition of the Memoir is unbelievable.

[QUOTE]"What can someone too ignorant even to believe in God tell me?"[QUOTE]

I wouldn't necessarily say that a belief in God, or lack thereof has anything to do with a person's intelligence. Asimov was an Atheist & a genius. My neighbor is a Christian & an idiot.

I am an Atheist & I am FAR from ignorant.

quote:

I am an Atheist & I am FAR from ignorant.

Way to pat yourself on the back there. I wonder...have you heard of Socrates? "The only true knowledge is in knowing that you know nothing." How far are you from arrogant?