The Foundation Trilogy

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

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

Isaac Asimov è stato il mio "maestro spirituale" della prima adolescenza, leggendo i suoi romanzi (e qualche saggio) ho imparato una certa visione del mondo che vede la fiducia nell'uomo come fulcro. Asimov era un'umanista e questa considerazione non è puramente accessoria nell'affrontare i suoi romanzi.
Quando il giovane Isaac negli anni '40 arriva negli uffici di Astounding Stories, diretto dal mitico John W. Campbell, grazie alla sua novella più famosa, Notturno, si ritrova nell'eccitante ma scomoda posizione di essere tra i favoriti del dispotico editore.
Si trova in sala d'attesa e non sa che progetto presentargli. E' così che ripensando a "Declino e caduta dell'impero romano" di Gibbons (un mattone, che Asimov ha letto ben due show more volte) gli viene in mente di sviluppare la storia della fine dell'impero galattico e degli sforzi di un'organizzazione, la Fondazione appunto, per scongiurare trentamila anni di medioevo galattico.
Il fulcro della storia è l'immaginaria scienza della psicostoria, capace di prevedere statisticamente i comportamenti delle popolazioni attraverso complicatissime variabili. Altro punto è che la galassia asimoviana è completamente abitata da umani. Il motivo è che per Campbell l'alieno è sempre inferiore all'essere umano, mentre Asimov, che non ne è tanto sicuro, evita elegantemente lo scontro con il suo mentore obliando qualsiasi forma di vita non umana.
La trilogia di fatto non è una trilogia ma una raccolta di nove racconti di lunghezza variabile con continuo cambio di protagonisti lungo circa trecento anni dalla caduta dell'impero in poi. La collocazione in tre volumi è successiva, dovuta alla pubblicazione negli anni '50. In realtà il presente volume della Mondadori restituisce nella sua integrità il nucleo originale delle storie della Fondazione.
La Fondazione è sicuramente un capolavoro della fantascienza e un pilastro della letteratura americana contemporanea, ma non è perfetto. Risente del clima originario dei pulp magazine, non è screvo di ingenuità, soprattutto riguardo all'uso dell'energia atomica.
La costruzione delle trame tuttavia, con personaggi che usano il cervello al posto dei muscoli (famosa ed emblematica la frase "la violenza è l'ultimo rifugio degli incapaci", che dice tutto di Asimov) è notevole, anche se non può essere apprezzata da tutti.
Considero i volumi ulteriori, scritti negli anni '80 come un meraviglioso surplus e approfondimento, raggiungendo spesso vetta proprie della maturità artistica. Non tutti, però, riescono ad apprezzare l'Asimov anziano, prediligendo le trame della giovinezza. Io sono di un partito speciale che preferisce i romanzi maturi, ma è ovvio che l'originaria Trilogia Galattica resti un caposaldo e pietra di paragone essenziale. 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

In 1974 I was twelve years old. I had been reading on my own for close to eight years, and had been reading "grown-up" books--with varying degrees of understanding (oh, how I blushed for my younger self when I reread some of them years later)--since I was ten. At some point my dad--who always related to kids better as potential adults than as the kids they were--started giving me grown-up books for birthdays and Christmas. That year, 1974, I received an omnibus edition of The Foundation Trilogy, newly published in paperback.

Isaac Asimov's grand, sweeping, galaxy-spanning future history of the human race blew my mind. It's a trite expression, but--considering my age at the time, and the era when I received the book--utterly apt.

I read show more The Foundation Trilogy (that exact copy) biannually throughout my teens, and have been giving it a once or twice a decade read (same copy) since hitting my majority. (As a young adult I had my first moment of dreading a parent's impending senility when, for Christmas of 1982, I received another copy, hardcover this time, of the same book. Before broaching the subject with my dad--he was, after all, only 44, so I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt before suggesting that perhaps he needed to see a specialist--I opened the book. It was inscribed by the author on the half title page, "To Rebecca with love, Isaac Asimov 22 Dec 82." Very classy, dad.)

As the novel opens (don't quibble with me here, okay?: I know a trilogy is three separate novels, but I read them all at once at a very tender age and have never thought of them as anything but a single entity) the Galactic Empire, which for tens of thousands of years rose and expanded until it "stretch(ed) across millions of worlds from arm-end to arm-end of the mighty double-spiral that was the Milky Way," is falling, and has been for centuries. As is the way of these things, though infrastructure crumbles and vice of all kind rages, the quadrillions of inhabitants of the Empire are blissfully unaware.

Hari Seldon is a mathematician and creator of the science of Psycho-History, a discipline which, by using complex computations, can predict the movements of mankind--but only on a massive scale. Though branded a traitor and nicknamed "Raven" for his predictions, he manipulates the powers that be into allowing him to set up a Foundation at the far end of the Galaxy, a group that will be dedicated to writing an exhaustive encyclopedia chronicling mankind's achievements. This, Seldon predicts, will shorten the period of barbarity that will inevitably follow the fall of empire from 30,000 years to a mere millennium.

These plucky couple of hundred thousand exiles, sent to a tiny planet with no natural resources, must dig deep and find their own natural resources, lost to mankind in general centuries earlier as part of the complacency of empire. The first book of the trilogy, Foundation, takes place over the first two centuries of the Foundation era. Told in short, intense episodes, the book follows the rise of the political class on Terminus, the Foundation's planet, as it learns the true nature of its exile, through the development of a trading economy and the creation of a galactic religion revolving around the worship of atomics. Every fifty years or so a "Seldon Crisis" looms, the successful overcoming of which takes the Foundation closer to its goal of restoring humanity to the greatness that allowed it to conquer the Galaxy in the first place.

Book two, Foundation and Empire, continues as Foundation traders roam further and further afield, and closer and closer to the once great seat of power, Trantor. As the Empire has crumbled warlords have taken power, and the Foundation traders peddling atomic trinkets--jewelry that gives the wearer an angelic aura, deep freeze units and other household conveniences--are seen as Magicians. The Foundation's progress toward a new empire progresses apace until a monkey wrench is thrown into Seldon's Plan, a freak of nature which a science dealing "not with man, but with man-masses" could never prepare for.

And the last book, Second Foundation, details the first Foundation's desperate search for their sister Foundation, set up in secret at the opposite end of the galaxy, and which they now view as antithetical to their destiny.

All of the usual criticisms of Asimov's work can be applied to The Foundation Trilogy. The writing is often stilted, the characters one-dimensional (and nearly all male), the dialog wooden. But I didn't care about that as a twelve year old, reading it in just a few marathon sittings. Then, I was awed by the grandeur, the hugeness of the vision. Tens of thousands of years. Twenty-five million planets. Quadrillions of people. The story was compelling. It moved quickly, and it ranged far--far!--and wide. The two episodes that were my favorite on that first reading--that of the young couple, Bayta and Toran, who pick up a fugitive with unusual talents while on their honeymoon, and that of the plucky future novelist Arcadia Darell (none-too-coincidentally just about my age)--remain my favorite episodes today. Both contain, in my estimation, Asimov's best female characters who, while as wildly stereotypically fifties women as it's possible to be, are still bright and courageous and fascinating.

What has struck me upon more mature readings is Asimov's joyous and unbridled optimism, something I don't think most young readers are even capable of detecting, let alone appreciating. If I were to choose an epigraph for the work it would have to be from Hamlet:

What a piece of work is a man! How noble in
Reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving
how express and admirable! In action how like an Angel!
in apprehension how like a god!

For, though Asimov is clear-eyed enough to recognize the darkness that lies within an individual man and what it can drive him to, still, he's in love with mankind and what we can achieve.

And so, The Foundation Trilogy is and always shall be one of my favorite books of all time. In my personal canon it sits on the same shelf as Gravity's Rainbow, Winter's Tale, and One Hundred Years of Solitude. It is a book that formed me and one that I will always come back to. And if you have never read it, and are thinking of picking it up: I envy you, reading it for the first time! May it bring you as much joy as it's brought me, and may you always be able to see the nobility in mankind. show less

I am in the middle of Foundation and Empire and I must say, this old trilogy holds up much better than I thought it would.

I recall Asimov recounting how, as an adult, he went back and re-read Doc Smith's Galactic Patrol and that the sense of loss when he compared it to his childhood experience of the book was ... palpable. I expected much the same thing to happen to me here ... but it hasn't.

Oh, it's dated in places ("in the future everything will be NUCLEAR," and women still seem to be mostly for decoration), but the chief idea is a really really good one, and Asimov makes it utterly engaging. Some of the scenes have been stuck in my memory for decades. And I find that, much as Asimov comes under criticism for not having been a very show more good writer, the writing is surprisingly good most of the time.

If the trilogy has a major fault, I would say that that fault is talkiness. Asimov's big climactic scenes tend, by and large, to be conversations. You won't find an awful lot of narrated action. This can make for a static, slightly claustrophobic atmosphere.

Still, when he describes his characters stepping outside and seeing the "misty lens" of the Milky Way stretching over them, one really does get the sense of being in a galaxy, and one where momentous things are happening.

Oh, and in the future? Everyone really likes cigars. ;^) show less