Flights of Fantasy discussion
This topic is about
Foundation
Group Reads Discussions
>
Feb 2020 Space Opera BotM: Foundation by Isaac Asimov
I don't know if I want to know, because generally the less that I know about an author personally, the better. It's almost always disappointing to me, and almost always turns me off of their books, so I generally avoid info about the author as a person.If anyone discusses whatever is behind that spoiler tag, please also spoiler tag it. :)
Becky wrote: "I don't know if I want to know, because generally the less that I know about an author personally, the better. It's almost always disappointing to me, and almost always turns me off of their books,..."It is disappointing and it is a turn off.
So, people who discuss, please use the spoiler tags as Becky requested.
Yeah, I figured as much. I'll likely decide whether I want to know after I read the book, but if I read it now, I have a feeling I'll just nope out, and it was my nomination so I feel like I should at least try lol
It’s February tomorrow...
I'll probably start on this on Monday or so. Just putting that out there.
Nicki wrote: "Also, my general feeling about reading stuff by problematic dead people is that they're dead and can't hurt anyone else. Totally understand if other people feel differently, but for me it's a different ballpark than living people who are in some way shitty."That's fair, but that's not really the reason I'm avoiding that info. While I am glad that he is not able to do further harm (cough cough OSC), I simply want the book to speak for itself, without my preconceived notion of whatever type of person he was or opinions he held outside of it coloring the work and making me dislike it for reasons I likely wouldn't be able to separate from it.
That's exactly what happened to me with Ender's Game. I couldn't NOT see the shittiness that is the author's personality in it. Maybe it would have been different had I read it differently, but I didn't, and I can never go back. So I would just prefer to not know ahead of time.
Not to mention that even people I thought were awesome, both in their work and out of it, have really disappointed me recently, so... it's just best if I leave the AUTHOR out of the equation altogether. I'm not studying the work, I'm just reading it. If I want to delve more into it after, I'll leave my options open. :)
I read Enders Game before I knew he was a douche and I didn’t like much anyway. I’m reading a short book this weekend I’ll probably finish tomorrow then I’m starting on this. I loved this book when I read it some years back. I’m eager to read it again because I don’t remember much about it except how it made me feel.
Also, I guess it’s weird that the spoiler tag info doesn’t really bother me. I don’t have a hard time separating art from the artist. It’s a gift...? Ha ha!
I started Foundation this evening. So far so good. I remember nothing from when I read it previously.
I will probably start this in a couple days. I have to finish my audiobook today, and then I have a library book I need to read which is due next week. Shouldn't take long though, and I likely could double book it.
Last time I read this I was a teenager. Now I´m in my mid 50s, first impressions... Wow his prose on the first few pages sucks! Gets better later, though.
60% through the book and STILL no major female characters, and not even a mention. It´s as if this fantastic future belongs solely to men.
Also have an issue with (view spoiler)
Something positive? Very strange narrative choices make for an interesting structure, much stuff is telescoped or info dumped, very few "live" action scenes...
May want to check that spoiler tag. You’ve got spaces so it’s not working.
It’s not surprising to me that there are no female characters. This was written in the 50’s. I haven’t read much old science fiction that did shine a light on women. Or any for that matter.
Felina wrote: "May want to check that spoiler tag. You’ve got spaces so it’s not working."Thanks! Fixed.
Felina wrote: "It’s not surprising to me that there are no female characters. This was written in the 50’s. I haven’t read much old science fiction that did shine a light on women. Or any for that matter."I think I´ve gotten more intolerant of this as I´ve got older. These are writers who are supposedly writing about the future of humanity but it turns out they´re only writing about the future of MEN.
Yep. Ha ha. Men must have figured out how to procreate with themselves.
If you look at classic literature, then you'll find men writing about women and focusing on female characters and protagonists all the time. E.g. Henry James doing intricate, empathetic character studies of many female characters, their choices, psychology and fates; Dickens in Dombey & Son (its title is ironic, it's an early feminist work); Trollope's fantastic, 3-dimensional female characters, who can be very smart and sharp-tongued; same with the great classic Russian, German and French novelists. Or take Shakespeare's work which is overflowing with interesting, faceted female characters with a lot of agency, in whose thoughts and character arcs we're supposed to take great interest. So I don't think it's "the times", it's the writer. Great writers have always been interested in all kinds of people and have always written interesting female characters. That said, I've heard that at the end of the novel, a woman tries on a piece of jewelry.
Eva wrote: "If you look at classic literature, then you'll find men writing about women and focusing on female characters and protagonists all the time. E.g. Henry James doing intricate, empathetic character studies of many female characters, their choices, psychology and fates; Dickens in Dombey & Son (its title is ironic, it's an early feminist work); Trollope's fantastic, 3-dimensional female characters, who can be very smart and sharp-tongued; same with the great classic Russian, German and French novelists. Or take Shakespeare's work which is overflowing with interesting, faceted female characters with a lot of agency, in whose thoughts and character arcs we're supposed to take great interest.So I don't think it's "the times", it's the writer. Great writers have always been interested in all kinds of people and have always written interesting female characters. That said, I've heard that at the end of the novel, a woman tries on a piece of jewelry"
Agreed.
I've been force-fed a lot of classic and older lit, and wanted to say something quite similar. It's almost always the writer (in the case of exclusion) and never the times.
Eva wrote: "That said, I've heard that at the end of the novel, a woman tries on a piece of jewelry."Spoiler alert! :P
I don't disagree with you, Eva, but I think that Clariana's point was specifically about speculative fiction and how male authors view the future and women's place in it, not necessarily classics or male authors in general. And it is most definitely a trope that I've noticed in the specfic that I've read - women either are essentially absent, or they are sexualized and objectified and become little more than breeders or tokens for the male gaze.
Looking through my SF shelf, every book written by a male author before 1980 or so has some amount of sexism or misogyny in it, and I might even be a bit generous with that cut off. Certainly none of them have a strong or independent female lead or supporting character like the characters in the classics you mention.
You are definitely right, Becky - absent, irrelevant, evil, dumb or purely objectified women were often the norm in a lot of early SF novels written by men and it's one of the main reasons why I usually prefer more current SF novels. I can think of a few exceptions, though:
- Frank Herbert wrote Dune and invented the cool Bene Gesserit in 1965.
- Samuel Delany had good female characters, e.g. the protagonist in Babel-17, 1966
- Theodore Sturgeon, e.g. in More Than Human, 1953
- Ray Bradbury, e.g. Dandelion Wine, 1957 (several memorable female characters, passes Bechdel, even features friendships)
Some of them even explored future matriarchies in a non-negative light: Philip Wylie's The Disappearance (1951), John Wyndham's "Consider Her Ways" (in Sometime, Never, 1956) and again Theodore Sturgeon in Venus Plus X (1960).
So, yes, you're entirely correct, it's a big feature of a lot of early SF, but thankfully there were some that have stood the test of time better than others. And I admit I had to research the list above, only Ray Bradbury and Frank Herbert still came to me spontaneously from memory.
But I vastly prefer absent women to denigrated women in fiction, so I don't mind their absence in Foundation so much.
That's interesting about Wyndham. I DNF'd his "The Day of the Triffids" because of the overwhelming misogyny. So I just went and read a synopsis of "Consider Her Ways" and I don't know that I would agree that it portrays future matriarchy in a non-negative light. I would likely need to read it first before really judging it, but it seems like the opposite to me from the summary. I do agree with you regarding Herbert, though. I forgot about Dune. And though I've read tons of Bradbury and love his short stories, I haven't read Dandelion Wine yet. So maybe there's a bit of hope there, but even in Fahrenheit 451 most of the female characters that I recall were vapid and shallow and awful - with one exception.
I haven't read any of the others you mention. Maybe I've just had really bad luck!
Ha ha. I think Dandelion Wine is the only Bradbury I’ve read (I know!) and I loved it though I honestly don’t remember much about it. I’m starting to wonder if I have a bad memory. So I do t remember female characters or not. But I remember The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester and that thing was so sexist. Geez. It had some awesome ladies in it but as soon as a relationship was established, the females dropped off to nothing. They literally disappeared in the kitchen to make a sandwich. It was disappointing. Nope Halloween Tree. Awesome.
Oh dear about Wyndham! As I said, I had to research much of that post and only remembered Bradbury and Herbert, so I'm relying on the internet giving me accurate information for some of it, including the Wyndham book. I hope it's correct. Frankly, I've always wondered why some of the early SF is still considered a classic, even though classic implies that it stood the test of time and is still as readable and speaks as strongly to us now as it did at the time of writing. (Well, to be fair, I'm pretty sure some of it didn't speak to female readers back then, either.) Seems to me that a lot of it is just a "classic" because it was "the first", despite sexism, bad characterization, bad prose, pulpy plots... And those books remain the most-recommended ones for new readers of the genre, who always get to hear "start with the timeless classics". And then they wonder why they can't get more women to like SF?
But I'm being unfair to Foundation, which really isn't a bad book and did have some visionary ideas in inventing a social science that exists in real life today. I'm enjoying my reread (read it before as a child but remembered almost nothing about it).
I think that’s it exactly. We read the classics because they were the first ones to form those ideas. Real science was driven by early science fiction. Once a dreamer dreamed and a kid read that story and made it real. It’s similar to saying the American Experiment is bad because some of the founding fathers owned slaves. It doesn’t make their contribution to history any less important. And they took bold steps, however backward some of their ideas were, to pass something worth while to a new generation so they could build on it. And then the next generation built on that and so on. Just because the original person wasn’t perfect doesn’t make the contribution any less significant. I’m sure in 3 generations they’ll be talking about how backward we are now. It doesn’t diminish the journey if the starting destination was less than admirable.
I think in that way I'm fortunate to have read more modern SF before "the classics", because though it's not perfect, it's better! It's unfortunate for the classics though, because I only get pickier from here!
Also, I'm probably being unfair to F451. It was probably intentional to write the women as they were, as representative of the society depicted, and it's not like the men shown were much better or less shallow. So I'll give that one a pass. :)
It’s kind like Timeline by Michel Crichton. The beginning was fascinating because the science was soooo cool and then, once they traveled through time, it was just bad writing and lame plot. Disappointing.
As I get older, I realize I owe a great debt to the badass librarians in my hometown. Asimov was my first brush with SF but it wasn’t what brought me into reading the genre. It was reading great SF/F like Andre Norton (published since 1934) and (although sadly) Marion Zimmer Bradley (published since 1957).I avoided a lot of the sexism that comes with “the golden age of SF” because that stuff wasn’t the Golden Age to me.
Although I can’t remember all the names of the authors I consumed as a child (Norton and MZB were my faves), I can remember that 85% of them were women. It was absurdly easy to find good SF/F written by women in my old library. Little did I know how unusual that was – how protected and insulated I was.
Getting back to Foundation, I'm about 27% in. It's easy to read and interesting enough. I have noticed that I'm not a fan of the future he's projected thus far.
Nicki wrote: "I think a lot of Golden Age SF got preserved not because it was good literature, but because it was good science. It's only more recently that we've moved back to the idea that hard SF should also have literary merit, and that just being scientifically interesting or innovative isn't enough."Was it "good science" though? I would disagree.
I keep thinking of The Martian Chronicles, and though it's called "science fiction" - it's not. It's fantasy. There's no science in it. It's essentially magic, but apparently being set on Mars is enough to qualify as SF - the same way that Star Wars is "SF" because it takes place in space. (It's not.) In my review I mentioned that Bradbury actually ignored real science and knowledge that existed when he wrote it, and that really frustrated me. A LOT.
I get that in the vague future, things may be technologically possible and imagination surely has to come into it, and I don't expect everything to be The Martian levels of sciencing and math, but I do expect for at least a minimum level of established fact and reality to be included. Otherwise... it's just fantasy.
I haven't read a lot of the "Golden Age" SF, so I can't speak to most of it. I should read more, but when what I HAVE read has been problematic more than not, it does kinda dampen the desire for the "classics".
Becky wrote: "Nicki wrote: "I think a lot of Golden Age SF got preserved not because it was good literature, but because it was good science. It's only more recently that we've moved back to the idea that hard S..."Eva wrote: "If you look at classic literature, then you'll find men writing about women and focusing on female characters and protagonists all the time. E.g. Henry James doing intricate, empathetic character s..."
Exactly.
Eva wrote: "If you look at classic literature, then you'll find men writing about women and focusing on female characters and protagonists all the time. E.g. Henry James doing intricate, empathetic character s..."I occurs to me that it might the prospective readers conditioning the absence of female characters, I mean men up to the 50s seem to have believed that only men read sci-fi, so no allowance was made for female readers. Boys/men would subscribe to classic sci-fi mags like Analog, even Playboy regularly published sci-fi... (Oh! How do I know that???)
Even today there´s issues... I´m thinking of the Puppy thing with fantasy... Seems a whole bunch of guys thought fantasy books written by women, LGBTs and people from minority backgrounds were given preferential treatment somehow.
Have to add I AM enjoying Foundation, it is very distanced and intellectual.
Clariana - sorry, which comment are you replying to in comment 38? You quoted two different ones. And yes, there are still issues with representation and equality in modern SF&F, but it's getting better. I think that, like everything else, for so long it was the domain of only men that progress is slow and somewhat begrudging, but it is progress. It makes it all the more valid to call out the issues when we see them, and to put our buying power where our values lie. :)
60% in - to be honest, I found the last section quite funny. But I’m still starting to get bored. I only have 40% to go so...not a lot. I still feel like I’ll have to force that last 40%.
OK I officially started this last night, but didn't get far before I fell asleep. I had an ebook that I've had for years, but I just requested it from the library because I think the formatting of mine is bad, plus I found some typos, and I don't want bad formatting to ruin the book. So far, I'm... unsure how I feel about it. I'm about 5% in, and I already have a couple highlights and notes about how things like the Jump work, and how they deal with gravity variations, atmosphere variations, temperature variations, etc. Or IF they have to deal with that... and if not, I'm going to be annoyed, because you cannot tell me that MILLIONS of inhabited planets all have the same atmospheric make-up and the same gravity. I do not believe it. We have 8 planets in our tiny little solar system (9 when this was written) and ALL of them have different traits as far as these things go.
We shall see how, or if, this stuff is explained at all to my satisfaction.
Pedant out. (For now.)
Becky wrote: "OK I officially started this last night, but didn't get far before I fell asleep. I had an ebook that I've had for years, but I just requested it from the library because I think the formatting of ..."(view spoiler)
Welp. I finished. It was a book that I read, lol. I found some parts funny but for the most part... meh. With Space Opera as the subject, I was hoping for some major action - some ship to ship combat, maybe. Foundation didn’t give me any of that. Though I can see why it is considered the “foundation” of space opera. It has the kernels of the current sub-genre, for sure. I’m working on my review and should finish it soon enough.
So I'm about 35% in and... Yeah. I'm not loving it. I don't really get it, or why (view spoiler)I know I'm not even halfway but I'm really not thinking I'm gonna love this. Dang it. This always happens to me!
Finished it today. Overall hmmm 7/10. Only ONE actually speaking female character.I liked the structure, the way you move a few decades between one section and the next and there´s always a callback to the previous section so you get some sort of closure.
So many cigars and taches! And Salvor and Mallow both have a bagman, whom they both bounce their outrageous idea off. They are such ingenious bold and intrepid heroes! Feudalism seems to be the default social set up according to Asimov... Is this realistic? Aren´t there any other democracies out there?
Worshipped this book when I was a teen, now not so much.
And it ends on a shameless cliffhanger A. obviously had a multiple book deal running.
Welp. I tried for two weeks to read this. It's not hard, but by god is it boring. I even read a different book and tried coming back, but it's a no go.There was no hook for me. Nothing that made me want to actually keep reading instead of, say, playing video games. Or watching a movie. Or staring at a wall for hours on end.
So... sorry. I tried.
I'm with you, Ala. I'm going to TRY to push through tonight since I have something time to kill, but it's like Ambien.
I read another chapter... *Snore* of the wonders of...zzz... Nucleics...Seriously, stop letting me nominate group reads. I'm on such a fail streak there's no coming back from this.
Flights of Fantasy
Books mentioned in this topic
The Martian Chronicles (other topics)The Martian (other topics)
The Stars My Destination (other topics)
Fahrenheit 451 (other topics)
Foundation (other topics)
This book has been in print since 1951 so there should be many different editions available. Please check your local library and/or favorite book retailer.
Please remember to use spoiler tags < spoiler > < /spoiler > when discussing.