FOUND: Part one (first thoughts on the book)

[Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth]

Hmmmm, so far I can't really say if I like this book or not. I don't hate it, so that's a start at least. The first few chapters really dragged for me (good job they were so short) and I ended up putting the book down for a bit, but when I went back to it it picked up enough to keep my attention enough to finish the first part. There are things here that interest me, but I don't really have any feel for the characters, so it's hard to care about what's happening. I'll have to wait and see where it goes from here. I'm interested in getting to the next planet, assuming that's where we go next...well, we'll see.

What are your first impressions?

[Geoff]

I did find that moving from part to part was a bit jarring since that some characters don't appear in successive parts.

[Rob, Roberator]

I didn't like part 1 as much as some of the later ones, but it was the "foundation" for the rest of the stories going ahead.

Parts 2/3 shared some characters, but for the most part each part is independent. I liked those parts the best I think.

Compared to what I usually read each part is super short, so it only took me 2 days to blow through the book though.

I took breaks between each part but read parts 1,2 day 1 and 3-5 the second day each in one sitting.

[Skip]

Much of the SF of the time was written for magazine publication, so you tend to get a lot of episodic writing. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, Alexandre Dumas and Charles Dickens wrote in much the same situation.

Part one is mostly scene setting, introducing Seldon and getting the plot rolling.

[Jonathon]

The edition I'm reading came with an introduction by Asimov which explained some of the real-world history of the books and so going in, I knew that Foundation was actually a collection of related short stories as opposed to a "novel" and I think that this had made me a bit more lenient towards the first part so far.

There are elements that I'm not particularly keen on but I can live with them because some of them are artifacts of the time when these stories were written.

I think my problem so far is that I'm not really connecting to the characters, I don't really get a sense of who these people are - Gaal by turns seems like an innocent, idealistic and almost naive young man on his first venture out into the world, but there are some lines he has that seem like they should be coming out of a character 30 years older.

I do think the concept of this book is brilliant, I just don't feel like the execution of the idea is quite gripping me yet. Perhaps when I move on to the next parts my thoughts'll change.

[Will]

It's okay but not great. I don't really like any of these characters. At least things are moving swiftly

[Mohrravvian]

I found it to be a pretty good book and a really fast read. I'm already 2/3 through book 2, Foundation and Empire, and I plan to read the 3rd book too.

What's funny is that I've had that first book for years but never read it. Now I'm glad I did!

[Anne]

"A silence formed around Chen into which he might drop his words."

I liked that bit. Who has not ever been in the presence of such a person?

[Brenda]

I'm not really enjoying it. I feel like I'm reading it just to read it, at this point, and not out of any particular sense of enjoyment. It seems like all I'm reading are conversations.

[Ayesha]

I'm rereading this (my first time was a few years ago) and just like then, I found myself really liking Hari and Gaal.

Gaal seemed like the perfect method to introduce me to this brand new world, because he, too, was new to it. And Hari was a Dumbledore-like character. (Sorry, I've got Harry Potter on the brain right now.) I was disappointed when book two began and neither character was anywhere to be found. :(

It was jarring to realize that we've now skipped 50 years ahead. And while I appreciate where the plot is going and am willing to enjoy the ride, I don't feel any connection to the new characters. Pirenen and the Enclyclopedists, Hardin and Sermak, they feel like actors in a play, not people, to me.

[Jolene]

So far it has been an easy read. I feel that this futuristic world is actually very intersting but the book just does not give that vibe (maybe that is why i am still not finished with this book. Paused in between pages to read other stuffs >_<)

[Alex]

I'm a big sci-fi and fantasy novel fan and I was *almost* embarrassed to say I absolutely hated this book. It wasn't just that it was merely a series of conversations devoid of action, but that every conversation was basically one jerk showing off to some other jerk why he was smarter and more clever than them. The book should have been called Fake Complicated Politics in Space. I really did want to like it, but... blah.

[Kristina]

I feel like it's just kind of skimming along. Being that it's a "classic" I'm starting to wonder if there is some fundamental underlying message I haven't picked up on.

I think it's a cool though that this is a Sci-Fi read, but I am reminded of many things I've read in human history. The empire being so big that it can't sustain itself-think Egypt and Rome. Then the outer planets losing scientific ground as a result, reminds me of things I've read about the Dark Ages. And how all the planets around Terminus rely on religion to explain the science they no longer understand. Every race has their own stories/myths that explain the things in nature they didn't understand, like thunder and creation.

[Corbitt]

I found myself to be indifferent towards it until Part 3 when it really seemed to start making some sense as a whole.

However, by somewhere in Part 2 I becamely very intrigued by the conversation centric way in which the book was written. The story was really about people, basically, and the sci fi part was just kind of....there.

[Anne]

Asimov's work is a glimpse into an intellectual world that has no particular interest in sex, titillation, or the feminine mystique beyond keeping the humans extant. Not worth discussing in detail. Hard to relate to or connect with such men after 50 yrs of propaganda that love, sex, etc is everything important to know about people. What to think of men who are not motivated by somebody else's wife or similar plot mechanisms? Can anything else really be interesting?

A glimpse into such a world - one we can hardly understand. Do such worlds exist still?

[library_jim]

I'm suffering from what Veronica was afraid of with Assassin's Apprentice. It was a book she loved as a younger reader and was worried it wouldn't hold up. Dude, I read the Foundation series from the three prequels up to Foundation's Edge around late middle school/ early high school and loved them. Read some othe Asimov and lots of other sf but now...I listened to 2 1/2 disks and just had to give up. I guess I've just moved on or something. I even just read The End of Eternity recently and found it enjoyable. But I'm going to pass on re-reading this. I guess I can't say I'm Leming it since I've read it before. Is there some obscure German word for giving up on re-reading a book you're disappointed in but enjoyed as a younger person?

[Hélène]

As I can read, some people seem to have difficulties to connect with the characters, and I think I have to. But it did not bothered me that much because I connected really much with the universe they live in...

I think it's kind of strange but for me the characters are just passing by, trying to live up to the expectations Seldon had for them : saving human kind a lot of time rebuilding a society... a universe... and I feel myself waiting not to know what will happen to the characters but to know if the're gonna save the world... As if the main character for me was more the universe than the humans... So I think I'm gonna read the other books to see where it's all going!

Be kind, I'm not an english-speaking reader, and I probably sound like a ten year old, but that's my first attempt to post on the forum and share with you guys! I hope I said what I wanted, and as clearly as I wanted!

[Anne]

Hélène wrote: "As I can read, some people seem to have difficulties to connect with the characters, and I think I have to. But it did not bothered me that much because I connected really much with the universe th..."

Your English is very good. Have no fear.

[Anne]

Hyperion - a few interesting characters where nothing happens.

The Foundation where what happens is the central focus.

[Hélène]

Anne wrote: "Hélène wrote: "As I can read, some people seem to have difficulties to connect with the characters, and I think I have to. But it did not bothered me that much because I connected really much with ..."

Thanks a lot!

[Katie]

Anne wrote: "Asimov's work is a glimpse into an intellectual world that has no particular interest in sex, titillation, or the feminine mystique beyond keeping the humans extant. Not worth discussing in detail...."

I liked it alright but didn't love it and I think your comment is helping me put my finger on why...I feel like it was a large influence of and basis for Dune, which I read and loved long before this, and Dune has love, sex, and women. Strong women, women who made a difference. In Foundation they just want jewelry and kitchen gadgets. I did like the delving into psychology, sociology, and galaxy-scale politics, but I think other authors took it farther and wrote more riveting reads like Dune and Ender's Game where they added intelligent women and battle strategy as well. I think toward the end with Mallow (view spoiler)[ we get a more interesting person than say the snotty Pirenne, he seems more real. Even if I don't see Mallow with a woman I can more easily imagine him taking time for one than I can imagine Pirenne getting his nose out of his books. (hide spoiler)]

[Chris]

I really like the books. I feel Asimov presented some lofty, complex ideas in a relatively simple story. I thought the part successively got weaker. The next book is actually better...from what I remember. It has been several years since I read it.

[Jessy]

With the huge jumps in the timeline I am finding myself getting some of the characters mixed up while reading. There has been a couple of times that I have had to flip back to see if I am reading an older versionof a character I have already been introduced to or if it is a brand new character. I'm about halfway through, and so far I find some of the psycology very interesting but the storytelling as a whole quite jumbled.

[Jonathon]

I'm now coming up on the halfway point of the book and My thoughts on it haven't really changed much. I still think that the concept is fantastic but there's very little to draw me to any of the characters - they're very indistinct. Unless a character is specifically named, I tend to forget who's actually meant to be talking. I don't think this one is for me.

[Diego]

This is a common note on asimov, as far as i know. The characters are not very remarkable, but he pushes the concept of society thru this almost absurd, but still plausible extremes, and describe the efects on the humanity in general. He uses individuals here and there, but I keep thinking that they are nothing but a way to show us the state of the society. Narrative tools much more then characters. That's way they are so... generic.

[Anne]

Egotista wrote: "This is a common note on asimov, as far as i know. The characters are not very remarkable, but he pushes the concept of society thru this almost absurd, but still plausible extremes, and describe t..."

In an interview somewhere online Asimov said he was nothing of the romantic or poet. But that he tried very hard to be clear. His books are explicative - definitely not romances or fantasies. Now the question is, what is he trying to explain - scientific advances not so much but politics, yes. How people are maneuvered, how religion and "beliefs" control people, how people are disracted by baubles and trinkets.

In recent times there is a book by John Perkins about how real economic hitmen take over countries. Not so different from parts of The Foundation.

[Alterjess]

Narrative tools much more then characters. That's way they are so... generic.

And this, I think, is why Asimov doesn't have any female main characters - he's very much in that mode of "default human = guy." He's trying to write a universal human story, and that means a story about some guys. I'd like to say it's an old-fashioned way of thinking, but most modern writers do it too. (Any movie with a female lead risks being sidelined as a chick flick. But a movie with a male lead is presumed to be for everyone.)

By the last story in the book, I was mentally recasting about half the characters as female, just for fun. It's pretty easy since the names are made-up and nobody in these stories has sex or goes to the bathroom.

[library_jim]

Alterjess,

To be fair, he has some sex in The Gods Themselves. Alien sex! It's not the steamy kind or anything, but it's there. It's actually one of his best books and the alien parts are unique for being truly from an alien POV.

[Diego]

Anne wrote: How people are maneuvered, how religion and "beliefs" control people, how people are disracted by baubles and trinkets...

Exactly. Now, if his way is the best way to explain that, i don't know. For me, it works. I remember that i read I, Robot long, long time ago. I don't remember any of the characters names, but i can explain about what was the book, cause the events off the robotic history that he was trying to show are clear in my mind.

And this, I think, is why Asimov doesn't have any female main characters - he's very much in that mode of "default human = guy...

That is a good point. As far as i know, in general writers use they own gender to create the principal characters. There are excpections, and Woman tend to be more versatile than man. If the intent of Asimov was to create simple characters to use as tools for the history, he probably wouldn't want to have trouble for himself.

[Alterjess]

To be fair, he has some sex in The Gods Themselves

Oh yes, by "these stories" I meant specifically Foundation.

[Steve]

I was kind of surprised too by the lack of female character. But it seems to me that the characters aren't the main material of the book. They are just supporting the story, in a very "psychohistorical" way in fact. I think that Asimov wants to tell us about the story of "Foundation", more than the story of specific individuals. I like when the form of a book meets its subject in such a way.

I'm really curious about the second part !

[Adam]

Anaclara wrote: "To me it was funny because, part 1 I was like"omg this is going to be an AMAZING book"and I loved the Hari/Gaal thing that was going on. Then I started part 2 and I was not impressed but I tryied t..."

I agree completely. That is exactly how I felt. I finished part one without putting the book down and was pumped to finally see why everyone likes Asimov. I have been stuck in part two now for over 2 weeks. Can't seem to get through it. A page or two a day is all I manage and then I have to go back and reread it because I nearly fell asleep trying to get through it.