My preview stands for all the associated Foundation novels as well as the Robot series, etc.
Asimov's writing just plods along but his ability to entwine this story over time with other associated novels and series is astounding. He obviously doesn't put emphasis upon the importance of a paragraph, let alone a chapter - he aims for the big picture and if you keep that in mind, you'll reap the reward that Asimov offers. I think Asimov blends Religion and Science in a far more constructive way than what Scientology is offering, which isn't easy as its just like trying to blend Medical with Military or Cooking with Conservation. Hence why Asimov sums up the Golden Age of Sci-Fi, let alone still the leading Sci-Fi writer to date. If you want to get into Sci-Fi, then this is the book to start with and please try to borrow it from a Library... somewhere at the end of the Galaxy.
PS: America is endorsing 'Nuclear Power' as the new common energy source. Australia I'm sure, will oust the oily Shieks, with its vast Uranium resources. I wonder where they got the idea for that? ( )

Foundation is a quality science fiction novel. Is it the best the genre has to offer? With all due respect to Mr. Asimov, no. Asimov was writing science fiction at a much higher level than many of his contemporaries. But he is not the pedestal of science fiction others have claimed. That said, read Foundation. It is solid sci-fi and a great story inspired by the history of Rome. ( )

I was surprised with how much I enjoyed this book. Despite Asimov's simplistic style of writing (you won't find any flowery language here) he managed to write a book with an interesting plot and engaging ideas. This book was the first written in his "Foundation" series, and tells of the establishment of Foundation (a group of scholars/scientists attempting to preserve human knowledge after the inevitable collapse of the empire). The idea presented in this book which I found most interesting was the idea that science itself can be a religion (because it is so true...). Be warned, however, that this book is a product of its time. For example, there is almost no female presence in the novel. When it was published, science fiction was a genre dominated by white, privileged males, and the lack of female voice reflects that reality. However, taken for what it is, this novel really deserves much of the praise it receives - recommended. ( )

I don't know why people judge this series so harshly on its science. I think Asmov did quite well considering when the book was written. I can tell from the reading though, that this book is based on the fall of the Roman Empire and it's aftermath. I understand the format, but I don't buy religion being created as an instrument for conquest even though in its most corruptible iteration, it definitely became that for medieval Europe. ( )

Very dry. It reminded me more than anything else of the 19th century locked room mysteries, Agatha Christie and all that, except with 1950s white collar American officer workers. ( )

Asimov's legendary Foundation totally underwhelmed me. Great concept with the psychohistory thing, way ahead of its time as far as plot devices go. One good morsel of a plot idea combined with a general theme of "learning is good" and cool cover art unfortunately does not make a great yarn. I want conflict, characters I feel I know, and settings that make me wish I were there. I found all these lacking. ( )

Extremely impoverished character development; some interesting sociological ideas presented, but scattered and discontinuous. Once a character is established and you take some interest in him (they are all hims), the book jumps to another time period and you start all over again. This book was disappointing given how famous the Foundation series is supposed to be. ( )

Hari Seldon uses the statistical techniques of psychohistory to foresee the coming collapse of the Galactic Empire and starts a Foundation which will help shorten the coming period of barbarism since the collapse of the Empire is now inevitable. We observe the course of history through a series of snapshots in the first couple of centuries of the Foundation's existence.

A very quick read. 60 years on some features of Asimov's galactic civilisation are more obviously firmly rooted in the America of the 1940s and 1950s when the Foundation trilogy was written. Asimov's debts to Gibbon are also obvious. Nevertheless, he expertly sucks the reader in for the ride. Great fun. ( )

The first of the Foundation trilogy, a classic of the genre. A series of novellas that track the fall of the Galactic Empire and the rise of the fledgling Foundation. Its great to see the early Foundation laying down its influence not through violence, but through trade and politics. ( )

The Galactic Empire is decaying. Scientific knowledge has ceased to advance is instead decaying. Outlying systems begin to operate as independent kingdoms in which the loss of civilization (here mostly represented by nuclear power) accelerates. A dark ages is looming, predicted by Hari Seldon and his science of psychohistory. Psychohistory holds that the future, in essence, can be predicted because large groups of people (mobs) will behave in particular ways. To shorten the dark ages, he establishes a Foundation to guard human knowledge. The book was woven together from separate stories and it shows—one crisis ends and another begins thirty or fifty years later. I felt the idea of psychohistory was not internally consistent; it is supposed to predict the actions of mobs, yet each crisis is solved by the bold thinking of one or a few men. And they are all men. Women make no appearance. Some might say that fact makes sense for the era in which the book was written, but I disagree. This book was published twenty years after the first woman on the president’s cabinet. Women were doctors and lawyers and other professionals, if not in large numbers. The intellectual, almost Machiavellian solutions to the individual problems were quite interesting, and I didn’t feel bored while reading the novel. On the whole though, there’s not much to offer, with a lack of character development and overarching plot. ( )

At first I was skeptical of the premise of this book--the idea that an understanding of psychology would allow scientists to thoroughly predict the future and thus plot out its course. Whatever. Considering that it was written in the '50s, this kind of idea, and the absolute absence of women in the story, is understandable. There were a lot of similarities--both in tone and content--to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I would call this book vaguely amusing for that fact alone. ( )

I have mixed feelings about this book. There were a lot of points where it was interesting and I easily read 100 pages or so without getting bored - always a good sign in a book. The premise of the book is an extremely good mathematician, Hari Seldon, specializing in statistics, has predicted (presumably accurately) the downfall of the entire Galactic Empire in the next thousand years. To reduce the damage that will be done, he takes a few hundred or so psychoanalysts to an uninhabited planet, Terminus, to combine all the knowledge known to man into one giant encyclopedia. Those who work on the encyclopedia call themselves the Foundation. However, soon society starts to deteriorating and the Foundation finds themselves at the mercy of people who have been reduced to living a life similar to those of the Dark Ages. As it says on Amazon, "mankind’s last best hope is faced with an agonizing choice: submit to the barbarians and live as slaves—or take a stand for freedom and risk total destruction."

Only it seems as if nothing really happened in this first of three books. The Foundation was created, it had a few challenges and it established a few heros. However, the book is divided into five sections and each section skips forward roughly 50 years or so. This means that every time someone of importance was established, they were dead in the next section. There was really no one main character to follow throughout the book. It felt like this book was more or less a history lesson. It was very impersonal and you really never got a chance to know any characters. They were there and then they were gone.

I have every intention of reading the next two books in the trilogy because I'm intrigued enough to continue giving it a chance and they are relatively quick reads. If you're not a fan of science fiction though, I doubt you'd like these books. ( )

...Foundation, along with its two sequels, is a brilliant book and a facinating thesis into man's social tendencies (for better or for worse), and a look at the importance of the role of knowledge on the historical development of man's civilization. It is one of the most important books in the whole of speculative fiction and a great influence in modern culture. (more) ( )

Pre09:
Characters: Completely forgettable.
Plot: The only point of the book and it's a little dry for my tastes. 'Preserve Knowledge' does not make a book to me.
Style: Dry science. Not engaging. ( )

Despite all of the potential negative comments that may apply to Isaac Asimov, there is no doubt that he was a great conceptual thinker. I found the Foundation Trilogy succeeds in not only entertaining, but also in influencing the way I think about how history and institutions affect them.

I read this book 25 years ago, and then 10 years later was introduced to the theories of Thorsten Veblen. I am sure that Asimov was aware of these Institutionalist theories, and used them to update Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in a futuristic context. ( )

In a galaxy not far far away, but in fact our own, the study of a science called psychohistory has been able to predict the future of an entire galaxy. Hari Seldon set into motion a series of events that would supposedly reduce the effects of a Galactic Empires collapse, and through five loosely connected short stories, the history he predicted unfolds. What is psychohistory? Possibly the simplest explanation is a study of mob psychology (as in a group of people, not necessarily gangsters) and patterns of mob behavior throughout history. With this Hari Seldon managed to predict the fall of an Empire, establish the Foundation to preserve science, and maybe–just maybe–prevent 30,000 years of barbarism throughout the galaxy.

I had always heard that Isaac Asimov is one of the authors to read in science fiction, as in “If you read no one else, read his work” so I took the plunge with Foundation. I hadn’t really researched the book beforehand and only knew that Asimov tended to write social science fiction; in fact he coined the phrase. Foundation is a great example of this sub genre consisting of stories which center around the predictive nature of a science called psychohistory. Psychohistory is essentially the study of how the human race has acted as a major mob group over the ages and applying it to the future to predict events. What Hari Seldon started as Foundation, on a planet in the furthest reaches of the galaxy, was not the savior of this Galactic Empire but the start of a new one. Read More ( )

I do not normally choose science fiction to read, but after some good experiences last year, I came to appreciate it. I have of course heard of Isaac Asimov, so I was expecting Foundation to be a great example of the master of science fiction.

From the beginning of my reading, however, I was disappointed by just about everything — the writing, the development, and the general plot.

I really liked the premise of Foundation. It is that in a far future era, psychohistorians are able to mathematically predict the future. When they predict the downfall of the empire, they determine to shorten the length of barbarian ignorance by preparing the scenario to their advantage. This concept had potential, and as I read, I sough for themes I could relate to. Foundation encourages us to avoid being too comfortable with the status quo, to be careful to always be learning, to use your strengths to your advantage. These are universal themes to some extent.

However, it seemed to me that Asimov’s brilliant ideas fell far short of their potential. Asmiov wrote Foundation at age 21, apparently, and it feels amateur. The novel was divided into five sections covering a separate setting in the midst of a 300-year history. Thus, just as I finally was understanding each personality and setting, it would shift to an entire new setting. I never felt completely comfortable with the characters and setting because I never had time to.

But even if Asmiov had developed each setting further, I doubt they would have felt familiar by the end because Asmiov’s writing was superficial: there was absolutely no development of anyone or thing. Things happened. People spoke. That was it.

In the end, Foundation was a huge disappointment.

More detailed review on my blog

This is obviously a classic of SF and while I liked it, I found it to be suffering from a common flaw in SF, which is a curious lack of human emotion. This is a book written by a boy for boys and the only female even mentioned has two small scenes where she heaps her scorn on her husband and is summarily silenced when presented with some magical space jewelry. Now, of course, SF is all about the ideas, and Asimov's ideas about psychohistory are very interesting, but they quickly become a plot device not fully plumbed. However, I'll read the rest of the trilogy before making up my mind fully. ( )

I was really surprised how much I enjoyed this book - it's a bookclub choice and not one I would generally pick up. What I particularly liked was that it didn't go into a lot of detail around things going wrong, and focused more on the political solution. It reminded me a little of Harry Potter for grown ups - and perhaps its not a particularly heavy book, more an easy read. I may read the following books. ( )

I first read these in Primary school, looking forward to a re-read ( )

This is obviously a classic of SF and while I liked it, I found it to be suffering from a common flaw in SF, which is a curious lack of human emotion. This is a book written by a boy for boys and the only female even mentioned has two small scenes where she heaps her scorn on her husband and is summarily silenced when presented with some magical space jewelry. Now, of course, SF is all about the ideas, and Asimov's ideas about psychohistory are very interesting, but they quickly become a plot device not fully plumbed. However, I'll read the rest of the trilogy before making up my mind fully. ( )

I thought I'd try and get into science fiction, having read some Arthur C. Clarkes and Vonnegots when I was younger; I settled for Foundation as it seemed to be quite high on many recommendation lists.

Sadly, this novel left me quite disappointed; only two scenes really stood out, one of them being the description of the city-planet right at the beginning. The rest seemed to be rather dull fantasy-politics, which just so happened to be set in the future; the space and atomic weapons serving as little more than scenery or even wallpaper to the sleep-inducing proceedings.

Still, I won't give up on my foray (back) into science fiction. ( )

Fabulous science fiction at its purest. I was first introduced to the Foundation saga as a teenager (sadly a few decades ago) which opened my eyes to the Galactic Empire and the magic of Hari Seldon. Whilst I thoroughly enjoyed it at the time I realise now that I simply did not appreciate the breadth and depth of the work.

It does of course come into its own when the series as a whole are consumed. Foundation as a standalone novel is relatively short and generates more questions than answers. As others have pointed out, it is slow paced and nothing really seems to happen which is why I was surprised it hooked me as an adolescent.

If you read this, you ought to persevere with the rest - it's more than worth it in my opinion. ( )

I had the hardest time telling whether or not I like this book. But it went by quickly (as in I didn't want to stop reading), and I want to read the sequels, so I guess I like it. It's a very unique book. Since it's 1940's sci-fi, at first I expected typical Atomic Age cautionary tales, which it absolutely is not. It's science fiction in the way Dune or Star Wars are science fiction; basically fantasy set in a sci-fi universe. And yet it's completely unlike those stories. It has the contemplative tone and pacing of classic science fiction. And nothing happens. Asimov points this out himself in his 1982 introduction: "I hadn't read the Trilogy in thirty years... I read it with mounting uneasiness. I kept waiting for something to happen, and nothing ever did. All three volumes... consisted of thoughts and of conversations. No action. No physical suspense. What was all the fuss about, then? Why did everyone want more of that stuff?" So if you're expecting a novel -- or even if you're expecting a story -- you will be very disappointed. The similarities to Dune had me expecting a modern science fiction novel, and so the constant lack of anything happening and repeated anticlimaxes were extremely frustrating. So I thought maybe I didn't like it. But no, in fact I like it a hell of a lot, and for the life of my I can't figure out why. ( )