Asimov's Foundation

Printable View

08-02-2009, 05:42 PM
Mathor

Asimov's Foundation

Inspired by the content of this forum as of late, speaking mainly of pulpish and nonsensical science fiction writers and authors, and the chosen debate that science fiction should not be viewed in the same light as other literary works, I thought I would bring up the topic of "Foundation" by Isaac Asimov. I find this book to be not only one of the greatest science fiction novels I've ever read, but one of the greatest pieces of literature I've ever read.

I understand many will not agree with me on this, but if you have not read this novel (a trilogy rather), I suggest that you do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series

Some thoughts on this work?
08-03-2009, 08:53 AM
PeterL

The Foundation Trilogy transformed science fiction, and it may have seeped into society large. Before the Foundation Trilogy Earthlings regarded themselves as limited in time and space, but that changed with Asimov's Foundation. The change was clearest in SF, but the idea of people being alive millions of years from now became reasonable.

As a work of fiction, the Trilogy has problems, but using a concept as the central, unifying, matter was a very good touch. If he had written it all at once, then it might be more unified, but he may have intended the sections to be different in style.
08-05-2009, 10:37 AM
curlyqlink

It's not bad. I'd still consider it strictly genre fiction, though.

Some readers will find the ideas in a particular SF novel profound or revolutionary or life-changing. There's no way to prove a particular idea is or is not profound, and the same applies to revolutionary. As for life-changing, anyone comes across a book that's life-changing, I say more power to ya.

My problem with SF is the quality of the prose, which is almost invariably schematic, a bit pedantic, and almost always humorless. I include Asimov in that, although he is a far better writer than most. Lucid and readable, at least.

Surprisingly, what's almost always missing from even the most highly regarded SF novels is a sense of whimsy. It's one of the least imaginative genres out there.

The only exception I have so far encountered is Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker trilogy. I'll take inventive silliness over pedantry any day.

Justina Robson's Quantum Gravity series isn't half bad, either.
08-05-2009, 11:59 AM
PeterL

Quote:

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

Surprisingly, what's almost always missing from even the most highly regarded SF novels is a sense of whimsy. It's one of the least imaginative genres out there.

The only exception I have so far encountered is Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker trilogy. I'll take inventive silliness over pedantry any day.

Justina Robson's Quantum Gravity series isn't half bad, either.

You obviously haven't read much science fiction. Edmondson, Kornbluth, de Camp, Pohl, Anderson, etc., etc. were very whimsical and imaginative. You should try reading some of the good quality SF like The Ship That Sailed the Time Stream by G.C. Edmondson.

I don't know about Justina Robson, but the Hitchiker series is not actually Science Fiction.
08-05-2009, 04:44 PM
Hank Stamper

I bought the Foundation series a few weeks back.. not started them yet, but have never read any proper sci-fi before and heard this was the best place to start..
is weird because I am a bit of a sci-fi fan when it comes to movies etc but have never been motivated to read anything before, apart from HG Wells obviously, but I'm talking about post-cavorite sci-fi!
12-04-2009, 05:38 AM
davidbhughes

What if The Foundation Were real?

What if Asimov's Foundation, or something like it, actually existed? Would you join it like Gaal Dornick? Find out more here.
12-04-2009, 05:54 PM
Red-Headed

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterL

You obviously haven't read much science fiction. Edmondson, Kornbluth, de Camp, Pohl, Anderson, etc., etc. were very whimsical and imaginative. You should try reading some of the good quality SF like The Ship That Sailed the Time Stream by G.C. Edmondson.

I'm inclined to agree, what about Clifford D. Simak's The Goblin Reservation for one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterL

I don't know about Justina Robson, but the Hitchiker series is not actually Science Fiction.

It was originally a BBC 4 radio series & is essentially a parody of sci fi. It was much better on the radio I think. I still have the second series on audiotape somewhere.
12-05-2009, 01:26 PM
PeterL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

I'm inclined to agree, what about Clifford D. Simak's The Goblin Reservation for one?

Fine with me
12-05-2009, 01:41 PM
Red-Headed

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterL

Fine with me

Yeah, a sci fi novel that has an educated Neanderthal called Ally Oop, time travel, trolls & even Shakespeare himself has something of the whimsical & humorous. :nod:
12-05-2009, 02:27 PM
PeterL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

Yeah, a sci fi novel that has an educated Neanderthal called Ally Oop, time travel, trolls & even Shakespeare himself has something of the whimsical & humorous. :nod:

I'm pretty sure that I read it some time ago.
04-18-2010, 09:54 AM
Serput

I have a question: since the First Foundation was more about physical science and the Second Foundation was based on psychologists, could we say that the First Foundation was composed of psychologists or persons with training in psychology? As a psychologist, I would like very much to discuss this issue...
04-18-2010, 10:05 AM
Serput

Continuation

I mean, all this in the context of the Seldon's Plan!
04-18-2010, 10:18 AM
Serput

It's not only a trilogy...

It's misleading to say that the Foundation Series is a trilogy, since is constitued by seven books written by Asimov and three more written by other authors, authorized by Asimov's heirs! I have all these books, and until now I've read the first five, that is, until the Second Foundation!
1. Prelude to Foundation; 2. Forward the Foundation; 3. Foundation; 4. Foundation and Empire; 5. Second Foundation; 6. Foundation's Edge; 7. Foundation and Earth; 8. Foundation's Fear; 9. Foundation's Chaos and 10. Foundation's Triumph! The last three are also known as Second Foundation's Trilogy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathor

Inspired by the content of this forum as of late, speaking mainly of pulpish and nonsensical science fiction writers and authors, and the chosen debate that science fiction should not be viewed in the same light as other literary works, I thought I would bring up the topic of "Foundation" by Isaac Asimov. I find this book to be not only one of the greatest science fiction novels I've ever read, but one of the greatest pieces of literature I've ever read.

I understand many will not agree with me on this, but if you have not read this novel (a trilogy rather), I suggest that you do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series

Some thoughts on this work?
04-18-2010, 12:13 PM
Lote-Tree

I have read Asimov but I prefer visionary Arthur C Clarke.
04-19-2010, 07:24 AM
Katy North

Quote:

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

It's not bad. I'd still consider it strictly genre fiction, though.

Some readers will find the ideas in a particular SF novel profound or revolutionary or life-changing. There's no way to prove a particular idea is or is not profound, and the same applies to revolutionary. As for life-changing, anyone comes across a book that's life-changing, I say more power to ya.

My problem with SF is the quality of the prose, which is almost invariably schematic, a bit pedantic, and almost always humorless. I include Asimov in that, although he is a far better writer than most. Lucid and readable, at least.

Surprisingly, what's almost always missing from even the most highly regarded SF novels is a sense of whimsy. It's one of the least imaginative genres out there.

The only exception I have so far encountered is Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker trilogy. I'll take inventive silliness over pedantry any day.

Justina Robson's Quantum Gravity series isn't half bad, either.

:frown2: Curly, don't make me cry... Science Fiction can be both awe inspiring and humorous. I think the only science fiction author I've ever read that could be considered pedantic is Jules Verne, and when reading his work you have to realize that the reason he was spending so much time with detail was because he was imagining things that had never been imagined before.

I cannot even comprehend why anyone would say Science Fiction is unimaginative. It is one of the most imaginative genres out there, because the purpose behind science fiction is to write about things that are not possible yet. It was no coincidence that the first interracial kiss on TV was on a science fiction show (Star Trek)... in what other genre can the controversial be something that is not only imagined, but accepted as a potential reality?

As for whimsy, there are many science fiction authors that convey a sense of whimsy! Isaac Asimov, Artur C. Clarke, Orson Scott Card, Dan Simmons, Connie Willis, John Scalzi, and Alistair Reynolds are all contenders. And new science fiction writers keep coming; personally I find that new releases in other genres are often stale, while there's always something juicy in the sci fi section.

To answer the OP, I haven't read foundation yet, because for some reason I can never find the books in order when I look for them. I have, however, read his "I, Robot" short story collection, which was excellent. I'll have to seek those books out again and see if I can find them in order this time.
04-19-2010, 09:16 AM
PeterL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serput

It's misleading to say that the Foundation Series is a trilogy, since is constitued by seven books written by Asimov and three more written by other authors, authorized by Asimov's heirs! I have all these books, and until now I've read the first five, that is, until the Second Foundation!
1. Prelude to Foundation; 2. Forward the Foundation; 3. Foundation; 4. Foundation and Empire; 5. Second Foundation; 6. Foundation's Edge; 7. Foundation and Earth; 8. Foundation's Fear; 9. Foundation's Chaos and 10. Foundation's Triumph! The last three are also known as Second Foundation's Trilogy!

The Foundation Trilogy was an entity for decades before the later additions were added. I would contend that the works from the 950's should be considered completely separate from the works of the '80's and '90's, which were only written to take advantage of the continuing interest in the Trilogy. You should also remember that some of the later books were written by other authors, making it a contiinuing setting, rather than a series.
04-19-2010, 10:31 AM
Serput

Buy it on Amazon ( .com or .co.uk )

Look above what I wrote about the right sequence of the Foundation saga ( not as they were wrote ) and try to buy it on Amazon or elsewhere online! But on Amazon you find them for sure! That's where I got some of my books of the Foundation saga!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katy North

:frown2: Curly, don't make me cry... Science Fiction can be both awe inspiring and humorous. I think the only science fiction author I've ever read that could be considered pedantic is Jules Verne, and when reading his work you have to realize that the reason he was spending so much time with detail was because he was imagining things that had never been imagined before.

I cannot even comprehend why anyone would say Science Fiction is unimaginative. It is one of the most imaginative genres out there, because the purpose behind science fiction is to write about things that are not possible yet. It was no coincidence that the first interracial kiss on TV was on a science fiction show (Star Trek)... in what other genre can the controversial be something that is not only imagined, but accepted as a potential reality?

As for whimsy, there are many science fiction authors that convey a sense of whimsy! Isaac Asimov, Artur C. Clarke, Orson Scott Card, Dan Simmons, Connie Willis, John Scalzi, and Alistair Reynolds are all contenders. And new science fiction writers keep coming; personally I find that new releases in other genres are often stale, while there's always something juicy in the sci fi section.

To answer the OP, I haven't read foundation yet, because for some reason I can never find the books in order when I look for them. I have, however, read his "I, Robot" short story collection, which was excellent. I'll have to seek those books out again and see if I can find them in order this time.
04-19-2010, 10:38 AM
Serput

You are right about the latter books being written because of the continued interest in the Trilogy... but I consider that the quality didn't diminish. Consider for example Forward the Foundation with all the developments about psychic probing or Prelude to Foundation with the descriptions of Trantor! As I said, I've only read the first five, up until Second Foundation, and my favourites so far are Forward the Foundation and Second Foundation!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterL

The Foundation Trilogy was an entity for decades before the later additions were added. I would contend that the works from the 950's should be considered completely separate from the works of the '80's and '90's, which were only written to take advantage of the continuing interest in the Trilogy. You should also remember that some of the later books were written by other authors, making it a contiinuing setting, rather than a series.
04-19-2010, 12:59 PM
PeterL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serput

You are right abou the latter books being written because of the continued interest in the Trilogy... but I consider that the quality didn't diminish. Consider for example Forward the Foundation with all the developments about psychic probing or Prelude to Foundation with the descriptions of Trantor! As I said, I've only read the first five, up until Second Foundation, and my favourites so far were Forward the Foundation and Second Foundation!

I didn't say that the quality of the later books was inferior, but they were different in nature. I don't remember whether I read all of the later books, but they were fundamentally different from the Trilogy.
04-21-2010, 04:43 AM
Serput

My mistake!

I reread what you have said and you really didn't say that, you really didn't say that the quality of the later books was inferior... my mistake... I'm sorry! I think that the differences you are talking about is that the later books are more descriptive, are more detailed... I don't know if you agree with me!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterL

I didn't say that the quality of the later books was inferior, but they were different in nature. I don't remember whether I read all of the later books, but they were fundamentally different from the Trilogy.