The Foundation Trilogy

Before reading this collection I'd read Foundation by itself at least a decade previously, and though I forgot most of it in the intervening years, the main premise of a genius scientifically predicting the next thousand years- and not just predicting, but shaping that future- is something that stuck with me. Having now revisited Foundation, as well as the next two books in the series, I expect that in another decade the premise will have stuck with me, but likely not much else, as the premise and the first part of the first book are by far the best parts of this collection.

Both the premise and the first part of Foundation are excellent. Asimov gives us a universe ruled by the Empire, perhaps once a mighty force for order, but now a show more bloated bureaucratic mess in decline. The scientist Hari Seldon, having perfected the science of psychohistory, uses this hybrid of psychology and statistics to predict the inevitable fall of the Empire, and the resulting descent into barbarism that will follow. He does more than that, though, since while the fall is inevitable, the resurrection of civilization doesn't yet have a predetermined timeline. Seldon gives the last years of his life to fighting a bureaucratic world in denial so that people his grandchildren will never meet, and their grandchildren will never meet, and their grandchildren will never meet, might have a better life. He succeeds in establishing the Foundation, ostensibly a repository of knowledge, but in reality a bud at the edge of the galaxy which Seldon's psychohistory assures will one day bloom into a new, better civilization.

That's great stuff. It also creates huge problems for how to continue with the stories that are set after this (as these first three Foundation books are essentially collections of short stories and novellas set chronologically in the same universe). Seldon's science, at least as it's first presented to us, is almost a guarantee of success (I believe Seldon gives the chances of his plan coming off as intended for the first two or three hundred years as 94% or greater). Thus it's hard to stick to the premise and still create dramatic tension, and so naturally an author would have to explore other options. Showing the reader how psychohistory works and makes the Foundation's victories inevitable might be entertaining the first time, but you can hardly stretch that out for multiple books. More problematically, psychohistory by its very nature would seem to negate the importance of individuals, as Seldon's science is based off of predicting the actions of large groups, with the actions of individuals explicitly outside of the science's predictive scope. The very existence of psychohistory would seem to negate the Great Man theory of history, so without the individual being of much importance how is the story of Foundation going to have characters whose actions feel important going forward? Asimov could have done what Stapledon did in Last and First Men and wrote the story of Foundation's thousand-year history as a historical account without prominent characters, I suppose, but I can understand why he wouldn't want to. Thus, after Part I of Foundation, Asimov had to deal with hurdles in both story construction and character development created by his novel's premise.

Asimov jumps these hurdles in a not-particularly-impressive way, by undercutting the premise of psychohistory almost immediately. Within the first few stories the reader sees that individuals do matter, no matter what eleventh-hour speech Asimov throws in about how success was inevitable. Lip service is always paid to Seldon's plan, but it's often just background material for what is otherwise a standard science fiction story. Foundation and Empire, as well as Second Foundation, introduce complications to Seldon's plan, with the introduction of The Mule and the Second Foundation, but instead of solving the problems of psychohistory these introductions just add more wrinkles to it. I don't fault Asimov for stepping back from his premise, in fact I think he probably had to, but in taking that step back the rest of the stories are also a step down from an excellent start.

That's my main analysis of the first three books, but there are various other things that the books did well and not so well. I enjoyed how science became a spiritual force in the early years of the Foundation, from the perspective of the Foundation characters they were turning science into a religion to fool the gullible barbaric masses of the universe, but simultaneously a different branch of science was becoming a religion to the Foundation as well: Seldon's plan quickly attained the status of quasi-divine prophesy, with Seldon himself being ascribed omniscience of a sort. Even Seldon's name became an oath to the people of the Foundation, with "by God" replaced with "by Seldon." With this early plot line, Foundation isn't so much criticizing religion as it is everyone who think they know something with certainty. On the other hand, I intensely disliked the way that the supposedly sprawling universe of the Foundation series constantly felt small. In a universe of tens of thousands of inhabited worlds and trillions of people, all the stories in the first few books take place on the same handful of planets, and every character is a descendant of a character in another story, or runs into the same handful of people. In a universe that should feel epic in scale, the cast of characters instead feels claustrophobic.

Read in isolation, The Psychohistorians stands as a great Asimov short story, up there with Nightfall and The Last Question. As a series, however, I found that the later parts of the Foundation universe never matched Asimov's first foray into the setting. show less

In the year 2025, many of the Golden Age "classics" of science fiction leave much to be desired. Their cultural attitudes and scientific ideals are often dated, their characters are nearly nonexistent, and their prose isn't often high quality. They were written for an audience that no longer exists, and as such can give readers today the wrong impression about what the genre is capable of achieving, especially when they're held up as the peak of the genre. Don't get me wrong, The Foundation Trilogy embodies most of these trends, but somehow managed to (on the whole) engage me.

During a period of galaxy-spanning peace and prosperity, the scientist Hari Seldon develops a new field of predictive science, psychohistory. It builds on the show more fundamentals of the soft sciences and can be used to predict the future of large populations of uninfluenced humans. His study reveals that the Galactic Empire will soon collapse, plunging humanity into millennia of scientific and cultural regression. To limit the coming dark age, he seeds two communities of scientists at opposite ends of the galaxy, referred to as Foundations. Their task is to incubate and protect scientific knowledge through the collapse and eventually provide the bedrock for a second Galactic Empire. The trilogy follows these communities across more than three hundred years as they encounter prophesied moments of potential calamity, known as “Seldon Crises.”

Almost all of the material in the trilogy was originally serialized in pulp magazines which were only later collected into three books in the 50's. Though these books can be found separately, I really don't think they function as standalone works. Having read all three, it's my opinion that you kinda need to read all three if you want to have a full picture of what Asimov had in mind. The series was continued by Asimov in the 80's, some forty years after he started it, but from what I can find these works aren't nearly as "essential".

The Foundation Trilogy simultaneously has a massive scope, but is often observed through a tiny lens. Certainly the central premise has remained memorable and influential, (you can see the echoes of it clearly in Star Wars) and compared to many of its peers it's much more ambitious. Asimov's style of writing, however, limits our view of it. Asimov writes almost exclusively in dialogue; dialogue that doesn't necessarily sound like normal human conversation but is nonetheless readable and engaging. It's obvious why he's so broadly popular. The downside is that the majority of scenes boil down to two dudes talking in a room about events that are/were playing out somewhere else in the galaxy. You're never at the heart of the action, but rather a fly on the wall, listening to intellectuals speculating dryly about the implications of events set elsewhere. Asimov also spends little to no effort on description or setting, which makes for a novel that’s not very visually memorable.

As the series progresses, Asimov does slowly branch out, trying to include more action, description, and character into the work, with mixed results at best. The novella The Mule was probably some of his best writing, though the Mule himself has laughably simplistic motivations. By the final volume, Asimov seems to run out of steam; the plot degenerating into a series of mind numbing double-agent fake-outs, and an ending that to me felt very predictable.

The trilogy also shows its age in ways that can break suspension of disbelief. Characters smoke cigarettes constantly, get all of their news from print newspapers, and, most damningly, the highest form of technology is always nuclear. I don’t begrudge these oddities too much considering the era, but they’re noticeable. One fix Asimov could have made when collecting the stories into novels would have been cutting the constant repetition of past events. That may have worked when the stories were serialized months apart, but when read back-to-back the recaps quickly become grating.

An oddity of note is that the galaxy contains no alien life to speak of, something that could almost be said of women as well. We're left to wonder if they (the aliens I mean) never existed in the first place, or whether humanity crushed them in a galaxy-wide expression of manifest destiny. Certainly, Asimov believed our knowledge was worth saving, perhaps even the pinnacle achievement of all sentient life. Your connection to that idea may be rather strained, as mine certainly was.

What Foundation lacks in form is at least partially made up for by an almost ineffable optimism towards science and the future. In a literary landscape littered with depressing, misanthropic dystopias, it's refreshing to read something like this, even if I recognize the naïveté of it. Though most of this review sounds quite negative, I do in fact have a positive view on it. Something about the readability of the dialogue and the memorable premise makes for a work that stands out against its contemporaries. show less

I was disappointed with this trilogy of novels having just reread this Science Fiction classic after more than forty years. The three novels demonstrate exceptional plotting but little else to warrant praise. Asimov has a galaxy populated with humans and it is a grayish world dominated by a fading empire. Set at least 13,000 years in the future, after humanity has colonized space so thoroughly that most people have forgotten about the Earth itself. Foundation opens as the Galactic Empire is in its final years, having reigned over the galaxy for over ten millennia. One man on the capital planet of Trantor dares to stand up and tell the moribund Empire that its decline and fall is inevitable. Hari Seldon has developed the science of show more psychohistory, which aims to predict the behavior of large populations over vast periods of time. Seldon has predicted not only the fall of the Empire, but the fact that a whopping 30,000 years of barbarism will follow, unless his organization, the Encyclopedia Foundation, is able to finish its immense task of cataloging and preserving millennia of accumulated human knowledge and history. Then, perhaps, the 30,000 years can be shaved to a mere millennium.
The key concept is psychohistory and Hari Selden's projections based on mathematical formulas suggest with high probability the potential for minimizing a coming 'dark age' for humanity. Most of the novel hinges on a few leaders brandishing political power rather than light sabers. The suggestion of determinism diminished the possibility of suspense for this reader. The resulting loss of interest in the story, with repetitious descriptions of the overriding Selden plan made the final novel a bit of a slog in spite of an interstellar war. Planets were destroyed with the loss of hundreds of millions of lives but that did not seem to matter. Asimov was a prolific author, but in this case his attempt to expand several stories into a series of novels was flawed. show less

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 show more 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. show less

I am not going to be able to add anything new to what so many others have said about this series. I think it is brilliant and I so enjoyed how Asimov wove in his other series (robots and galactic empire) into this overarching future history. It really is brilliant. I have every book in this future history that includes this original Foundation Trilogy except for the three that were written by Gregory Benford, Greg Bear and David Brin. I need to read this entire series over again starting with I, Robot including those by these three authors.

Beginning a re-read after watching the first season of the ATV+ adaptation. After the first couple of chapters I can say that this book is still a worthy read and is far more interesting than the show more streaming series. The ideas and solutions in Asimov’s book are far more interesting than the action depicted on ATV+. This is a novel for thinking people who appreciate mysteries and problems that are solved by brains rather than brawn.

I like this rating system by ashleytylerjohn of LibraryThing (https://www.librarything.com/profile/ashleytylerjohn) that I have also adopted:
(Note: 5 stars = rare and amazing, 4 = quite good book, 3 = a decent read, 2 = disappointing, 1 = awful, just awful.) show less

Coming into this series, the bit of Asimov I had read was not terribly impressive, so my expectations were not very high. As a result, I was pleasantly surprised. It is easy to see how and why the strength of the ideas presented in this series have so powerfully informed all science fiction to follow. The quality of the prose is much higher than I expected, it is not overly flowery or descriptive, but still conveys a clear sense of place and is filled with sparkling dialog. The focus is not on character, but on ideas and concepts, as is common with fix-up SF which was originally written for magazine publication.

SYNOPSIS
Foundation (book 1) The Galactic Empire of the human race is in the early stages of collapse. Using a field of science show more called Psycho-history, which predicts group behaviors, Hari Seldon forsees the coming collapse, and the 30,000 years of chaos and anarchy that will follow, and establishes The Foundation at the outer rim of the galaxy to guide mankind through these dark times, thereby reducing the duration of the dark times to 1,000 years. In order to avoid influencing the actions of the humans who live during that time, the predicted Crisis events (known as Seldon Crises) are not revealed to the public until after they have occurred.

Foundation and Empire (book 2) introduces a character called The Mule, a mutant human who throws a wrench in the works. Because psycho-history cannot predict individual behavior, the actions of an individual have the potential to derail the Foundation's mission. This book has two main parts, so the character and story could be developed a bit more deeply than in the first book. This was my favorite book of the trilogy, particularly because of the ending, which powerfully reframes the story we just finished.

Second Foundation (book 3)focuses on the existence of the Second Foundation, which Seldon formed on the other end of the galaxy from the first foundation. Where everyone knew where the first Foundation was located, though, the location of Second Foundation remains secret. The first half of this book follows closely after the second half of book two, and once again this installment is basically two stories, in terms of cast and timeframe. The galactic war started by The Mule threatens the success of the First Foundation, leading various characters to seek out the Second Foundation, either to ensure Seldon's defeat or to strengthen his odds of success. One of the main characters is a teenage girl, which was unexpected in a classic 1950's SF title. While this book does not entirely wrap up the story begin in Foundation (which is why Asimov later expanded the series), I did find that it provided a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy, and did not leave me hanging.

THOUGHTS
Asimov effectively creates a sense of scale for the Galactic Empire, using a relatively small cast of characters. Rather than using a sprawling tale of numerous characters and interweaving story threads, which almost invariable causes confusion and disconnect for the reader, he carefully selects the characters and locations used, to make things easier to follow without it feeling small like a TV movie. The story does jump a bit through time and place, especially in the first book, since the story spans centuries.

I was struck by the number of references to this series which pop up in Star Wars. The concept of a Galactic Empire, which is central to SW, originated in Foundation, of course, but also Coruscant is lifted directly from Trantor, the city-planet which is the seat of Galactic government. A number of character names are also pulled directly, including Han, Bail, Avakim (Anakin), and Korellians.

Overall, the scientific concepts on display here were excellent and intriguing, the quality of prose was above average, thanks to the second and third books the characters were stronger than I expected, and it was properly fun and enjoyable. I can understand why it won the Hugo for Best Series of All Time. show less

(review originally written for Bookslut)

I have always been a fan of science fiction. Let's face it, when you have a father who reads Dune and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy to you as bedtime stories, what other choice do you have? Given that, I really don't read that much of it anymore. Let's face it, there is a lot of crappy science fiction out there, and unless I really devote myself to the genre, it's hard to just go into the book store and pick up something that isn't going to be terribly lame. You can weed out all the books with large-chested women who are falling out of their uniforms on the cover (unless it's written by Heinlein), but that can still leave you with entire rooms full of books to wade through. The science show more fiction section at my favorite used book store is bigger than the entire fiction and literature section. The fact that most of it is not classified as fiction or literature should tell you something. Let's just say that I have been burned by quite a few terrible science fiction purchases. And this was back in high school, when I was still devouring Harlequin serial romance novels without blinking.

Despite all that, the well-respected name of Isaac Asimov should immediately put all fears to rest. If that isn't enough for you, there is always that the Foundation series is the winner of the Hugo Award for best all time science fiction series. Of course what really sold it for me was the fact that my sister is the one who nominated the series for the 100 books list, and she's even more skeptical of science fiction than I am.

Although there are now several Foundation novels, the original trilogy, Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation, was written thirty years before pressure from fans and his publisher forced Asimov to return to the series. When the Hugo Award was given, only these first three books existed. By the time I learned all this, I was eager to find out what all the fuss was about.

The first book, Foundation, is more a collection of short stories than a novel. Despite the fact that women are virtually non-existent in this book (except for one wife whose only purpose in the plot is to be fascinated by some new-fangled jewelry), it is by far my favorite. The fact that many science fiction authors, who can conceive of wholly alien cultures and technologies no one has even dreamed of before often cannot conceive of a purpose besides boobs, is a source of constant irritation for me. But that's a rant for another place and time, as Asimov redeems himself with the fabulous female characters in the other two books. Foundation is a collection of near misses. It tells the story of a civilization on the fringes of the universe, strong in science but weak in resources in ships. What sets it apart from the bulk of science fiction stories, and what makes it so refreshing, is the way the Foundation men use their wits to outsmart each warlord and government that threatens them, often without a single shot being fired. At the beginning of the book they are possibly the most vulnerable planet in the galaxy. By the end, they are the ruling planet of a flourishing empire.

The second book, Foundation and Empire, is really two novellas. In the first novella, the empire of the Foundation collides with what is left of The Empire, which once ruled the entire galaxy, but is now crumbling. This may be the least satisfying out of all the Foundation stories, as its resolution depends not at all on the genius or cunning of any one person. In the second story, the Foundation is menaced by a mutant, the Mule, something unforeseeable by the Seldon plan, which predicts that the Foundation will eventually rule over the entire galaxy. Although I was a trifle disappointed by how easy it was to guess the secret identity of the Mule, the way in which one woman discovers his identity and single handedly thwarts his effort to destroy all that the Foundation has worked for makes the story well worth it.

The final book, Second Foundation is also really two novellas. This book holds its mysteries closer to its chest. The only frustrating thing about it is that the end does not bring us to the promised age of the Foundation's rule over the entire galaxy. It is for this reason that so much pressure was put on Asimov to add to the Foundation series.

So if you're going to read science fiction, read the Foundation series. Or at least the trilogy. Or at least Foundation. Because this is good stuff, folks. This is what science fiction should be. Not just cool gadgetry and neat-looking aliens, but an inquiry into human behavior and civilization, the forces that hold it together and eventually tear it apart. And this series is a lot more entertaining than The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, trust me. show less