I love the Foundation trilogy and first read it about 1968, although my brothers didn't find it as interesting as I did. I then read all the other Foundation books --very surprised that I, Robot turned out to be one! I loved Second Foundation, probably because of Arkady. As a teenage girl, I could easily connect to her! I suppose I last reread all of them about 30 years ago...it must be time for a reread!
One thing to remember is that the Foundation stories were not written as books. They are a collection of short stories that appeared in magazines in the 40s and 50s. They were only later collected as books. The first chapter of Foundation was added for the publication of the first book to introduce the whole concept to new readers. They characters in the stories are not connected because they had to stand on their own as glimpses into a larger framework. I was surprised the first time I read the trilogy, knowing the short story background but never having read them, that Salvor Hardin appeared in two consecutive stories. It is like reading several single issues of Superman comics collected into a trade paperback just with a bit more of a backdrop connecting the issues.
Just had my first time reading The Foundation and as someone who does not read a lot of SF I loved it. I haven’t liked much modern SF as I find that they are too much like fantasy in space, I don’t read SF for the characters etc, if I was looking for that I would just read fantasy. I read SF for the ideas and concepts and find that most modern authors are just too slow to get to the point; Asimov just goes there immediately and lets you soak up the information. What I love about Asimov is that his writing style reminds me very much of Socrates, Plato or Moore in that you are told what you need to know when it is needed so that you can gain a proper understanding of the themes and concepts without being info dumped. I think that grand ideas and concepts are much better enjoyed this way as we don’t have a filter of a characters opinions in the way allowing us to make our own judgement about the core ideas. As much as I love the show don’t tell approach I think that sometimes it’s so indoctrinated into authors that no one is willing to take a risk or experiment, after all there is no correct way to produce art and by following the same rules it just makes everything uniform and uninteresting. Top video by the way as always! Thank you!
Prelude to Foundation☑ Forward to Foundation Foundation* Foundation and Empire* Second Foundation * Foundation's Edge Foundation and Earth The correct order 🟠 Asterisk denotes the original Trilogy. The check mark denotes the weakest book. The rest are fascinating, especially if your weary of dystopian Sci-fi. I've read and reread since 1967. Also read Azimovs The Naked Sun Caves of Steel
I just found the channel tonight and was really against the presentation style at first. But I realized it wasn't the highly polished, bombastic, dramatic booktube stuff I've been buried in. This is so calm, human, and conversational.
Yes the Foundation series is full of exposition, it's like sitting around a fire being told a grand tale by some great uncle. I loved that series many times over. Modern Sci-fi sometimes goes to the other extreme such as Ian M. Banks 'Culture' books/universe, which I also love, but I think it tends to turn off some readers because you need to get three hundred pages in one story to get a small understanding of what is going on in the overall universe, and only see the grand scale of what the author envisions if you read at least 3-4 books. Two very different approaches, but I think most 'modern' sci-fi is a bit to obtuse to get new legions of readers, unfortunately.
I am a product of 1960s Passive Aggressive Victimhood culture so Asimov's "Mule" of 1945 "Astounding" is my role model while my mother a product of 1930s eugenics was a one trick pony who craved ray physical political power.
I read the foundations books recently (a year ago or so) and enjoyed them a lot. Got back into sciences fiction in the last view years, read a lot in my twenties in the eighties. There is another science fiction trilogy (and more books) I read back then, and I really enjoyed it. Its a little different but somewhat fits the concept of life after death through technology. Maybe you could make a review on it, I would love that. I follow you and enjoy your reviews. The book is called 'Riverworld' by Philip José Farmer.
Also find it interesting the holograms include a bit of CGI. There was a commentary about meeting the emperor. His hologram was taller, better posture with smoother skin.
Great review Darrel! I especially liked your thoughts regarding the writing styles as exemplified by the Golden Age of SF. I agree with your perspective that you need to allow for the difference between, say, Asimov, Arthur Clarke, etc., and more modern SF. I do recall though, that beginning in and around the 1960s, that SF writers, notably British authors, began writing more introspective narratives, particularly Michael Moorecock and Brian Aldiss. Barefoot in the Head by Aldiss explores the effects of a Europe savaged by bombs that have released massive amounts of aerosols of long-lived psychotropic drugs into the atmosphere. There was also a parallel trend by American authors like Robert Silverberg (Night Wings, Dying Inside). All these writers gave the psychological reaction to technological developments a much more prominent position in their stories.
A suitable conclusion would have been taking the story up to the establishment of the Second Empire, but instead of moving it forward after "Foundation's Edge" and "Foundation and Earth" he wrote two prequels. Even the book series by "The Killer B's" didn't get there.
Your critiques are so on point. I feel exactly the same and gave the series the same rating. It's not a bad story, but I was surprised it's hailed as such a classic, especially when it comes to the actual writing. And the characters. 😅 It's largely concept driven, and I found the concepts interesting enough to continue the series in audiobook form while I did other things. If I'd had to read the books, I don't know that I would have cared about anything going on enough to make it through the series. Thanks for the review!
I don't understand how you can take a series that was written over half a century ago and evaluate it's goodness based on today's standards. You say that Asimov was lazy in the way that he develops his story. I would say that it's quite lazy to evaluate any human art based on modern standards. Shame on you for depredating a true classic.
You sound triggered. It's unbelievable that you would try to shame someone for giving a balanced, non-antagonistic critique. The shame should be yours. Not to mention, I think his critiques are valid. Just because something became popular and influential doesn't mean it was flawless. I mean look at the Twilight series. It was massively popular, financially successful, and influenced a generation, but it was a literary trainwreck.
I love the Foundation trilogy and first read it about 1968, although my brothers didn't find it as interesting as I did. I then read all the other Foundation books --very surprised that I, Robot turned out to be one! I loved Second Foundation, probably because of Arkady. As a teenage girl, I could easily connect to her! I suppose I last reread all of them about 30 years ago...it must be time for a reread!
One thing to remember is that the Foundation stories were not written as books. They are a collection of short stories that appeared in magazines in the 40s and 50s. They were only later collected as books. The first chapter of Foundation was added for the publication of the first book to introduce the whole concept to new readers. They characters in the stories are not connected because they had to stand on their own as glimpses into a larger framework. I was surprised the first time I read the trilogy, knowing the short story background but never having read them, that Salvor Hardin appeared in two consecutive stories. It is like reading several single issues of Superman comics collected into a trade paperback just with a bit more of a backdrop connecting the issues.
Just had my first time reading The Foundation and as someone who does not read a lot of SF I loved it. I haven’t liked much modern SF as I find that they are too much like fantasy in space, I don’t read SF for the characters etc, if I was looking for that I would just read fantasy. I read SF for the ideas and concepts and find that most modern authors are just too slow to get to the point; Asimov just goes there immediately and lets you soak up the information. What I love about Asimov is that his writing style reminds me very much of Socrates, Plato or Moore in that you are told what you need to know when it is needed so that you can gain a proper understanding of the themes and concepts without being info dumped. I think that grand ideas and concepts are much better enjoyed this way as we don’t have a filter of a characters opinions in the way allowing us to make our own judgement about the core ideas. As much as I love the show don’t tell approach I think that sometimes it’s so indoctrinated into authors that no one is willing to take a risk or experiment, after all there is no correct way to produce art and by following the same rules it just makes everything uniform and uninteresting.
Top video by the way as always! Thank you!
Well said
Prelude to Foundation☑
Forward to Foundation
Foundation*
Foundation and Empire*
Second Foundation *
Foundation's Edge
Foundation and Earth
The correct order 🟠
Asterisk denotes the original Trilogy.
The check mark denotes the weakest book.
The rest are fascinating, especially if your weary of dystopian Sci-fi.
I've read and reread since 1967.
Also read Azimovs
The Naked Sun
Caves of Steel
There are MANY more books that connect to Foundation! I would have to research in order to give a definitive list but there are more than this.
@@annbrookens945
currents of space
Naked sun
My late sisters favorite sci-fi books were The Naked Sun and Caves of Steel.
I have just started watching your video and you re-invigorated my desire to read stories again
That’s awesome!!!
I just found the channel tonight and was really against the presentation style at first. But I realized it wasn't the highly polished, bombastic, dramatic booktube stuff I've been buried in. This is so calm, human, and conversational.
Yes the Foundation series is full of exposition, it's like sitting around a fire being told a grand tale by some great uncle. I loved that series many times over. Modern Sci-fi sometimes goes to the other extreme such as Ian M. Banks 'Culture' books/universe, which I also love, but I think it tends to turn off some readers because you need to get three hundred pages in one story to get a small understanding of what is going on in the overall universe, and only see the grand scale of what the author envisions if you read at least 3-4 books. Two very different approaches, but I think most 'modern' sci-fi is a bit to obtuse to get new legions of readers, unfortunately.
These books changed my life and they influence the way I see the world and the current events and politics
The Foundation trilogy was my first sci-fi and the Mule reveal my first twist. Floored me in all the best ways.
You've convinced me, added it on my list
I am a product of 1960s Passive Aggressive Victimhood culture so Asimov's "Mule" of 1945 "Astounding" is my role model while my mother a product of 1930s eugenics was a one trick pony who craved ray physical political power.
I read the foundations books recently (a year ago or so) and enjoyed them a lot. Got back into sciences fiction in the last view years, read a lot in my twenties in the eighties. There is another science fiction trilogy (and more books) I read back then, and I really enjoyed it. Its a little different but somewhat fits the concept of life after death through technology. Maybe you could make a review on it, I would love that. I follow you and enjoy your reviews. The book is called 'Riverworld' by Philip José Farmer.
Awesome. Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out.
I read Farmer a couple of eons ago and just don't remember them well at all. Maybe I should try him again!
I read all the books , not just the trilogy . I was amazed
Were the Selden appearances the first SF use of what we now call holograms?
Also find it interesting the holograms include a bit of CGI. There was a commentary about meeting the emperor. His hologram was taller, better posture with smoother skin.
I have only read foundation and absolutely loved it. Have not gotten round to the others
Thanks for the recommendation, I always enjoy your reviews!
No worries... glad you enjoyed!
Nice view. It’s on my tbh. Might even stick my own review up ha. Good job
Great review Darrel! I especially liked your thoughts regarding the writing styles as exemplified by the Golden Age of SF. I agree with your perspective that you need to allow for the difference between, say, Asimov, Arthur Clarke, etc., and more modern SF. I do recall though, that beginning in and around the 1960s, that SF writers, notably British authors, began writing more introspective narratives, particularly Michael Moorecock and Brian Aldiss. Barefoot in the Head by Aldiss explores the effects of a Europe savaged by bombs that have released massive amounts of aerosols of long-lived psychotropic drugs into the atmosphere. There was also a parallel trend by American authors like Robert Silverberg (Night Wings, Dying Inside). All these writers gave the psychological reaction to technological developments a much more prominent position in their stories.
That’s a really interesting fact. I’ll have to check a few of those out as they seem like they’d check my boxes 😊
A suitable conclusion would have been taking the story up to the establishment of the Second Empire, but instead of moving it forward after "Foundation's Edge" and "Foundation and Earth" he wrote two prequels. Even the book series by "The Killer B's" didn't get there.
I must admit I haven’t quite year got around to reading the trilogy....on my list
Same!
Do yourself a favor and make it all seven. I did it this summer and no regrets. Also highly recommend the four Robot stories.
One of the best space operas ever.
The abridged radio drama is extremely good.
I’ve heard good things about this ... I might have to check it out.
Your critiques are so on point. I feel exactly the same and gave the series the same rating. It's not a bad story, but I was surprised it's hailed as such a classic, especially when it comes to the actual writing. And the characters. 😅 It's largely concept driven, and I found the concepts interesting enough to continue the series in audiobook form while I did other things. If I'd had to read the books, I don't know that I would have cared about anything going on enough to make it through the series. Thanks for the review!
Nice one mate
00:42
"Comment" usually gets me back into the recomendations under the algorithm but I wrote all this cause I never look at my saved lists
I love the Foundation but I am stuck with Foundation and Earth
Roberto Chacon: Not the best in the series (IMHO)......my fave is 2nd Foundation.
Exccelent
Interesting video, I think your content could be improved by projecting your voice at least a tiny bit more :)
Thanks for the note. I've always struggled with not being loud enough 😳
I tried to read it a couple of times and could not get through it. It didn't pull me into the story.
Handsome
Why is he whispering?
I really can't get over the fact that the guy in the video has baby oil on his face.
I don't understand how you can take a series that was written over half a century ago and evaluate it's goodness based on today's standards. You say that Asimov was lazy in the way that he develops his story. I would say that it's quite lazy to evaluate any human art based on modern standards. Shame on you for depredating a true classic.
You sound triggered. It's unbelievable that you would try to shame someone for giving a balanced, non-antagonistic critique. The shame should be yours. Not to mention, I think his critiques are valid.
Just because something became popular and influential doesn't mean it was flawless. I mean look at the Twilight series. It was massively popular, financially successful, and influenced a generation, but it was a literary trainwreck.
00:40