Isaac Asimov on How to Be Prolific | Hacker News Reader

Isaac Asimov on How to Be Prolific

briangroat.com

255 pointsbgroat90 comments

I must say "Thank you". Thank you, Asimov, for my language skills.

I started reading Asimov in my native language (Latvian) until I run out of it. It was late 80s. Then I had to work on my Russian reading skills in order to read everything else USSR had to provide from Asimov. Then I read everything libraries in Riga had on sci-fi.

And when 90s arrived, I accidentally got a hold of few Asimov books in English. I remember vividly the nights I spent with his book on the left side and English dictionary on the right one. Underlining and writing words and page numbers of words I coulnd't find just to return to them later when context would be much cleaner. Ever so funny struggle with idioms and cultural references I couldn't possibly understand. There was no internet to look that stuff up.

So, yes. Thank you, sci-fi in general and Asimov in particular for motivation and opportunity to learn one of basic life skills - ability to read and understand foreign language better than school could teach.

It's certainly paid off. You write well.

> I remember vividly the nights I spent with his book on the left side and English dictionary on the right one. Underlining and writing words and page numbers of words I coulnd't find just to return to them later when context would be much cleaner. Ever so funny struggle with idioms and cultural references I couldn't possibly understand. There was no internet to look that stuff up.

I salute your perseverance and skill - that's incredible.

We take for granted how easily we now obtain the information and literature we want today (tailored to our preferences at that!) thanks to the internet.

In some ways I feel we had to use our brains more before technology and data became so universal and cheap!

> In some ways I feel we had to use our brains more before technology and data became so universal and cheap!

Maybe. Funny thing is, we have more opportunity to use our brains better now, and yet it seems we're not taking it.

For instance, books. Many people say that they don't read much books anymore - even though today you have access to much better selection of books than before. Issues like being an adult = lots of bullshit errands aside, it's easy to be distracted by blogs and other short-form texts today. I have to constantly remind myself to keep reading actual books. Today you can literally just Google "best book on X", browse several discussion threads and pick out what is possibly the best resource whole humanity has on topic X. It's that easy. But for some reason, it's not an obvious thing to do. It wasn't for me until recently.

I'm learning Japanese, and I often wish I could find literature in that language that's both slightly above my level and something I want to read. It's really hard.

But part of the problem is that finding things I want to read in my native language is hard, too, so I'm probably just too picky.

I've tried to learn Esperanto and the complete lack of entertaining books that aren't translations from another language is depressing. I just couldn't get anywhere with it because of that.

It's interesting that Asimov offered advice that suggests writing without concern for whether everything fit together; just getting the first draft out was the goal. This somewhat conflicts with Asimov's own style of writing (which he talked about in at least one of his three memoirs, as well as other places), which was effectively to write the final draft the first time. He was not prone to heavy editing after writing, and was also not prone to editing while writing. So, he was basically just writing and handing it off to his editor/publisher (and I think it's also been established that his editors also had a soft touch with his work).

So, maybe he was just being kind enough to not hold everyone to his own standards. And, maybe he developed his skill for writing without a net through tremendous amounts of practice (more practice than almost every other human who ever lived...he's among the most prolific book authors the world has seen).

Anyway, I read everything about Asimov I come across. But, this is kinda blogspammy. Asimov's own memoirs are worth a read. I have not read Janet Asimov's books about Asimov, yet, but surely will eventually.

Also, this site breaks the back button for me in Firefox. That's gross, and I literally hate every person who's ever intentionally broken basic browser functionality for profit, ego, or whatever reason they thought made it OK.

I agree the site is blogspammy, but is the back button a Firefox issue? I tried the site in Safari & Chrome as well and there's no issues with the back button there, only in Firefox.

The back button in Firefox works fine on sites that don't fuck with the back button. So...no, I don't think we can reasonably blame Firefox.

Firefox has a reasonable implementation of the History API, so it isn't that Firefox doesn't support some feature that a single page app would need in order to make stuff like URLs work right. And, it's not like Firefox is some obscure browser with 1% of market share.

Maybe his style of writing has evolved through time and what he was doing at the end of his carreer wasn't something to do when you start writing.

> This somewhat conflicts with Asimov's own style of writing (which he talked about in at least one of his three memoirs, as well as other places), which was effectively to write the final draft the first time.

He also claimed that he didn't need prepare his speeches, and that he managed to fit them in the given time frame up to the minute without watching at the clock. If he really had that capability, you must imagine him being able to keep in head "the plan" and follow it, not only with which material he will "fill the space" but also how many words he will spend on which part, which would explain his ability to write "mostly right the first time."

But reading his memoirs also shows that he confirms that it was much faster for him to write non-fiction than fiction books. Good fiction was significantly harder to "get it right" even for him.

It is also true that, in the science fiction genre, he wrote primarily short stories for a while, first selling them one-by-one. So he had a lot of the possibility to "learn by doing" and from the feedback.

He even had his own cataloging system for everything he wrote, which wasn't computerized by based on cards, and he claimed it to be better for him than the computerized solutions, he gave one of book to be processed by some external company using the computer technology and was not satisfied.

Something to keep in mind is that Asimov was very much a product of the age of pulp magazines, so early on in his career he was paid by the word for his work.

A side geek note: If you were active in NYC fandom from say the 50s on chances were very good that you would actually get to see Isaac in person at many local science fiction conventions. For some reason he disliked air travel, and would show up at almost any local convention that he was invited to.

If you want to read a really good book on being a geek from the depression era to about the 50s I would highly recommend reading The Way the Future Was by rederik Pohl.

Also good on that topic: The Futurians, by Damon Knight

He had fear of flying, I remember reading that in one of his autobiographical books. He was aware of that and wrote a lot about space travel, on the cave of steel he depicted humans as being agarophobic

That’s “agoraphobic”.

A lot of us are prolific makers, we're just not prolific sharers. I've amassed a ton of bitbucket repos the world has never seen. Now, I'm learning to share my work and focus on marketing in conjunction with development.

I wrote a piece last night about it:

https://blog.oldgeekjobs.com/be-a-prolific-sharer-31bfdfb50a...

It's about not being afraid to share the things you make and tuning them until they resonate with your audience.

That's kind of funny you should say that. A book I'm currently reading advocates that our best writers of today's day and age won't be those on the internet that share their work easily but instead hidden away, released to small groups of audiences. One such forum referenced was TOR and Darknet.

That sounds interesting. How does the book argue that quality of work correlates with availability and audience size? What book is it?

It's a small book for a select audience :)

I think hes talking about "But What If We're Wrong?" by Chuck Klosterman. Sorry to spoil the secret!

edit: Its highly recommended. Also, its not an argument about quality. The author speculates about what kind of art produced in the present day that people in the future will value.

Yep, that's the book! Good find.

I originally replied to a child of this post, but if you are interested in the book, I think its "But What If We're Wrong" by Chuck Klosterman.

Part of the argument is that we draw conclusions and interpret a book based on our own experience in the current time - not the time at which the book is written. Meaning changes with time, he gives an example of Moby Dick. It meant something totally different to someone back when it was written and was not popular. It was not until later did the book become popular because it was interpreted for the various meanings people think it's about. Secondly, the book is written for that specific audience - not the entire internet and/or world. The author remains in total control. He then mentions Kafka as an example because he as so controlling of his writings.

Klosterman?

Yep

Makes sense. If we view the internet as somewhat tribal, small communities have a better chance to evolve a unique style.

Makes sense, people on the internet are largely over critical.

With regards to mortality as a motivator, I often find the opposite to be true. When I am reminded of death or illness, I usually end up falling into a spiral of procrastination -- anything to avoid the thought of oblivion. I find it to be quite a major source of time wastage and I suspect I'm not alone in this.

When Asimov was unwell following bypass surgery, James Randi wrote that Asimov fell into a depression and gave up writing altogether [1], presumably for the same reason.

[1] http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/asimovob.htm

In my younger and more foolish days, and inspired by Steve Jobs, I tried to literally live life as if every day were my last in an effort to be productive. I discovered that if it were my last day on earth, I would much rather spend the time joking around with friends or family rather than working, and I fell into the same funk you describe.

If anything, I discovered what my priorities in life were. But I could have done without the moodiness, procrastination, and cognitive dissonance.

While I've never tried to live like that, I know that I'd act much the same... Without the thought that I'm preparing for a better future, my choice would be to have a better present. Every time.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has advice on how to break out of these thought patterns.

At some point my brain got tired of thinking about doom and stressing over death, and so I somehow just stopped thinking about that.

Set goals and go about pursuing them. It requires discipline but once you surpass the initial blocks it becomes second nature. Also, don't forget of yourself. Do some form of physical activity and set some goals for that too. Rinse and repeat.

Regarding goals, I've personally found them to be counterproductive unless they're simply achieved and a matter of habit. For instance, "go to the gym and do nothing" became "go to the gym and walk on the treadmill" when I became habituated to showing up at the gym. Now I'm lifting regularly and I feel off if I don't get a chance to go work out.

Audacious goals, on the other hand, are demotivating because there's too much chance of failure. If I hold myself to lifting certain weights, I may even end up getting injured. But now I'm happy simply showing up, doing what I have the capacity for, whether it's walking, stretching, or lifting. I can (and will) come back if I have an off day.

Scott Adams talks about something similar in Goals vs Systems[1]. A goal of writing a book is much harder to achieve than a goal of typing a little bit in the morning. Ironically, the latter may be the best route to the former...as long as you don't think about it too much :)

[1]: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102964992706/goals-vs-systems

Martial arts helps me. It builds discipline and gives me more energy that cascades into the rest of my life, and it's fun just on its own. The structure, community and obligation of it makes it more powerful than say, going bouldering on my own for an equivalent amount of time each week.

I spent so much of my life living in my mind without realizing my mind is part of my body and the whole thing needs taking care of and improving.

It's worth noting that Asimov acquired AIDS from a blood transfusion during that bypass surgery; he hid it per his doctors' recommendation, so it wasn't revealed until ten years after his death. I'd expect that secret probably didn't help his mood, either.

I stand by the idea proposed by Cal Newport that the best way to do great work is to do "Deep Work"—large (but not all day) amounts of no-distraction, in-the-zone work. Harder to do than ever, but when I can do it I'm amazed.

Deep work isn't a new concept. I just finished Cal's book and, while it's a decent read, I didn't learn anything.

Maybe because I read a lot of productivity-based articles and blog posts?

Then pass it in to your boss. That's what I'm going to do, now that I'm finished with it.

Maybe it doesn't teach anything new, but it does act as a refresher and makes you go back to Deep Work. I had almost completely forgotten about it and my work schedule was full of tab switching and short breaks. After going through the book, I started using Toggl and minding my time.

How about trying to actually do it? I agree self-help books are mostly fluff that can be said in half the length, but I do think "Deep Work" is a useful technique.

One problem I did have with the book was that Deep Work might not be useful for someone whose work is largely mechanical or mundane, though in that case I'd apply Deep Work to learn skills to into more interesting jobs if one wishes.

> "Deep Work"—large (but not all day) amounts of no-distraction, in-the-zone work.

I honestly don't understand how that is different from "regular work". How else do you work if not undistracted?

Regular work means emails, slack, having coffee break with colleagues, over-hearing John's joke, overhearing what happened in metro to Mark this morning, suggesting where to go for lunch today and of course preparing for a meeting and going to the meeting etc.

"Deep work" or "flow" means there's just you and the thing you're doing, nothing else.

Apart from the "preparing for a meeting" and the meeting i wouldn't consider any of this work. Ok, working on emails is 50% work...

FTA:-

  “So what if it limps. Its purpose is to get you into the next stage of the
  story and you take off from there. Time enough when you go through the novel
  again to correct the transition. For all you know, the material that you will
  write much later in the novel will make it plain to you exactly how the
  transition ought to have been. No amount of rewriting and repolishing now will
  get it right in the absence of knowledge of the course of the entire book. So
  let it limp and get on with it … Think of yourself as an artist making a sketch
  to get the composition clear in his mind, the blocks of color, the balance, and
  the rest. With that done, you can worry about the fine points.”
  – Asimov’s advice, in a letter, about ‘limping transitions’ in first drafts

This would seem to be good advice in any creative endeavour and particularly relevant to startup culture.

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). His best work was his early short stories (three laws of robotics, ultimate question). IMHO, his quality gradually went down before falling off a cliff. Traded quantity for quality?

>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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

No supporting evidence. Doesn't make sense.

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.

I'm as big an Asimov fan as anyone, but I generally agree that his later novels were weaker. He set himself the challenge of merging the Robot universe with the Foundation universe and I'm not sure it was a good idea. I have always said that his short stories were his best work. I recently heard the radio adaptation of "Hostess" and was reminded was a great story that is.

I was a fan of his science essays before I read his fiction. I taught myself physics via those essays before I learned it in High School. But even more importantly, I learned how to think like a scientist. I owe him a huge debt of gratitude for that, which, fortunately, I was able to express to him once in person.

Foundation series are still my favorite. I'm on the Caves of Steel now. Interesting that the whole "robots are taking our jobs" is presently playing out, and how being "declassified" relegates one to a life of poverty.

Both Heinlein and Asimov got into the whole grand unifying theory of what they wrote.

Asimov's short stories may have been his best work. But the original Foundation trilogy was pretty good too.

Yes, although he wrote over 400 books, most of the good ones were in the first 100.[1] There were a lot of junk books in the later years. That happens to working writers.

At least Asimov didn't get stuck writing movie tie-ins. Some good SF writers have had to write movie tie-in novels to pay the rent. Alan Dean Foster, who wrote some excellent novels in his own universes, has ground out too many Star Dreck, Star Wars, Alien, Terminator, and Transformers tie-ins.

[1] http://www.asimovonline.com/oldsite/asimov_titles.html

I hated his later Foundation novels because it basically turned down the governing theme of the original series.

(Spoilers)

In the original, there's history, which progresses relentlessly without giving a damn about individuals. Even most capable humans can at best nudge it toward the right direction, sometimes paying huge prices. Threatening the whole plan required the existence of a super-human, because no ordinary human being could do that.

In the later series, there's this guy who achieved little in whole life (other than being a moderately successful politician), yet somehow his judgement is supposed to be "correct", and his single decision is going to set the course of humanity. All the ultra-capable people of Gaia bow to his innate wisdom and promise to make it that way. What the...?

I loved the original Foundation series as a teen. Re-read them just a few years ago, when I'm much older. The ideas were every bit was stimulating, but the writing really was not that great. And plot holes and inconsistencies. But you know, maybe those things are not as important.

I did also like his short stories more. Same with Clarke -- I liked the short stories better.

90,000 letters is equal to 4 a day for 61 years. That's a superhuman output

It's amazing what people can get up to if they're not being distracted by the internet or other popular media.

That's just an excuse. Most people back in the good old days didn't get up to much either.

Most people, sure. But they weren't going to do great works anyways.

It's the exceptional ones are more likely these days to be eaten up by transitory media along with everyone else.

But who knows. It's all speculation from me. There's no ethical way to run the experiment.

Might it also be that modern telecommunications have lessened the need to write letters?

Indeed. Are emails considered "letters"? How many IMs does it take to equal a "letter"? What about forum posts?

I suspect that if you measured it word for word, I write at least "4 letters" worth per day.

wow. on my best days (which are rare) i hit 5k...

Cached version here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VMbrnBW...

Issac Asimov's later works are known to have been ghostwritten. Hiring other writers to write under your byline is the easiest way to be prolific.

The "Candy Store" this article refers to (and Asimov in the quote) is in my neighborhood. Hilariously I discovered this through Pokémon Go.

Its no longer a candy store of course.

> expanding a short story about a collapsing universe, and expand it into a novel.

What story is this? When I google it I get non-fiction links.

Even if we don't find it let's not forget the inside that joke that is expanding a story about a collapsing universe. He pretty much had to expand the collapse, which one would actually consider being opposites.

I believe it's "The Gods Themselves", though Wikipedia doesn't have anything about it starting as a short story (at least skimming on my phone)

I was thinking that's exactly what it sounded like, which is my hands-down favourite Asimov book.

That's because it's the best Asimov book. :P

Pfff, The End of Eternity is obviously the best Asimov book :)

edit: and probably the best time travel novel as well

I believe you are correct. That was supposed to be a short story but it just kept growing. I like that one quite a bit.

http://www.asimovreviews.net/Books/Book182.html

It's about real science but I suspect the style of the story is what made them refer to it as a 'novel'.

I can't quite put my finger on why, but I suspect that this guy wants people to subscribe to his newsletter.

oh good, someone else noticed... I thought it was just me.

And its a bit much, I don't mind the sign up in the story, but to top it off, full page sign up box.

Newsletter signups are such bullcrap. Especially the pop-over ones. They're the worst.

Also interesting to note, the comments.

Brian says:

October 26, 2016 at 4:21 pm

It’s my pleasure!

I'll pass on the newsletter signup. His writing is less than stellar; there are all kinds of fragment sentences which make the article difficult to read.

Maybe his other stuff isn't as bad.

... Nope. No other stuff. This is literally the only thing on the site and there are three "Join now!" boxes.

Based on the topic of his first post, I am sure we can expect many, many more to come.

Maybe it's the double overlay that requests it. You close the first one, then there it is again, then you close that one, and bam there it is once more within the content. However I am sure it is working somehow.

step one: grope everyone you see

You're thinking of Arthur C. Clarke (pedo).

thats wrong. but asimov was a notorious lech at conventions

In his own words:

"I have never had the slightest interest in children – boys or girls. They should be treated in the same way. But once they have reached the age of puberty, then it is OK," Mr Clarke was quoted as saying in the Sunday Mirror. "If the kids enjoy it and don't mind it doesn't do any harm … there is a hysteria about the whole thing in the West."

Mr Clarke subsequently denied he was a paedophile, saying: "The allegations are wholly denied." But he never sued the Sunday Mirror and died aged 90 at his Sri Lanka home in 2008.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/notw-editor-sp...

"I am trying to think of the youngest boy I have ever had because, of course, you can't tell it here. I think most of the damage comes from the fuss made by hysterical parents afterwards. If the kids don't mind, fair enough,'' he was reported to have said in the interview which was conducted at his house.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com