Jonathan's Reviews > Foundation

Foundation by Isaac Asimov
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
4715802
's review

it was ok
bookshelves: science-fiction, fiction

Foundation. The name is apt.

Isaac Asimov's sprawling scifi tale is the rock on which much of today's space opera is built. Truer scifi historians than me would cite the late 1920s and pulp magazines such as Amazing Stories and E. E. "Doc" Smith as the DNA donors that spawned a thousand space operas. They would be right, but Asimov's fame towers above all others. His 1952 story of the decline and fall of the Galactic Empire is space opera's... foundation.

Unfortunately, the analogy continues. Foundation has all the elements of poor writing that makes stuffy literary aristocrats stick their noses up at the genre. And rightfully so. Flat characters, a lack of economical yet creative prose, and endless dialogue are the genre's Achilles heel, and not in a cool Ilium way.

This rant covers only Foundation itself. Despite owning an old edition which includes the entire original trilogy, I only managed to slog through the first book. Barely.

The first chapter with Hari Seldon and a death-or-exile-decision was promising. But the plot device that makes the story potentially interesting also pulls it apart like the gravity of a gas giant. Foundation spans decades and with each shift into a new era, you're introduced to new characters. You learn almost nothing about them and in some scenes the dialogue is so pervasive, violating the hallowed "show-don't-tell" rule so thouroughly, I was actually unsure where these people were.

One of my favorite parts of reading science fiction is being exposed to the new ideas of smart visionary authors. Good scifi ends up being right, cool or both. I obviously try to give anything as old as Foundation more of a pass on this front but I really didn't find any of its concepts mind-bending, or even mind-tickling. Psychohistory, as I understood it, was alright. I guess. Statistics.

Dated elements abruptly eject the reader from the ever so important suspension of disbelief. For days I couldn't shake the scene where two characters shared a bunch of "snuff". I thought, is it reasonable that humans are still using tobacco products 12,000 years in the future?? And snuff?? Atomic energy is the big technology in the Foundation universe. That's like, fascinating, and stuff.

Immediately after I "finished" Foundation, I picked up Scott Westerfeld's The Risen Empire. A quote on the cover claimed "In the tradition of Asimov". Uh oh. But wait. Intellegent turns of phrase? Break-neck action? Verisimilitude in the progression of civilizations? Technology that drives the plot, is extremely inventive and is extrapolated from today's knowledge base? Well-thought out characters whose behaviour makes sense but is not cardboard predictable? Other wicked-cool oddities like undead royal families? No snuff? Yes, I'm in the safe and familiar bio-tech embrace of a trusted friend: New Space Opera.

Stories like Foundation are the reason why we even needed a New Space Opera in the first place. Unlike the misadventure of New Coke, this was a significant improvement on the original. The authors of this reinvigorated genre like Banks, Hamilton and Westerfeld (with all due respect to Stephen Baxter and his physics lectures some call novels) focus on quality writing, character development and social commentary. Oh and scientific accuracy verging on "whooooa there". A few, like Dan Simmons' georgeous Hyperion, are masterworks in any genre.

All this poison being said, I can easily watch old GI Joe and He-Man cartoons and marvel at their sheer genius while a 10-year old today would brand me an idiot. Nostalgia is a shiny prism through which we all view our past. If I had not first read Foundation in my thirties but instead in my teens this review would like be entitled "Asimov is like chewing on expensive snuff!". But alas I am stuck with current me.

This review also marks several times now that I give poor grades to scifi written prior to 1980. I'm a linear person: old before new, read things in order, cake before coffee, no spoilers please. So I've attempted to read Asimov, Niven, Pohl and I have to say: meh. I now vow brown cow to not feel guilty by skipping the basement of my favorite genre and instead enjoy the first floor, second floor, jacuzzi, balcony and pool. I'll get to that basement. One day. When it's raining. Ooo look a squirrel!

Being a solid fan of New Space Opera, I must give proper respect to works upon whose shoulders it stands. I do so. But as with many of you, I have more books on my to-read list than I can tackle in a lifetime. I must prune and trim aggressively and I'm afraid the rest of the Foundation series is likely to end up on the greenhouse floor. Hopefully before I'm dust a clever New Space Opera idea about extending human life expectancy will give me more time to explore books about advanced civilizations prone to cancer of the mouth due to snuff addictions. Until then, I give thanks to the Old and say bring on the New.
171 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Foundation.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

December 28, 2010 – Shelved
July 1, 2011 – Started Reading
July 6, 2011 –
page 115
47.13%
July 8, 2011 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-11 of 11 (11 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Stephen Nice review, Jonathan...but OUCH!!!


Jonathan Did I go too easy?


Stephen Jonathan wrote: "Did I go too easy?"

No the tire tracks you left on my SF geek heart are just the right size.


Terence All right! Once again I get to recommend Donald King's Psychohistorical Crisis - the Foundation the way it was meant to be.


Stephen Terence wrote: "All right! Once again I get to recommend Donald King's Psychohistorical Crisis - the Foundation the way it was meant to be."

That is on my "on deck circle" soon to be read...but my love of Foundation continues unabated...a bit shamed, but unabated.


Terence Stephen wrote: "That is on my "on deck circle" soon to be read...but my love of Foundation continues unabated...a bit shamed, but unabated..."

As does mine. If I were to read the series today, my "ancient" eyes would probably have the same reaction as Jonathan's - "Huh? What's the big deal?"

Actually, Jonathan, you might reconsider at least the next two in the series - they're a bit more unified than the first book and you'd probably enjoy them more.

Ummm...maybe not, as I think about it :-)

Ummm...maybe you'd like the tale of the Mule. It's covered in two of the novellas, the last half of Foundation and Empire, where a mutant defeats the First Foundation, and the first half of Second Foundation, where he confronts the Second Foundation.


Jonathan Alright. I agree to read the next two books for the following reasons: (1) Terence's recommendation and (2) the fact that I misspelled "intelligent" in my scathing review.


Terence Jonathan wrote: "Alright. I agree to read the next two books for the following reasons: (1) Terence's recommendation and (2) the fact that I misspelled "intelligent" in my scathing review."

I support your resolve but only if you understand that it's a very lukewarm recommendation. If in the course of reading you feel overwhelming boredom or disgust, run - do not walk - to the nearest exit and get out :-)


message 9: by Jim (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jim I'm so far out of SF in general that I have no comment on anything written after Gibson's noirish 'cyber-punk' novels.

However, I'll bounce off of Stephen's protest that you have "(left tracks on his) SF geek heart". I'm not sure a non-geek can do that. I suggest that because you didn't get the central premise in Foundation.

First, though, I'll geekily point out that the phrase "pulls it apart like the gravity of a gas giant" bespeaks certain misunderstandings astronomical.

Our known gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) will pull your ship in if you get too close with a wrong velocity. If you speak of Red Giants (stars) - same thing applies. The idea that a gravity field will pull anything apart comes with very dense bodies (neutron stars, black holes) - these are (comparatively) tiny.

But mainly: to dimiss the admittedly hubristic idea of Psychohistory as "statistics" (stats) bespeaks misunderstandings scientific.

Stats amount to a system of measurement and the processing thereby. Psychohistory would necessarily incorporate stats but is itself far bigger.

Newton made observations and measurements and inferred the Laws of Gravitation and Motion. A well-trained accountant can generate stats but most likely will never think deeply enough about what he's measuring to generalize stats to laws or prinicples.

Hari Seldon hired those accountants to help him with the vision to develop a science with immense predictive power (and in the later Foundation novels power-to-influence).

None of this means you should (or will) like Foundations #2 and #3, but it does suggest you are no geek.


message 10: by Jim (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jim And thanks to Terrence for recommending the Kingsbury.


Jonathan Really?


back to top