The Apolyton Science Fiction Book Club: Foundation

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by JohnT
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"?

It's a matter of perspective really. Certainly, of all the "great men" in the book, Seldon is the greatest. He takes on a messianic quality as the savior of the galaxy and all the others are merely his disciples.

When I was young, this was certainly impressive to me, but now that I'm older and wiser, I'm more of the opinion that Seldon is in no better a position to decide the fate of the galaxy than anybody else.

My problem with the Foundation novels is that they aren't trying to construct something better than the Empire, some noble effort that they hope won't eventually fall apart. They're trying to recreate the Empire as near to the height of it's power as possible.

As Seldon and other Foundationers repeatedly state in the book, they like the Empire, at least before its decline. They have nothing but fond memories of the glory days, and they respect strong Emperors who can keep everything and everybody in line.

It seems to me that what must have made the First Empire great was precisely the struggle it took to forge it. To quote Douglas Adams, "In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high. Men were real men. Women were real women and small fury creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small fury creatures from Alpha Centauri."

But in the Foundation universe, there are no stakes. What Seldon is attempting to do is short cut the process and leap directly into the Second Empire, with almost no problem unforeseen. Seldon has decided that building the next Galactic Empire is too important to be left to fallible, self-interested individuals. His crises are carefully managed, with only one choice possible, dictated by the Seldon plan.

While the threats seem dangerous at the time, once Seldon makes his appearance in his magic box, everyone pretty much realizes there was no threat at all. Seldon has planned for it, the "correct" decision has been made, situation over. Everyone accepts the new status quo and is presumably better for it.

But where's the struggle here? Where's the achievement? There was no option for mistakes, because Seldon has foreseen all. From inside the system, they think they're great leaders. Seen from outside, they're merely puppets to the Seldon Plan.

Seldon is guilty of the same kind of stagnation that the Empire is experiencing. He wants a strong Empire, but not the difficult process it takes to create one.

[Clear Skies]

Just out of interest, has anyone else read the Second Foundation Trilogy? Benford, Bear and Brin...surely threee of the greatest modern SF writers. Um. Foundation's Fear (Benford) is mediocre at best; Foundation & Chaos (Bear) is marginally better. Foundation's Triumph (Brin) is the only one which shines, and even then I have issues with a lot of it.
And they're all Seldon-based. Ack. The guy either had one hell of an interesting life, or they're overdoing it. I guess no-one dares to write beyond the end of Asimov's work, and maybe no-one could, but I sure as hell wish someone would try.

[St Leo]

Is Foundation and Earth still unavailable in North America?

[Jon Miller]

been available for a long time

JKon Miller

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
been available for a long time

It's still hard to find new. Amazon has a two week waiting period on it, if they can get it at all.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Clear Skies
Benford, Bear and Brin...surely threee of the greatest modern SF writers. Um.

My sarcasm meter is broken today. Is this or isn't it?

[Clear Skies]

Sorry. I'll make it more obvious next time

Don't get me wrong, I love all three of them...but they could have done so much more with the Second trilogy. Brin was the only one who came even close to putting enough depth into the book. If his had been the only Seldon one, and the other two had concentrated on something else, then I could've lived with it, but he had to take all the mistakes the other two had made and add his own complexity to it, and he was SO wasted...
Read Foundation's Triumph. Do. Really. Just ignore the other two. Read anything else of Bear's and Benford's, because they are great writers, but even great writers have an off day.

[St Leo]

I liked Benford's Cosmos and Bear's Anvil of the Stars.

[Static Universe]

No apologies necessary.*

That these three are considered among the current greats really says a lot about the state of science fiction today. While they've all written some good sci-fi ( and bad, too, but what writer hasn't?), nothing I've read by any of them really seems like a long term classic to me.

While Brin is probably the best of the three, he seems perpetually locked in the style of science-fiction that peaked decades ago, that of John Campbell.

[JohnT]

Static - Good analysis! (your post of 3-3-03)

And in regards to the prequels, I wouldn't call those three authors among the "greatest" either. Though Brin and Bear can be very good, their quality of output is streaky at best.

I can't remember a single Benford book that I have read.

Foundation and its sequels won the Hugo for best all-time science fiction series in 1965, the year that Dune was published. Does anybody here think it can win again? Imho, it would finish, at best, third, behind Dune and LOTR.

[St Leo]

Foundation > Dune
Dune >>> LotR

I've just read Dune.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by JohnT

Foundation and its sequels won the Hugo for best all-time science fiction series in 1965, the year that Dune was published. Does anybody here think it can win again? Imho, it would finish, at best, third, behind Dune and LOTR.

Foundation has picked up way too much baggage over the years.

First, the original trilogy has become somewhat dated. Leaving aside the cigar-chomping and "by the galaxies" that litter the book, the science of psychohistory hasn't held up well, as presented in the books. It's a romantic notion, but not entirely believable for most today. I find that the best bits are when they veer off the Seldon path.

Second, many are turned off by what Asimov has done with the extended series. While I personally enjoy the Robot novels (more than the Foundation trilogy ), and have no problems with their eventual tie-in in Foundation and Earth, many hard-core trilogy fans see it as a betrayal of the underlying ideas of the original stories.

Which, in fact, it is in every way. Asimov's prequels don't help matters either, because they only undermine the trilogy even further. And it probably wasn't necessary to tie in all the robot short stories, the Nemesis stories, etc., into the story arc.

Third, the series has suffered a big blow in the attempt to create a franchise out of it. It's really watered it down to some extent.

It's still a great series, but for entirely different reasons today than when it was originally selected. It's an entirely different work today than 1965, and will ultimately be judged on that.

Dune holds up much better, probably because Herbert is much better at dealing with characters than Asimov. Not surprising, since Asimov preferred writing non-fiction, and it generally shows in his work. He's great at exposition, and when his characters aren't exspousing* something, they fall pretty flat. He has one stock male character he uses under different names throughout the books.

Herbert does tend toward grandious pretentiousness in his characters, though.

My problem with the Dune novels is relatively minor: what's so important about Duncan Idaho, anyway? I like the character, but is there a reason he keeps showing up over thousands of years? This is never addressed. Idaho seems to me the only "real" character in the books. His reminisces in God Emperor about climbing a cliff as a child stand out for me as one of the few genuine emotions in the Dune series.

Dune has also gone the franchise route, with prequels also. Although I have not read the Brian Herbert books, most of the reviews I have read seem to generally agree that they are not up to the intellectual standard Frank Herbert set in his novels.

Tolkien, on the other hand, has aged like fine wine. The publication of the Silmarillon and 12 volumes of lost tales and more or less fragments only serve to make Tolkien look like even more of a genius, and only reinforce the literary credibility of the original works.

The success of the LOTR movies is bringing a whole new generation to the books, a la the animated versions twenty year ago, while Dune has produced dramatic failures on the screen. Either they capture the atmosphere or the story, but not both. Foundation is basically unfilmable, or at least unreleasable as a mainstream movie, anyway.

IMO, Tolkien's series is the only one that still retains "masterpiece" status, precisely because it's great literature in nearly every way. It's a work people will still discuss 100 years from now, whereas I feel both Dune and Foundation will generally decline in importance.

Of course, it must be noted that Tolkien's work is about the past, while Foundation and Dune both concern the future.

My personal picks:

1) Tolkien's Work
2) Foundation (Trilogy Only)
3) Dune Series
4) Larry Niven's Known Space series (minus Ringworld Throne )
5) Complete Robots Through Foundation Series




* Is that even a word?

[JohnT]

I believe the word is "espousing".

[JohnT]

"My problem with the Dune novels is relatively minor: what's so important about Duncan Idaho, anyway? I like the character, but is there a reason he keeps showing up over thousands of years? This is never addressed. Idaho seems to me the only "real" character in the books."

SPOILERS ABOUT DUNE UP AHEAD!!!!!!

Spoiler:

I never thought of the different Idahos as the same character, rather different people with the same name. Makes it easier somehow. For the God Emperor, Idaho was

a. A link to Leto's past.
b. A genetic wildcard that Leto would allow into his breeding program.

In Heretics, I believe he was brought back as so to make Duncan a Kwisatz Haderach - I seem to recall him drinking the water of life somewhere in the book. This would give him the memories of Paul Maud'dib and Leto II.

I think. It got rather confusing at the end - Herbert wrote a lot of words, but he was never one just to state something.

I, too, am upset as to what has happened to the Dune franchise - whomever Herbert bequethed control of the franchise to is not doing a good job. Those horrible prequels, that laughable sci-fi channel mini-series, and the abortion that will be "Children of Dune" is hammering the overall worth of the Dune books to 'nil.

Haven't read the LOTR books. Fantasy and adventure isn't my thing... I'm more Exposition-boy. That's why I love Children of Dune the most out of all the series: nobody does anything except talk and think.

My five favorite SF series:

1. Dune (Frank Herbert only)
2. The Gap series, Stephen R. Donaldson
3. Hyperion/Endymion, Dan Simmons (though there is the biggest continuity flaw in the history of space operas in these books.)
4. Firestar/Rogue Star/Lode Star/Falling Stars, Michael Flynn.
5. The Nights Dawn trilogy, Peter F. Hamilton.

[Clear Skies]

LOTR...meh. I always get bored halfway through Return of the King. I've read LOTR four time sand only got all the way through once.

As for Brin, Benford and Bear...give me the two Stephens (Lawhead and Baxter) any day. Very cool writers