Foundation

If you have arrived at this page, you have some reason to ask whether you want to read this book. The answer is yes. A more difficult question is whether you want to read it on Kindle; I’ve read it both ways, and this Kindle version is perfectly fine. There are plenty of other reviews, so I’ll just add my reflections on the book, three-fourths of a century after Asimov wrote it, and almost fifty years after I first read it. The style is basic pulp fiction. Asimov did not try to write well-crafted prose – he typed out a rough draft and then he typed out a final draft. He wanted clear, fast, easy-to-read prose. Asimov’s choice of psychology as the master social science seems an odd choice today. If he were writing in the 1960s, he probably would have chosen sociology; if in the 1980s, economics. Interestingly the book appeared just before a group of scholars (mostly economists) began to develop deductive theories of politics, though the indeterminacy central to those theories would have frustrated a determinist like Asimov. Asimov’s implicit theory of social science resonates well with both deductive agent-based modeling and inductive “big data” approaches today – probabilistic, based on the behavior of large masses of people and not on the behavior of any individual. Indeed, Hari Seldon’s abstractions from individual behavior is one feature of his psychohistory that makes Asimov’s focus on psychology seem misplaced today. That’s all the more strange because Asimov’s view of politics relies on “great men” – always men – who solve the puzzles that history poses them at key moments. They do this by breaking rules and, in the end, acting as benevolent dictators. In actual social science and history, focusing on the choices of key individuals introduces a lot of indeterminacy into your analysis. That would throw a big monkey wrench into Seldon’s plans and, as it turns out, that’s exactly what happens. Last but not least, it’s a remarkably sexist book. Asimov’s skills as a futurist did not extend to imagining moves toward greater gender equality.

Like many others, I was recommended this book as the greatest creation of the legend that is Isaac Asimov, the grandfather of science fiction. I went in expecting elaborate and exciting words created with copious technology and futuristic ideas thrown left and right. After all, the short stories that I have read by Asimov, such as the Last Question, have pointed this way. In short, I was left disappointed... but only on that front. Let me explain. The science and futurism in this book are so thin it may as well not exist. Truly the setting is in a gigantic galaxy wide empire with nuclear gadgets and funky glowing things galore. However these are merely interestingly named trinkets without much importance to the major story regarding their function. This does not mean, however, that this is a bad book. Far from it in fact. Foundation is a great book when you consider it fiction based upon history, psychology, sociology, and politics. Now this may sound gag inducing to my fellow science nerds out there, but it is so much better than I make it sound. Each "part" of the book follows at least one resident strategic genius who works to manipulate very powerful people or groups of people to align with the grand narrative plan laid out in the very beginning of the story. The result is a massively satisfying payoff as chaos flakes away to resounding success. That should be a recipe for an easy 5 star review. After all, I consider most books worth reading to be 5 stars. As you've probably guessed by now though, I hesitate to put the "worth reading overall" tag to this book. As great as the general premise is, there are two major flaws that I found when reading it. The First is the ambiguity of the "grand narrative plan" that I explained earlier in this review. Avoiding spoilers, this plan is set out fairly early on in the book. Middle to end of Part 1 I'd say. However, the idea is that the meat of the plan is hidden from the reader, and revealed slowly in important bits of the story as it progresses. This works initially, very well in fact, to create suspense in the story. After a couple parts though, it starts to become stale and formulaic. The golden rule for recurring suspense inducing plot elements is that they must be used with enough variety to remain entertaining. I cannot say that this held near the end of the book. My Second problem links in with the first part, and is the general formulaic nature of some of the parts, and the treatment of some characters due to it. The challenge with the format of this book is to constantly introduce a large number of characters that are important, interesting, and unique. This is rather easy for the first few parts, but you can see that Asimov struggled to not repeat earlier story patterns in later parts. Some characters start to seem like poorly constructed clones of previous characters. As a side note, you will be introduced to a certified badass by the name of Gaal Dornick in Page 1 of the book. He gets a lot of really nice character building and becomes a great foundation (lol) for a main character. You won't see him past page 46. Neither of these have to be deal breaking flaws. After all, it doesn't take long to read anyway, so you won't "waste" much time if you end up disliking it.

Ao reler mais uma vez Fundação, eu fiquei com uma impressão estranha de que acabara de reler Baudolino, de Umberto Eco. Talvez a fantasia fantástica num panorama de um mundo mergulhado nas trevas da ignorância após a derrocada de um antigo império. Talvez a abundância de religiosidade patética e misturada ao poder secular. Talvez o paralelo entre protagonistas anti-heróicos que desejam apenas escapar da grande confusão em que se meteram, e usam de uma criatividade inesperada para o mundo onde vivem. Talvez a sabedoria oculta no conhecimento. Talvez nada realmente, só um delírio meu.

Boyfriend had been wanting this. Good buy

Fondamentale per la fantascienza. Riletto oggi fa veramente impressione riscoprire i corsi e ricorsi storici. Asimov aveva già previsto come dall'impero delle armi, si passi al governo della religione (o fanatismi politici genericamente parlando) ed infine alla supremazia del denaro. Sembra che oggi la nostra società sia in questa fase; decadenza dell'mpero?

Asimov's Foundation books are rightly so seen as masters of the art of science fiction. The concepts, the ideas and the execution of the books is near flawless and the basic ideas have spread through many other Asimov books. Anyone interested in these books would presumably already have some idea of the central idea of psychohistory being used to model future human events and society. It was a revolutionary concept back in the 1950's and even today outside of fiction and in the real world of mathematics and human studies is debated. There are some who debunk the idea that humans and society can be modelled effectively to understand future events but there is a large body of research that does indicate it's at least partially the case that we can understand future patterns based upon historical evidence. And the truth of that is of course the Coronavirus which has various governments basing their strategy upon the predicted actions of society based upon mathematical models using past information. It's not quite the same but there are certainly parallels that make reading Foundation such an interesting thing. Now, inevitably having been written in the 1950's the language and some of the social mores are a little quaint compared to modern society. Essentially Asimov reflected the times he lived in and no matter how far thinking - which sci-fi is by it's very nature - it can only be written on the basis of current understanding. I do note another reviewer who takes to task Asimov for not creating more female protagonists which, I find surprising given that in many of his books the stronger lead characters are often women. Writing style is of course engaging and easy to enjoy which, is something one would expect from a writer of such renown and popularity. Overall, a masterpiece and one that is still relevant today 60 years on.

Came back to this series again about 20 years after first reading. Some of the concepts feel like they’ve aged better than others. There’s a lot less emphasis on the science behind the technologies used compared to some of the recent 21st century sci-fi of Reynolds or Banks. But it still feels an incredible vision for a book first published in 1951. Some of the older social mores are cute, like the fact that everyone seems to smoke. Others less so - there is barely a single woman even appearing in the book, let alone performing a role - except for perhaps the Commdora of Korell. In fact, character development in general takes a very low priority. The concepts and narratives come so densely that each episode could probably be fleshed out into a novel of its own. But the majestic scope of this series makes it hard to put down, and the fast-moving pace gives it a quite unique atmosphere.