>His older novels such as the later Foundation series were crap. Fad idea of the day (Gaia) instead of exploring a topic a bit more in depth (advantages of large populations in combating stasis).
While the writing was a little pulpy (then again, it always has been), the ideas were worth exploring. Doesn't matter if it was based on a "fad idea of the day", it was still a concept worth exploring in the context of the series. Besides sci-fi writers have done the Gaia idea dozens of times, way before it became a fad. His classic "robot" stories, on the other hand, I always found ho-hum.
In any case, the second foundation series is no worse in writing than the "Pebble in the Sky" -- and that was his very first novel, after tons of short stories.
Gaia made no sense. Especially evident nowadays with global warming. It showed lack of depth and lack of exploration of the topic. I also noticed numerous mistakes in the novels, sentences cut off, misspellings, etc...Didn't notice that with the earlier stories. There could be various reasons for that.
>Gaia made no sense. Especially evident nowadays with global warming.
What kind of sense? Like, whether it was accurate as a model for the real world? Why, did the Mule make sense in that way? Or the Second Foundation? Or psychohistory for that matter, what with the later developments into chaos theory?
I'm also not sure how global warming has anything to do with validating or discarding Gaia, either the fictional or the real theory.
Wikipedia: "The Gaia hypothesis, also known as Gaia theory or Gaia principle, proposes that organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet."
The theory might not hold, but not because there's global warming, as global warming can be accounted in a dozen of ways within the theory. E.g. humans as intelligent agents are outside the "synergistic/self-regulating" system and throw it off balance with their emissions and such.
>I also noticed numerous mistakes in the novels, sentences cut off, misspellings, etc...Didn't notice that with the earlier stories
Aren't those a matter of editors, as opposed to authors?
>The theory might not hold, but not because there's global warming, as global warming can be accounted in a dozen of ways within the theory. E.g. humans as intelligent agents are outside the "synergistic/self-regulating" system and throw it off balance with their emissions and such.
Btw, another way to understand global warning within the Gaia hypothesis, would be to consider it like a "fever" -- the immune system fighting invaders (well, us) off.
Something making sense and having supporting evidence is not the same thing. The Star Wars story makes sense (e.g. no major plot holes etc), but not only there's no supporting evidence, it's also totally made up.
Second, theories in fiction (especially fiction with mutants, telepathy, mind control, and other things besides) don't need "supporting evidence" to fit in.
While the writing was a little pulpy (then again, it always has been), the ideas were worth exploring. Doesn't matter if it was based on a "fad idea of the day", it was still a concept worth exploring in the context of the series. Besides sci-fi writers have done the Gaia idea dozens of times, way before it became a fad. His classic "robot" stories, on the other hand, I always found ho-hum.
In any case, the second foundation series is no worse in writing than the "Pebble in the Sky" -- and that was his very first novel, after tons of short stories.