Hugo & Nebula Awards: Best Novels discussion

In preparation for the television version of Foundation to be aired this Fall, this is a Buddy Read for the original trilogy, made up of Foundation, Foundation and Empire and Second Foundation. This trilogy is a "foundation" of the science fiction genre and should be required reading for anyone interested in the history of SF.

The later books in the series, Foundation's Edge, Prelude to Foundation, Foundation and Earth, Forward the Foundation, Foundation and Chaos, Foundation's Fear and Foundation's Triumph may be added on and discussed here as well, but please be mindful of spoilers.

This BR will run from July 1 to September 30.

Great start i'm in!

I'm in for this one.
Already read the entire robot a year ago

If I get time, I may, at least, read the first one. It's funny how you say these books are short, because when I read them, they seemed interminable. Maybe I will feel differently--if I get a chance.

Each book is right around 250 pages in the editions I have read.

I am in. July 1 works really well for me. I just have one novella and one novel to complete my Hugo ballot, then let the fun begin.

Having read the entire Robot I'm trying to read all the Empire titles as prequels to the Foundation.
So far so good.

Art wrote: "Having read the entire Robot I'm trying to read all the Empire titles as prequels to the Foundation.
So far so good."

I also plan to read Robot, but two series are quite separate, at least the first Foundation trilogy

Apparently Empire ties Robot and Foundation somehow. I'm trying to find out what's that all about

Art wrote: "Apparently Empire ties Robot and Foundation somehow. I'm trying to find out what's that all about"

I'm yet to read them all but I strongly suspect that tie-up of two series was made later, for Asimov, as a lot of authors decided to follow Heinlein and his 'future history' that ought to link all works

I'm going to look at this after I get the BotM books done. So maybe in a week or so. But no promises. I have read this before.

I read The Stars, Like Dust last year, and the edition I have is a collection of the three Empire novels. Given that these were Asimov’s earliest novels, finding the connection in these novels is difficult. Rather, it seems to me he made a more deliberate connection in later novels. I’m very interested, after re-reading Foundation, to finish the Empire novels and see if I can connect them. I got the more explicit connection in Robots and Empire but maybe that’s the only place it’s that obvious.

I started it. So far a bit dry and overflowing with explanations.

This is a re-read for me, kind of. I read it in the 70's, and remember liking it, but it is almost like reading it for the first time. I got a big kick out of the Foreword by Asimov. Having read this more than 40 years ago, I know it was old. But Yikes - Asimov was writing this stuff in the 1940's! With that in mind, the book is holding up pretty well. I am enjoying the string of separate stories building upon each other in the same universe. It found it comical that Asimov commented that when he re-read it before making sequels and pre-quels, he was wondering where the action was and couldn't find any. LOL. He also couldn't believe it won a Hugo best series defeating Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. I rather agree with him there, but I think Tolkien was a bit before his times with such an epic fantasy adventure.

I first read it in the 70’s too and despite there being not much “action”, I was fascinated by the layering of the stories. I didn’t miss the action much - maybe I was a weird kid (which wouldn’t surprise anyone who knows me today). I loved stories that had a different, personal, political direction.

I started reading the first book last night. I've got this fancy version with the trilogy, bound in purple with one of those ribbon bookmarks. Just a few pages in and trying to envision how it will translate to TV.

Finished book 1 this morning. I struggle with the rating. 4 star minimum, but was the first book really a 5 star? I am going to be indecisive and give it 4.5 stars.

The first book had a 6 month wait at my local digital library, but the other two did not. I suspect there are quite a few other people doing what we are, but I think they started with the prequels that Asimov published later. It will be interesting to see what point the video series decides to begin.

My non-spoiler review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I'm done with my first empire book, half way through the second one.
I already have all the foundation prequels, so I'm about, 5-6 books behind you Tom.

Art wrote: "I'm done with my first empire book, half way through the second one.."

I'm not sure that internal chronology is the way to go. At least I plan to start with Foundation books

I finished it and I have to say that it was not really for me. I'm always flabbergasted when authors come up with stories way in the future but fill them with contemporary social structures. This felt most of the time like men sitting around, smoking cigars and talking about politics and religion. The one time a woman had a speaking role she felt like some kind of Xanthippe, getting on the nerves of her husband.

Gabi wrote: "I finished it and I have to say that it was not really for me. I'm always flabbergasted when authors come up with stories way in the future but fill them with contemporary social structures...."

This. From reading this, I remember couple precise moments of pausing to question what relevance certain mentioned elements had in this culture/time. It tends to come across lazy and/or narrow minded, when ever an author uses a contemporary/localized 'norm' as a universal such, not bothering to demonstrate regard beyond this which-ever cultural detail.

That said. I also remember there was certain feel of grandeur in the setting of this narrative. So, that's what I'm most looking forward to in the adaptation; grand visual presentation (and equally so sound design, one would hope).

Jemppu wrote: "It tends to come across lazy and/or narrow minded, when ever an author uses a contemporary/localized 'norm' as a universal such, "

If we are talking about Foundation books (starting with Foundation) I guess several things should be лузе in mind:
1. the stories are from a young, inexperienced author - Asimov sold his first story in 1939 and these stories were from 1944, the first publication as a book in 1951
2. it is based on now largely discredited idea about the "fall" of Rome from Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, The, just setting it in the future - so he was limited
3. It was written during the WW2 when good/bad replaced possible (not yet widely used) diversity

Oleksandr wrote: "Art wrote: "I'm done with my first empire book, half way through the second one.."

I'm not sure that internal chronology is the way to go. At least I plan to start with Foundation books"

Just from the structure of the books, a series of linked stories, I see no advantage to the internal chronology approach. The initial trilogy had what it needed to be a grand tale, so the prequels are not required, they are just something additional if you want more.

Oleksandr : you replied exactly what I would have said. It was written in the 1940's ! In the throes of World War 2, and society as well as the target audience (young educated males of the times) were not the same as they are today. That does not mean you should like it if you don't, but at least appreciate the backdrop. And you can also appreciate how much has changed since then. You can't change the past, only the future. Comparing classics like this to modern standards shines a bright light upon the very progress that some would criticize it for lacking.

Not that your complaints aren’t valid, but it seems to me like 20/20 hindsight. Sure, he used contemporary social structures, in a “lazy” fashion, but how would he know, in 1944, what the social structures of today would look like, and what might be more acceptable to people in the 2020’s? How would he even know that this book would become classic still read 80 years later? He was not even an established author at the time. And anyway, the individual characters are not the point of the book. It’s the grand movement of socio-economic forces driving the story.

It’s all too easy to criticize older literature by today’s more enlightened standards. And there are cases like the more recent Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell - that actually did have old men sitting around smoking cigars, and women were only peripheral characters, but I doubt it got the same critique. Every book has to be put into the context of the time and circumstances. The reader might not like that context, and certainly some is more objectionable, but we have to think larger too.

Allan wrote: "And there are cases like the more recent Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell - that actually did have old men sitting around smoking cigars, and women were only peripheral characters, but I doubt it got the same critique."

I think it is different because
1. it is a humorous stylization of a 19th century novel
2. it is written by a woman which makes a probability that women characters are omitted because they are inferior much lower.

I agree with TomK2 that the initial Foundation stories were written for young educated [white] males of the times and it wasn't because Asimov had anything about any other group but because in his time there were mostly while men as professors and students in 'hard' sciences, as well as high ranking politicians. We all have our biases and people are often unaware of them. However, when I make a mirror test, changing all characters in the first book to women or neuters it doesn't change the story for me

Allan wrote: "And there are cases like the more recent Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell - that actually did have old men sitting around smoking cigars, and women were only peripheral characters, but I doubt it got the same critique."

Yes, Allan, and I totally agree with this, but I bet some rabid feminists would have criticized Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell if it had been written by a man. Just saying

Oleksandr wrote: "Allan wrote: "I think it is different because
1. it is a humorous stylization of a 19th century novel
2. it is written by a woman which makes a probability that women characters are omitted because they are inferior much lower."

You reinforce my point by placing JS&MN in its proper context: a female author who is stylizing the 19th century. If you were to read the novel without that context, you might feel differently.

Your second point also reinforces my sense that the individual characters are not the point. The story and its events are on a much larger scale - the whole point of psychohistory. The TV series casting does reflect today's social norms better - Gaal Dornick is a woman - but it doesn't change the scale of the story. I don't see that there are any major characters at all throughout the trilogy. Seldon's shadow is over it all, but he's only around for 20 pages at the start. The Mule is probably the only other one that stands out.

On the sitting around smoking cigars….. I just had this thought. Smoking cigarettes was also commonly described in Foundation. I think WW2 was the point that smoking culture dramatically increased. “Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em” was the soldiers cue to relax, and the military distributed cigarettes to the troops. Then came the rise of Hollywood and all the politicians and celebrities smoked, and the behavior was seen as sophisticated and widely emulated. Fast forward to today, and smokers are outcasts. Smokers are viewed as backward and ignorant, undesirables, at least in the USA. See? Progress!

Allan wrote: " And there are cases like the more recent Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell - that actually did have old men sitting around smoking cigars, and women were only peripheral characters, but I doubt it got the same critique.."

:) Well for my part I didn't like Strange and Norrell very much either :).

@Tom
I always intended to read the Robot, Empire and Foundation series. Having decided that all I needed was a comprehensive list of all the books in, if not "the right", then at least "an" order. Then I read how Asimov himself suggested a reading order and I went with that.

Oh, please give a link to this suggested order.

TomK2 wrote: "Oh, please give a link to this suggested order."

Isaac Asimov, wrote in the Author's Note of the Prelude to Foundation that he is providing a guide for those readers that might appreciate it since the books "were not written in the order in which (perhaps) they should be read." Therein, he offers the following chronological order:

The Complete Robot (1982) Collection of 31 Short Stories about robots.
The Caves of Steel (1954) His first Robot novel.
The Naked Sun (1957) The second Robot novel.
The Robots of Dawn (1983) The third Robot novel.
Robots and Empire (1985) The fourth (final) Robot novel.
The Currents of Space (1952) The first Empire novel.
The Stars, Like Dust-- (1951) The second Empire novel.
Pebble in the Sky (1950) The third and final Empire novel.
Prelude to Foundation (1988) The first Foundation novel.
Forward the Foundation (1992) The second Foundation novel. (Not in Asimov's list as it had not been written yet.)
Foundation (1951) The third Foundation novel, comprised of 5 stories originally published between 1942-1949.
Foundation and Empire (1952) The fourth Foundation novel, comprised of 2 stories originally published in 1945.
Second Foundation (1953) The fifth Foundation novel, comprised of 2 stories originally published in 1948 and 1949.
Foundation's Edge (1982) The sixth Foundation novel.
Foundation and Earth (1983) The seventh Foundation novel.

The Empire order looks confusing and it also conflicts with Goodreads order.
Hard to say if that is a mistake, there are contradicting sources

Thanks! I read the Foundation trilogy as a teenager, then the first 3 robot novels here and there. I think I also read The Complete Robot. I used wikipedia to see if any of the plots seemed familiar, and I was surprised that my most significant memory of what I had read was barely discussed in some of the wiki plots summaries. Again, time's effect on the memory are at play, but I cant help but also conclude that my age at the time of reading also has significant impact.

The Empire books are in a box or on one of my bookshelves somewhere, but three moves and a wife who rearranged books for her sense of artistic appearance make them a challenge to find.

I sense this buddy read just might lead to a more extensive Asimov (re?) read for me. One of the Wiki's described how Asimov wanted to link the Robot series and the Empire series, but his publishers at some points were opposed to it.

There’s also the Second Foundation Trilogy, a set of add-on books by Gregory Benford, Greg Bear & David Brin, who signed an agreement with the Asimov estate in 1995. Foundation’s Fear, Foundation & Chaos and Foundation’s Triumph. Haven’t read any of them but I have the first on my shelf.

I haven’t read The Complete Robot but for the stories from I, Robot. Only one of the Empire novels; the combined edition I have has them in order of publication. Then I read up to Edge but not the other three add-ons. The original trilogy is ingrained in my mind but it’s been a long time since my last re-read, and I hope to finish the 6 books I haven’t read with the momentum.

Art wrote: "Isaac Asimov, wrote in the Author's Note of the Prelude to Foundation that he is providing a guide for those readers that might appre..."

Thanks for the list. I'm now conflicted - I've (re-)read Foundation in 2019, planning to go at least thru the original trilogy, but other things stopped me from going further. Now I may continue or jump to Robots instead...

Closing in on the finish of Foundation and Empire today. I liked this book better than the first. It is essentially two stories, each longer than the tales in the first book. This allowed for a better plot. My only criticism for the first tale is that it had a rather Deus Ex Machine type ending.

I got such a laugh out of Gabi's "More men, more talking, more smoking" impression posted on her goodreads page. There is much truth to that. However, I would add that in the 1940's Campbell and Asimov were changing science fiction. They were dragging it away from Edgar Rice Burroughs type sci fi that would culminate in things like Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, and Barbarella decades later. Instead, Campbell and Asimov were providing thoughtful, thinking sci fi that would culminate in things like 2001: A Space Oddyssey. It still remains a product of its times, however, so I do not fault the talking and smoking men criticism. It is accurate. I just want to point out some things that it did accomplish, things we take for granted these days. I am reminded of the art courses I took in college. I was shown things I thought were terrible, of little worth. Yet the impact of the artist or his technique were significant and worthwhile, even if I detested the work itself. But in this case I liked it!

Finished Foundation and enjoyed the heck out of it. Took me right back to my teenage years when I first read it (it's been decades since I re-read it). I like that it is not an action story, which others may find boring, but the clever means of solving the crises makes me smile. I've always been one for doing things in a smart, strategic way rather than by brute force or crude action. Got a couple other reads to wrap, then I'll move to book 2.

Finished the Trilogy! My non-spoiler review here:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

This last book was my least favorite. I suppose mind control was more appealing to me when I was a teenager. I had fun with the mystery "whodunnit" type plot in the last half. I gave it only 3 plus stars, which surprised me. Just as surprising was how much of this trilogy I did not remember so many years later, it almost felt like a first read. Almost. I will never know if my correct guesses on the characters was due to maturity and experience, or subliminal recall from that first read.

Tom--was the last book the one with so much about the Mule? I remember not liking that part very much.

The mule appeared in the last half of the second book, and the first half of the third book. Not to second guess a legendary author, but I think The Mule could have also served the same purpose and plot if he was a savant. Born with an innate ability to understand psychohistory and a desire to interfere with the Seldon plan, the Mule need not have had superpowers. The struggle between Second Foundation and The Mule wold have been preserved. But then again, the entire last half of the series would have been completely different. Ah well, what do I know. LOL.

Thanks, Tom. Still not inspired to join :-)

I don’t blame you. But I am really glad I did, because I had forgotten almost all of it. I would have been helpless to critique the appleTV series for doctrine. Now I will forget just enough of it again to enjoy the tv series. Lol.

While I love the cleverness of how the crises work out, it would've been awfully boring if it was just several more of those stories. The Mule provides a needed jolt to the saga: an unpredictable demagogue who can disrupt and turn the normal flow of socio-economic forces (now where have I seen that before?). I think that The Mule segment could be particularly interesting on TV.

About Mule. When I first read the book, I suspected him since he just appeared. I'm curious it is universal or just me?

He was such an odd, obsequious character, so he stood out as a suspect. I don't recall if I thought that as a teenager, that was ages ago, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.

I just got an email from appleTV. I bought an iPhone a few months ago, and today was the last day to sign up for a free year long subscription to AppleTV. Looks like I am set for the series.

I went to the used book store looking for a copy of Blue Mars to finish that trilogy. Didn't find it, but I did find a copy of Foundation's Edge for continuing the Foundation read. I read it when it first came out, but don't recall much of it.

I've re-read I, Robot and it is nice and cozy and naïve