Christy's Reviews > Foundation
Foundation (Foundation, #1)
by
by
![248667](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1550952681p2/248667.jpg)
Honestly, I don't get why this book/series is so popular. There are some interesting elements to it (for instance, the use of religion as a tool of mass control and the implicit resultant argument that religion is no more than a fraud, "the opiate of the people," after all), but the book gave me little to enjoy or dig into. The forces of the novel are broad, historical, dealing with masses of people; this means that there is little to no room for individual characters here and little to be done by the few characters who do appear. One leader says, in fact, in response to a crisis, the threat of warfare and annihilation, "I'm going to do nothing. One hundred percent of nothing, and that is the secret of this crisis" (191). This is a recurring theme. Plus, there are no female characters to speak of. One man's wife makes a brief and apparently unnecessary appearance for a page-long chapter, but that's it. All else is done by and to men.
There are a couple of minor things I do like about the book. One is Salvor Hardin's statement that "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent," which I like for its endorsement of nonviolent alternatives. Another is the characters' habit of saying "Space" or "Galaxy" instead of God when they exclaim or curse.
There are a couple of minor things I do like about the book. One is Salvor Hardin's statement that "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent," which I like for its endorsement of nonviolent alternatives. Another is the characters' habit of saying "Space" or "Galaxy" instead of God when they exclaim or curse.
1015 likes · Like
∙
flag
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Foundation.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
September 29, 2007
– Shelved
September 29, 2007
– Shelved as:
readinglist2-sf
September 29, 2007
– Shelved as:
science-fiction-and-fantasy
Started Reading
June 25, 2008
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 137 (137 new)
message 1:
by
Aerin
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Jun 26, 2008 07:07AM
![Aerin](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1660056076p1/61519.jpg)
reply
|
flag
![Christy](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1550952681p1/248667.jpg)
![Danilo.mendoza](https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_25x33-ccd24e68f4773d33a41ce08c3a34892e.png)
No, you're not alone, there are 385 of you, not liking the book, as opposed to 6244 of us, liking the book :)
Your comment about no females and about religion on the book is quite interesting though, brought to my mind that old saying: "when the wise man points to the moon, the ignorant looks at the tip of the finger".
![Brian](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1222831970p1/1580341.jpg)
![Jim](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1668721790p1/1237540.jpg)
First, *for the time* (early 40's-early 50's) Foundation and its companion volumes were more-or-less ground breaking - for its scope and *ideas*.
Second, in that particular literary SF era, female charcters tended to be non-existant.
Third, Asimov's fiction never rose to the level of greatness - in the sense that other SF novels achieved (such as Chilhood's End or Dune). His characters tend to be flat. His big talent was to incorporate ideas into entertaining plots with an utterly readable style - there is never a problem keeping up with an Asimov novel.
Four, related to Three, at least 90% of Asimov's work is *non-fiction*. He is easily the all time great popular science writer. No one else is in his league. He wrote over 500 books and wrote countless other articles, reviews, and book introductions. In addition to science, he wrote histories, edited a collection of limericks (or two), and wrote guides to the Bible and Shakespeare - each of which focuses on historical background and not literary merit or theology.
To wrap up, if understanding science is of interest to you, the best place to start is the nearest Asimov book you can find.
![Christy](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1550952681p1/248667.jpg)
And I recognize that the portrayal of female characters was different then than it is now. However, even then female characters were not non-existent. Writers like Heinlein, Vance, Van Vogt, Bradbury, Simak, and Sturgeon at the very least acknowledge the presence of women, even if in some of those cases the female characters are weak or stereotypical. (And of course this is without even going into the great number of stories and books that dealt specifically with sex and gender and the SF written by women themselves.)
Furthermore, your other points seem to take my criticisms of the book and simply say, "But that's what Asimov does, so it's okay. Plus, Asimov's good at other things, so it's okay. So . . . go read Asimov!" I may be misreading these points, but if this is what you're saying, then all I can say is that this is not a particularly useful response.
If his characters are flat, then that's a problem--one that "entertaining plots" and "an utterly readable style" doesn't address. (In addition, of course, as I think I mentioned in my initial review, I didn't find the plot all that entertaining anyway.)
I haven't yet read any of Asimov's non-fiction, so I will have to take your word for it regarding its quality. Its quality, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of Foundation.
![Jim](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1668721790p1/1237540.jpg)
I'll address this comment to you this time.
(the first was to those who stumble onto this thread as I did - maybe some of them are on the sidelines.)
I see that my comment - meant to attract readers to Asimov's greater body of work - could be regarded as addessing only your review, and not the greater mission.
It's pretty clear that Heinlein, Vance, Van Vogt, Bradbury, Simak, and Sturgeon (and dear old Isaac) were the leaders of the boy's club known as SF.
Even Heinlein, who had strong women characters, gave a somewhat narrowly-drawn heroic and idealized makeup.
I took a look at your bookshelves. I must say you much more widely read than I.
(I had no idea there was such a thing as post-colonial SF!)
If I may say so, you seem to have nibbled around the edges of science, you might find one or two of Isaac's popular science books to suit.
Comment back, and I'll suggest the one that caused him to quit his day job and write full time (it's a good one).
I also see that you have read a number of dystopias - but not The Giver by Lois Lowry - a juvenile, which I found highly satisfying.
![Christy](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1550952681p1/248667.jpg)
Well, yes and no. As I noted in an earlier response to a similar point, there are plenty of writers (in this genre and others) who have managed to write interesting women characters even against the prejudices of their time. And even the writers who write from within those prejudices usually manage to acknowledge that women exist more than this book does. So I think a more nuanced look at the place of gender in literature than "Well, that's just the way they thought then" is warranted.
Furthermore, I can put it into its historical context and forgive Asimov his blind spots, but that does not mean that I have to enjoy reading it.
Regarding your other points about the characters, well, it's been a while since I've read the book at this point and my memory isn't clear enough to really deal with these ideas now, so I'll just say that if I ever re-read this I will definitely consider your suggestions. I did *want* to like the book.
![Himanshu Bhandoh](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1292560659p1/4664159.jpg)
The forces of the novel are broad, historical, dealing with masses of people; this means that there is little to no room for individual characters here and little to be done by the few characters who do appear.
Well, the Foundation is the first book in the series. It more or less sets the tone, or the flow for the rest of the series. The subsequent books do lay a greater importance to individual characters as compared to the first one(which, yes, does bore a bit with its bland characters).The second half of the Foundation is probably the most boring part of the Foundation series,and I'm going to stick my neck out and say- all of his books.BUT, and there's a big 'but' here, the first book is so very important because it builds up the awe and the grandness of the rest of the series. It introduces Seldon's idea of mathematically taking society to a better future. Personally,I was blown away by the concept! Which is why you don't get any points for guessing the names of the next 4 books I read! The next four books have a greater emphasis on individuals, but that's not why they are so good. They bring in an uncertainty about the Seldon plan,the thrill of reading about the foundations pitting their wits against each other and the Mule, the grandness of the scale in which they change the course of humanity and the ethical dilemmas that the characters have to face.Every decision and every Seldon crisis is like a gigantic question mark over where humanity will go next. The series is about deeper answers to human civilization.Foundation gives you this feeling of awe that you get when reading about ancient human history stretching over millions of years- only that this time, you are reading about our future. THAT is why I love the Foundation.
Plus, there are no female characters to speak of. One man's wife makes a brief and apparently unnecessary appearance for a page-long chapter, but that's it. All else is done by and to men.
I think it is a bit shallow to criticize the book on its lack of female characters. The book does not have strong male characters either.Simply put, the book isnt about characters in the first place( not the first book at least).You do have stronger characters in subsequent books. Gaia is a strong female character in Foundation and Earth. I think you're missing the reason why the Foundation series is the best sci fi series ever. It isnt in its characters that the greatness of this series lies.It's in the grandness of the storyline that you worship this series- it's like standing on a cliff looking at the sun set in the Himalayas :) you feel so small and unimportant in the bigger scheme of things!(Ayn Rand would grill me for writing this)
![Christy](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1550952681p1/248667.jpg)
Honestly, I'm glad you loved it. And I get that it is intended to evoke these kinds of grand, awe-inspiring, sense of wonder-type feelings and reactions - but it simply didn't work for me. No matter how much you loved it, I thought it was boring. There are books out there that manage to both evoke this grandness and include characters that I can care about. I'd rather read those.
I think it is a bit shallow to criticize the book on its lack of female characters.
I don't. Women are an important part of human civilization, too, and I find it disheartening when they are ignored (almost) completely. I do address this in earlier comments, too, so I'm not going to repeat myself here.
I think you're missing the reason why the Foundation series is the best sci fi series ever.
Even given that I am probably not the ideal audience for this book, I think calling it the best sci fi series ever is a bit much. Off the top of my head, I might go for Octavia Butler, Neal Stephenson, Iain M. Banks, Dan Simmons, Douglas Adams, Margaret Atwood, or China Miéville (if we stretch the definitions of SF a bit) as contenders for authors of the best sci fi series ever instead.
![Himanshu Bhandoh](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1292560659p1/4664159.jpg)
You are talking about Foundation, the book. I am talking about Foundation, the series. Foundation, the first book, isn't awe inspiring. The series is. The first book, as I said, isnt all that good.You need to read the whole series to get the feeling of awe.I think you'd be better off reading the Robot Series first if you wish to(only The Naked Sun, The Robots of Dawn required), and then reading the rest of the series. I think it is unfair to see Foundation the book as a standalone book and criticize it for being boring.Why? Because it IS boring ,especially the second half of the book.But that's not why it is good. It sets the tone for the rest of the series, and that is where the magic lies. Reading just the first book and saying that it wasn't worth the hype is unfair. Look at it as a part of the whole series- A New Hope before the Empire Strikes Back :P
I don't. Women are an important part of human civilization, too, and I find it disheartening when they are ignored (almost) completely. I do address this in earlier comments, too, so I'm not going to repeat myself here.
The sequels have female characters.Foundation and Earth has a whole female planet. Anyway, up to you.The lack of female characters is a non issue when you look at the whole series.
About the best sci fi series part- that is a subjective opinion! You are free to love any other sci fi series and call it the best sci fi series( Douglas Adams? Seriously?).
![Christy](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1550952681p1/248667.jpg)
Yes. Seriously.
Foundation, the first book, isn't awe inspiring.
I don't understand why you're arguing with me. We agree that the first book is boring. That's all I'm reviewing here. Foundation is boring. Lots of people seem to think it's not. That is what I don't understand.
And I have every right to judge this book on its own merits because it is published as a separate book on its own merits (as opposed to being published as part one of a longer book that begins the series, for instance). Whether or not the other books add more to the series has little to do with how well this book succeeds at gaining my interest. As far as I'm concerned, if a series cannot get me interested in the entire first book, it's probably not worth my time.
![Himanshu Bhandoh](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1292560659p1/4664159.jpg)
In my opinion, the idea of judging the series by its first book is flawed. It's like watching The Phantom Menace and saying- Hey, Star Wars really sucks and isnt worth my time. I wonder why the rest of the world's gaga over it. I'll give it a pass.
The reason why the rest of the world's gaga over the Foundation Series isnt because of the lack of female characters, flat characters in general, or how boring it can get in the second half...but because of the idea of psychohistory and how Seldon takes it from there and changes the future of humanity.
![Christy](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1550952681p1/248667.jpg)
There are actually two pretty big problems with your argument here:
1. I am not judging the series by the first book. I am judging the first book and determining that the author hasn't done enough to draw me in, so I'll go ahead and stop here. I do not owe the author or the series anything - if the first book is boring, that is the responsibility of author and not mine. It is the author's responsibility to make the beginning interesting enough to draw the audience in. (Also, of course, the Star Wars analogy doesn't work either because The Phantom Menace totally did suck and also wasn't the first movie to be released, so it didn't have the job of getting people interested in the series anyway.)
2. You seem to be working from the assumption that "if the rest of the world's gaga over it" that makes it worth reading. That is a logical fallacy - the bandwagon appeal, or the appeal to popularity. Something isn't good just because lots of people like it. Quality does not equal popularity.
![Himanshu Bhandoh](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1292560659p1/4664159.jpg)
The analogy wasn't perfect, but you do get the point.
2) I am of the opinion that if the rest of the world is gaga about something, I must check it out too. It does not imply that that something is good.
![Michelle](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1179180053p1/84077.jpg)
and i have NO idea why people are trying to school you in why you are incorrect to have an opinion. so FWIW, i too have no intention of continuing on with this series, no matter how much it might get better with later installments.
![Himanshu Bhandoh](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1292560659p1/4664159.jpg)
Christy: Honestly, I don't get why this book/series is so popular...(first line of her review)
Me: If you truly wish to understand why this book/series is so popular, you have to *drumrolls* go ahead and read the series!
No schooling involved! And nobody is incorrect to have an opinion either! If anything, I agree with your view about the first book(to a large extent). I respect your decision not to continue with the series(it's not as if I'm making cash out of the sales of the books). It's your decision. :)
![Greg](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1302890369p1/1851185.jpg)
![Jax](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1405093104p1/3856021.jpg)
![Jax](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1405093104p1/3856021.jpg)
![Preetham](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1341568281p1/7834269.jpg)
![Himanshu Bhandoh](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1292560659p1/4664159.jpg)
Or maybe the kids back then were way smarter. (Troll mode ON)
![Preetham](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1341568281p1/7834269.jpg)
Or maybe the kids back then were way smarter. (Troll mode ON)"
Or May be this was one of those books which captured their imagination while our generations has so many other options.
![Himanshu Bhandoh](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1292560659p1/4664159.jpg)
![Preetham](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1341568281p1/7834269.jpg)
Well I've not seen Start Trek....but Matrix and Inception ....I consider it a cult and all time fav.
![Sebi Mihalache](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1670480972p1/8861017.jpg)
![Justin Dloski](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1406568365p1/15388900.jpg)
![Christy](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1550952681p1/248667.jpg)
I didn't say anything about "strong" women. What I actually said was that there were virtually no women in the book. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a terrible book or anything, but it's an element of the book that bothered me, especially given its broad scope. There's no good reason to leave women out.
![Jim](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1668721790p1/1237540.jpg)
The Intelligent Man's Guide to Science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Int...
Published in 1960, it was not yet fashionable to subvert the Queen's English (QE2) with "person" to mean boys and girls, women and men - so "Man's" it was. Despite the titles the book sold well enough that publisher's requested and got three updates over the following 24 years.
I'll offer a warning:
Madame Curie excepted (a heavyweight who, my mother was proud to point out, won two Nobel Prizes in the hard sciences) virtually none of the scientists cited in the book are women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie
Alas, since Dr. Asimov has expired, we can not expect a fifth edition.
![Himanshu Bhandoh](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1292560659p1/4664159.jpg)
I didn't say anything about "strong" women. What I actually said was that there were virtually no women in the book. That d..."
You remind me of this - http://open.salon.com/blog/sally_swif...
Asimov had no plans to write in a way as to ensure gender equality, or discuss emotions or personalities. Like good sci fi, the book focuses on 'IDEAS' and not 'CHARACTERS'.
![Christy](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1550952681p1/248667.jpg)
I'm sure you're right about that, but it doesn't really matter for my experience of the book whether he was trying to ensure gender equality or not. I wasn't even hoping for gender equality; I was just hoping that half the population would be included in a story about the human species. I don't really think that's too much to hope for. My list of reasons why I didn't love the book is just that. It's not an argument that it's a terrible book, just that it's a book I didn't enjoy.
Furthermore, "like good sci fi"? Good science fiction can include both ideas and characters. They're not mutually exclusive. I think the best science fiction does manage both.
![Himanshu Bhandoh](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1292560659p1/4664159.jpg)
For instance, 2001 A Space Odyssey propagates the idea that intelligent life out there might be too intelligent for us to understand (instead of the linear aliens attacking us for no reason theme). The Matrix gives us the concept of humans living in an artificial world. Star Trek has strong characters, but the most beautiful episodes have made you think deeply about life, cultures, actions, morals and where we may be going in the future as the human race. Sci fi benefits from character development, but I believe character development is often secondary to ideas. Just saying this because I have only seen sci fi with good ideas and poor characters become successful, but not really the other way round. Would be great if you could share your thoughts on this based on your experience of sci fi.
![Gordon](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1423964128p1/13812697.jpg)
![Andie](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1357051493p1/15758555.jpg)
![Jim](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1668721790p1/1237540.jpg)
Until he decided, late, to "do characterization", Dr. Asimov was not a character-based fiction writer.
It's quite likely that his robot characters were more sympathetic than many of his human ones.
![Elgaroo Brenza](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1192577117p1/552179.jpg)
I personally LOVE tons of SERIOUSLY ancient sci-fi (or SF if your prefer...P tons of very scientific "Hard" sci-fi, and plenty of other works by Asimov.
I felt he completely dropped the ball with "Foundation", and if he picked it back up again later, that's not on me. Maybe some day when I'm really bored I might feel compelled to give it another go, but with SO much sci-fi out there.....? Again, some really far-out ideas, but really destroyed my interest in very potentially putting myself through that again...P It's always been my experience that the earliest work is usually the most powerful, and it's all downhill from there, and I'm not sure what is supposed to convince me this is some mythical exception to that trend. I've disagreed with the masses PLENTY of times before...P
There has been PLENTY of good sci-fi with good characterization and strong female characters, even well back into the olden days, and even amongst the Hard Sci-Fi crowd; the "Ringworld" series comes to mind, weather it's a perfect example or not, and one of my favorite Asimov's from when I was younger was "The End of Eternity" which I recall as being pretty character driven with important female characters, and some of my favorite sci-fi of all time is by Ursula K. LeGuin, and features VERY strong female characters, so I would say NONE of these things is mutually exclusive, and though "Foundation" may have been VERY important at some point in the past, it REALLY has not aged well at all and I see no need to spend any further time on it...P
![Brigid](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1573413949p1/522275.jpg)
![Goran Huško](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1383267931p1/25212532.jpg)
![Jim](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1668721790p1/1237540.jpg)
I'm aware that sexism was more blatant (when Foundation was published) ....plenty of male authors of that time and earlier did write female characters well so that's a pretty lame excuse. I would hate for this to be someone's introduction to speculative fiction.
It's tricky for an SF-reader to recommend a first SF story to the SF-naive (maybe Christy has some recommendations).
Participating on GoodReads has been a personal revelation. It seems there are many aspects of published writing that can thrill, compel, and inspire some readers. Those selfsame aspects bore, arouse disdain in, and even disgust others. A number of the (by now) dusty five-star SF classics of my childhood are just ho-hum or worse for others.
Goran wrote:
It is out of my mind that this book is one of masterpiece of sci fi franchise??? How the hell did that happen. It might as well be happening on one big planet and it would have the same plot...and then it would be in psychology or philosophy or social studies genre.
In some very limited circles it is a famous story that Dr. Asimov was the impromptu MC at the 1966 WorldCon for science fiction where he presented to himself a special Hugo award for Best All-Time Series – a competition which included the Lord of the Rings and Heinlein’s Future History. Asimov’s running gag was that all these authors were getting Hugos and he’d never won one. Of course, at the very end, when he’d announced himself as winner, it brought down the house.
Note that this was nearly fifty years ago. Times change as does literary fashion (and some would say SF does not qualify as literature).
I’m not sure that Psychohistory (the major idea in Foundation) would scale down credibly to populations under 100-billion.
Still, I might have cast a vote for Heinlein over Asimov in 1966 – if RAH had won instead, youngsters could express disbelief about that award.
![Alex Thompson](https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_25x33-ccd24e68f4773d33a41ce08c3a34892e.png)
![Jordan Griffin](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1641268291p1/20943573.jpg)
![Jordan Griffin](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1641268291p1/20943573.jpg)
![Jim](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1630783628p1/10343806.jpg)
![Tony](https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_25x33-8a3530ed95c3dbef8bf215b080559b09.png)
![Տիգրան Ալեքսանյան](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1588103480p1/22572209.jpg)
![Eric](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1427471828p1/27950330.jpg)
But seriously, as much as I enjoyed it there's no doubt that it's deeply flawed. Honestly, fanboy defensiveness can get really embarrassing sometimes.
![Elizabeth Wig](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1704091058p1/26634589.jpg)
![Gordon Yang](https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_25x33-ccd24e68f4773d33a41ce08c3a34892e.png)
![Jagdev](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1463004320p1/36054498.jpg)