Announcement

**Static Universe** · March 1, 2003, 15:00

Originally posted by JohnT
not to be offensive or anything, they all sound White as all hell.

That's because Asimov doesn't do dialogue well. The "rational" people all talk in heavy exposition mode and everyone else talks in some kind of dialect which identifies them as less intelligent. This is pretty common to all his stories, but especially the Foundation stuff.

**jdd2007** · March 1, 2003, 15:26

it arrived yesterday. il have to read it quick, to join in.

**JohnT** · March 1, 2003, 15:33

Thread is active all month, jdd. Take your time.

**yaroslav** · March 1, 2003, 17:27

Originally posted by Rex Little
Well, they sounded "white" because Asimov was "translating" for a very predominately white readership. The residents of a galactic empire thousands of years from now probably won't speak English, at least not in any form we'd recognize. A story set in such an empire has to render the dialogue in a form its readers will understand.

First of all, I'm not a English-speaker, and I have read Foundation in Spanish, not in English (In the future, I hope I can read it on English), and, even more, I don' know how a white/non-white sounds in English but, if I recall it correctly, in Prelude to Foundation or in Towards Foundation (sorry, I'm translating the Spanish names to English, they can be no exact) Harri Seldom said that those that were too white or too black were the exception, and that the vast majority was a mix (If I recall it correctly)

BTW, I love all the foundation series, but the three first books are much better than the others

**Clear Skies** · March 1, 2003, 18:21

OK, I don't have the exhaustive Foundation tarot (it's still in London and I'm in Preston, damnit, I knew I'd leave something small but vital behind...I have the Discworld tarot, and the Gundam Wing tarot, but not the Foundation...) but here's the condensed version.
With massive thanks to AtheneMiranda, because this is a lot more her work than mine. Not all of them are filled in, but once I get Zoe to send the full version up from London I'll paste it in.
As to che's comment about them being the phenotypes of literature - I like to think of them more as genotypes

what you get before the environment intervenes. If you take time to sit down and work them out, there are parallels between the Major Arcana and characters in many major literary works - so far we've only managed Foundation and Lord of the Rings, but I'm sure we'll get around to doing others sometime soon.
Anyway. Here we are - numeral, name, description and character.

0 The Fool: pure unchannelled potential, a plot-taker not a plot maker - Fallom
I The Magician: the guide you don't understand - Salvor Hardin
II The Priestess: nobody's side - Bayta Darell
III The Empress: the inevitability of nature - Gaia
IV The Emperor: the shot-caller - the Seldon Plan
V The Hierophant: the divine-right mind-ruler - the Second Foundation
VI The Lovers: the decision maker - Golan Trevize
VII The Chariot: the plot-pusher - the First Foundation
VIII Strength: the constant - Janov Pelorat, Dors Venabili
IX The Hermit: the lone wolf - Pelorat again
X The Wheel of Fortune: in way over their heads - Arcadia Darell
XI Justice: the line-drawer - Cleon II
XII The Hanged Man: the identity crisis - Sura Novi
XIII Death: the changeover - Indbur
XIV Temperance: the balancer - Quindor Shandess
XV The Devil: the fear-inducer - the Mule
XVI The Tower: the rulebreaker - the Mule again
XVII The Star: hope (ironically enough, none I can think of)
XVIII The Moon: enigma - Sura Novi
XIX The Sun: achievement and ambition - Wienis
XX Judgement: the string-puller - Hari Seldon
XXI The World: the one who understands, keeper of hidden knowledge - Bliss
XXII The Master: master of themselves and others - Harla Branno

**Clear Skies** · March 1, 2003, 18:32

Just another very quick note before I have to go get some sleep (train journey yesterday was hell):
In Foundation, Asimov challenges social model after social model. The fine balance of power held by Hardin over the Four Kingdoms gives way to the religious dominion by the Foundation, which in turn gives way to the economic dominance of the Traders, which in turn gives way to the military might of Harla Branno's day...
However, not only social models were challenged by Asimov. Philosophical ideals were also built up and torn down one by one. The cohesive top-down structure of the Empire fell; Seldon himself was unsure that the physical-knowledge-based Foundation would survive, so he created a Second Foundation, Plato's 'philosopher-kings', to guide the First Foundation and eventually rule the Second Empire.

The trend continues throughout the rest of the series. The Mule's 'benevolent' mental dictatorship rises and falls. Trevize is called upon to adjudicate between the technological First Foundation, the mentalic Second Foundation and the omniscient Gaian Overmind, which holds the potential for an almost uber-communistic collective Galaxy. Even then, Trevize is not sure that he has made the right decision, and continues seeking for the hidden hand of the Eternals behind his choice.
Every idea Asimov ever had, he challenged, and it makes for damn fine reading.

OK, apologies if that made no sense, but I'll clarify tomorrow. I really got to go to bed...

**yaroslav** · March 1, 2003, 18:42

Originally posted by Clear Skies
...

OK, apologies if that made no sense, but I'll clarify tomorrow. I really got to go to bed...

I think that it's clear

(I've read it without problems). In fact, I agree, although I like much more the three first books, where there are a lot of social/economic models; the fifth book, for instance, is related much more to the Earth than to any social model

**Static Universe** · March 1, 2003, 19:40

Originally posted by JohnT

I definitely agree that Asimov took a liking to the "Great Man" theory of historical development, though the reader really must go past the first novel to get the idea - actually, except for Seldon himself, the first novel doesn't really read that way at all.

I have to disagree. Almost the whole book is concerned with two Great Men: Salvor Hardin and Hober Mallow. They're specifically singled out in Foundation's Edge as such. Their actions as individuals, operating counter to the mainstream Foundationers, completely reshape Foundation history.

Just because Seldon shows up to rubberstamp their planned course of action does not make them less great. The Seldon appearances themselves are only a literary device to show that the other characters have made the right decisions. If he didn't show up, how would the reader know? Each appearance only serves to make Seldon look even greater.

Seldon himself was originally conceived as only a minor character in the stories. In "The Psychohistorians", written last to provide a better opening for the novelized version, I think Asimov goes a little overboard on Seldon's greatness (Of course, in the prequels, he goes even further overboard, but that's another story

).

The psychohistory elements in most of the stories are set up to place the role of decision-maker in the hands of one person.* The Foundation stories are extremely anti-bureaucratic, and none of the decisions are ever made by committee. Asimov goes out of his way to show that the fall of the First Galactic Empire can be traced directly to the over-growth of it's bureaucracy.

This anti-bureaucratic bias isn't surprising given that the stories were written under the guidance of John Campbell, who helped give birth to the American libertarian movement. This theme works its way into most "Astounding" stories: The rational individualist vs. the irrational bureacracy.

* Spoiler for those who haven't read the full trilogy:

Spoiler:

**Ramo** · March 2, 2003, 02:37

What I love about Foundation is the fact that, despite the Seldon Plan, humanity is still very dependent on individuality.

I would disagree. It's not individuality that the novel emphasizes, but the greatness of a select few individuals; it's elitism that it emphasizes. Psycho-history applies to the unwashed masses, but a few select individuals, not your average person, can rise above it.

**St Leo** · March 2, 2003, 12:48

Can't anyone be one of the few select individuals?

**Static Universe** · March 2, 2003, 14:05

Originally posted by St Leo
Can't anyone be one of the few select individuals?

Not really.

Spoiler for those who haven't read the full trilogy:

Spoiler:

**JohnT** · March 2, 2003, 17:22

A lot of good comments here! Thanks!

I will admit that I am at a disadvantage here as I only re-read the first novel and didn't touch the others. But, in the best Apolyton spirit, my lack of knowledge won't prevent me from opening my mouth.

Clear Skies: "OK, apologies if that made no sense, but I'll clarify tomorrow. I really got to go to bed..."

It made plenty of sense, and that is how I view the Dune books - each of the sequels has, as part of its function, the deconstruction of the hero in the previous novels.

Static23: "I have to disagree. Almost the whole book is concerned with two Great Men: Salvor Hardin and Hober Mallow. They're specifically singled out in Foundation's Edge as such. Their actions as individuals, operating counter to the mainstream Foundationers, completely reshape Foundation history."

You're right... and you're wrong. You are quite correct that over the long term development of the series this is how it played out, but given only the original novel I will argue that both Mallow and Hardin operated under the belief that their actions, even if it was inimical to the elites of Terminus, were perfectly in accordance with Seldon's plan. Of course this doesn't make them any the less "Great Men", but they were doing what they believed Seldon thought best. Of course, your theory is the correct one, but what good is a discussion thread if we all just say "I agree"?

You might be interested in the following web essay that I dug up in my readings: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/sf/pezhis1.html . In it the author suggests that Asimov was going to follow Toynbee's thesis of the rise and fall of civilizations, to whit:

In the spring of 1944 Asimov's friend, colleague and fellow Navy Yard employee L. Sprague de Camp lent him the first volume of Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History. Toynbee held that the history of every civilization followed a certain fixed pattern. The details of each civilization might differ, but the broad outlines remained the same for every civilization. When Asimov began his next Foundation story, "Dead Hand", Toynbee's historical theories were on his mind.

But then, Asimov changed his mind:

Meanwhile, as Asimov continued to read A Study of History, his admiration for Toynbee's historical theories waned. It seemed to him that Toynbee was essentially a classical and Christian scholar, and the order he found in history was an imposed one produced by his seeing reflections of classical history wherever he looked. Subsequent Foundation stories were generally free of Toynbee's influence.

Not having read Toynbee (just about him) I am unable to say whether this guy is remarkably astute or dropping names for his theses.

**St Leo** · March 2, 2003, 17:39

By the end of the trilogy, the implications are fairly clear: great men are not exactly self-made, they are chosen by the Second Foundation to lead the First.

Does the series portray it as the right outcome? I recall this being combatted in the later books.

**Lorizael** · March 3, 2003, 00:41

I'd argue that the people who eventually find the solutions to the Seldon Crises are bound to come into being. Seldon knew that given he conditions of Terminus and the Empire, certain problems would arise.

He altered the conditions just enough that the environment would produce characters who would be able to solve the situations that came to pass. If these people had not been there, the Seldon Plan would have failed, but it was inherent in the Seldon Plan that these people would be there

While they still had to be great people to do what they did, if those individuals had not been there, others of equal ability would have been, as this was how the Seldon Plan was supposed to work.

Seldon's psychohistory followed the path of the masses, but it is a select few individuals within the mass that actually make it do something. Without a leader's impetus, it just sits there and takes up space.

**Static Universe** · March 3, 2003, 02:34

Originally posted by St Leo
By the end of the trilogy, the implications are fairly clear: great men are not exactly self-made, they are chosen by the Second Foundation to lead the First.

Does the series portray it as the right outcome? I recall this being combatted in the later books.

The dispute between the two Foundations come up, but

Spoiler:

Announcement

The Apolyton Science Fiction Book Club: Foundation

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment