Discussion I've just read the first Foundation book (Isaac Asimov), want to talk about it

[mikeymikec]

I can't remember who recommended it, but I've just finished reading it. In the past I've enjoyed Isaac Asimov's books, solid entries in the scifi genre IMO such as 'I, Robot' (the collection of short stories, though they get increasingly drier and complex as the book goes on, I've read it multiple times though), the detective series including 'Caves of Steel', 'The Naked Sun', 'The Robots of Dawn' and I think that's it.

However, I found 'Foundation' to be pretty dry reading in comparison. It had some interesting bits such as the notion of psychohistory, but rather like a Trek fan asking how the warp drive works, this book offers nothing to explain why psychohistory is so amazingly accurate at predicting the future of civilisation apart from some very vague reasons (the answer to the Trek fan was "very nicely, thank you"), and I've read the likes of Dune where the topic of religion being used as a tool to manipulate people is definitely a theme, and that theme was interesting in this book, but as it went on I couldn't help but get the impression that the book increasingly consisted of long dry chapters followed by political "gotcha" situations and the last probably 40% of the book was a long slog that I was happy to reach the end of. To be fair I don't think I was eager to continue reading this book at any point. I think the book's nature of hopping forward a hundred or so years (or however many) to the point that none of the previous characters exist any more (rinse and repeat a few times) was a style that made me care less about the conclusion as well.

When I purchased this ebook I also picked up the other two in the Foundation trilogy at the same time because I assumed I'd like it (and they were relatively cheap), but it would take some convincing now to get me to read more of it.

I'd be interesting in hearing others' thoughts on this book.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I can't remember who recommended it, but I've just finished reading it. In the past I've enjoyed Isaac Asimov's books, solid entries in the scifi genre IMO such as 'I, Robot' (the collection of short stories, though they get increasingly drier and complex as the book goes on, I've read it multiple times though), the detective series including 'Caves of Steel', 'The Naked Sun', 'The Robots of Dawn' and I think that's it.

However, I found 'Foundation' to be pretty dry reading in comparison. It had some interesting bits such as the notion of psychohistory, but rather like a Trek fan asking how the warp drive works, this book offers nothing to explain why psychohistory is so amazingly accurate at predicting the future of civilisation apart from some very vague reasons (the answer to the Trek fan was "very nicely, thank you"), and I've read the likes of Dune where the topic of religion being used as a tool to manipulate people is definitely a theme, and that theme was interesting in this book, but as it went on I couldn't help but get the impression that the book increasingly consisted of long dry chapters followed by political "gotcha" situations and the last probably 40% of the book was a long slog that I was happy to reach the end of. To be fair I don't think I was eager to continue reading this book at any point. I think the book's nature of hopping forward a hundred or so years (or however many) to the point that none of the previous characters exist any more (rinse and repeat a few times) was a style that made me care less about the conclusion as well.

When I purchased this ebook I also picked up the other two in the Foundation trilogy at the same time because I assumed I'd like it (and they were relatively cheap), but it would take some convincing now to get me to read more of it.

I'd be interesting in hearing others' thoughts on this book.

I can't speak to the books, but for the series a primary plot point is that the concept of psychohistory is based entirely on math, and a type of mathematics that only a few people in the galaxy really understand. It's draconic enough that most people seem to regard it as junk science, a few people worship it as a religion, and even those that understand it have to confer with others to verify their work.

I don't know to what extent that portion of the series follows the books, though. Basically all of assimov's works get rebuilt like Lego until it forms a coherent story, so that paragraph above might be a series only thing.

 

[mikeymikec]

I can't speak to the books, but for the series a primary plot point is that the concept of psychohistory is based entirely on math, and a type of mathematics that only a few people in the galaxy really understand. It's draconic enough that most people seem to regard it as junk science, a few people worship it as a religion, and even those that understand it have to confer with others to verify their work.

I don't know to what extent that portion of the series follows the books, though. Basically all of assimov's works get rebuilt like Lego until it forms a coherent story, so that paragraph above might be a series only thing.

That sounds like the TV series did a bit of short-cutting / re-wiring. In the first book, the religion that the Foundation produces has nothing to do with psychohistory, it's just a method for the Foundation to control neighbouring systems.

 

[IronWing]

The Foundation series is dry, start to finish, but it has a few good moments. The post-trilogy books are better in style but go off into pop fantasy. Can’t say much more without spoilers.

 

[mikeymikec]

The Foundation series is dry, start to finish, but it has a few good moments. The post-trilogy books are better in style but go off into pop fantasy. Can’t say much more without spoilers.

Good to know. Do you think that in order to read the other two books in the first Foundation trilogy that I would need to remember the first book well? I'm just wondering whether I can come back to the other two in many years' time.

The other thing I wondered was whether Asimov intended to make the use of religion to be a theme that civilisation will use and eventually return to using pendulum-style when the time is right, just because it seems to me that humanity is embracing the far-right in a pendulum style over nearly a century and are we doomed to keep returning to the far-right end of the pendulum.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That sounds like the TV series did a bit of short-cutting / re-wiring. In the first book, the religion that the Foundation produces has nothing to do with psychohistory, it's just a method for the Foundation to control neighbouring systems.

Oh it is in the series too I guess, I more meant that outside of the few, even those that know the word psychohistory don't understand a whit of it, and just see it as magic/godly instead.

 

[Torn Mind]

One of the earliest points is that arguments can be eviscerated with logic(Hardin sgaga). However, I find that the presentation now, while compelling and true in its essence, is nevertheless deficient in that "lawyering" political speech is much different than "philsophically trying to prove or disprove". And that laypeople don't know either but think they can bring philosophy into the legal sphere while maintaining their own individual biases; a mismatch doomed to fail.

The other general point - Statistics or statistical modeling is powerful in predicting things.

Statistics are not perfect because single data points or individuals may behave well outside the bounds of the assume parameters. Descriptive statistics do not influence or block future data points nor can be used inferentially. Said single data point can make a enormous impact due to his ability to control and act in the world (The Mule is supposed to represent this; while most would infer a political tyrant because the Mule was one, I would say Tom Brady is a statistical "Mule" in football)

The common individual with a high school education then, as it is now, comes out with a Newtonian perspective of the world. The math the majority learn is of the most mechanical nature because that's what geometry and algebra are. Rigid principles and framework; some might hate those subject so much they have no sense of the subjects. They will never learn calculus, probability distributions, inferential statistics, etc. Which is basically correct. The only people when get statistics tossed on them for work are scientists, and even most scientists just use it mechnically with no sense of what they are doing with it.

"pop statistics", well, that manifests itself in plenty of spheres. "Quoting numbers" or very simplistic yet absolutist inferences from that number(NFL stats might be such a collection data that represents how the unlearned argues statistics.

Asimov wrote in a time when psychology was dominated by behaviorism. I do wonder if he had some disagreements internally with the framework(that only observable behaviors are what exists") that time even though he was no psychologist.

Foundation is a scientist's attempt to give the layman a sense of some of the things a scientist does and in what realms they are used. And that advance science is not the "rigid" knowledge that you might have gotten the impression of in high school and that statistics and probability are what builds the factual foundations in the sciences, both physical and social.

 

[Torn Mind]

I read it in high school or middle school, which was before I had knowledge of statistics or any university education.

My understanding in my post above is based on having a university education culminating in a Bachelor's in Economics(originally, I was on the natural sciences track but I kinda flaked out). Usage of statistics and probability is HEAVY in economics.

TLDR; Foundation becomes more and more comprehensible the more formal study and practice of science you do; it is probably wise to do both social and natural because while everything has the same principles of observation, there are some "flavors" in a specific field of study.

Foundation is indeed quite wordy, unmemorable, and dull. But the highlights are pretty in your face.

The more recent disdain I have for the "scientifically trained" regarding their utter incompetence or even, anti-competence in matters of politics, legal justice, etc is because I really have read legal books and well, let's just say the reasoning in that realm does not mesh with the ideals scientists hold and employ. Nothing can substitute understanding law but learning it formally; and NO ONE can naturally learn law.

This is law meeting scicen:
The action of science is embodied in two general actions. Observation and Validation of that observation. The act of observing requires both willingness and ability, and humans can lack one of each or both. But also, other humans can deprive willingness and ability, including other scientists.
Related to ability, money(or the deprivation thereof) can shut down science down even if willingness is present.

As such, the scope of scientific knowledge is finite and incomplete. If man chooses to not know, then science is basically "waived".

 

[SKORPI0]

Read it in the early 80s, since I was into sci-fi books (Asimov, Clark, R.Heinlein, Bradbury, F.Herbert, P.Dick, A.Huxley, etc)
Found it to be interesting at first, and then boring at the end, hoping they would make movies on it.

Now we have Foundation (TV series) from Apple TV+. I'll have to somehow find time to watch these and see if it's any good.

Dune (1984), good special effects for that time. Some liberties with the story line made by the writers/director, how disappointing.
More Dune versions. Dune (2021) was okay.

Ended up collecting VHS, DVD, Blu-rays and 4K UHD for some of them.

 

[sdifox]

I enjoyed the first trilogy. Not that I remember why. It's been decades since I read them. Also, the trilogy was really a series of short stories written over eight years and collated into the trilogy...

Foundation (Asimov novel) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[KB]

There is a prequel called Prelude to Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_Foundation which details it a little more about how and why psychohistory works.

Spoiler on psychohistory and how it works:

Spoiler

Spoiler is psychohistory doesn't work and later books discover why.

The first trilogy is very dry. I wouldn't have made it through if I wasn't a huge Asimov fan. Later books like Forward the Foundation and Foundation and Earth are more fun reads.

 

[pmv]

Read the trilogy as a teenager (a _long_ time ago). So can't remember a great deal.

But, I vaguely remember that it was kind of a SF rewrite of the Roman Empire, and I liked the "historical" scope of it - the way main characters in earlier parts of the story became historical figures later on.

Also I think it's an interesting period piece in that it's a product of the days when sociology seemed to be an exciting new discipline. "Psychohistory" seems to be sociology amped up to the level of a predictive science.

I also vaguely remember thinking it went off-the-rails a bit after the initial trilogy - the later stuff seemed very bloated in comparison. I think he then got carried away and tried to turn all his ouvre into some sort of extended asimov universe, rolling the Caves Of Steel books into the Foundation 'universe', and it got a bit contrived.

 

[sdifox]

Timeline for the Robots & Foundation universe

A chronological timeline for the Robots & Foundation series of books by Issac Asimov

www.sikander.org

 

[misuspita]

I enjoyed the first trilogy. Not that I remember why. It's been decades since I read them. Also, the trilogy was really a series of short stories written over eight years and collated into the trilogy...

Foundation (Asimov novel) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Read it in my 20s, all Asimov I could find and all Arthur C Clarke. If you want your brains noodlled, then try Greg Egan. Axiomatic or Lumineous, there are more. Liked Egan very much, but of the large tri- or multi-logies in Scifi, I liked most the Arthur C Clarke's Rama (Starting with Randezvous with Rama), extremely nice written about our first ET contact, and Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy (Mars Red, Mars Green, Mars Blue) which very realistically depicts the construction of a colony on Mars. If you have time, I think they have not lost their shine.

 

[blankslate]

I haven't read Foundation but I have read a couple of the I Robot books with R. Daneel Olivaw.
I do like how it seems that all (or at least notable number of) Asimov's books take place in the same universe just at different points in his fictional universe's history.


__________

 

[pmv]

The first trilogy is very dry. I wouldn't have made it through if I wasn't a huge Asimov fan. Later books like Forward the Foundation and Foundation and Earth are more fun reads.

It's been such a long time since I was a SF geek/fan. But funny thing is I remember feeling entirely the opposite - really liked the original triology, but felt he was milking it a bit with those later books, which were over-long, and full of padding, and lacked the scope of the originals. They felt kind-of contrived and plot-driven in comparison.

The whole topic reminds me again of how much more easily I could get immersed and emotionally-involved in fiction when I was young. Was constantly reading SF novels as a teenager. At some point, though, reading fiction somehow changed into a rather dry, academic exercise, and then I eventually stopped reading fiction entirely.

 

[Captante]

I really enjoyed the original trilogy myself but after that I never went back.

The Mule was one scary mofo!

 

[pmv]

I mean (changing the topic, I admit) is that just me? I remember as a child and adolescent being so much more _involved_ when I read fiction. I used to read a _lot_ and get really lost in fictional worlds. I remember actually feeling _sad_ when I finished a book, because I wouldn't meet those characters again (unless they were part of a series!). As well as Asimov's stuff I vaguely remember reading a lot of James Blish's Cities In Flight series. And Harry Harrison's stuff.

But somewhere after adolescence fiction quite abruptly ceased to feel so immersive, somehow becoming a purely intellectual exercise, and thus there seemed little point in reading it, rather than reading something factual that would teach me something about the real world. Something changed in the way my brain worked, I feel. Is that just me?

Eventually decided there was no point reading nonsense some posh person in Hampstead had made up (wading through Martin Amis's mystifyingly-overrated drivel was the last straw), and started exclusively reading non-fiction.

 

[sdifox]

It's called adulting

 

[pmv]

It's called adulting

Well I for one miss the ability to become fully emotionally engaged in fictional works. Without it, reading novels as an adult is a dull endevour, to the point where I don't really get why anyone bothers. You are constantly aware that you are just getting the world-view of some out-of-touch posh literary type, filtered through a lot of showing-off.

 

[sdifox]

Op should read all three books then judge.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Read the trilogy as a teenager (a _long_ time ago). So can't remember a great deal.

But, I vaguely remember that it was kind of a SF rewrite of the Roman Empire, and I liked the "historical" scope of it - the way main characters in earlier parts of the story became historical figures later on.

Also I think it's an interesting period piece in that it's a product of the days when sociology seemed to be an exciting new discipline. "Psychohistory" seems to be sociology amped up to the level of a predictive science.

I also vaguely remember thinking it went off-the-rails a bit after the initial trilogy - the later stuff seemed very bloated in comparison. I think he then got carried away and tried to turn all his ouvre into some sort of extended asimov universe, rolling the Caves Of Steel books into the Foundation 'universe', and it got a bit contrived.

- Its also a massive influence on the Imperium of Man from the Warhammer 40K universe. I read it after I was into 40K, and it was fun reading through all of the obvious outright lifting 40K did from Foundation.

 

[nakedfrog]

It's called adulting

Still quite a few adults out there fully capable of enjoying fiction books ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I mean (changing the topic, I admit) is that just me? I remember as a child and adolescent being so much more _involved_ when I read fiction. I used to read a _lot_ and get really lost in fictional worlds. I remember actually feeling _sad_ when I finished a book, because I wouldn't meet those characters again (unless they were part of a series!). As well as Asimov's stuff I vaguely remember reading a lot of James Blish's Cities In Flight series. And Harry Harrison's stuff.

But somewhere after adolescence fiction quite abruptly ceased to feel so immersive, somehow becoming a purely intellectual exercise, and thus there seemed little point in reading it, rather than reading something factual that would teach me something about the real world. Something changed in the way my brain worked, I feel. Is that just me?

Eventually decided there was no point reading nonsense some posh person in Hampstead had made up (wading through Martin Amis's mystifyingly-overrated drivel was the last straw), and started exclusively reading non-fiction.

Might just be the "loss of innocence", when you're younger and experiencing so many things for the first time, they feel bigger and more important. Then the world as it is now wears us down with jaded cynicism and bitterness. I read quite a few Stainless Steel Rat books, and at least one Bill, the Galactic Hero.

 

[pmv]

Still quite a few adults out there fully capable of enjoying fiction books ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Might just be the "loss of innocence", when you're younger and experiencing so many things for the first time, they feel bigger and more important. Then the world as it is now wears us down with jaded cynicism and bitterness. I read quite a few Stainless Steel Rat books, and at least one Bill, the Galactic Hero.

Re: Harry Harrison, there was also the "Deathworld" trilogy.

I can't help but feel it's something neurological, an actual change in the structure of your brain as you get older. Though I guess it's very hard to say where experiential effects end and biological ones begin.

Post-adolescence, fiction seemed either too shallow and childish to take seriously, or, if it was 'serious' literary fiction, it was too dry and dull and impossible to read without being constantly aware of the attitude and agenda of the writer (and I'd find myself thinking about the sociological implications of the writer's attitudes rather than than actually entering into the story). Hence gradually transitioned to only ever reading history books and other non-fiction.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Re: Harry Harrison, there was also the "Deathworld" trilogy.

I can't help but feel it's something neurological, an actual change in the structure of your brain as you get older. Though I guess it's very hard to say where experiential effects end and biological ones begin.

Post-adolescence, fiction seemed either too shallow and childish to take seriously, or, if it was 'serious' literary fiction, it was too dry and dull and impossible to read without being constantly aware of the attitude and agenda of the writer (and I'd find myself thinking about the sociological implications of the writer's attitudes rather than than actually entering into the story). Hence gradually transitioned to only ever reading history books and other non-fiction.

Could just be bad writing. Good writing sucks me into the story no matter the format, and dreck is equal from all formats as well.