Foundation

[Erunanion]

I picked up Foundation two days ago as part of Christmas shopping ("Oh, and something for me, I think." Isn't it easier to shop for yourself instead of others? ) and read it yesterday - I was on a coach journey with absolutely nothing else to do, so it had my full attention

I have to say, it was astounding. At first I found the style of jumping through the periods of the Foundation's history jarring, probably because I expected a normal novel. But I got over that soon enough, and I enjoyed it immensely. It is an incredibly intelligent book, and one which kept me rivetted throughout. There are one or two small niggles, mainly to do with the use of specific instances of odd language - but considering it was written the late 30's I'm inclined to shush my inner critic subce ut enjoyed it so much.

At the end of the book there was a blurb for Foundation and Empire, and I have to say that after the great tale I had just read, I'm not sure if the more usual style of it (but the sounds of it, I could well be wrong) will let me down somewhat. I'll still get it though

 

[Connavar]

Foundation and Empire is even better than Foundation. It has a character that stands out in the series.

Foundation and Empire builds on Foundation story,worlds and time cycle,their growth. Frankly having read most of the books i think the first three are by far the best.

 

[Fried Egg]

Funnilly enough, I found "Foundation and Empire" the weakest of the original trilogy but that is not to say that it is still a good book well worth reading.

 

[xenofon]

after all it is a question of taste.
we can part the foundation saga in three mini-series: 1. hari seldon years (Prelude to Foundation-written in 1988 and Forward the Foundation-written in 1993) - mature works (in 1988 Asimov was 68), good books; 2. original foundation books(Foundation-1951, Foundation and Empire-1952 and Second Foundation-1953) - the best books in foundation saga; 3. goran trevize saga (Foundation's Edge-1982 and Foundation and Earth-1986) - maybe a little bit hard to read, but good books.
i prefere the three original books from the 50's but i enjoyed reading the rest of the books to. together, they complete the image of the history of the future.
i suggest you to read it all.
i think that is the best saga of science fiction and if you link this to the other two sagas of Asimov, Robots (The Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun ... ) and Empire (Pebble in the Sky, The Stars, Like Dust, The Currents of Space) you can obtain a larger history of the future.

 

[Connavar]

I have yet to find any saga of the quality,scope of original Foundation.

I think Goran Trevise books while well written lost the theme,ideas of Foundation.

I havent read Foundation and Earth yet but i hope its not about Gaia or something and more about Foundation issues.

 

[Fried Egg]

In "Foundation and Earth" Goran has to deliberate and eventually decide which way the galaxy shoud go. 1) With the original foundation, 2) With the second foundation or 3) With Gaia. The decision rests with him because he has some innate ability to make such decisions. It is also about the quest to find earth and as such ties the foundation series in with the Elijha Baley series.

 

[xenofon]

I havent read Foundation and Earth yet but i hope its not about Gaia or something and more about Foundation issues.

it is more about the choise trevize made at the end of "Foundation and Earth" than the foundation.
after that decision (the galaxy to get closer of gaia and to be a universe of human minds interconnected) trevize wanted to find the mytical earth and started in a journey with the two friends of him Pelorat and Bliss)... but i think is better to discover this things yourself
in the final chapter they meet R. Daneel Olivaw and the story get closer to foundation.

 

[xenofon]

it is more about the choise trevize make at the end of "Foundation and Earth" than the foundation.

my mistake
trevize make that choise in the end of Foundation's Edge

 

[Fried Egg]

Oh yeah, that's right. In "Foundation And Earth", he deliberates as to whether he made the right choice. He wants to know why he made that choice. Much of the dialog is a running debate regarding the vitues of individuality vs the collective.

 

[Connavar]

Then its no hurry to it. I didnt really care for his choice. The history of Foundation deserved better than that imo.

I plan to read the different Robot series before that.

 

[Fried Egg]

Then its no hurry to it. I didnt really care for his choice. The history of Foundation deserved better than that imo.

But F&E is all about his retrospectively analysis of why he made that choice.

Goran says something like this in the book: "My instinct told me that it was the right choice but I want to know why it is was the right choice." In otherwords, he is searching for a rational reason.

So yes, the decision was tantamount to declaring the whole idea of the foundation (both of them) and the Seldon plan as having been superceded. The realisation that humanity can be better served by Gaia rather than the Seldon plan. But I think this reflects a genuine evolution in Asimovs thinking. He had moved on and these books reflect that.

 

[Connavar]

But F&E is all about his retrospectively analysis of why he made that choice.

Goran says something like this in the book: "My instinct told me that it was the right choice but I want to know why it is was the right choice." In otherwords, he is searching for a rational reason.

So yes, the decision was tantamount to declaring the whole idea of the foundation (both of them) and the Seldon plan as having been superceded. The realisation that humanity can be better served by Gaia rather than the Seldon plan. But I think this reflects a genuine evolution in Asimovs thinking. He had moved on and these books reflect that.

I remember and understand the choice that is made and why. The thinking and the hole idea of Gaia was a bit too utopian but i understand why it became so important in the story.

I meant storywise Foundation books could have ended better.

He should have really moved and left alone the original trilogy but it was prolly too popular to not make all the newer books.

 

[Interference]

I read the first series twice (didn't realise there had been more than the first three, might have to look them out now), first because I acquired them and felt I ought to and second because I couldn't believe how bad I thought it all was the first time.

I admired what he attempted and appreciated that this was a compilation of works that had appeared serialised in magazines, but I couldn't get past what I considered his wilfull misuse of characters. He introduces us in the first story to someone who I thought was somehow going to link the entire series together, and threw this character away entirely in the second chapter. I felt cheated. I'd invested my empathy in this person.

Nevertheless, I persevered with the series and completed it and continued to find lots in it worth following.

When I read it the second time, I came to it conscious of my earlier disappointments, hoping they would be less this time. And they were somewhat assuaged. I still found his narrative style pedantic and pretentious and his characterisation cardboard at best, but willingly suspended my disappointment in these areas to follow his thesis.

Because in the end, it's a worthy thesis and one that has informed much of my thinking since. Psychohistory is not only real, in my view, but a relief.

 

[Fried Egg]

I remember and understand the choice that is made and why. The thinking and the hole idea of Gaia was a bit too utopian but i understand why it became so important in the story.

I meant storywise Foundation books could have ended better.

He should have really moved and left alone the original trilogy but it was prolly too popular to not make all the newer books.

I'm sorry, but I though you said you hadn't yet read "Foundation & Earth". "Foundation's Edge" is not the end and you don't really find out why he made the decision until "Foundation & Earth".

You say you are yet to read the Elijha Baley novels? I wonder if you draw a similar distinction between his older and newer contributions to that series? "Caves of Steel" and "Naked Sun" being written in the 50's and "Robots of Dawn" and "Robots & Empire" being written in the 80's.

 

[J-Sun]

I admired what he attempted and appreciated that this was a compilation of works that had appeared serialised in magazines, but I couldn't get past what I considered his wilfull misuse of characters. He introduces us in the first story to someone who I thought was somehow going to link the entire series together, and threw this character away entirely in the second chapter. I felt cheated. I'd invested my empathy in this person.

Nevertheless, I persevered with the series and completed it and continued to find lots in it worth following.

This is why it so annoys me that things are sold by publishers as novels when they're not. You do say "the first story" but then say "the second chapter" and/but that's what they are: stories. I think for many, even conscious realization of what they are doesn't entirely override subconscious expectations. And, in this case, other than Hari Seldon - who was himself as much an idea or symbol as a character - ideas and a common space/time are what link the entire (sub-)series together, rather than characters (though the Mule does hold a lot of the "later earlier" stuff together). Ironically, the first story whose characters are "thrown away" was written in 1950 for book publication after all the other stories had been written, because the publisher felt the series began "too abruptly". So they weren't thrown away - they were tacked in. And it wasn't Asimov's idea, but the publishers. The same who sold a single series of 8(+1) stories as three novels.

It is funny how remarkably effective that setup story is, though, isn't it?

You say you are yet to read the Elijha Baley novels? I wonder if you draw a similar distinction between his older and newer contributions to that series? "Caves of Steel" and "Naked Sun" being written in the 50's and "Robots of Dawn" and "Robots & Empire" being written in the 80's.

I personally find the original Foundation stories (and the super-series as a whole) one of my all-time favorite series in SF. I thought Foundation's Edge made a worthy, while different, sequel. There were aspects of Foundation and Earth that I enjoyed a great deal and aspects I didn't. (The prequels are probably better overall than F&E but still less good than the originals or FE.) The situation is almost the same with the Robot novels: the first two are classic; the first "new" one a different, worthy successor; the next "new" one still readable but much more problematic. His style and approach changed quite a bit from the 40s/50s to the 80s but that in itself doesn't mean the quality and effect follows a neat temporal border, unless maybe the border is 1985 rather than "the 80s".

And we can't forget the Empire novels: Asimov hated one of them (again, an editor made changes he didn't like that stuck), but I enjoyed them all.

And, of course, there's the Robot stories. The Empire novels escape the old/new clash because he never wrote more after the 50s and the Robot stories largely do the other way around - the gaps in those were much smaller and there were many more of always variable quality so they're generally perceived as "a bunch" that are "great overall".

--

<nitpick>Golan Trevize and Elijah Baley</nitpick>

 

[Connavar]

I'm sorry, but I though you said you hadn't yet read "Foundation & Earth". "Foundation's Edge" is not the end and you don't really find out why he made the decision until "Foundation & Earth".

You say you are yet to read the Elijha Baley novels? I wonder if you draw a similar distinction between his older and newer contributions to that series? "Caves of Steel" and "Naked Sun" being written in the 50's and "Robots of Dawn" and "Robots & Empire" being written in the 80's.

Nah i have read early Foundation and Earth cause i remember things that didnt happen in Edge. I know Edge is not the end. I was just saying what i thought the books until where i stopped reading the Foundation and Earth.

Really they are not bad far from, i was just awed by the original Foundation books and the next books went wierd with the hole Gaia stuff. Wierd if you read a series from 50s and the sequals that are from 80s.

I dont think i will have the same problem with Baley novels. I know about it now that there are books from 50s and much later. Foundation Edge i thought was real sequal right after the old foundation. Being my first few SF books i didnt check realese dates etc then like i do now.

 

[jeff.s.p]

.

I have very fond memories of Reading the Foundation series when I was very young. It was the first stories I ever read, outside of the classroom curriculum.
So many authors bombard their prose with an endless array of metaphors, …I really enjoyed the simplicity in his writing style.

I also love the way he can create a tense moment without a hint of violence. The characters are often engaged more in a battle of wits, than physical strengths.

But it’s the climactic endings that stand out in my mind the most, introducing incredible ideas that seem to wrap around themselves. Today I’ll often refer to the climax of a story as being a typical “Asimovian ending”


I’ll admit that when re-reading the foundation series again , I had a difficult time with the first two books. (couldn’t finish them)
It occurred to me that 90% of these stories are pure dialogue. Two men sitting in a room discussing events and strategies. It’s interesting how I really enjoyed them so much when younger but no longer… Perhaps it was the whole novel idea of reading something non school related for the first time.

I think it’s for this reason of being dialogue driven, is also why this series has never been turned into a film….. There’s not much interest in political conquests these days.

Still, I loved these (or at least the last books), plus the entire Robot series as well.

I remember being very sad when I heard the news that he passed away.

He was truly a great Author.. and still is!


Jeff

.

 

[Interference]

I think it’s for this reason of being dialogue driven, is also why this series has never been turned into a film….. There’s not much interest in political conquests these days.
.

Firstly, Jeff, I agree with your analysis, but have to refer you to Babylon 5 which, I think, managed it very well indeed.

 

[WJoseph]

I just finished reading Foundation. I thought it was great, but I think you have to keep expectations under control when approaching such a classic book. After thinking through everything, you could find the common threads and cause/effect between the individual story sections and across the different time periods. That seems to be the strength in this book, not so much the characterization or even setting descriptions. The concept of psychohistory, and how he uses it, is also pretty brilliant.

 

[MrE]

For me the foundation series (up till the third book) were what turned me on to sci fi. I remember as a kid being fascinated by the concept of psychohistory.

The grand concepts like those explored in this series are for me what science fiction does best.

And that it does it in a style which lays down clues that you can follow is real natty.