I don’t get the people saying it’d never work, as written. How hard is it to show that every inflection point centered on an individual had multiple people who could have been that figure? It’s an ironic rejection of great-man history. Yes, the world changed because of some particular nobody, in the right place at the right time, but the world at large wouldn’t notice or remember how many nobodies wanted that role. They wouldn’t even recognize one another, as they’re doing it. Meanwhile, cocksure revolutionaries with a modicum of support are constantly rising against that tide and floundering out… or getting squashed.
In Asimov’s view, these shifts require a polarizing figure, an unstoppable base of support, and a new equilibrium. Anything less will spiral back toward the status quo.
The episodic nature of the source material is obviously fine for an episodic televisionish format. It’d be great to show increasingly distant crises where a tiny ‘we’ll fix it later’ problem metastasized into a society-threatening life-and-death matter. It’d also allow failure. There are times people expect a revolutionary change, and what actually happens is, they suffer irreversibly and run for their lives. A messianic figure can reach for a base that’s not there, and their solution will not happen. A fundamental shift can go exactly as planned and still slide right back. Generations can lie in wait if no pivotal individual emerges… and lives.
See: Crucifying A Masterwork.
I don’t get the people saying it’d never work, as written. How hard is it to show that every inflection point centered on an individual had multiple people who could have been that figure? It’s an ironic rejection of great-man history. Yes, the world changed because of some particular nobody, in the right place at the right time, but the world at large wouldn’t notice or remember how many nobodies wanted that role. They wouldn’t even recognize one another, as they’re doing it. Meanwhile, cocksure revolutionaries with a modicum of support are constantly rising against that tide and floundering out… or getting squashed.
In Asimov’s view, these shifts require a polarizing figure, an unstoppable base of support, and a new equilibrium. Anything less will spiral back toward the status quo.
The episodic nature of the source material is obviously fine for an episodic televisionish format. It’d be great to show increasingly distant crises where a tiny ‘we’ll fix it later’ problem metastasized into a society-threatening life-and-death matter. It’d also allow failure. There are times people expect a revolutionary change, and what actually happens is, they suffer irreversibly and run for their lives. A messianic figure can reach for a base that’s not there, and their solution will not happen. A fundamental shift can go exactly as planned and still slide right back. Generations can lie in wait if no pivotal individual emerges… and lives.
Absolutely agree.