Talk:The Gods Themselves

Sci-fi Encyclopedia

Wasn't there a sci-fi encyclopedia that said this novel was 'Asimov's best'? That would be good to mention. Unfortunately I don't know the name or the edition. Anyone else know what I'm talking about?

• Asimov himself said it was his best novel, in a quotation that appears late in this very Wikipedia article. I agree with that assessment, but I doubt that any encyclopedia would say so, as the Foundation trilogy remains highly popular -- misplaced enthusiasm, perhaps. Paul (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia editors are unlikely to be so simplistic as to conflate 'popular' with 'best.' In fact, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (Orbit 2nd Edition 1993) edited by John Clute & John Nicholls states in its entry for Asimov (written by Clute and Malcolm J Edwards) on page 57:

". . . The Gods Themselves . . . proved to be his finest single creation . . ." 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think if we can source the Good Doctor's quote about this being his best, and add the above mention, we can include that in the article as Asimov stated this was his best novel, which was echoed in its awards, and critical commentary from John Clute and John Nicholls".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A Sex Story

Removed - linked articles did not support statement in any way.

actually Asimov lied or forgot somethng, or, rather, people misremember (no surprize). In response to "sexlessity" accusations he wrote a short story where the aliens performed an experiment on humanity: they split two houses in half right along the middle of the family bed, so in the morning two strangers, man and woman, find themselves in the same bed, and aliens prod them to have sex, because they need to study how the humans reproduce. That's what the Asimov's style italicized preface to the story says. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

What Is This Thing Called Love? (short story) a.k.a. "The Playboy and the Slime God", but that was very much a brief joke... AnonMoos (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a categorizin' fool

I added this into the category 1970s science fiction novels. Transcendentalist01 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspected as much, from looking at the changes reported to me by my watchlist, but it doesn't hurt to have it confirmed. —Tamfang (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

There's stated in the article: "The exact time when the novel occurs isn't specified" - do I have different edition or what, but in my copy there stands explicitly 3rd of october 2070 as day when plot begins - when they noticed wolfram gone and alien metal as replacement. chapter 1. It is original research here, based only on reading the book, so cannot be published in wikip, but if smbdy will publish erratum on the publication quoted above, it will do. BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Even that idiot will remember.

It's marked as citation needed, but it's a quote directly from the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.138.130.178 (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Pointless post - no specifics - what are you babbling about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.30.58 (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It is about "Against stupidity even the gods fight in vain". In German, by the way, the more common quote is "Gegen Dummheit..." (to fight against), not the Schillerian "Mit der Dummheit..." (to fight with). --Alex1011 (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Why this is hard SF

Because it heavily relies on tricks with science in the traditional way, rather than a space opera whose plot will not change whether you put it into the Andromeda Galaxy or in Wild West. The description says:

"parallel universe (the para-Universe) with different physical laws from this one. By exchanging matter from their universe—para-Universe—with our universe, they seek to exploit the differences in physical laws. The exchange of matter provides an alternative source of energy to maintain their universe"

Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing violates laws of nature ,psychics in this book ? Technologies and science is described in detail ? i have very strict approach to this sub-genre in difference to majority of people.Not everything that is not space opera is hard science fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.193.146 (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know and don't care about your personal strict approach. There is a description "hard science fiction". It does say that that some have strict approach, while others have less strict, e.g., allow faster-than-light travel. The common ground is scientific consistency. In Wikipedia we usually assume the most general approach, otherwise we will never agree on classification, each individual splitting hairs differently. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

well, can you mention books that follows my cryteria of Hard SF? (Can be not famous ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.233.81 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed - this book is perhaps a defining example of "hard sci-fi." 50.111.30.58 (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This novel's original Dedication

For some time, we've been meaning to post the original dedication for The Gods Themselves. I have personally found it quite difficult to get some people to believe that Asimov, for whatever reason, changed the dedication not long after the novel's first book publication.

Here is the dedication that appears in most editions:

Dedication

To Mankind

And the hope that the war against folly may someday be won, after all.

But here is the original dedication. It proved necessary to go to the Internet Archive to transcribe this from one of their copies of the Doubleday hardback.

A DEDICATION AT SOME LENGTH

If we disregard The Fantastic Voyage, which was the novelization of someone else's screen play, it is now something like a decade and a half since I have written a science fiction novel. This is not because I have retired from writing, for I have been writing more than ever in those years. I just haven't been writing science fiction novels.

Then, on January 24, 1971, at a science fiction convention held in New York City, I was in the audience listening to Robert Silverberg and Lester del Rey carry on a public duologue on the subject of s.f. In the course of this, Bob had occasion to refer to some chemical isotope—any chemical isotope—to make some point, and after a moment's hesitation, said, "Plutonium-186."

Naturally, when the duologue was over, I accosted Bob, in order to tell him (with considerable glee) that there was no such thing as plutonium-186 and could not be. Bob did not, however, wilt under this demonstration of his scientific illiteracy but said, stolidly, "So what!"

"So this," said I. "Just to show you what real ingenuity is, I will write a story about Plutonium-186."

It wasn't as easy as I had grandiloquently made it sound. I had to think of something that would make possible (or at least seem to make possible) the existence of an impossible isotope, then think of complications that might ensue, and then of the resolution of those complications.

After a while I got enough worked out to get started, at least.

So I sat down to write and something happened that doesn't usually happen to me. . . . The story got out of control and went racing off. I had no idea at the start that I would write a novel but that's what it turned out to be.

So, for unwittingly supplying the inspiration for a novel which I did not (at first) know I was going to write, I dedicate this book—

To my Good Friend,

ROBERT SILVERBERG

Oh, and by the way, the story starts with section 6. This is not a mistake. I have my own subtle reasoning. So, just read and, I hope, enjoy. Tom Dean (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)