"The Colonial Metropolis in the Work of Asimov and Clarke" by Matthew Candelaria
By: Hana G. Hamilton
In “The Colonial Metropolis in the Work of Asimov and Clarke”, by Matthew Candelaria, Candelaria analyzes how Isaac Asimov and Sir Arthur C. Clarke use the imperial metropolis in their works to demonstrate their attitudes toward imperialism.
First, Candelaria defines imperialism by using an example of one of the greatest superpowers in the world, Europe. He shows how European imperialism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries reached all over the world, and in return for goods and services, people from other countries came to Europe for many different reasons, such as, to be educated, trade, etc. He also shows that the imperial metropolis became the center for scientific advancement, education, and trade. He also brings in a key point, that while the metropolis became the center for human civilization and life, the outskirts, or the “periphery”, as he calls it, became indicative of “savagery, primitivism, and lawlessness” (Candelaria 2). Candelaria uses this definition to relate to the use of imperialism in science fiction. He says that science fiction writers based their writings “of the future on what they knew of the past” (Candelaria 2).
Candelaria analyzes Asimov’s “Foundation Trilogy”, and shows how Asimov reveals his animosity toward imperialism. Candelaria shows three ways that Asimov showed his animosity of imperialism, 1. The focus of action that is continually away from the metropolis, 2. Asimov shows the political instability and corruption of the metropolis, and 3. An uncertainty of the location and significance of the metropolis (Candelaria 2). In the Foundation Trilogy, Candelaria shows three different cases in the Foundation Trilogy that the action occurs outside of the imperial center, and if the focus is at the center, normally nothing important happens. Candelaria’s next point is how Asimov shows the political instability and corruption of the imperial metropolis. He gives two main reasons for instability, the center’s vulnerability to attack, and the corruption at the imperial center. The second foundation that is formed is formed in complete secrecy. Candelaria says that this “violates the imperial power structure”. He says that a “foundation established in secret cannot function as an effective imperial metropolis” (Candelaria 4), because the imperial metropolis should be a symbol of centralized power. This shows the uncertainty of the location of the center of imperialism and creates tension because there are two imperial centers. Candelaria also analyzes a few works of Sir Arthur C. Clarke, and shows how he is always portraying the magnificence of the imperial metropolis and journeys toward the center to view the awesomeness and superiority of the metropolis. He also analyzes Star Trek (Clarkian) and Star Wars (Asimovian), and how they portray the imperial metropolis the way the two authors portray it respectively.
Candelaria concludes by saying that analyzing a text’s relationship to imperialism will be a key way to decoding the meaning of a text (Candelaria 8).
First, Candelaria defines imperialism by using an example of one of the greatest superpowers in the world, Europe. He shows how European imperialism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries reached all over the world, and in return for goods and services, people from other countries came to Europe for many different reasons, such as, to be educated, trade, etc. He also shows that the imperial metropolis became the center for scientific advancement, education, and trade. He also brings in a key point, that while the metropolis became the center for human civilization and life, the outskirts, or the “periphery”, as he calls it, became indicative of “savagery, primitivism, and lawlessness” (Candelaria 2). Candelaria uses this definition to relate to the use of imperialism in science fiction. He says that science fiction writers based their writings “of the future on what they knew of the past” (Candelaria 2).
Candelaria analyzes Asimov’s “Foundation Trilogy”, and shows how Asimov reveals his animosity toward imperialism. Candelaria shows three ways that Asimov showed his animosity of imperialism, 1. The focus of action that is continually away from the metropolis, 2. Asimov shows the political instability and corruption of the metropolis, and 3. An uncertainty of the location and significance of the metropolis (Candelaria 2). In the Foundation Trilogy, Candelaria shows three different cases in the Foundation Trilogy that the action occurs outside of the imperial center, and if the focus is at the center, normally nothing important happens. Candelaria’s next point is how Asimov shows the political instability and corruption of the imperial metropolis. He gives two main reasons for instability, the center’s vulnerability to attack, and the corruption at the imperial center. The second foundation that is formed is formed in complete secrecy. Candelaria says that this “violates the imperial power structure”. He says that a “foundation established in secret cannot function as an effective imperial metropolis” (Candelaria 4), because the imperial metropolis should be a symbol of centralized power. This shows the uncertainty of the location of the center of imperialism and creates tension because there are two imperial centers. Candelaria also analyzes a few works of Sir Arthur C. Clarke, and shows how he is always portraying the magnificence of the imperial metropolis and journeys toward the center to view the awesomeness and superiority of the metropolis. He also analyzes Star Trek (Clarkian) and Star Wars (Asimovian), and how they portray the imperial metropolis the way the two authors portray it respectively.
Candelaria concludes by saying that analyzing a text’s relationship to imperialism will be a key way to decoding the meaning of a text (Candelaria 8).