I read these when very young, and remember being very excited when Foundation's Edge came out like 30 years later Spoiler: reveal Of those that have read the whole series, what do you think of the tie in to the Robot novels? And is psychohistory even possible? Don't we have a different name for that phenomena now?
Well, it was made clear in the books themselves that the only reason psychohistory really worked was due to the Second Foundation's psychic manipulations and later Gaea's own psychic manipulations. Seldon himself knew that humanity was too chaotic and unpredictable to really be measured so he saw to it that the whole thing was more a controlled plan/guideline than a science.
Still annoyed at the end of Foundation and Earth and still hopes that someone gets the mission to fix the ending and make a "proper" end to the series. Otherwise: The old books are great, the newer ones not so great but passable. I enjoyed Robots And Empire a great deal, and parts of the Foundation-prequels.
What a completely repellent notion. If I dislike the ending to Romeo and Juliet - it strains credulity and it's pretty manipulative - that doesn't mean it needs a rewrite. Agreed.
The Foundation Trilogy was an amazing accomplishment for its time, an epic piece of work. The addition of other authors detracted from it, IMO. Anything for a buck, eh?
I read the whole series for the first time a few months ago. I was completely enthralled by the original trilogy, but I felt like the quality dropped a LOT with the later books. The ongoing "debate" between Trevize and Bliss went on and on and on and on and never went anywhere interesting. The prequels, while cool in showing the different cultural zones of Trantor, seemed sort of tacked on. I think the biggest differences between the first trilogy and the later books is a sense of real progress; the trilogy was made up of smaller stories that spanned centuries, while Foundation's Edge and Foundation & Earth took two (later three) not very interesting characters and ran with them for ten times as long as the other stories. I never really got into the idea that this was all in the same universe as the robot series, since the first three Foundation novels had such a different feel. The scenes on a ruined Aurora or Solaria gone extreme didn't feel like fully natural extrapolations of what we saw in the Robot novels. It also seemed like R. Daneel basically ran the galaxy in the end, which was pretty lame in my opinion. But those first three books, most especially the stuff dealing with the Mule, were remarkable accomplishments. The ending to Foundation & Empire is one of my favorite endings to any story.
I thought the whole point of psychohistory (or whatever it was called) in the book was that a HUGE population was needed to make the chaotic human behavior predictable. Trillions of people, or something on that order. The core problem with the books is that there really is only one compelling character - and it is the Mule, the villain.
I love the parts when the Mule is revealed, and then the Second Foundation takes down the Mule, and then the head of the Second Foundation is revealed.
I love the original Foundation trilogy (esp. the allusions to the story of the decline of imperial Rome) and sort of like the two sequels. I dislike Trevize's choice of picking Gaia in Foundation's Edge (I'd have chosen First Foundation), and think his logic was pretty dodgy even with the reveal in Foundation & Earth, but the story is nicely done. The prequels are OK, esp. the first one. I retain enough geek points to appreciate the tie-in with the Robot series, as cheesy as it is. As for psychohistory, of course it's "handwave" mathematics, but the idea that crowds are more predictable in their behaviour than individuals within it is entirely true and this fact is used in the modelling of crowd dynamics in large stadia, in retail environments, and during large public events. I like the concept that this sort of predictive modelling can be extended to map out the sweep of history, as doubtful as it probably is that it could ever actually be done.
^^ Well, as Asimov described in Forward The Foundation, it uses complex mathematics (and futuristic computational power) that we don't have yet. I love the entire Foundation Series and the Robot Series and I love how he tied them together (and I also include Nemesis in that Universe). The entire epic is about as classic as Science Fiction gets. Idea-driven stories, exotic alien worlds, galaxy-spanning empires. Yeah, baby. As for Trevize's decision regarding Gaia (or, rather, Galaxia), he wasn't happy with it, either-- he was just doing what his Black Box was telling him. But, interestingly, just as he made his decision based on what he thought was an unwarranted assumption by Seldon, there were a couple of things he didn't know that would allow him reason to reverse his decision later; which he must have done, since the Encyclopedia Galactica indicates that the First Foundation ulimately triumphed. As for the "Second Foundation Series" by the Killer Bs, that was an epic failure that even exceeded nuTrek in its wrongheadedness.
Does it? It's been a while since I read the series. Where does it say this? I seem to recall some vague statements about the Foundation reaching fruition, but nothing that couldn't also be interpreted as Gaia/Galaxia incorporating the Foundation within it.
I have discovered "Foundation" only in the last five or so years and really enjoyed the original trilogy and like many in this thread don't think much of the newer books...the ones done by Greg Bear were okay IIR. I just read on mania.com that Roland Emmerich plans on adapting "Foundation" using the same techniques that Cameron did with Avatar so we'll see how it turns out.
Yeah, I read the same thing, and I don't quite understand it. If it were just virtual sets, fine, but apparently Emmerich specifically said that motion capture would be used, and that's odd given that there are no aliens in the Foundation universe. But then, the whole idea of Foundation as a Roland Emmerich blockbuster is a bizarre mismatch. Ideally, it should be done as a medium-budget BBC miniseries or some such thing, since the whole series is basically a whole bunch of conversations about stuff.
The Foundation Trilogy worked quite nicely as eight one-hour dramas on BBC radio back in the 70's. I'm quite prepared to use my imagination to visualise the settings but I guess some foolish person with money to burn could add animation to the audio.
The Encyclopedia Galactica excerpts that pepper and salt the Foundation stories were written during the Second Galactic Empire. Galaxia, I suppose, could have been incorporated in some way, but it's doubtful there would be an Encyclopedia Galactica if their/its philosophy (and abilities) were ascendant. Exactly. I think it was in the Rama Thread where I mentioned that the best way to do Foundation is on Masterpiece Theater.
This thread has me wanting to read the Foundation novels again. When I read them I was only about 15 or 16 years old. I remember thinking that the original trilogy was a little boring. I liked Edge, Earth, Prelude, and Forward better. I read the new trilogy a few years later, and thought they were rather weak, although I do remember thinking the one written by Brin was pretty good. I doubt I would even bother to reread the new trilogy. I would be curious to see if my opinion of the novels, especially the original trilogy, has changed now, 10 years later.
I just read over on vfxworld.vox.com that Roland Emmerich is going to be doing the trilogy, via 3d and mocap. Not the guy I'd have envisioned or hoped for (more like the 'shit not him!' choice), but at least he isn't off ruining CHILDHOOD'S END or MORE THAN HUMAN, which are books I love a LOT more than Foundation.
^^ In the actual foundation books, the only Robots are humaniform. There hasn't been a robotic Robot since Giskard-- which was one of the failures of the "Second Foundation Trilogy."