foundation.jpg
Foundation by Isaac Asimov

Cannonball Read / Jen K.

Book Reviews | June 19, 2009 | Comments (14)

As much as I enjoy science fiction and fantasy, those two genres can also very easily get hokey or just be badly written, so I’m usually hesitant. Obviously, Asimov is one of the classic science fiction writers, but I guess I also like more modern science fiction generally. While good science fiction has a message about society and isn’t just about technology, I didn’t really want to read about a futuristic world that was actually already antique seeming. This is especially noticeable when watching older movies or shows.

Foundation is the first of a trilogy to which Asimov eventually added several prequels and sequels. While this novel was written years before Star Wars, there were definitely parts of it that reminded me of it - there is a large galactic empire spanning thousands of planets and star systems. No aliens, though - these planets have all been colonized by humans over the past few millennia (like “Firefly”). However, Trantor, the main planet, sounds like a precursor to Coruscant — the entire planet is covered by buildings and sky scrapers, and there are inhabitants that have not seen the sky in years (in one of the Star Wars books, the author portrayed the lower levels of the planet as slums while the levels became more prosperous as they became higher).

As for the actual story, the Galactic Empire has been successful for several millennia but is slowly starting to weaken and decline. For example, science and technology is resting on laurels of years past and the people are too focused on the past to make any more discoveries. In this way, knowledge is starting to stagnate and also be lost. Hari Seldon is the head of a science termed psychohistory, which basically sounds like very complicated mathematical probability. Using this theory, he can basically predict the reactions of masses for several years ahead of time. Of course, knowledge of historic trends probably would help as well. After the fall of the Roman Empire, there was a period of chaos and ignorance in that area of the world, and Asimov applies this on a much grander scale to his novel. Seldon predicts the fall of a the empire within three hundred years, and a dark age lasting over 30,000 years unless he can set up a scientific Foundation to preserve the knowledge and serve as a new beginning which would lessen the dark ages to a mere millennia instead of 30. However, his theory relies on the subjects not knowing the future, so he makes sure not to divulge this information beyond a few personnel, and does not send any trained psychohistorians to the Foundation.

The novel charts the first 150 years of the Foundation and how they maintain their hold and some power on a planet with limited resources surrounded by planets that have taken control of their domains, no longer fall under the Empire, and are ruled by war lords.

Overall, I enjoyed the book, and I already picked up the second part of the series. However, while the politics and rise and fall of nations was well done and interesting, his treatment of gender was disappointing to say the least. After thousands of years of development, Asimov couldn’t imagine women in a role other than wives. In fact, the only woman that even made an appearance in the novel was someone’s shrewish wife whom the husband had married to make an alliance with her father. While I could definitely buy the idea of societies taking away women’s rights and retreating back to a kind of medieval set up, there’s never any suggestion that women had any type of power before nor do they seem to have any prominence on Terminus, the heart of the Foundation which is supposed to be the most advanced planet around. When Seldon sets up the Foundation, a court asks him about the number of people, and he said they were including wives and children in that number. The only other time women are mentioned is when Mallow talks about economic warfare, and someone sarcastically responds, “So the war is going to end because of disgruntled housewives?” (Not an exact quote, I don’t have the book near me). While I’m willing to give him some leeway since this novel was published in 1950 or 1951, it is still rather irritating - it’s not like WWII hadn’t just ended, a time during which many women took on roles and jobs that were traditionally done by men. They may have had to give them up again right after, but they’d definitely proven themselves. I’m hoping there will be an improvement in the next parts of the trilogy.

This review is part of the Cannonball Read series. For more of Jen K’s reviews, check out her blog, Notes from an Officer’s Club.


← Urban Legends | Thirst Trailer →





Comments

I love Asimov. And before you judge his treatment of women too harshly, remember that he was writing in the 50's and 60's.

On the bright side, women (or at least one) figure prominently in the rest of the series.

Asimove wrote one of my favorite short stories as well, "the question". The ending has haunted me since I read it.

Please, don't judge him (after all, he has a collection of short stories titled "I Robot") on the terrible travesty that was the movie. He's influential in the 3 laws of robotics and several other sci-fi conventions.

Asimov is one of my must reads. And if you want to read something other than science fiction, I advise the "Black Widower" books. (mysteries).

Posted by: UncleJR at June 19, 2009 9:16 AM

I have to say, the gender thing didn't even occur to me when I read this series. I just loved the pure science fiction aspect. After my father suggested I read this, I demolished the rest of his books in short order, I loved it.

Posted by: redhead at June 19, 2009 9:34 AM

I've been through the trilogy three times and each time is better than the one before. A fantastic piece of some of the greatest science fiction ever written. I think you'll find the rest of the series even better than that first book.

Posted by: admin at June 19, 2009 9:40 AM

In his novel I, Robot, the founder and leading expert in robot psychology was a woman. The Gandalf of Asimov's robot series. And that was written in 1950.

Don't write him off too soon. I did a google search in google "isaac asimov on women" and he gave an interesting speech in 1974, here's an excerpt (he's a funny guy):

------------------------------

Seriously! When the germ theory finally came in and people learned how to arrange it so that women could have babies in reasonable safety, the world discovered to their surprise that women had a longer life expectancy than men. This had never been understood before, because throughout history women had, on the average, lived years and years less than men had. With all the dangers men faced, the hard work in the fields, the hunting accidents, the killings in war, everything else, women died faster for one reason and one reason only: childbirth. Every woman had one baby after another until one of them killed her. Usually, it didn't take long.

Well then, why do women do this? Because they are carefully told that being a wife and mother is the most glorious thing in the world, the one thing they're fit for, the most noble activity they can possibly have, and...and this is told to them until they believe it. And if they don't believe it, there's a lot of trouble made for them.

Well, I won't go into the whole thing. I suspect that you women know all about this already, and you men would rather not listen.

[group laughs mildly]

But notice the difference: once you want women not to have children, you're going to have to give them something else to do! It is absolutely impossible to tell a woman that she can't have children, and at the same time that she can't do anything else either except maybe wash an occasional dish.

[mild laugh from a few of the women in the group]

Because if you tell a woman that, she'll figure out some way to have a baby.

[swelling mild laughter from group]

I think I know the way, too!

[mild laughter from the group]

Well then, in the world of the 21st century in order to keep the birth rate down, we're going to have to give women interesting things to do that'll make them glad to stay out of the nursery. And the interesting things that I can think of that we give women to do are essentially the same as the interesting things that we give men to do. I mean we're going to have women help in running the government, and science, and industry...whatever there is to run in the 21st century. And what it amounts to is we're going to have to pretend...when I say "we", I mean men...we're going to have to pretend that women are people.

[group laughs]

And you know, pretending is a good thing because if you pretend long enough, you'll forget you're pretending and you'll begin to believe it.

[mild laugh from group]

Posted by: Natalie at June 19, 2009 10:11 AM

Of course, now there's the issue of having a career and children at the same time, I won't get started on that....

Grrr.....

Posted by: Natalie at June 19, 2009 10:16 AM

I had the same reaction to the gender roles early in this book as well, but having read the whole trilogy, Asimov redeems himself; the character studies of the main females just take a little longer to develop. In fact, one of them turns out to be a stronger character than most of the men in the series. This was also the first non-robot Asimov I read, and...damn. I think any subsequent science fiction author aspiring to social commentary should thank Ike in the foreword.

Posted by: Ian at June 19, 2009 10:24 AM

The Foundation Trilogy is one of the first novels I ever read that wasn't a school assignment. I thought they were excellent.

Posted by: John W at June 19, 2009 11:02 AM

I believe you should read about 15 books to get the whole story of the foundation.

Also read the Earth stories, with the robot Daneel.
They connect in the end!

Posted by: Magiel at June 19, 2009 11:08 AM

I was really concerned that you wouldn't like this. I firmly believe this is THE best science fiction series of all-time. As Magiel points out, you have to read 15 books to truly grasp the scale in question. Just his ability to comprehend and illustrate an ever-evolving galactic empire is truly impressive.

On the women note, I never noticed that, but I'm a man, so maybe that's why. But, prelude to the foundation, a modern book he wrote in conjunction with another writer, is primarily about his wife, who is uber badass.

If you have not read this series, you have to. It also gets better and better with each book you read, as you learn more and more about the universe he has created.

Posted by: "luker" the barbarian at June 19, 2009 11:45 AM

Just would like to note that he published those first stories between 1942 and 1944. All the basic writing for the initial trilogy was done in the '40s. The novels weren't published till '51-'53. The young boys (and men) reading the pulps couldn't have comprehended strong women. At least the dames weren't fainting all the time.

Posted by: j.d.s. at June 19, 2009 12:27 PM

The Foundation Trilogy was my youthful introduction to the world of science fiction and Asimov promptly became my hero and inspiration to try and become a writer. I love these books even now and recommend them highly to anyone even mildly interested in science fiction's finest writer.

Posted by: Spender at June 19, 2009 7:55 PM

I always wanted to see these in a graphic novel, or maybe a cartoon, like Akira or somesuch. I've always loved these books- they were really my introduction into sci fi. If Pajiba wasn't already stacking my reading list beyond my ability to catch up, I would definitely revisit this series.

Thanks for the review!

Posted by: logar at June 19, 2009 10:33 PM

Worst sci-fi ever. Asimov, 3 laws aside is the most over rated sci-fi author of all time. Foundation is his weakest work. It was originally published as a serial in a magazine and it reads just like that to. he repeats the same concept using the same examples over and over. He said everything he had to say in one book, the rest is filler. I love sci-fi but this guy sucks.

Posted by: Jack Random at June 21, 2009 10:38 PM

Also (in the vein of conversation) though I'm a huge Asimov fan I think it took him some time to be able to write convincing female characters. Despite his interest in sociology, characterization and a general understanding of human interaction never seemed to be his strong suit. I don't think he deliberately excluded strong female characters in his earlier works so much as avoided them because he couldn't portray them convincingly yet.

Posted by: Sarah Frost at June 22, 2009 7:59 PM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.