This is not only a scifi novel, this is a SCIENCE FICTION (and Asimov deserves not to be acronymed as scifi) MONOLITH, this was for science fiction what Ben Hur was for movies.
Need I say anything more? (By the way, this thread is meant to be for the initial novel, not the whole series).
I loved the initial trilogy. I’m not sure I have the fortitude to wade through the 1,000 odd pages at this point in my life, but it is one of the greatest series in SciFi history. The later books never captured my interest…
— Dismal the fearful reader
Certainly, “Foundation” is his magnum opus. I’ve also enjoyed a couple of his short stories, though. Some robot stories, of course, and then there’s little story (I think from his “Computer Crimes and Capers” collection, but I’d have to check) where there’s this guy who gets a copy of “Robinson Crusoe” from a bookstore and does want to pay for yet because he ordered a different book and there are some legalities involved and eventually, the computer mixes it all up and he’s tried for abducting and killing Robinson Crusoe (and I won’t tell more here…)
I would challenge anyone to read the entire melded universe Isaac wrote by the timing:
Nemesis
I Robot (try reading as many of the other Robot short stores as well - there’s a 2 volume set with all robot short stories minus I Robot of course)
The 4 Robot Novels
The Galactic Empire Novels
The Foundation Novels (not in order written)
-Prelude to Foundation
-Forward the Foundation
-Foundation
-Foundation and Empire
-Second Foundation
-Foundation’s Edge
-Foundation and Earth
You’ll end up with an incredible arc that is timeless. No other writer has been able to tave 3 seperate series arcs and a stand alone novel and tie them all together with a nice pretty bow (and it doesn’t even seem contrived). You can look back at it and it makes sense.
Just my thoughts.
I’ve done that and I have to agree it all makes sense. It comprises over 10,000 years of human history. Huge scope and an epic story that is all connected with R. Daneel Olivaw the Final Cylon…ahem…not exac-T-ly. It took me 2 years to complete and I didn’t read them in order. I started with ‘Foundation’ and was hooked.
Isn’t that how it should be done? To read them in order of publication and start with Foundation? Cause otherwise, there’d be spoilers all along?
We should read this sometime this summer… especially since I just got it from the public library!
I read it when I was but a wee teenager, in my summers of carrying what felt like carrels of library books home… but I don’t remember a thing. I enjoyed I, Robot and The Gods Themselves, and actually also Azazel, but I don’t remember a thing… so yes. Let’s read this. (though I’ll read it anyways, I already have it!)
I have to agree with ya on that. I would read them by publication date. Some of those books in the series could be read as stand alone also, e.g. ‘Pebble in the Sky’. They are all part of different series: Robot, Galactic Empire, Foundation but could be read as an opus (is that the word?). My favorite is the original trilogy of Foundation books. ‘I, Robot’ is alot of fun. I’ve been reading that to my daughter. Since it’s a collection of short stories, she doesn’t get bored and run off. While reading ‘Robbie’, I couldn’t help but think of Sean and his desire for a pet centurion.
I would vote for “Foundation.” I’ve read the original trilogy once, back in high school, and really enjoyed it. I picked up the first book a year or so and tried to get through it, though, and found it really fell flat – way too “talky,” flat characterizations, etc. But I realize the Big Idea was always Asimov’s strong suit (witness the way he melded his universe together, referenced above), so I’d be willing to go at it again not expecting the artistic craft side of things too much. It is certainly an intriguing concept and without doubt one of the Important Books of the genre.
Yes, what a classic! I read this series back in the 80’s and then later on caught up with the prequels dealing with Hari’s earlier life. What I really want to do is go back and read the earlier robot books.
If it’s the first time reading the entire Opus (yes, that would be a valid term here) by publication date would allow for you to not encounter spoilers. 
If it’s not the first time reading the whole thing, then I recommend a re-read in chronological order. It’s actually pretty surprising how the story flows when you read in that order. 
By the way, if you look at the empire novels each one could actually be considered a stand alone. It’s Asimov’s losest combined series. 
GR, meld! jaja! It’s like the triad in TGT…
So I just finished Foundation. It was good - much better than things written around the same time. The concept is intriguing. Some things are weird - like gender issues (um are there women in the Foundation?) I got Foundation and Empire from the U library, since public library was closed today - this is definitely more entertaining than reading for my comprehensives…
Most definitely.
In fact, female members play very large roles. They take a larger role in Second Foundation, but when you look at the rest (Foundation’s Edge, Foundation and Earth) they play a very large role. You can even think of Gaia (can’t explain as it’s a spoiler) as a feminine character.
I read Foundation and Empire and Second Foundation, and re: women characters, it’s better than the original Foundation, but still not realistic. How is Bayta the only woman who does anything? And her adolescent grandchild? And the gender exclusive language, men men men…
In that it’s a product of the times it was written. But it was good. I’m glad I read them.
I only read the original trilogy, so I’m gonna treat this more as a general matter. About the women:
Define “realistic”?
Why would “more realistic” automatically make a novel “better”?
Here are my thoughts:
The fascinating thing about scifi literature is that it transcends time. In that way, it’s very much like history, which is also hinged on the concept of time. Time is the once unique factor that makes history different from the study of politics, society, art, architecture, what have you, because historians are dealing with those things too - but in another time.
And as a historian I learned that there’s always at least two ways to look at something: 1) the way we can look at it NOW and 2) the way people looked at it IN THE PAST - which is a great way to realize that everything in the world is subject to multiperspectivity.
So, what is realism and more strikingly and though-provokingly: what is realism in a science fiction novel? The question itself sounds like an oxymoron: realism in science fiction? Is that possible? Is it desirable?
Why aren’t Asimov’s women realistic? Because you perceive it that way? Are you looking at from a viewpoint of “now” or from a viewpoint of “in Asimov’s future universe”?
Why are you asking for realism to make a scifi novel “better” - isn’t that what scifi should be? Anything BUT realistic? It’s not Jane Austen writing a novel IN the 19th century ABOUT the 19th century, it’s novel written ABOUT the future - could it be realistic at all? Even if every effort were made to make such a novel realistic? What about people in 5,000 years who are going to be able to look back at “Foundation” as a thing of the past, both in terms of when it was written and what the story dealt with, are they going to be the ones who will be able to pass judgment upon its “realism”?
I’m not arguing with you and I don’t know a good answer myself, I’m just trying to make people realize that applying a strategy of multiple perspectives is a very neat strategy to gain more insight into something like this.
Appreciating the way we look at it now and the way it was read at the time is something that I’ve learned since my first intent to read Foundation, and I think being able to do both is what made it so that I could read it now. I see the reasons that I didn’t like the novel (to the point of having no recollection of anything except disgust when reading it), and most of them have to do with my younger self only taking it into account the way I read it at the time. I’ve also realized that my younger self gravitated towards speculative fiction novels that feature women or girls as central characters, which made it so that as a youth I didn’t read many of the “classics” - reading them, there was never anyone like me to identify with, and I couldn’t get past the protagonist’s offhand remarks about women. Now, I note it and tell myself, it’s part of the times. Sadly there are still writers who think that is an OK thing to do (straight white men writing about only straight white men… being published by straight white men), but I mostly avoid them. For me, it’s a question of personal taste (aesthetic, political).
It’s not logical to me that there would not be a single prominent woman in the Foundation until Bayta. Given that women are more than half of the population, how were none of them psychohistorians? (OK we get Callia too…) Encyclopedists? Traders? Something else? In my reading, the lack of diversity among the human population takes away from the brilliant ideas Asimov is promulgating.
Again, not arguments. Just my opinion on the books.
Yeah, I can see that. Honestly, I never realized the absence of women from “Foundation” when I read it.
Hm. I’m a straight white dude (even though “white” isn’t much of a qualifier in Germany where everybody’s white) and all I can say is hey, yes, I’m guilty of enjoying lots of scifi and other stuff that caters to certain clichées about women and such. Because most of the time, it involves hot women. And that’s good from my point of view. I can see the difficulties for a female audience, though.
It’s tough, it’s just this age-old thing about scifi, it’s been stigmatized for so long (even though it certainly was the most important literary genre of the 20th century!), it’s hard for scifi to get out of this corner where most mainstream scifi caters to young horny dudes (which I am one of, I guess).
All I can say is that even though I enjoy hot women in scifi, I’d really like to see hot women that are smart and have stable relationships with guys that are smart and not necessarily built like Schwarzenegger. - 'Cause that’s the other side of that, there’s as much Terminator porn stuff in scifi as there is Barbarella-like porn stuff.
Finally, if you’re looking for a good scifi novel featuring an interesting female lead, go take a look at Babel 17
The votes are in and “Foundation” by Isaac Asimov has been elected the November book of the month!
[
](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553293354?ie=UTF8&tag=galactiwaterc-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creative ASIN=0553293354)
FYI, clicking on the link and purchasing the book will help support the GWC Crüe
[LEFT]This thread will contain spoilers. If you have not finished the book, proceed at your own risk[/LEFT]
Well look at us all fancy and such.
Crudmuffins. Now I have to dig through the “really old paperbacks” box. Ah well.