Foundation - too dated? (issaac Asimov)

[imported_iBrian]

Foundation - too dated?

Read the first book in the "Foundation" series. Although I found the third crisis far too repetitive of the second, and thought it not well resolved, I generally liked it - a decent novel.

But I couldn't help noting how terribly dated it read - I'm sure people could make arguments to justify the issue in terms of the deterioration of the Galactic Empire - but, really, is the only thing that saves it the movement of the plot? Somehow SF without a speculative vision is a little hard to comes to terms with.

Any thoughts?

 

[ray gower]

Surely any half good science fiction must eventually become dated, either in concept, science or technology?

When this happens, should they automatically be thrown into the nearest landfill as a wild fantasy of fiction?

The beauty of the likes of Asimov and the other great Science Fiction writers was that they wrote ripping good yarns around their science and fiction. That is why they still sell from bookshelves

 

[imported_iBrian]

Good point - but actually, one of the cleverst things about Asimov I may as well mention (otherwise it may take months for someone else to post it!) is that one of the cleverst aspects of "Foundation" is that because the Galactic Empire was declining technologically, then there was no real opportunity for the book to go out of date.

No matter what the technology of our contemporary world, because of the deterioration of the Galactic Empire itself, there was never any reason for "Foundation" to even begin to be speculative - because the technological aspect was retrograde in the book in the first place!

Personally, I thought it very clever - like Asimov blowing a raspberry through time. Assuming it was a conscious device anyhow.

 

[ray gower]

Where Science Fiction attempts to examine the social/political structure of a civilisation. It is very difficult for the writer to actually become outdated in what he writes; As long as he considers what he does with it while he is writing, just as one would for any characterisation, just things are a little larger. There is nobody who can say, with certain conviction, that this/that or the other cannot happen, no matter how ill conceived. What it does need is a high level of credibility for those reading.

In some ways Asimov is not as strong a writer in this aspect as say, Heinlein. In Foundation, Asimov merely invented his Empire and casts a few themes and ideas as to how things came to be and pass, some work, some don't!
Where as Heinlein would explain his concept of how things work in great detail and with enough conviction to convince the reader that what he describes is the only logical course of progress.

 

[gr8scott]

Other than Asimov's lack of character development, I really enjoyed the trilogy. I especially like the later books #4 and #5 which tied the series to his other Robot novels.

I think that Asimov's Foundation books would make a great tv series or slew of movies. What do you think? or would it be hard to do him justice. If JR Tolkien can be a success on the screen, then surely Asimov could also.

 

[ray gower]

Asimov books tend to be quite deep in thought and slow in action, the Foundation books not the least of them.

With Hollywood's tendency towards lots of running around, big bangs and dubious acting, especially for Sci/Fi, I don't think they will even be considered.

For much the same reasoning, I don't think the US TV companies are likely to pick it up for a mini-series, having less money for the bangs and generally even worse actors.

Could see ITV picking it up for its yearly major Drama presentation though?

 

[gr8scott]

That would be great. Now that you mention it, I would hate to see an American hollywood film company mess with it. It would be better if an independent American or British company made the adaptation. Hollywood would mess it up and it would never truely represent Asimov.

 

[imported_knivesout]

Considering that the Foundation series was partly inspired by events that were already centuries past when the books came out - the fall of the Roman Empire,I think the question of datedness is a bit hard to rationally answer!

I don't think anything in the books dates, other than Asimov's own writing style perhaps. If you haven't read much Asimov,you are probably also reacting to the largely discoursive nature of his books, and the weak character treatment.

You may be interested to check out a rather interesting homage to(and deconstruction) of the Foundation series, Donald Kingsbury's Psychohistorical Crisis. It does address some gaps in the whole concept that should have been obvious, and makes for a rather good read for itself.

I for one reccomend it over the authorised Foundation add-ons by Brin, Benford and Baxter.

 

[CBellenis]

If he spent too long on character, he would have had less room to explore the 'what if' dimension - which for me is what is what good SF is all about. (I suppose I should mention that I first read the series may years ago, and re-reading it, it does appear dated - a cultural reflection I think).

 

[Connavar]

The first three books easily my fav trilogy and i wouldnt call them dated despite they came out before my father was even born.

It dont bother me at all the lack of character development cause there are other more important things in this story. I liked the characters alot but i see why they werent the focus what i liked most was the deep thought behind the world,foundation,second foundation and thier mental powers etc. I was awed by the sheer amount of ideas in the books that i didnt even remember how old they were. If someone told me when i read them that they were a brand new series i would believe them.

I loved seeing them grow from the small rock to the huge Foundation they become later. The Mule is prolly my fav SF character, he was awesome.

 

[j d worthington]

I loved seeing them grow from the small rock to the huge Foundation they become later. The Mule is prolly my fav SF character, he was awesome.

Ah, yes... I've always had a fondness for that particular character -- especially the way he's handled throughout Foundation and Empire... and the chill of the very end.....

 

[Fried Egg]

I really enjoyed the...

Spoiler

confontation the Mule has with the leader of the second foundation halfway through the 'Second Foundation' book. That was brilliantly written!

/spoiler

 

[Connavar]

Ah, yes... I've always had a fondness for that particular character -- especially the way he's handled throughout Foundation and Empire... and the chill of the very end.....

Yeah and both me and my brother thats our fav Foundation cause we liked The Mule so much. He was soo interesting.


I dont like how Assimov told where he came from in the later Foundation books talk about forced and make me doubt alot if those books was even his idea to write them.

 

[Shell_Kracker]

I also found Foundation ponderous when I read it.

I dont think this is because of the technology, but rather because sci-fi literature is better written these days.

 

[Fried Egg]

I also found Foundation ponderous when I read it.

I dont think this is because of the technology, but rather because sci-fi literature is better written these days.

I guess it's just down to personal preference but I find it the other way around... I find older sci-fi so easy to read with the modern stuff I have read far more laboured...

 

[Connavar]

I also found Foundation ponderous when I read it.

I dont think this is because of the technology, but rather because sci-fi literature is better written these days.

How is it better today? Who does it better? Why ?

You have to explain. You just cant say "oh every serie is better than Foundation these days "

Even if it was dated.

 

[Shell_Kracker]

I mean in terms of writing.

Asimov like a lot of early writers were more interesting in the concepts, and so their writing tended to be information dump.

Today, we have compelling charecters, likely plots, etc - and most of the first generation concepts like space opera, etc, have been done better now, with hindsight.

 

[Fried Egg]

Shell_Kracker

I was wondering if you could give any examples?

Because yes, while I can accept that the characterisation in early sci-fi (particularly Asimov) could have been better, on the other hand much modern day sci-fi is often bloated, long winded and over complicated.

But I admit that, as a result, I haven't read much modern sci-fi.

 

[Connavar]

Heh i havent seen Foundation type story done better by modern SF writers.

Sure its easy to learn from Asimov and other golden age SF writers and come with new ideas but its very hard to make as much interesting stories as Asimov and co did.

 

[j d worthington]

I'm not so sure I'd agree that it's better... but it may well be more to modern taste; which means it will continue to change, and what is considered such a mark of distinction now will become very dated in its turn.

While this is not meant to denigrate modern sf writers, the fact that the Golden Age writers (and some from before, for that matter) are still delivering with readers half a century and more later, says that there's more there than just ideas or "information dump". I'd argue that they addressed different things, yes, but no less valid aesthetically or artistically -- just not as much to the taste of this particular period. They are quite as likely to once again be in favor again somewhere down the line, just as writers of other types of literature from earlier periods have been. (Poe comes to mind as an excellent example of someone who has been in and out of favor so many times one almost needs a scorecard....) I'm not quite so sure about a lot of the modern writers who are so highly touted where this is concerned... but only time will tell on that point.