SciFi and Fantasy eBook Club discussion

I first read this book (OK, the series) around age 10 or 11 and thought it was an OK book. I had read a lot of Asimov's writings more geared towards kids some years back so I thought it was time to read his most famous works. And 10yo me thought Asimov was just alright.

I read the series again when I was 25 or so and enjoyed it more but I still thought his Robot stories were better. I don't think I've read it since then and I wasn't going to read it again this time around. But, something grabbed my attention this morning and I decided to pick Foundation up and see what I think 20 years (or so) after my last reading. :)

Geoffrey wrote: "I first read this book (OK, the series) around age 10 or 11 and thought it was an OK book. I had read a lot of Asimov's writings more geared towards kids some years back so I thought it was time t..."

Well, they say a great book ages like fine wine, so I imagine the third time might just be the charm for you. Personally, I think the book's a brilliant read. It's clear even George Lucas "borrowed" some items from Foundation, most notably, the idea of a city planet Trantor/Coruscant.

It's interesting to see how nuclear technology played such a prominent role in the Foundation books. Some of the science is dated. But considering how much technology and the world has changed since Foundation was written, I think it holds up pretty well. Might be time for me to dust off my copy as well.

Carter wrote: "I have been meaning to read this book for quite some time now. When I saw that this group was reading it I decided to pick it up. I just finished Part I (18% completion). So far I have really enjoy..."

Hi Carter,

It's looks like we're in this together, this is my first time reading Foundation as well. And any time is a good time to start reading SciFi/speculative fiction :)

I was undecided whether to re-read this, since I have fond memories of it from when I read it several decades ago, and I didn't want to possibly ruin them. So I downloaded the sample, started it tonight, and decided that it at least reads well enough now that I was willing to buy the e-book.

After getting in a few chapters, I've got to think that a lot of younger readers may be put off by the fact that it's pretty obvious it was written maybe 20 years before the "Women's Lib" movement really started to gain some traction. If it bothers you, don't hold it against Mr. Asimov too hard, as that appears to be one aspect of the future he did not foresee at that time. :-)

Charles wrote: "After getting in a few chapters, I've got to think that a lot of younger readers may be put off by the fact that it's pretty obvious it was written maybe 20 years before the "Women's Lib" movement really started to gain some traction. If it bothers you, don't hold it against Mr. Asimov too hard, as that appears to be one aspect of the future he did not foresee at that time. :-) ..."

Remember we haven't got there yet, who knows how many times the pendulum will swing before we do :-)

Charles wrote: "After getting in a few chapters, I've got to think that a lot of younger readers may be put off by the fact that it's pretty obvious it was written maybe 20 years before the "Women's Lib" movement really started to gain some traction. If it bothers you, don't hold it against Mr. Asimov too hard, as that appears to be one aspect of the future he did not foresee at that time. :-) "

I listened to the trilogy again a couple years ago. Another thing that struck me as "something Asimov didn't foresee" was the amount of smoking. I don't recall running in to that much at all in other science fiction novels. Certainly not recent ones.

I have good memories of the series. I'm going to re-read it for the first time in 20 years, will start it in a couple of days. Glad you mentioned the view of women, Charles--that has gotten me on more than one re-read. I'm going in prepared.

I'm about 60% into it now, and still not a single female character. It's not stopping me from enjoying it, but it is noticeable now, whereas I doubt some 35 or 40 years ago I even noticed it, I'm sorry to say. I think I have a foggy recollection of at least one important female character in the 2nd or 3rd book?

Anyway, his demonstration of how religion can be used by secular powers to control the masses was perhaps a bit more prescient? Though to be fair, that was by no means a new idea at that time, let alone now.

Actually his fall of the empire does rather follow the fall of the Roman Empire, with religion being the unifying and civilising force in the 'dark age' that followed.
Indeed the warlords on the periphery and suchlike are very 'Decline and Fall' :-)

What was perhaps novel is the use of psycho-history and the Idea that science could predict (and take it one step further, control) populations through manipulating factors rather than individuals

This is one of the most influential science fiction books. This was the series of books that turned Orson Scott Card into a science fiction writer. Also this was the series that turned Paul Krugman into an economicst.

I'm just about to start the 5 story in the novel and I have to say that the 3rd time is definitely the charm and I'm thoroughly enjoying this in a way I never did in my tweens or twenties.

Even though the science is extremely out of date, this is still fun to read. I think I really notice the extreme classism almost more than any misogyny. There is is comment early on about the 100k going to Terminus and how the majority are only women and children but for the rest of the book, the women are just missing. So, there's a hole where the female characters should be but that's all.

Geoffrey wrote: "Even though the science is extremely out of date, this is still fun to read. I think I really notice the extreme classism almost more than any misogyny. There is is comment early on about the 100k going to Terminus and how the majority are only women and children but for the rest of the book, the women are just missing. So, there's a hole where the female characters should be but that's all. ..."

Actually for me part of the charm is that it reminds you that the world is Not our world. Accidentally time has meant that some of the writers attitudes (and therefore the characters attitudes) have dated.
To expect writers and worlds in the past or future to share our views and attitudes is unrealistic. We're like the medieval illustrators who when working on copies of the Alexander Romance portrayed Alexander's companions in 340BC as the fashionable knights of their own day 1800 years later

It is somewhat interesting as I think about it that his "I, Robot" stories, written more or less around the same time, included an important female character. Now I'm wondering a bit if the lack of women in the story -- at least to this point -- is reflective of human society's regression back to a nobility/peasant sort of class-driven society: the sort of thing that in our past was more likely than not to tend to keep women in a subservient role? Or am I giving him too much credit? (Geez, maybe I'll actually have to do some research!)

This is the second, maybe the third time, I've read this book. Besides the smoking and lack of women, there is little physical action and lots of talking. I kind of like that. It's more about ideas and thinking heroes and daring do. This book has zero Summer movie appeal staying close to stories.

As to Charles' question about a regression to a top down nobility society, I heard David Brin on a podcast talking about his concern about this actually being a real possibility. Was Asimov thinking the same way? Or a mirror of his time? I'd put odds on the later, but it is still on I interesting concept.

Greg wrote: "This is the second, maybe the third time, I've read this book. Besides the smoking and lack of women, there is little physical action and lots of talking. I kind of like that. It's more about id..."

Have you seen the movie "The Man From Earth"? It's almost all talking, mostly in one location. I was surprised how much I enjoyed it, as I usually don't go for talkative movies (I generally find that more suitable for me in a book).

Greg wrote: "As to Charles' question about a regression to a top down nobility society, I heard David Brin on a podcast talking about his concern about this actually being a real possibility. Was Asimov thinking the same way? Or a mirror of his time? I'd put odds on the later, but it is still on I interesting concept...."

Perfectly possible we could end up with a top down nobility society. We have a situation with a large gap between the rich and the rest. This does tend to become hereditary and it is perfectly possible for a separate caste to emerge as these people aren't going to meet anyone else except as cleaners, servants and employees. It doesn't take long for education and language to strengthen the barriers between castes. Provided they manage the panem et circenses they'll probably survive and even flourish. The key to an aristocracies success is to allow in the successful social climbers. This is easily done, the successful are just married into existing families.
Even republics can create political dynasties.

A few months ago I was given a hardback copy of the full trilogy so felt obliged to read it again. It's so outdated now that it makes a frustrating read. The most interesting aspect is what it tells us about the attitudes and culture when it was written rather than a vision of a possible future.

It's interesting to hear Foundation being described as outdated due to the social context of the story. I'm not nearly as optimistic as some of the readers in this group and believe the book may prove to be more prophetic than it's being credited for.

The one thing history teaches us (and interestingly one of the points Asimov makes in his work) is that history is cyclic. We progress as a society, and then make the same blunders, only to bring ourselves to the brink of destruction, and end up having to start all over again. I don't think we need Pyschohistory to figure that out.

Yes, I'm with kevis in this one, Foundation is as likely to be futuristic as it is to be outdated.
Since 'the enlightenment' people have assumed that history is linear and that it will not retreat or turn direction. It may be a comforting belief but it isn't really one which holds up to long term historical analysis ;-)

Jim wrote: "Foundation is as likely to be futuristic as it is to be outdated.
Since 'the enlightenment' people have assumed that history is linear and that it will not retreat..."

Well said, Jim. I'm still waiting to see how that Linear History thing works out.

Well, I don't think Asimov was projecting too much, but I do agree that a backsliding to a top down male dominated culture is possible. Though a European style nobility would probably be replace with a CEO business elite ruling class. Maybe we'e already there most of the way.

You might even say that much of the industrialized world is now in a "Merchant Princes" stage. :-)

This is my first time reading Foundations, and I am liking it so far. I felt that Part II was somewhat of a crawl, but the end of Part II caught my attention (don't want to say much more than that to prevent any spoilers).

I am pleased to say that I thought the book held up quite well on re-reading. The lack of women was made easier by the utter lack of women. I did better with women being relegated to less than a page of text than having to read about how it's still 1950 twenty thousand years into the future.

I always had a problem with the whole premise of psychohistory and I think Hari Seldon shouldn't have skipped those early morning lectures on chaos theory but it makes a good plot device.

One thing that did strike me as very interesting was the idea of science being turned into a religion. Such a contrast to the United States today. We are such a strange contradiction; we are voracious consumers of technology in all areas of society but there is a weird reverse snobbery, an anti-intellectualism, that is becoming more common. I certainly don't see science becoming a religion here any time soon!

Donna wrote: "One thing that did strike me as very interesting was the idea of science being turned into a religion. Such a contrast to the United States today. We are such a strange contradiction; we are voracious consumers of technology in all areas of society but there is a weird reverse snobbery, an anti-intellectualism, that is becoming more common. I certainly don't see science becoming a religion here any time soon! ..."

To a European it might be more believable. The anti-GM movement, Global warming etc are all 'believed' or 'disbelieved' with religious fervour by some.
I wonder whether the US having more people who believe in a conventional religion actually armours you against too much quasi-religion. Haven't a clue really, just speculating ;-)

Jim wrote: "The anti-GM movement, Global warming etc are all 'believed' or 'disbelieved' with religious fervour by some. "

We are full of this too. It reminds me of one of my favorite Neil deGrasse Tyson quotes:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

That is a good quote but limited, the truth is true whether or not you believe in it ;-)

Depends. Some truths aren't verifiably true.

Geoffrey wrote: "Depends. Some truths aren't verifiably true."

Indeed, a lot of truths are axiomatic.

There isn't a single axiomatic 'truth' that someone doesn't disagree with - which make them subjective subjective and therefore not axiomatic at all. Really then they become little more than deeply held opinions.

Geoffrey wrote: "There isn't a single axiomatic 'truth' that someone doesn't disagree with - which make them subjective subjective and therefore not axiomatic at all. Really then they become little more than deeply held opinions..."

Given that people apparently quibble with "If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles." you could well be right :-)

Geoffrey wrote: "I first read this book (OK, the series) around age 10 or 11 and thought it was an OK book. I had read a lot of Asimov's writings more geared towards kids some years back so I thought it was time t..."

If you read Isaac Asimov's notes about his career in the short story collection Gold, I believe you would enjoy the foundation series even more. Exploring the way he thought would lead you to have a certain mindset when reading his work. I personally believe that he was one of the most talented sci-fi writers and appreciate his work more as time passes.

Donna wrote: " One thing that did strike me as very interesting was the idea of science being turned into a religion....

I don't think it is that hard to accept if the Religion of Science doesn't teach its believers science principles or methods. Or, "Believe in science and you will be given nuclear power and gadgets." From the view point if ignorance, it would be like praying to God to heal cancer, but it science has the cure, your prayers come true. I guess the priests of Science would instruct not to pray for the things they don't have the technology for. It could be a good gig if knowledge is locked down.

Hi Greg
I think you're assuming that the priests of Science actually understand the science. I suspect that more likely a failure of the cure would be laid at the door of the sufferer who was doubtless unworthy

Greg wrote: "From the view point if ignorance, it would be like praying to God to heal cancer, but it science has the cure, your prayers come true. "

Not quite science as religion but just an incredible reinforcer of the status quo: before eclipses were understood, you can imagine people thinking that the world was coming to an end, they fall to their knees and pray/sacrifice to whatever gods they have and what do you know, every time they are saved. The priest/shaman/holy man must have gotten a huge surge in approval ratings.

The lasting impression I am left with from this series is that grand change takes a long time. One needs to convince a populace that an idea was theirs for them to have agency in a cultural change.

I love how asimov's technology advances through our years to coincide with modern flavors of the month. It's kinda neat seeing his interest journey.

Re: women in this story, I think Asimov whether conscious or not adapts the story to the modern day here as well. I think in book 3 or 4 you start to see this with the mayor, then in his book 5 when there's a whole protagonist dedicated to it. I thought at first it was simply going to be there for a silly love interest. This last point may say more about the chauvinism yet today.

The story is an allegory for how we explain changes in thought through time.

coolguy2k wrote: "The lasting impression I am left with from this series is that grand change takes a long time. One needs to convince a populace that an idea was theirs for them to have agency in a cultural change...."

I read the Foundation series sometime ago as well. And I recall having a similar view of the changes in culture. Asimov does a good job of showing the need for the long view and how no one political/social approach can steer a civilization into eternity.

Geoffrey, et al.,

I love Asimov's Foundation series also for his vision of continuing human progress.

He wasn't all mucked-up with this "People Are Pollution" rubbish that the Rockefellers peddle!

By the way, I've found a group that has followed Asimov's mythopoeia, and even derived seven "psychohistorical equations" for the psychohistory of humanity on Earth.

They had to discover a new mathematics to pull it off.

Here's the link to their Seldonian equations --


http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/...



Regards,

Miguel

Kevin wrote: "This is one of the most influential science fiction books. This was the series of books that turned Orson Scott Card into a science fiction writer. Also this was the series that turned Paul Krugman into an economist"

It's also the book that inspired the Aum Shinrikyo sarin attacks on the Tokyo subway.

And there's a theory that it's also where 'al-Qaida' ('the Foundation') got its name from.

EDIT: regarding women - aren't two of the protagonists later in the trilogy women? And by the time you get to the later sequels, iirc the de facto ruler of the galaxy is a woman, and so is the representative of the greatest threat/alternative to her rule.

I tend to view books like this as not being outdated at all. Yes, the most advanced technology is nuclear powered everything, and that's even likely to be outdated in real life soon with the rate science is making progress.

Instead, I like to see it as an alternate universe for lack of a better word. It's similar to the Fallout video game series to me. It's a future visualized from a time period long ago, and the fact that it's "outdated" is part of what makes it interesting to me. Would Fallout have been such an interesting game if it didn't have 50's vintage sci-fi robots and ray guns?

The lack of female characters was a bit odd, but frankly it doesn't matter much to me. It doesn't matter one way or the other to me if a character is a male or female. I feel that Asimov was harking back to our past where women were second class and didn't play much of a role in politics or business.

it has been ages since I read these books. I read quite a bit of Asimov in my late teens and early twenties. I also liked his robot stories better.

This is a pretty old thread, but has anyone read Isaac Asimov's Foundation lately?

I had the book but never got around to reading it. One thing I always found interesting was that Asimov supposedly wrote for 9 hours a day or something. It seemed like the man was a writing machine.

Perhaps a lot of people wonder where the best place to start this series is as well. There are a couple books that go before this first one, but the first one is the best I think.

by Isaac Asimov

I was just listening to the audiobook for Foundation last night. I usually read the series every other year and the years I don't read it - I listen to it.

Scott wrote: "I was just listening to the audiobook for Foundation last night. I usually read the series every other year and the years I don't read it - I listen to it."

Good idea, maybe that'd be the best way to get through all those books.

I stick to the original trilogy. I've never read the others...they might be good but I'm pretty happy with the original trilogy and don't want to spoil it in any way (I wish I could unwatch Star Wars Episode 1-3)

Off topic, but I suspect that the easiest way to unwatch episodes 1-3 will be to watch episode 7.

My understanding is that Stephen King hasn't written any of his own books in years, like Clancy and Patterson.

I reread Foundation once a decade or so. I like the grand concepts in the stories. The first book is a little hard to get into, but the payoff is worth it.

My dad always had a copy of the Foundation books sitting on the shelves next to his bed. I think the very first scifi book I ever read was Foundation and Earth. It sucked me right in. I had to go back and start at the beginning. I've loved it ever since. I don't know how many times I've read the series since then, but I usually get around to it every couple of years.

I have my copy in a book case next to my bed as well. I pick it up from time to time and read it again.

Foundation by Isaac Asimov.

This is a hard one. I've tried to read it twice before, never finished. So I tried again and made it through. What can you say. It is a classic because of the premise of the story and how it's done. The writting style is good and well done.

What got me was the limited effort to develop the characters. Also, the jump in time periods, just as the characters could be developed a new set became the main characters. I think that's why I've put it down twice before, I just never got into the characters.

It's still a good read, the ideas are interesting and a fertile ground for ideas for other books. You won't be the first one.