Christy's Reviews > Foundation

I agree completely with your review. I love Asimov normally, but was put off by the Foundation books for exactly the reasons you named. They're just so boring.

I'm glad I'm not alone in this. Given all the hype around these books, saying I didn't like Foundation felt almost heretical. :-)

Christy wrote: "I'm glad I'm not alone in this. Given all the hype around these books, saying I didn't like Foundation felt almost heretical. :-)"
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".

I'm currently halfway through the book and really enjoying it so far, but I never fell prey to the "hype". In fact I heard nothing about it until a few weeks ago and only came across this copy by chance.

Since I read his fiction while very young, it's tough for me to be objective about Asimov, but I'd like to add a little perspective on Foundation and (especially) Asimov.

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.

Jim, I can easily acknowledge your first point while also maintaining that the book was not a very enjoyable read for me.

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.

Hi Christy,

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.

Adrianna wrote: "As for the lack of strong or even apparent female characters... Well, that's nothing new in any genre of literature, written by make authors, that is 100yrs old or older. That doesn't make it right, but as a lover of the written word, I look past it and put it into it's historical context. You can't change the prejudices of 80 years ago, you can only look into the future."

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.

Christy, let's take up your points one at a time-

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)

Himanshu wrote: "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."

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.

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.

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?).

Himanshu wrote: "( Douglas Adams? Seriously?)"

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.

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.

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.

Himanshu wrote: "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."

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.

1) Agreed! You are free to stop and you have a very valid reason for doing so too. I just feel pained that you are missing out on an awesome series just because the first book wasn't interesting enough to draw you in :( Totally agree-the first book could have been better, but the rest of the books more than make up for it. Reading or not reading the rest of the series is your choice.
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.

Christy, i agree 100% with your entire assessment of this book. it's a total snooze, nothing happens, it's about a bunch of guys sitting around chatting each other up smugly, the "i'm not going to do anything!" approach is beyond ridiculous, and the lack of even so much as a female maid emptying the trash for these guys is obnoxious.

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.

Sigh.
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. :)

I didn't care for the first book, if I recall, mostly because the dialog was terrible. Hard to invest in character and story when you're rolling your eyes a few times per page. I'm growing slightly determined to give it another try though and focus more on ideas than writing style, since that seems to be the draw. Sci-fi fans apparently don't mind when they are told how to interpret every expression and movement of a character.

There's also the woman who is a ticket seller at the beginning of the book and the little girl who tries on some jewelry.

but I agree...friggin' boring. good ideas, some witty banter, how people are easily duped but seriously. seriously. not one of those people on the other planets figured out science? c'maaan

I've agree with you on this...I finding it hard to finish the book..May be it was imaginative when it was released

Preetham wrote: "I've agree with you on this...I finding it hard to finish the book..May be it was imaginative when it was released"

Or maybe the kids back then were way smarter. (Troll mode ON)

Himanshu wrote: "Preetham wrote: "I've agree with you on this...I finding it hard to finish the book..May be it was imaginative when it was released"

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.

Now that makes me feel like I'm from the previous generation. Just kidding. I would agree though that we do have a lot of options to help our imaginations fly.However, I feel movies,tv series and books are equally effective in that department. I found the Foundation series as beautiful as Star Trek, Matrix or Inception. Guess it is different strokes for different folks.

Himanshu wrote: "Now that makes me feel like I'm from the previous generation. Just kidding. I would agree though that we do have a lot of options to help our imaginations fly.However, I feel movies,tv series and b..."

Well I've not seen Start Trek....but Matrix and Inception ....I consider it a cult and all time fav.

I actually feel sorry for you if this is what you've understood after reading "Foundation". Please stop reviewing books based on the values implemented in your mind by 'modern' education.

Ummm Arkady was a women and she was the star of the series. Foundation is at the least a trilogy. So don't read (or listen, ugh) to the first 20 pages of this masterpiece SERIES and dismiss it because it has no "strong" women in it. Wtf does that even mean?

Justin wrote: "it has no 'strong' women in it. Wtf does that even mean?"

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.

If I recall correctly, the big seller that encouraged the Good Doctor to write full time was:

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.

Christy wrote: "Justin wrote: "it has no 'strong' women in it. Wtf does that even mean?"

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'.

Himanshu wrote: "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'."

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.

Good point about ideas and characters not being mutually exclusive. I agree with that. However, I'd say ideas and not characters form the USP of scifi.

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.

I love his robot series so far and was really excited to pick this one up after all the praise, but, I hate to say it, I was bored. The ideas that are touched on in the book are interesting, yet I felt no connection to the characters or the book.

Oh man. I'm so glad someone else said it. As a lover of sci-fi I felt obliged to like it, but overall, find it oh-so-boring. The lack of women bothered me as well. Most importantly, however, I didn't feel any connection to the characters.

Gbcjr has offered an interesting implication about Asimov's robot stories vis-a-vis his Foundation stories.

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.

Whew, some civility peeps, are we not sci-fi fans...?

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

I also found the lack of female characters off-putting. I'm aware that sexism was more blatant at that time, but that doesn't make it more pleasant to read a book where the lone female character is a henpecking harpy and all other women mentioned are housewives. And anyway 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.

I would have to agree that it is a disappointment. 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.

Brigid wrote:


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.

I was going to write a review for this. Then I read yours and you pretty much summed it up perfectly. Thanks for putting my errant thoughts into a concise review.

As a semi-avid science fiction reader, and an effective overall reader. I am inclined to agree and disagree with many of the points on this page. For one, the only point I'll grant that many of you science fiction readers may find foundation boring for its lack of quote on quote "meaningful" dialogue as well as it's lack of character building. I get that, you've been indoctrinated into modern literature so much that those traits matter to you. Here is where many of arguments fall flat, (and I'll address the lack of presence of women in the book later). From the beginning of this novel, Asimov made it painfully clear that he was writing a history of the foundation universe, of Hari Seldon and Salvar Hardin etc. This novel is not supposed to be dialogue heavy, nor is supposed to have a plethora of characters that can be killed off in a game of thrones like fashion (besides the fact that no one lives from beginning to end anyway). This novel merely illustrates the key events in this civilization's history and it does so marvelously. Asimov's intricate plot weaving were simply a bonus to reading this novel. Now I shall address many of your wanton deriding of the events in this novel.

The events in this novel were written 55,000 years in the future, and they depict an enlightened society. For some of you who read this book looking for epic violence, massive fight chapters etc. You have sadly began the wrong series. This novel while named after the foundation is essentially about the foundation of the ideas of universal salvation through a society that transcends all others. In addition I cannot stress enough that this novel is a woven intricate plot line that is designed to be (I shall quote my predecessor) awe inspiring as it embodies the spirit of brilliant men, in addition to the ground breaking sciences that this supported. So you see this novel was not supposed to impress you with individual events, you were supposed to see the greater theme. What you so crave is in the later novels. If you were not able to grasp this, you cannot possibly blame Asimov for indeed in this regard his writing is perfect

I won't belabor any points stated here and just say your review covers my opinion of Foundation perfectly.

The problem with modern-day society and reading is this blind devotion to the standard. Just because there is no character development doesn't make the book a 2-star book. The simple fact Isaac Asimov is able to tell an incredibly compelling story without the use of dynamic characters is quite literally breath taking.

I just started to read and quite like it. Just to give an idea of my recent reads Martian Chronicles, 1984, A Clockwise Orange...So after these mix, I found Foundation quite entertaining and this is my first Asimov book.

Lack of female characters is not something that makes a book less enjoyable in my opinion.

How dare you not like the things I like! *shakes fist*

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.

I must agree with this: I got to page 120 without seeing a single woman - much worse than any Heinlein I've read, and they both come from about the same era of science fiction.

It is an extended analogy of the development since the historical dark age. Brilliant work of sc-fi really.

This quote "the opiate of the people,", is too often used out of context, as it has been used in your review. Have a look at the text its from and you can see that, despite his clear atheism, Marx was not attacking religion. It is a much more complex point that he and Asimov are making, although two different points.