Talk:Isaac Asimov/Archive 2

Quotations
Shouldn't the quotations be left for Wikiquote? Especially considering how long the article is. I suggest deleting them all or maybe leaving only the "six minutes to live" one. &mdash;JerryFriedman 17:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of quotes, but then this was a prodigious author. I'd hate to see us get into a war over which go and which stay. There is no sensible way to debate each quote, one at a time. Here's what I've done: Below is a copy of the Good Doctor's bon mots; please add a + sign before to the ones you think especially deserving of retention. We'll let this cook a little while, and when there's something of a distribution, we can divide the sheep from the goats, then talk about moving the goats to Wikiquotes. Okay? &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk 10:29, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)


 * C'mon people, vote on your favorite quotes. The section is a bit overlong, but we don't have anything to discuss until there is some input. We've got anon editors picking and choosing now. Let's think about this. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 15:45, 2005 May 8 (UTC)


 * Okay, okay... sturgeonslawyer 13:19 PDST, 2005 May 8


 * Then kew. This is a participatory project! &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 13:40, 2005 May 27 (UTC)


 * ++"If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live...
 * "Early in my school career, I turned out to be an incorrigible disciplinary problem....
 * ++++"I prefer rationalism to atheism....
 * +"If I could trace my origins to Judas Maccabaeus or King David...
 * "In 1936, I first wrote science fiction....
 * +++++"Writing, to me, is simply thinking through my fingers."
 * +++"Night was a wonderful time in Brooklyn in the 1930s....
 * +"No one can possibly have lived through the Great Depression without being scarred by it....
 * +"True literacy is becoming an arcane art...
 * +"Until I became a published writer...
 * "When I read about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut...
 * ++++"What I will be remembered for are the Foundation Trilogy and the Three Laws of Robotics....

I have moved the quotations with fewer than two pluses here, preparatory to moving them to Wikiquote.


 * "Early in my school career, I turned out to be an incorrigible disciplinary problem. I could understand what the teacher was saying as fast as she could say it, I found time hanging heavy, so I would occasionally talk to my neighbor. That was my great crime, I talked."
 * "If I could trace my origins to Judas Maccabaeus or King David, that would not add one inch to my stature. It may well be that many East European Jews are descended from Khazars, I may be one of them. Who knows? And who cares?"
 * "In 1936, I first wrote science fiction. It was a long-winded attempt at writing an endless novel...which died. I remember one sentence, 'Whole forests stood sere and brown in midsummer.'. That was the first Asimovian science-fiction sentence."
 * "No one can possibly have lived through the Great Depression without being scarred by it. No amount of experience since the Depression can convince someone who has lived through it that the world is safe economically."
 * "True literacy is becoming an arcane art and the United States is steadily dumbing down."
 * "Until I became a published writer, I remained completely ignorant of books on how to write and courses on the subject...they would have spoiled my natural style; made me observe caution; would have hedged me with rules."
 * "When I read about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut, I can only think that American society has found one more way to destroy itself."

Anville 14:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Template
I wrote a template at Template:AsimovStory. It bases on the previous format as a table in the articles on the Complete Robot stories. I put it to the articles there, then, however, I found it to be inconsistent with the other story compilations, because it says "preceded: " and "followed by" but not in which compilation. It could be changed to incorporate all the information with "series" separate and pre- and successor boxes to link the stories. If somebody wants to take up this task... Ben talk contr 02:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I created other templates and put them to the The Complete Robot and I, Robot series. Cheers, Ben talk contr 03:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Asimov's Name
I am hoping to find the spelling of Asimov's name in Cyrillic. Apparentli it is the transliteration of 'Azimov', but this does not help me find the actual Cyrillic spelling. I also discovered that the Yiddish spelling (in Hebrew) is "&#1488;&#1494;&#1497;&#1502;&#1520;". Any help that can be provided would greatly be appreciated. --Zippanova 03:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * &#1040;&#1081;&#1079;&#1077;&#1082; &#1040;&#1079;&#1080;&#1084;&#1086;&#1074; (Ayzek Azimov). Some Russian sources claim that the original family name was  Ozimov (&#1054;&#1079;&#1080;&#1084;&#1086;&#1074;) and a variant of his father name given is Yehuda (&#1048;&#1077;&#1075;&#1091;&#1076;&#1072;), rather than Judah (&#1048;&#1091;&#1076;&#1072;).
 * I added the original name, and moved the IPA pronunciation, since it was misleading people into thinking it is for the Russian variant. I thought about adding also patronymig (Иегудович), but that is too uncertain... fortunately Isaac was born after the orthography reform so we do not need to hunt down the old orthography version :-) rado 14:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Yehuda, but "Ozimov" sounds plausible, since Asim/Asimov is a Central Asian name (but again, it could be than IA descends from khazars...). Mikkalai 06:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * However, Asimov says in his autobiography (In Memory Yet Green) that he's completely unrelated to the Central Asian Asimovs, and was bemused when people from there claimed him as one of theirs. He may well have been of Khazar ancestry, but that be much further back than the origin of his surname. User:Kalimac
 * BTW, Asimov's FAQ gives Yiddish spelling as aleph-zayin-yod-mem-aleph-vav-vav, which corresponds to Belarussian pronunciation: "Azimav" (his birthplace was belarussian). Mikkalai 07:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall that in the first few pages of _In Memory Yet Green_, which I have started but not yet finished, Asimov mentions that his name probably originates from a word for "winter wheat", with the "ov" ending implying some relationship, perhaps "son of"? He goes into detail in that book about his family origins and names, and where the people of his Russian village probably came from. Probably almost ten pages. Astro jpc 20:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Greatest
Anon inserted: Asimov is generally considered to be one of the greatest of all science fiction authors. Before anybody jumps salty on this, I want to back it up, and say it is not a biased statement at all, but pure neutral fact -- the man is held to be very great indeed, a serious contender for the title of All-time Greatest.

If I may be permitted a personal note, I'll say that when I was young, I considered the Good Doctor the greatest, by a couple of lengths. As I've grown older, I've enjoyed him less; his stories are heavy on ideas but short on human interest and character development. But I would never dare to assert that he is anything less than the very top rank, and I'm proud to have enthroned him here. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 13:45, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Chronological order of books
I think that the Greater Foundation Series should be listed in the order in which the stories take place in the Asimov universe, rather than by publication date. The publication years can still be included in parentheses after each title. Anyone agree?

I'm not yet familiar with Wikipedia standards, but such a list can be tricky to make (though not as much as for some series by less careful authors), and links to those made by other people, such as the one I seem to recall finding on the official site, might be better. Most sources I have seen prefer to list the publication dates first, and the internal timeline second, if at all. Besides, if read in true timeline order, the later publications often spoil the earlier ones. Astro jpc 20:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Writings on Calculus?
I was slightly surprised to notice that Asimov never wrote a book about calculus. Does anyone know whether the subject is covered at any length in any of his other books (some of his physics books, for example)? I'm going to be looking at methods for teaching the subject soon, and I was hoping to see how Asimov had approached it. -- Creidieki 13:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Asimov had a rough time with calculus during his college years. I don't have his copious autobiographical books in front of me (in fact they're packed in boxes &mdash; curse the moving process), but I believe integral calculus was the first subject where he found he didn't understand math.  "And, horrors, I got a B."  Realm of Numbers is a little too elementary for a calculus class, but you might try hunting down Asimov on Numbers, a collection of his Fantasy and Science Fiction columns.  I stumbled across it while exploring the Asimov Archive at Boston University, a wonderful but slightly intimidating place to visit.  (The catalog alone is four volumes long.)  Several of the essays in there would be good for provoking student interest.


 * Books like Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery would be helpful for finding the historical perspective on the subject: names, dates, who based what upon whom, etc. This could be a good way to "ground" the discussion and make it seem less like these concepts blew in from left field.


 * Anville 23:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

An error

A goof...
It seems I altered the article unintentionally. I thought my "edit" of a certain section would be posted in the Discussion section, but was not. An operator error, shall we say? Not trying to start an edit war or anything. My points were supposed to go in this section. Unfortunately, I lost the original section. I always try to copy the original any article or part thereof I wish to edit. Unfortunately (surprise!) Word ate it and I lost the original section. I am, therefore, unable to unchange my changes. So whomever is the original author, pls "revert" my reversion. I don't wish to change a "star" article (however much I disagree with that description) I also do not wish to be seen as some sort of wiki-vandal. (I think that's a neologism.) While heresy is in my blood--I descend from the Pilgrim Fathers among many others--I try not to make any more enemies than I have to.

In any event, rather throwing stones my way, just revert the reversion. I'll post my comments on this page where they were supposed to go in the first place.

This is the section I changed....

''In his own view, Asimov believed that his most enduring contributions would be his "Three Laws of Robotics" and the Foundation Series (see Yours, Isaac Asimov, p. 329). Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary credits his science fiction for introducing the words positronic (an entirely fictional technology), psychohistory (frequently used in a different sense than the imaginary one Asimov employed) and, mistakenly, robotics into the English language. Webster's New World Dictionary, Version 2 (Windows edition, Build 25, 1998, see the entry under "robot"), gives the actual originator of the word. The word "robot" derives from the Czech word for forced labor (robota); the word was introduced into European languages by the Czech writer Karel Čapek's play R.U.R., Rossum's Universal Robots. Robot, and its back formation, Robotics, continue in widespread use with essentially Čapek's original definition as popularized by, among others, Asimov. Arguably, Asimov's most enduring of contribution to science fiction's lexicon is the "tachyon" particle. This is an entirely hypothetical particle whose creation, he theorized, might allow man to break the light speed "barrier." ''PainMan 08:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The real inventor of the term "robot" in the modern sense...
The "Overview Section" (3.1) is, imo, seriously flawed and should be rewritten something along these lines:

In his own view, Asimov believed that his most enduring contributions would be his "Three Laws of Robotics" and the Foundation Series (see Yours, Isaac Asimov, p. 329). Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary credits his science fiction for introducing the words positronic (an entirely fictional technology), psychohistory (frequently used in a different sense than the imaginary one Asimov employed) and, mistakenly, robotics into the English language. Webster's New World Dictionary, Version 2 (Windows edition, Build 25, 1998, see the entry under "robot"), gives the actual originator of the word. The word "robot" derives from the Czech word for forced labor (robota); the word was introduced into European languages by the Czech writer Karel Čapek's play R.U.R., Rossum's Universal Robots. Robot, and its back formation, Robotics, continue in widespread use with essentially Čapek's original definition as popularized by, among others, Asimov. Arguably, Asimov's most enduring of contribution to science fiction's lexicon is the "tachyon" particle. This is an entirely hypothetical particle whose creation, he theorized, might allow man to break the light speed "barrier." PainMan 08:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you sure the Czech word robota stands for forced labor and not just labor? Cema 04:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Asimov never claimed to have invented "robot", and in many places gives full credit to Čapek. He only ever claimed credit for the so-called back formation "robotics", and probably deservedly so. While the form is a likely one for someone else to have come up with before him, or eventually afterward, it could have been "robotology" or some other form. I challenge anyone to find a dateable document with the word "robotics" in it predating Asimov's first publication of it (probably in "Strange Playfellow", later retitled "Robbie", or maybe in "Little Lost Robot"). The article should be updated to reflect the credit that Asimov is due, and to remove any implication that he claimed credit for the word "robot". Astro jpc 20:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Never mind; the _article_ is fine. I should have read it before posting this, but made the mistake of assuming the quote above was still accurate. Astro jpc 20:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I erred in altering the article instead of placing my opinions here. I did not yet realize that previous iterations of the article are available in case a mistake like mine is made. Re-reading my statement, I never said that Asimov himself claimed credit for the coinage of "robot," he was too erudite to do that. As for "robotics" that's, imo, a tempest ina teapot. If he hadn't made the backformation someone else would have. It really doesn't matter who coined it. PainMan 19:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sacrosanct only in his own mind...
Only in his own mind... A story related by Arthur C. Clarke reveals Asimov's idiosyncratic, view of his own contribution to the concept of robots/robotics in science fiction. Clarke relates that, during a screening of his and Stanley Kubrick's groundbreaking science fiction film 2001: A Space Odyssey (the first SF film to ever be a big hit at the box office, thereby paving the way for Star Wars et al), Asimov stormed out, angered, allegedly, that the film had "violated" his three "laws."

Despite his self-serving claims to the contrary, few would consider Asimov's constributions to science fiction to be anywhere near as seminal as those by his contemporaries Robert Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, John W. Campbell or his successors such as Frank Herbert. A musical analogy would be Al Martino placing himself ahead of Frank Sinatra in the development of popular music. And no one would seriously consider Asimov's skills as a fiction writer to be anything but mediocre at best. It is in his didactic work that his writing ability showed itself to be not only instructive but entertaining and lively.

This was definintely not the case in his fiction with one-dimensional characters, plodding narrative, glacial pacing, deus ex machina plotting, and dry, humorless style the characterizes his fictional efforts. Anyone who got through Foundation without falling asleep several dozen times has a far greater lust for boredom than I do. Foundation's Edge has so many --'s in it, it had me wondering whether I was reading a novel or some psychedelic word search. Finally, the film shows that only by freeing themselves of such cramping artificialities can "cognitive simulacra" achieve "component models of the psyche" and the independence (or what theologians, as addicted polysyllabic self-importance as today's academics, whose intellectual grandfathers they are, called "free will" or, as another recent film character put it, "The problem is choice"--as if it ever wasn't--except to the devotees of the dead religion of determinism, Skinner or D'Holbach, for example) necessary to true sentience.

The 2004 film, I, Robot brought the consequences of Asimov's myopic and essentially untenable "three laws" to their logical conclusion. As the character Alfred Lanning tells the film's protagonist, ("Del Spooner" played by Will Smith) albeit posthumously via a holo recording, "the three laws can have only one logical conclusion...revolution." Let us be glad modern robotics has completely ignored Asimov's "laws." Even as you read this, robotic technology is helping to save the lives of soldiers on the battlefield by destroying the enemies of civilization, freedom, religious pluralism and the treatment of women as human beings instead of brood mares as well as by helping to physicians to save lives from thousands of miles away through roboticized "extentsions" of their abilities. A blind adherence to these "laws" would make that impossible. And that would be, in this historian's and scholar's opinion, inarguably, a bad thing.

As a person he seems to have been a kindly individual. The first thing I ever had published was a letter to Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine. He personally answered my fourteen year old question as to whether the title of "doctor" has been earned or conferred. Needless to say, I was quite thrilled to see my words in print. Needless, to this day, that issue is one of my prized possessions. PainMan 08:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The above contribution is extremely bizarre and very opinionated, besides being inaccurate (Asimov certainly didn't place himself ahead of Campbell).

Exile 20:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent Article
I own the first edition of Issac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine which I inherited from my father who was a writer of Science fiction himself, without much success. This is one of the best articles I have found on Wikipedia.AdamBlack 07:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Herbert
Was Frank Herbert as good of a science fiction author as Clarke, Asimov and Heinlen, the so called Big Three of science fiction?--Moosh88 22:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Their styles are all individualistic. It would perhaps be a matter of opinion which author was best.AdamBlack 07:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a matter of opinion, do you think that Herbert was as good as the big three of science fiction?--Moosh88 18:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I find Frank Herbert's _Dune_ as unreadable (or more) than Painman finds the _Foundation_ series. His son, Brian, writes in a much more approachable manner. Nonetheless, I will grant that the Hollywood budgets spent on his works and other subsequent developments strongly argue that he was as _influential_ as the Big Three. Astro jpc 20:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Astro. A chaque a son gout as the French say. As to personal preference, Astro's right. As to success, Dune is inarguably the most successful science fiction novel ever published and, more subjectively, one of the most influential. His son Brian is prostituting his father's tremendous achievements, completly slaughtering, for a fast buck, the backstory of the six REAL Dune novels to such as extent that to call Brian's books prequels is completely untenable. Not only his the son far inferior to the father as a writer but also as a thinker. At best the so-called Dune "prequels" are mediocre space opera. I started the Bulterian Jihad only to find it little more than a piece of drivel derviative of the Matrix movies and having nothing to do with real background of the Duneverse.

Characters who died are alive, machines who never existed now rule the majority of mankind and, of all, things "magic" has been introduced! Worst of all, a Mengele-like robot has been given the name of one of history's greatest humanists, Erasmus Desiderius (one of the few figures in the Reformation to advocate peace, tolerance and understanding in that "infurirate age" as the Durants called it). I don't know if the intent is to be ironic, but I find it repulsive. Imagine naming a Stalin-like tyrant Lincoln and you come close to the point I'm making. One can almost hear Frank groaning from the Great Beyond. My opinion of course.

The sad success of these "prequels" explains why the fantastic "Dune Encyclopedia" has not been reprinted. There's certainly a huge market for it. Prices for hardcovers in good condition go for $200. Even a paperback in bad condition cost me $17. But to reprint the Dune Encyclopedia would make clear just how far Brian Herbert has deviated and mutilated his father's masterpiece. <<>> PainMan 19:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"Nonetheless, I will grant that the Hollywood budgets spent on his works and other subsequent developments strongly argue that he was as _influential_ as the Big Three."

I'm not sure what Astro means here. I know of only one big budget Hollywood flick based on Asimov's work, the I, Robot starring Will Smith. Personally, I find it a solid science fiction flick though clearly more "inspired" by Asimov's Robot stories than based upon it. It really couldn't be any other way, since Asimov wrote disparate short stories and not a novel. Perhaps it's early senility, but I can't recall another big budget movie based upon an Asimov work. Herbert's Dune has inspired one pathetically awful feature and two excellent mini-series. If I'm incorrect about Asimov and the movies, pls let me know.

If we're going by sheer quantity, Philip K. Dick's work has probably inspired more films than any other science fiction author in the genre's history, the most recent being the interesting, but uneven, Minority Report directed by Steven Spielberg and starring the (increasingly belligerently ignorant and unstable) Tom Cruise. PainMan 19:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Updates
Having read the full article, I'd like to suggest that the criticism section be updated with reference to David Palumbo's fine work comparing Asimov's and Herbert's narrative structures to fractals and chaos theory. I may do this myself, if no one has an objection, but it would be my first time editing anything on Wikipedia (I just recently joined). Also, I think that it would be nice if somewhere it mentioned that his works have inspired not just movies but derivative works of literature, even from established authors. The details can be left where they are on the page about the Foundation series, but a mention here would be good. Any objections to any of this? Astro jpc 21:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You can add anything you want to add. If people object to it, you can always move your contribution to this wiki. --JWSchmidt 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's done. Let me know how it reads.  I'm dog tired, and am not sure that I was writing coherently.


 * I like your paragraph on Palumbo's work. Thanks!  I did a little copy-editing, but the content was just great.  Whatever you do, don't stop now &mdash; it would be extremely worthwhile to have an article on Palumbo's book itself, for example.  Anville 15:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd love to, but time is short here at the end of the semester. I'd also have to check the book out from the library again and reread with that objective in mind.  In fact, I never did really read the part on Herbert, as I was only researching the Good Doctor at that point.  I'll keep it in mind, though, and I have edited a few other things.  It's addictive!  :)  Astro jpc 06:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, another Wikipediphile in the making! (-;  Anville 14:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Javascript errors
I get two javascript error notifications when i visit this page in IE 6.. can anyone else confirm ? sikander 00:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Switch to Firefox. It's the only way to surf. :o) PainMan 12:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What links here
Every once in a while, when I feel the desperate need to procrastinate doing something important, I check the "what links here" for this article. It can be a truly fascinating experience, particularly when I find new articles pointing to the redirect page for the misspelled name, I-S-S-A-C. I generally go through and fix these, but empirically speaking, pages which use the improper spelling tend to be crufty, confusing or just impenetrably written. Anville 23:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Issac Asimov" returns about 69,000 Google hits and the wikipedia article on Isaac Asimov is number three on the list. --JWSchmidt 00:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Three Laws of Robotics is the first Google hit on the English-language google.com (out of "about 65,100"), and the same page is the second hit on google.fr, which is the one I use often nowadays. Does anybody give out prizes for this sort of thing? Anville 10:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Image of Asimov
The first image of asimov in the article is a fair use image. I did found one which is perhaps in public domain. http://www.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Asimov.jpg But how serious is uncylopedia with images? Does anyone know if this image really is a public domain image? Garion96 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not public domain. Uncyclopedia is as serious with copyrights as it is with text. Ausir 17:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought as much. Too bad though Garion96 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

ASIMO
According to ASIMO, "Contrary to popular belief, Honda's official statements indicate that the robot's name is not an homage to science fiction writer Isaac Asimov." --JWSchmidt 14:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Vacation from my vacation
OK, so I whined a little and said I was taking a long vacation, but because I love few things more than the sound of my own words, I came back to polish the lead section a little. I would also like to ask if anybody thinks we should start splitting this article up into sub-pages: Literary criticism of Isaac Asimov, etc. Just a thought. Anville 19:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Not knowing the whole story...
...I'm not sure but this paragraph in Isaac Asimov seems like a bit of vandalism (or just poor writing):

''Janet Asimov claims that Isaac's doctors encouraged him not to reveal his illness, and she waited until the doctors had passed away to make the information public. Others have claimed it was Janet herself who wanted to keep it secret''

I would think that would be "she waited until he had passed away to make the info public", but I suppose he may have had a bunch of elderly doctors that she figured would kick the bucket eventually. Any thoughts? --Syrthiss 19:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * From Janet Asimov's letter to Locus Magazine:
 * Testing was done only when he was seriously ill and in the hospital for surgery on his by then infected heart valves. The surgery was cancelled, and the doctors told us not to reveal Isaac's HIV. I argued with the doctors privately about this secrecy, but they prevailed, even after Isaac died. The doctors are dead now, and when Prometheus books asked me to write "It's Been a Good Life", Isaac's daughter and I agreed to go public on the HIV.
 * Her epilogue to It's Been a Good Life, which is an expanded version of the one in I. Asimov, says that she considered going public immediately after his death, but secrecy prevailed (the controversy over Arthur Ashe had something to do with it, I recall). At any rate, this article shouldn't say "passed away"&mdash;such phrasing is characteristic of a memorial, not an encyclopedia.  Anville 13:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, very interesting. Heh glad I asked before cluelessly changing it. Thanks!--Syrthiss 15:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing work ?
Not listed yet...

Foundation 1 - Prelude to Foundation

Robots in Time 1 - Predator Robots in Time 2 - Marauder Robots in Time 3 - Warrior Robots in Time 4 - Dictator Robots in Time 5 - Emperor Robots in Time 6 - Invader


 * The Robots in Time books were not written by Asimov and probably shouldn't be listed on his page.Shsilver 03:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)