The Foundation Trilogy (1951)

I fell in love with Asimov's brilliant mysteries. This is trilogy is the first SciFi of his (which he is most famous for) that I have read. And it was so tough for me to rate. I finally settled on three stars for one reason: it took me several months to finish because I kept putting it down. I didn't care about a single character; the structure of the novel precludes that. I kept reading because the ideas were so grand and ahead of our times, even 75 years after Asimov came up with them, that I wanted to see them unravel.

Hari Seldon developed psycho-history: a mathematical analysis that has refined probability to the point of predicting the behavior of masses of people. The science of mobs. He predicted the First Galactic Empire would fall. (The current Emperor was none too pleased). To mitigate the ensuing barbarism, he creates a Foundation that would evolve over one thousand years into a Second Empire. Then he dies and our story jumps forward fifty years. The first of many such jumps.

Each jump has a new protagonist/hero that will lead Foundation through a crisis and expand its influence. Salvor Hardin dominated using Foundation's advanced atomic science as religion to control their hostile neighbors. In the next jump, Hober Mallow has established Foundation power in trade when religion no longer holds sway. The first two heroes are so clever and charismatic, I found myself rooting for them. But then they were gone. You don't stay with any character long enough to get to know them or form a connection. The first book abruptly ends with Mallow and the First Foundation after 200 years.

Foundation and Empire, or rather the fall of both. Seldon's predictions are based upon mob mentality: what happens when one person influences everything? The secretive Mule that no one has seen and everyone fears, brings down the Foundation with one blow because he is a "mutant". But again, there's no real development. The Mule is a boogeyman filtered through our protagonists. He's a card board stand in to present ideas through. That psychohistory can be thwarted by individuals. This book is mostly a big chase disguising info dumps as our heroes flee from one location to another. And it literally ends with the villain telling us how he did it! The main purpose is to introduce the concept of a Second Foundation that everyone wants to find.

Second Foyndation is a clever and satisfying ending to the trilogy that arises from the very nature of the two Foundations. First Foundation thrives upon mastery of physical sciences; Second Foundation via mental sciences (mastery of self). Which is the true Foundation that will birth a new Empire? Of the trilogy, this is the strongest because it stays with the same people and time throughout with no time jumps. The grand ideas come to fruition, but not a new Empire. There are still six hundred years out of a thousand left to go.

These were written in the fifties, when the spectre of atomic annihilation was fresh and social mores somewhat antiquated. But, the greater ideas easily survive that (instead of "atomics" why not fusion, or even arc reactors). I found this worth reading, just not as entertaining as hype led me to expect. It does make me eager to see the tv show and how they tackle the story structure. ( )

I only read Foundation. I plan on reading the others at a later date. This is the first book by Asimov that I've ever read. It was a bit touch and go there. Interesting political dialogue. The time jumps are obviously annoying to a first time reader, but necessary. Three stars to Foundation. ( )

305

759

SF has to involve some kind of imagining of a different world (even if the difference is so small, that it it is superficially indistinguishable from our world at first glance), and this difference has to be rooted in, or have implications for, science or technology. The last part is essential: it's why Frankenstein is SF, but Dracula isn't, for example. It's not just down to the environment it's set in. I think that it's more that SF is often an "active" narrative, "Action" in film parlance while "classic literature" is much more passive. It doesn't have to be this way, but a big part of the SF audience historically has been the teenage male - and they are attracted to the action style of narrative.

“Foundation” is modelled on the fall of the Roman Empire. But it's narrated by what men (and it's almost always all men) are doing. You can imagine the English teacher with their red pen "but describe what the antagonists are feeling". One (at least I) intuits their feelings from their actions.

“1984” is much more closely related to the classic novel. Obviously the cast "does things" but that is a vehicle to narrate their feelings. Right down to the last chapter where the message is the welcoming of the bullet, not the shooting of the bullet.

(the 1st volume of the pack)

Imagine “Foundation” rewritten in the classic style, the broken trustees admitting to Hardin that they were wrong and he was right. It could have emotion and pathos but, to paraphrase, it gets "I won, you lost, get over it" treatment (I can’t wait to see the TV Show when it premieres). Or Hardin's trip to Anacreon. As I this I've already forgetten the name of his assistant left behind on the Foundation to hold the fort (I'm an old geezer like Hari Seldon himself...). He is tortured, he doesn't understand why Hardin is doing what he's doing, he possibly even thinks Hardin is doing the wrong thing. All Hardin needs from him is for him to keep things ticking over, delay, delay, delay, but he barely gets a mention. In a "classic novel" he would be the focus and Hardin's trip to Anacreon would be a side note - possibly even the solution would be described before Hardin left and the suspense would be whether the assistant can hold strong and stick to the guidance that Hardin gave him or whether he will set his own path and, inevitably, ruin everything.

The opposite view however might be that SF appeals to some contemporary SF authors who can’t be bothered to do the research into the "real stuff". They’d sooner just make shit up than have to do the hard yards (Yoon Ha Lee's “Ninefox Gambit” comes to mind).

Asimov’s “Foundation trilogy” still a solid 4 stars in 2021.



SF = Speculative Fiction. ( )