Foundation question

It really depends what you mean by 'action'. Yes, action, in that stuff happens (particularly later on, when more of an overarching plot between the stories becomes evident), but no, no action, if you been giant laser battles and people punching each other.

40 years ago I commented casually "don't like science fiction", "read these" a friend said and handed me the original foundation series. Result? totally hooked. The late Isaac is still a hero of mine.

I just finished the second book of the original series*, Foundation and Empire, and I must say, I enjoyed it very much, despite certain obvious shortcomings. The first book, Foundation, was even more enjoyable. I hope to read the third one, Second Foundation in the near future.

(*There are apparently a number of prequels, so the actual chronology is a bit mixed up.)

That said, I can understand why the series would not be everyone's cup of tea. The books are not exactly novels in the traditional sense, but more like a series of related short stories. The stories span centuries, so the main characters change every time there is a jump of several decades. Most of the characters are sketchily drawn, and exist only to further the plot.

But as far as your concerns go, you really don't have to worry about anything. Yes, the idea of 'psychohistory' is a driving force in the series, but it's very far from dull psychobabble or musty theory. Most of the stories involve pioneers and 'men of action' (and it's always men, with one single exception) struggling against the forces of a degenerate galactic empire or other despotic forces. The 'action' rarely involves outright fighting (though there is some of that), but more of outsmarting the enemies in quite ingenious ways. The first book especially, despite its episodic structure, is very fast moving, and certainly very far from dull.

Give the series a try. The books are not very long, and are likely available quite easily and cheaply.

Psychohistory doesn't really intrude on the plot lines anyway. The books are plot driven and yes, there's plenty of talk, but Asimov's talk is action.

In my opinion the brilliance of Asimov's Foundation series is how he managed to converge it with his Robots series.

He, along with Frank Herbert and Robert Heinlein, was masterful in the building of a vast universe that nearly effortlessly spanned a number of volumes.

The style is not sensational, as in sensationalism, but very structured, procedural, and tells a story bigger than a single character or two.

The underlying premise of The original Foundation Series was the discipline of Psychohistory being a means of understanding and controlling populations of civilization size.

There's little or no actual nuts and bolts discussion of the discipline itself, but of it's use in attempting to reduce the effects of stagnation of a society.

Since I read it during the Golden Age of Science Fiction I appreciated it for its vision and its promise for the future.

It was these words of Asimov's that made me decide to become a writer of BIG stories: "Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinder critics and philosophers of today - but the core of science fiction, its essence has become crucial to our salvation if we are to be saved at all."

The Foundation series is a great introduction to Asimov as well as the classic writing of the Golden Age of Sci-Fi.

WmH

I've read the original three books, and really enjoyed them. I found the series useful for getting a better grounding in the roots of science fiction, and the use of the speculative science of the time that went into these stories. Asimov did very well with this series given the writing conventions and resources of SF at the time.

Gene wrote: "I have several of the Foundation books on my "to read" shelf but have never attempted to read them. I know this is supposed to be one of the greatest scifi series ever written but it actually sound..."



Try listening to the BBC Radio 4 play adaptation of the first three books. i grew up with that and it got me hooked on the books. The books are harder going, but they really make you think. :)

Big question, my 2c worth. The series is worth reading, certainly the first and original three novels. There are two reasons for this claim. The first is that they are a good read, an interesting story, and insightful. Having said that, remember when they were written, within spitting distance of a century ago, by a young SF author, on a typewriter!

The second reason is that these novels are representative of the early era of SF. If you desire a knowledge of SF then reading a few of these classics from the good old days is a must.

When reading Asimov also bear in the mind that he did not like violence and sought clever, tech or science solutions to problems. Think the antithesis of John Ringo.

@Gene: basing on the function "compare books" with your books I can recommend you to read the Foundation series; I think you like it.

And I'm totally in accord with Ian's considerations.

Having finally finished the first three books, which constitutes the core series, I would say that its definitely worth the investment of time and energy. Its not so high brow to lose readers in a field of philosophical speculation. Sure, there's plenty of talking, and the characters always seem to know too much and are pulling things out of their butts, and there's more than enough talking by the end, but it would be a misnomer to say its boring or dull.

I read the first book. And though it wasn't the most outstanding book, full of drama, action and plot twists, it was a good read. It was fun and best of all it was good to know that I was reading a classic. So I would say, go for it read it. It might not be your favourite book once you have finished, but you can say you have read at least one of the classics.