SF-TH Inc

Herbert's Reversal of Asimov's Vision Reassessed: "Foundation's Edge" and "God Emperor of
Dune" La révision de la vision d'Asimov chez Herbert: un réexamen d'après "Foundation's Edge"
et "God Emperor of Dune"
Author(s): John L. Grigsby
Source: Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Jul., 1984), pp. 174-180
Published by: SF-TH Inc
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4239616 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 11:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

SF-TH Inc is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science Fiction Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:55:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174 SCIENCE-FICTIONSTUDIES, VOLUME 11 (1984)

John L. Grigsby
Herbert's Reversal of Asimov's Vision Reassessed:
Foundation's Edge and God Emperor of Dune
WalterMeyers, reviewing two books on FrankHerbert,points out thatthey "suf-
fer fromthe worst fate riskedby anyonewho writescriticismabouta living author:
having the authoradd a majornovel to the canonjust after the publicationof the
study. 1 That fate has also been mine, not once, but twice ... and in regardto a
single essay. A little over a year after my treatmentof the Dune and Foundation
trilogies appeared in these pages,2 Asimov and Herbert each added a fourth
volume to their series.3 (Incredibly, Asimov's came out some 30 years after
volume three; and the concluding words of Foundation'sEdge, "The End Ifor
now]," make it likely that anotherFoundationvolume is forthcoming.)
Asimov's and Herbert's turningof their trilogies into tetralogies prompts
me to inquirewhetherMeyers' statementholds trueas an absolutegeneralization.
Have I suffered the worst of critical fates-i.e., do Foundation'sEdge and God
Emperorof Dune expose the conclusions I drew in my 1981 study as hasty and
the details of my reasoning as inaccurate?Or have they in effect vindicatedmy
essential argumentby providing furtherillustrationof, and thus clarifying, the
overall contrastI pointed out between the two authors'visions? A detailed con-
siderationof Asimov's and Herbert's latest fictions should provide an answer.
Before gettingto Foundation'sEdge and GodEmperor,I shouldremindmy
readersof what I argued in my previous essay: that in the Dune series, Herbert
parodies and reverses Asimov's governing vision in Foundationby taking a dif-
ferentattitudetowardsthose who "assumesole responsibilityfor the futuredirec-
tion of mankind" ("A Vision Reversed," p. 152). In the Foundation series,
"psychohistorianscontrol minds, blot out memories, and erase thoughtsto keep
the 'normal' humans from developing in the 'wrong' way or from discovering
that the psychohistoriansexist"; "the unbelievable assumptionis that such de-
meaning acts are the best course for mankind, since they avoid a longer period
of a very vague barbarism"(ibid., p. 153). Herbert,by contrast, "reverses this
situationin his ending, perceiving the planneduniverse and the controllersfrom
the point of view of those who lack power and are simply led by force of one kind
or another.He sees ultimatehorror, horrorwhich leads to revolt sooner or later,
or a returnto a sort of necessary barbarism"(ibid.).
The specific, crucial question that needs answering, then, is whether this
contrastis still apparentin Foundation'sEdge and God Emperor. If it is, then I
must have correctly identified the essential thrust of their authors' respective
visions-and this despite the truthof Meyers' own astuteobservationaboutHer-
bert (which is also applicableto Asimov): thathe "is one of the most ambiguous
of currentwritersof SF. Any critic mightbe wary of Herbert'spracticeof turning
the table [sic] on his readers from book to book."4 If, however, the visions of
Asimov and Herbertare no longer at odds, then I will have to admitthatI simply
misinterpretedthe assumptionsof the two authorsand the thematicimplications
of their work, or at least thatmy analysis encouragedfalse expectationsaboutthe

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:55:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FOUNDATION'S EDGE AND GOD EMPEROR OF DUNE 175

direction each of them would subsequentlytake.

Faced with Foundation'sEdge and God Emperor, I see no need to retract
or even substantiallyrevise my account of the relation between their authors'
visions. As I will attemptto show, the sharpcontrastin outlookbetween Asimov
andHerbertcarriesintothose mostrecentbooks of theirs, whereit remainsa direct
result of Herbert's reversing of Asimov's assumptionsabout the importanceof
mental sciences and technology.
At the beginning of Foundation's Edge, the reader quickly senses that
perhaps, after 30-plus years, Asimov's attitudetowards the mental sciences and
technology has actually changed and that his vision may even be parallelto Her-
bert's now. The effort to establishthe Second GalacticEmpireis still continuing
(the First Empirecollapsed hundredsof years earlier), and the two Foundations,
or colonies of civilized life, arestill in existence. Theyare leadingthe development
towards the new empire. The First Foundation,primarilymade up of physical
scientists, is continuingto gain power in its area of the universe; and the Second
Foundation,a group of psychohistorical,or "mental," scientists, still guides the
First Foundationthrough covert mind-controlactivities which keep things pro-
gressing towardsthe new empireaccordingto the tenets of the Seldon Plan while
preservingthe almost-secretexistence of the Second Foundation.However, Asi-
mov's psychohistoriansare now less than perfect, as the Speakers (the leaders
of the Second Foundation)bicker among themselves and play "power games"
in their competitionto be the next First Speaker(the most powerful leader). The
membersof the First Foundationare also viewed more positively in Foundation's
Edge thanthey are in the precedingvolumes of the series. Asimov now provides
them with a sympathetic-seemingrationalefor attemptingto locate andoverthrow
the Second Foundation. He focuses most on Golan Trevise: the precipitatorof
action (very similar to an old-fashionedhero, in fact), Golan is the very person
who persuasivelyespouses this rationalein his first discussion with the leader of
the First Foundation. He says, angrily,
We arethe cuttingedge. We arethe engine,the force. We laborandsweatand
bleed and weep. They merelycontrol-adjustingan amplifierhere, closing a
contactthere, anddoing it all with ease andwithoutriskto themselves.Then,
when it is all done andwhen, aftera thousandyearsof heavingand straining,
we haveset uptheSecondGalacticEmpire,thepeopleof theSecondFoundation
will move in as the rulingelite. (2:26-27)
Asimov thusdoes some reversingof his own in Foundation'sEdge, andthis rever-
sal createseffective dramatictension by puttingthe powerfulpsychohistoriansin
the role of villains and the not-so-powerfulFirst Foundationin the role of the
oppressed.
In effect, he thereby creates a situationparallel to that which exists at the
end of Childrenof Dune and the beginning of God Emperor. In the latterwork,
Leto II, the ruler of Dune's empire, has controlledand directedthe universe for
hundredsof years for a purpose similarto the one the Second Foundationserves:
to lead mankinddown his "Golden Path,". which has already resulted in an or-
dered, structureduniverse like the one envisioned in Seldon's psychohistorian-
directedplan in the Foundationseries. In fact, Leto II even undergoesthe gradual
transformationinto a sandworm.(If SF is to be distinguishedfrom fantasyby con-
fining itself to what is possible, this ratherunbelievable transformationcreates
some problems.) Be that as it may, Leto II, like the Second Foundation,is (ap-
parently)cast into the role of antagonist, of an out-of-the-ordinaryforce which,

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:55:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176 SCIENCE-FICTIONSTUDIES, VOLUME 11 (1984)

because it oppresses, must be overthrown.

Whatat once upsets this paralleland reveals thatthe contrastin visions still
exists as profoundlyas before becomes obvious when one examines the climax
of each work. The differenceis foreshadowedby Leto H's assuminghis oppressive
role knowingly. The goal, as statedby his sister in Childrenof Dune, is to teach
humansthatgovernment-based,enforcedorderandcontrol is not theanswer, not
even an answer, to the problemof how humansshouldlive (andas he serves that
objective, in the final analysis he is really the protagonist,not the antagonist).As
Leto II himself notes,
WhenI set out to leadmankindalongmy GoldenPath,I promisedthena lesson
theirbones would remember.I know a profoundpatternwhich humansdeny
withtheirwordseven while theiractionsaffirmit. They say they seek security
and quiet, the conditionthey call peace. Even as they speak, they createthe
seeds of turmoilandviolence. If they find theirquiet security,they squirmin
it. How boringthey find it. Look at them now... .I give them enduringeons
of enforcedtranquilitywhichplodson andon despitetheireveryeffortto escape
into chaos. Believe me, the memoryof Leto'speace shallabidewiththemfor-
ever. They will seek theirquietsecuritythereafteronly with extremecaution
and steadfastpreparation.(p. 185)
Later, in an almost direct condemnationof the kind of controlled, civilized
empire that is the goal of the Seldon Plan in Asimov's series, Leto observes:
Most civilizationis based on cowardice. It's so easy to civilize by teaching
cowardice.You waterdown the standardswhich would lead to bravery.You
restrainthe will. You regulatethe appetites.You fence in the horizons.You
makea law for every movement.You deny the existenceof chaos. You teach
even the childrento breatheslowly. You tame. (p. 366)
Finally, nearthe end of GodEmperor,Leto shows thathe is aware of his oppres-
siveness and has its purpose in mind:
I demonstratethe terribledangerof a gliding, passionlessmediocrity,a move-
mentwithoutambitionsor aims. I show you thatentirecivilizationscando this
thing. I give you eons of life which slips gentlytowarddeathwithoutfuss or
stirring,withouteven asking 'Why?'I show you the false happinessand the
shadow-catastrophe calledLeto,theGodEmperor.Now, will you learnthereal
happiness?(p. 403)
The psychohistoriansin Asimov's series never perceive themselves in this
way, never sense that their kind of mind manipulationleads to the mindless,
tamed, boring, pointless, even lifeless existence thatLeto II describes. However,
Asimov, havingcreativelyremovedhis psychohistoriansfromthe positionof pro-
tagonistearly in Foundation's Edge,introducesa new element late in the work-
something which, at first glance, seems again to indicate that he has outgrown
the faith in mental science and technology so prevalentin the first three volumes
of Foundation. This new element is Gaia-not a person, but an entire planet and
everything and everyone on it.
One of the humans (or human-likeentities-I will clarify this point later)
living on the planet informs Golan Trevise when he arrives there that:
The whole planetand everythingon it is Gaia. We're all individuals-we're
all separateorganisms-butwe shareanoverallconsciousness.... It [theplanet]
runsitself. Thosetreesgrowin rankandfile of theirown accord.Theymultiply

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:55:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FOUNDATION'S EDGE AND GOD EMPEROR OF DUNE 177

only to the extentthatis neededto replacethosethatfor anyreasondie. Human

beingsharvestthe applesthatare needed;otheranimals,includinginsects,eat
theirshare-and only theirshare.... It rainswhenit is necessaryandoccasion-
ally it rainsratherhardwhenthatis necessary-and occasionallythere'sa seige
of dry weatherwhen thatis necessary.I remaina humanbeing-but aboveus
is a groupconsciousnessas farbeyondmy graspas my consciousnessis beyond
thatof one of the muscle cells of my biceps. (17:301; emphasisin original)
This description of Gaia prompts Golan's comrade to respond:
And, I takeit, the groupmind,so to speak,of the groupconsciousnessis much
strongerthananindividualmind,justas a muscleis muchstrongerthananindi-
vidualmuscle cell. Consequently,Gaia can captureour ship at a distanceby
controllingour computer,even thoughno individualmindon the planetcould
have done so. (17:302)
The human(or entity)thatis partof GaiaconcedesthatGaiahasthis kindof power,
but remarksafterwardsthat "Gaiahas interferedwith no one's mind. It is not our
way" (19:343).
Clearly, then, Asimov representsGaia as an alternativeto the psychohis-
torians, less directly interferingthanthey and, on the surface, more realisticand
admirable.But close analysis of the world of Foundation'sEdge revealsthe same
faulty assumptionsabout humansthat led Asimov to createthe psychohistorians-
as-protagonistsin the earlier Foundationvolumes, assumptionsthat are closely
linked to a faith in mental science and technology which Herbertlacks-and that
is the basic source of his differences with Asimov. After all, Gaia is reallyjust
1940s' and 1950s' psychological control theory updated, a la WaldenH, under
the influence of B. F. Skinnerand other behaviorists, accordingto whom every-
thing supposedly can fit harmoniouslytogether in a coexistence satisfying all
needs, in perfect, controlled, peaceful balance.
To elaborateuponand supportthis kindof escapist "wishfulthinking," Asi-
mov resorts to a few analogies (one of the weakest forms of proof of anything).
He gives no concreteexplanationas to how Gaiaattainedthatwonderfulexistence
in which "nothingis killed for pleasureor sport,nothingis killed withunnecessary
pain" (17:304), "thereis no more desire to live past one's time thanto die before
it" (17:305), and even the walls are happy (since all parts of Gaia are alive and
content). Moreover, the only rationale he does suggest makes matters worse,
revealinghis absolutefaithin technologyeven moredirectlythandoes the wonder-
ful new computer which reads Golan's mind and does what he wants it to at a
mere touch of his hand, before Golanhimself is conscious of whathis own wishes
are. (By contrast,Leto IIoutlawscomputersin GodEmperorbecause "thedevices
themselves condition the users to employ each other the way they employ ma-
chines" [p. 177], because "humanshad set those machinesto usurpour sense of
beauty, ournecessaryselfdom out of which we makelivingjudgements"[p. 263],
andbecause "they increasethe numberof things we can do withoutthinking.. . -
there's the real danger" [p. 346].)
Asimov's possible explanationfor the-developmentof Gaia is perhapsthe
ultimatestatementof a total faith in mental science and technology, since the ex-
planationis thatman createdrobots so intelligentand humane(even more so than
humans, it seems) thatthey "establishedEternitysomehow [indeed]and became
the Eternals. They located a Reality in which they felt that humanbeings could
be as secure as possible" (17:312)-hence Gaia. To make matters even more

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:55:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178 SCIENCE-FICTIONSTUDIES, VOLUME 11 (1984)

unrealistic, the robots (a last-minute replacement for the outdated psychohis-

toriansas deus ex machina)apparentlystill exist and still guide anddirectthe frail,
flawed humans, who are seemingly incapableof peace without life being super-
vised on Gaia (witness the strugglebetween the First and Second Foundationsfor
the first 400 pages or so of the book). Thus, at the end of Foundation'sEdge,
the universe is still controlled and dominated,this time either by robots (and the
assumptionof technology's importance)or by some vague WaldenH-type ideal-
ism (andthe assumptionof the importanceof mentalscience) thatpreventshumans
from living, struggling, fighting, learning, and dying in the realistic, less-than-
perfect, and yet also thinking, growing, and progressing way that they always
have-a state of affairs that Asimov clearly endorses by having Golan Trevise
choose the Gaianreality over thatwhich eitherthe First or the Second Foundation
offers. Of course, Asimov leaves himself an "out" by having Golan state that
"joining with Gaia was my way of temporizing... and of making sure that there
would remaintime to modify matters-or even reverse them-if my decision was
wrong" (20:364). But this final equivocationis to Asimov's discredit and to the
discreditof his Foundationseries. It was, as threevolumes, a classic work despite
its flaws, but its integrity has now been compromised.
In direct contrastto Foundation's Edge, Herbert'sGod Emperorends with
no such equivocation, nor with any such absolute faith in mental science and/or
technology. The revolt thatLeto II has encouragedfinally comes with the arrival
of Siona, a personwith sufficientindividualforce (withoutmanipulatingthe minds
of others or resortingto machine power)-or, as Leto says, with enough "omni-
presentprimalawareness" (p. 308), with enough of the "Mind of First Awaken-
ing" (p. 151), with enough "surprising genius and newness and originality"
(p. 62)-to successfullyattackthe God Emperor.Her victory is a victory for free-
dom and for chance. Life and time extend before Siona and Duncan Idaho (her
companionin revolt) withoutthe set limits and predictabilityof Skinneriandeter-
minism and/or machine dominationpervadingFoundation's Edge. As Leto II
states at his death,
I give you a new kindof time withoutparallels[sic].... It will alwaysdiverge.
Therewill be no concurrentpointson its curves. I give you the GoldenPath.
Thatis my gift. Never againwill you have the kind of concurrencethatonce
you had. (p. 418)
As the futurethus looms free of determinism,Leto's last words addressthe
other point of Asimov's faith: technology. "Do not fear the Ixians [machine
makers]," Leto says. "They can makethe machines, but they no longer can make
arafel" (p. 420). Given thatArafel is later identified as the "cloud-darknessof
holy judgement" (p. 421), Leto is saying that he believes that by oppressinghis
people and causing revolt, he has left them free of both determinismand the
religious-likefaith in machinesthathad takenpossession of them over the course
of time.
Yet Herbertis too much a philosophicalrealistto end his series in this way.
He is not satisfied to offer merely the idealistic futurethat Leto II envisions, one
withoutcontrollersof any kind-machines or people. He knows that, despite the
contrastbetweenthe specifics of Leto's vision andAsimov's (machinecontrolver-
sus its absence, determinismversus absolutelynothingdetermined),both visions
are equallyflawed andunrealistic.Hence the last two pages of GodEmperor,with
the ultimatecontrastthey make between their authorand Asimov. In them, Her-
bert shifts the scene to many hundredsof years after the death of Leto II; and in-

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:55:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FOUNDATION'S EDGE AND GOD EMPEROR OF DUNE 179

stead of the perfect machineless world of non-controlthat Leto envisioned, we

are treatedto a realistic future. Here the majorityof men still worship machines
(what poor sandwormsare left-the only remnantof the naturalArrakis-have
been confinedto a reservation);Leto II's journalsare censoredby those in control
(the minoritythatdisapprovescan only file a writtenprotest);andthe Churchand
State rule together (still sacrificing individualcitizens' knowledge and personal
developmentfor the benefitof the government).Quiteappropriately,Herbertends
this final segment with the words of one of those protestingagainst the church,
state, andmachinedominationwhich manipulatesmindsby distortinghistory(and
thus reality)throughcensorship. Comparedto Asimov's conclusion, in which the
robotsplay a primaryrole, perhapseven marryinghumans,it is even more appro-
priatethatthis protestorin God Emperoris a poet, a clear symbol (perhapseven
an archetype)of humancreativity, vitality, and spontaneity,the diametricaloppo-
site of the controlled, systematized,even programmedhumanson Gaia. Also fit-
tingly symbolic is the poet's final utterance,which capturesthe essence of Her-
bert's attitudeand accounts for why parodying Asimov's robotized vision is so
importantto him. The poet, in rebuttalto the forces thatwould regulate, systema-
tize, even computerizehumanity, declares: "We are the fountainof surprises!"
(p. 423).

NOTES

1. Meyers, "ProblemsWith Herbert,"SFS, 10 (March1983):106-08.

2. Grigsby, "Asimov's FoundationTrilogy and Herbert'sDune Trilogy: A
Vision Reversed,"SFS, 8 (July 1981):149-55.
3. The two new volumesareAsimov'sFoundation'sEdge (GardenCity, NY:
Doubleday,1982) and Herbert'sGodEmperorof Dune (NY: Berkley, 1982). The
pagenumbersof subsequentreferencesto theseeditionsareincorporated
intomy text.
4. Meyers, op. cit., p. 106.

RESUME
JohnL. Grigsby.La revision de la vision d'Asimov chez Herbert: un reexamen
d'aprls Foundation's Edge et God Emperor of Dune. -La disparit6dontj'ai fait
6tatanterieurement (voirSFS no 24) entrela visionpersonnellequiinformeles <Fon-
dation* d'Asimovet celle quisoutendla se'rie<Duneode F. Herbertse prolongedans
ce qui est devenuaujourd'huideux tetralogies.Dans Foundation'sEdge,Asimovn 'a
pas repudiesa foi dansla science mentaleet dansla technologie,il est simplement
passe despsycho-historiensde la SecondeFondationet desphysiciensde la Preniire
au mondeidealde Gaia, utopied'harmonieultimedirigeepar des robots(c.-a-d.par
la technologie)oupar und6terminismeuniverse)a la Skinner(voirWaldenII), lequel
en effetmetajourla sciencementaleoula the'orieducontr6lepsychiquepour se substi-
tuer a la psycho-histoire.En contraste,God Emperorof Dune, derniervolet des
<Dune,* de F. Herbert,montreLetoHavoird6liberement recoursa desmoyenspsychi-
ques et techniquesd'oppressionpourprovoquerla re'voltecontreses manipulations
et son contr6lemachinique.Son butest ici d'enseignera son peupleles motifs et Jes
moyensde se lib6rerd'une telle oppressionafin qu'ils viventcommele doiventdes
humainssansles contraintesd'und6terminismeSkinnerienou d'unedominationdes
machines. (JLG)

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:55:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
180 SCIENCE-FICTIONSTUDIES, VOLUME 11 (1984)

Abstract.-The disparitywhichIpreviously identified(in SFS No. 24) betweenthe

personalvisionthatinformsAsimov's "Foundation "booksandthatunderlyingFrank
Herbert's"Dune"bookscarriesoverinto thoseseriesas tetralogies.In Foundation's
Edge, Asimov has not repudiatedhis faithin mentalscience and technology;he has
simplyshiftedit fromthepsychohistoriansof theSecondFoundationandthephysical
scientistsof theFirst to theideal worldof Gaia,a utopiaof ultimateharmonyguided
eitherby robots(i.e., technology)or by a Skinnerianuniversaldeterminism'ala Wal-
den II (whichin effect updatesmentalscience, or psychologicalcontroltheory, to
replacepsychohistoricism).By contrast,in thelatest additionto his "Dune"series,
God Emperorof Dune, Herbert'sLeto II deliberatelyresortsto psychologicaland
technologicalmeans of oppression to provoke revolt against his psychological
manipulationand machinecontrol.His aim is to teachhis people the why andhow
of freeingthemselvesfrom such control:thattheymightlive as humankindshould,
withoutthe set limits of Skinneriandeterminismand/ormachinedomination. (JLG)

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:55:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions