I recently re-read these books after 40 years and they were still brilliant. Fashions in writing have changed but a good story, well told, will never go out of style.

One of my favourite series - hadn't read it for many long years and it held up surprisingly well.

For years I had this novel on my shelf, but never read it. I suppose I was put off by the fact that was a supposedly ground-breaking work of science fiction and I lack patience with most of that kind of work. But now I’m glad I read it and found out that while ground-breaking it certainly is, it didn’t try my patience. This review is only for Foundation, not the others in the trilogy which are yet unread by me.

The story is told in chunks, not in detail. Only the seminal events of the 100 years or so it covers are portrayed. That’s what gave it life and momentum. If the author had tried to go into detail, it would have choked on itself within 10 pages. Instead, Asimov gives us the bare bones of the story and lets things take shape in our minds. It works.

Some observations;

The work is filled with that joyous and hopeful technical optimism that permeated the late 40s and stayed through the 50s. Where our achievements in science seemed lofty and worthwhile and would be the saving of mankind. The atomic bomb had recently been dropped and a war ended. That war produced more technological advancements than in probably any other age in history. Our optimism was unbounded and our future bright. The promise of Atomic energy was huge. The fears this power brought were pushed to one side and apparently, in Asimov’s future, they have been dealt with and conquered.

Here, atomic power separates the barbarian from the civilized. It is the means of domination and separation of powers. One of the early leaders of the planet on which the Foundation is housed couched its existence and handling in the mystique of religion. Thereby he kept it strictly controlled and mythologized. Only priests trained by the state were allowed any knowledge of atomic power and were the only ones permitted to handle it. At first this strategy worked and atomic power was not something produced by science, but by priests adept in magic. Clever.

Another thing is the complete lack of female characters in any other role except a shrewish and domineering wife. My generation is used to seeing the future concept filled with women at every level of society. Commanders. Ambassadors. Queens. Captains. The future didn’t have discrimination or bias against women. But here in Foundation, we see it still. The concept of a woman having as much aptitude for command or science as a man seems like it was foreign to Asimov. Women were for decoration and breeding and housework, not for statecraft. Somehow it made for a less than realistic future for me, with only men in control.

Another thing that struck me was the dichotomy in technology we have presented here. Atomic power is all. It is the ultimate. It not only powers starships and creates electricity, but also personal shields like body armor and mundane household items like washing machines and knives that never need sharpening. Atomic power can be wielded like a bat and applied to the personal as well as the civic. But it seems so anachronistic. As a person growing up knowing the limitations and failings of atomic power, this future seems klunky and backwards.

Not helping was the fact that despite “sub-ether” transmission, these people still relied on newspapers (a late edition in fact) for information. Asimov’s immense imagination didn’t encompass the computer or the computer network, which seems so much a part of science fiction to me. While ships and offices had televisors with which to view messages, they still had pneumatic tubes and capsules which were used to send and receive messages. These same had “sub-ether” communications, but somehow only messages delivered in person mattered. Good thing they had “hyperspace”.

Which leads me to another observation; are these the first instances of these terms? Did Asimov make them up and create their meanings? If so, he’s authored a lot of the lexicon we take for granted. I first heard “sub-ether” in the Hitchhiker’s guide. Same as Encyclopedia Galactica - both terms I thought sprung from the head of Adams not Asimov. And hyperspace is a Star Wars term to me (the Millennium Falcon just couldn’t manage the jump all the time), although it appears here in this book. There are probably others that I didn’t catch so ingrained in my consciousness as part of future speak. I’m awed by his imagination if he did invent these terms and concepts.

To me the overall theme of this book is the futility of trying to change the course of events. That humans will arrange and govern themselves in endlessly repeating patterns. A loop we cannot change or escape. So events within this loop must be dealt with and predicted. Hari Seldon does not try to change the future, but tries to lessen the impact of what he knows will occur. In many ways he uses what he knows to be inevitable to shape the work of the Foundation. He builds in these inevitabilities to work for him and his goals and not against him and his goals. The “science” of psychohistory reminds me in a way of the mathematical principle Crichton described as Chaos theory. The predictability of events in a complex system.

There was one phrase with which the leader of a planet described himself. He was the king in all things except in name. An emperor. A tyrannical leader. He styled himself the first among citizens. This reminded me of Sulla and Gaius Marius and, to some extent, Julius Caesar who all styled themselves as the First Man in Rome. The first among equals, which we know is no such thing at all. It’s the work of spin doctors.

The idea of manifest destiny is also apparent in this novel. The idea that the galaxy, even the entire universe is ours by right is stamped all over this story. The idea that the collective knowledge of the human race is worth preserving, and preserving at such by such extreme measures is interesting and arrogant. The Foundation was designed for this purpose. This is its only purpose. I’m sure that there are some things worth keeping that we have discovered or created, but all of it? Everything? Thumbtacks? Is that necessary? Fluffy toilet covers? Is that worth keeping? How about the idea of manifest destiny itself? Now it’s an idea that is very out of fashion. It’s in many ways a deplorable philosophy that crushes other species and other human’s rights in its quest for “god-ordained” domination.

Finally, nowhere in it are there other life forms. I can’t recall many novels of this type or stories of this type without non-human sentient beings. I realize that it’s a novel of a human empire, but it’s kind of telling that there is no interference from other species. In tales of the drive to populate the west and expand the US we have Indians to deal with. But in this tale, humans are untroubled by other species. Perhaps there are no other life forms because we have wiped them out. ( )

Although Asimov occasionally indulges in details that fifty years later sound quite dated, and has a wooden approach to characterization, the big ideas and plot twists of this trilogy gripped me to the end. If only he had had help with writing better humans--although this far into the future they at least have the excuse of an alien culture.

Highly recommended, though I see no reason not to look for an abridged version. ( )

Dust jacket missing