Foundation (Foundation Novels)

Atomic tediousness, atomic disappointment, atomic failure 2010-09-02

Reviewer: M-I-K-E 2theD

Foundation. What can be said? My expectations were set pretty high as this IS considered to the bee's knees of science fiction to the old timers of sci-fi. However, the old timers also consider Dune to be the best ever written... well, I'm of the new school of science fiction (born in 1980) and I like my complex Iain Banks, voluminous Alastair Reynolds and mind-bending Greg Egan. Dune didn't impress me and Foundation certainly didn't astonish me either.

To paraphrase an excellent book about the relationship between psychology and musical composition entitled `Of Mind and Music,' the author states that repetition is an exploit of human emotion causing the listener (or in this case, the reader) to fall into a collective primal rhythm with fellow listeners (read: readers). Like in Foundation, the amount of repetition is akin to the acute attack of bass at a rave; theories are repeated endlessly, idiosyncratic allegories are scattered through every chapter and the word `atomic' was shotgun blasted, litter strewn, scattered to the winds, chucked without consciousness onto nearly ever page. Here is the alphabetical list of `atomic' phrases found in Foundation:

Atomic blaster, atomic drill, atomic drive (also the hyperatomic drive), atomic drill, atomic fire, atomic force, atomic force-shield, atomic gadgets, atomic generator, atomic knife, atomic power, atomic shear, atomic ships, atomic specialists, atomic techniques, atomic washing machine (bwah!) and atomic weapons.

Single-track mind? Also repeated ad nauseum is the inevitable `Seldon crisis' and the mightier-than-thou proverb `Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.' Throw in the tame kiddy curses of `Oh, space!' and the cringe-worthy `Great galloping galaxies!' and you have for yourself a novel which is annoying to the nth degree. Stacked upon all this is the keystone for the entire book- the science of psychohistory... pseudo-science more like it. The plausibility of the entire effort is next to nil; from the onset I just couldn't get into the feel of the plot.

Additionally, the characters were as bland as cardboard for breakfast. I understood the relationships and the dealings between opposing parties, but I found the unraveling as tedious as the usage of the word `atomic.' Politico scenes compounded by feudal titles bores me to bits, much like Herbert's Dune, Tepper's Grass and some of Wolfe's Long Sun series.

It's not action I want; it's clever plot twists, rich characters, a lush prose or pulchritudinous lexicon, swaths of awe and surreal imagery. Foundation didn't serve any of this up. Total disappointment.

A promising start, but lower your expectations 2010-09-01

Reviewer: Murnert

The first thing to understand about Foundation is that it isn't really a novel. It is a collection of 5 connected short stories (The Psychohistorians, The Encyclopedists, The Mayors, The Traders, & The Merchant Princes) written in the 1940s for publication in Astounding Science Fiction Magazine. The first story in the book was actually written a few years later for repackaging the stories as the first novel in what would eventually become the Foundation trilogy (later expanded with additional books).

The galactic empire is rotting. After it collapses, there will follow 30,000 years of barbarism. Nothing can prevent the collapse, but Hari Seldon believes that the subsequent dark ages can be contained to 1,000 years if the proper steps are taken. To achieve this he sets up the Foundation at the very fringes of the empire. The first two stories are far and away the best in the book, and are worth the price of admission by themselves. This is because they deal directly with the central premise, which is a fantastic idea.

Things go downhill with the next two stories. In particular, The Traders, seems completely unnecessary. Things pick up a bit with the final chapter.

Taken as a whole, Foundation is less than the sum of its parts. I don't think it is the unrivaled masterpiece that many make it out to be. I would definitely go in with an open mind and lowered expectations.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the idea is fantastic and promises much more and better to come. I will definitely be checking out the next book in the series.

just timeless 2010-08-11

Reviewer: liquifyx

one would be hard pressed to find better sci-fi in the last 60 years than the foundation novels. what amazing insight these books had.

Asimov: a product of his time 2010-08-10

Reviewer: J. Edgar Mihelic

I like science fiction in a generalized idea, but sometimes in particular it doesn't work. I think this is mainly because I see two kinds of science fiction. One is what are essentially westerns in space. The second tries to give perspective on the current times by creating some sort of objective viewpoint on current events by giving it distance in space or time. Asimov is more of the second one. I haven't read much of his work as an adult, but I did like his short stories as a child in magazines. Genre stories, until lately, haven't had any pull in the academy so they don't get studied or legitimized scholastically. I like this second kind much better.

I like this book, the first of a trilogy and the foundation for several others (pun intended). Asimov explores our relation to information and the predictability of the future based on full information awareness. I will read more of these books, perhaps the whole series because I enjoyed and was tantalized by the possibilities of action in the future of the series. However, one interesting thing is that although Asimov was looking to the future, he was still a product of his time. When he was writing, the technology was nuclear and the future was nuclear. Thus, the future Empire is ruled by nuclear technology. Compare, for example, the cyber-punk fascination with computer technology as a driving force. Computers are almost absent from the world of the Empire and the Foundation. Instead, there are still newspapers (96) and messages are transferred physically. At the very least, if you take this as a futurological document, humanity abandoned mythological superstition. So - you have to read this book as both a look into the future and a historical document. Asimov is a fantastic writer, but he couldn't overcome the limitations of his time.

Smart, Sporadically very Engaging 2010-07-02

Reviewer: JESSE DEROUEN

Parts of the book I really enjoyed. I appreciate the twists played by characters on one another. I felt that after reading through the entire bit, though, that not enough had actually taken place. I didn't feel I walked away with a story I could remember. I did read in one review that this was "serious science fiction," so with that in mind, I still give it five stars. I only would have liked that the pace be quicker.

I really really enjoyed The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I would recommend that over this book Foundation, based on my personal taste.