Just started Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. What are your thoughts?

I'm only about 40 pages in. So far, so good.

And the previous poster is right. "There's a reason they call me...."

And it has much meaning for today...IMHO.

out of the various story lines and there are so many great characters.

after you finish the trilogy get close to the edge by yes and listen to 'and you and i'.

and you've just reminded me that I need to read it again. I think those books had a profound effect on George Lucas and his "Star Wars" movies...the world-wide city on the Imperial capital of Trantor = Coruscant, etc. I envy your first reading of it and hope you love the books as much as I did.

what if it's true! Of course, I was a teen and I need to re-read it.

zalinda

you might want to start on the Robot novels (Caves of Steel, Naked Sun, Robots of Dawn, Robots and Empire) before you proceed with the rest of the Foundation novels. Otherwise you might get a bit confused.

I never figured out whether it was best to read all the books in their "chronological" order, or in the order that they were written. I read them years ago so I can't remember which order I used. I think I actually started with the first three Robot novels (plus the short stories), then went on to the first three Foundation novels, then went back to Robots and Empire... and I'm pretty sure I read the three Empire novels in the middle of all that. Then I read the later Foundation novels in the order they were written (Foundation's Edge, Foundation and Earth, Prelude to Foundation, Forward the Foundation). I think you should definitely read the Robot novels before you tackle those last four. I'm sure some of the Asimov fans here will have an opinion on the best order to read them in though :)

Some people think that the later novels aren't so good but personally I love 'em all.

...then read the others as you will..."Foundation's Edge" may be the best book Asimov ever wrote, and "Forward..." the ripest. The trilogy that Benford, Bear, and Brin wrote is pretty good, too, though by the end, I'm sick to death of Hari Seldon and Trantor, and want to get back to the Foundation, post-Empire Galaxy... The Trilogy itself is unique. There is absolutely nothing like it in literature, except maybe "The Lord of the Rings"...and incidentally--Tolkien was an admirer of the Foundation Trilogy...:-)...

I'm about 110 pages in, and unless I'm seriously misinterpreting Asimov's writing, not a single female character has yet been named.

I'm not overly uptight about this sort of thing, but it seems conspicuous.


Any reflections?

but they come. Remember when these stories were written, and they were originally written as short stories in published in pulp mags which targeted young boys, the 'golden age of science fiction' is a bit notorious for neglecting (or representing stereotyped and flat) female characters.

Perhaps it's easy for me as a man but don't let that keep you from the wonderful stories from this era and particularly the "Foundation" stories. There is at least one strong female character in the "Mule" section.

And in his later writing, the 'prequels' he wrote later he makes more of an effort to create interesting and strong female characters.

I've read all his stories many times. For a first time reading I think reading the "Foundation" stories first then going back to read the "Robot" and "Empire" novels then the early short stories is a good way to go. Then later read in story chronology.

Overall impression: It's a nifty story so far

Specific gripes: I HATE the writing style. HATE IT! Primarily for this reason:

First 5% of any given chapter is expository setup
Next 80% is Galactic Intriguer I telling Galactic Intriguer II or III about what's going to happen.
Next 10% is the thing happening.
Next 5% is Galacting Intriguer I telling Galactic Intriguer II or III about what just happened.

Did I mention that I hate the style?

I have a great deal of respect for Asimov as a writer of nonfiction and short fiction, but I'm really disappointed in Foundation. It reads like a summary of an overview of a great epic, told in dialogue. And to be honest, I'm not even thrilled with the writing of the dialogue.

In addition, I mentioned up-thread that the first hundred pages had no female characters. Well, the whole ~225 pages of Foundation feature only one woman, and she's painted as an absolute shrew easily distracted by shiny trinkets.

I know that Asimov in general and the Foundation series in particular are close to sacrosanct in the genre, and I know also that it's futile to expect a 55 year old work to have anticipated our social evolution, but I can't get over it.

So here's my question:

Does this dialogue-heavy style persist throughout the trilogy? And do women ever advance beyond nearly anonymous harpies?

Help me out here! I'm in danger of being disillusioned!

to be honest I can understand - I think - what you're saying.

It is a very different kind of read for modern readers. I think it was much more common at the time the story was written. It's one reason why these stories have never been made into a movie I think - it's all exposition barely any action - and climax isn't achieved by heroic actions by the heroes events just shape the outcome.

I've grown very attached to it and I'm not sure I can articulate why or how Asimov pulls it off for me in Foundation - and some of his other stories - while I'd probably never tolerate it with other authors.

But what you point out about the style is actually what Asimov was trying to accomplish. An outline of a great epic, and exploration of the idea of a galactic empire and its collapse not a character examination. He just took typical characters from 1930's USA and put them into a post galactic empire society and used them as observers.

With some exception I mean Salvor Hardin was pretty interesting I'd say.

The characters get more complex and interesting in "Traders" and the "Mule" portions. Limmar Ponyets is still one of my favorite SciFi characters of all time.


The Empire novels are a little like this too but with a bit more emphasis on character. You'd probably like the Robot novels more, particularly "Robots of Dawn" and the later Foundation connected books like "Prelude..."

It's not for everyone for sure so perhaps you shouldn't 'punish' yourself by continuing with the Foundation - although it just might pay off if you can get through the next parts but only you can decide if that's a good idea. Let me suggest you put it aside and pick up the robot novels, they still use this style but perhaps not so heavily and there's more focus on character and more and more so as you progress in the series.

Perhaps it is indeed a matter of then-vs-now writing, though broadly speaking, the style is reminiscent of a scenario-summary that you'd see on the back of a video game box--a big infodump to get the user/reader up to speed. Unfortunately, this grand epic overview may be what contributes to the now-obsolete perception that science fiction is all plot-driven. In Foundation's case, at least, the plot greatly overshadows all the characters, except Seldon himself and perhaps Hardin, though even he's a speck in the grand scheme.

I've read a whole bunch of Asimov's short stories, and IMO "Bicentennial Man" is near the pinnacle of short science fiction. I'm also fond of "The Ugly Little Boy" and a number of other Robot stories whose names now escape me.

I'll likely stick with the trilogy all the way through. I picked up a single-volume edition, and it's a quick read. Also, it's undeniably a cornerstone of the genre, so it seems like a good idea to familiarize myself with it.

Thanks for your input and for letting me rant!

for my focus on plot over character in my reading and writing (when I try to do that) for most of my "reading life" :) I was so fond of Foundation and so used to that style it took me many years to develop a better sense, and therefore better enjoyment, of more character driven stories. :)