You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.89 AVERAGE
3.89 AVERAGE
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
2.5/5
I'm beginning to understand why these days I favor, out of these three types of escapism, historical fiction first, fantasy second, and science fiction third. With historical fiction, liberties taken with the realities of events are more overtly graded, and there is less concern with theorizing entire centuries together on the backbone a few cut and dry paradigms. Fantasy runs wild, but the best ones are marvels of creativity, and I don't feel that human nature is being packed into a tiny, often blinkered, box of superficial trends and Eurocentric archetypes. Asimov's 'Foundation' builds itself some of the worst tendencies of science fiction when it comes to pretending as if the 1950's boardroom of white men could sustain itself for thousands of years, and while the first introduction of psychohistory was interesting, the fifth iteration of genius-pleb dynamic, whose only novelty was a shadow of the female hysteric, was all too much. This tome was a mere 200 pages, but the fact that the two official sequels and a number of spin offs succeeding these worked in tandem to make the author a giant of the SF field is rather disappointing, to say the least. The Foundation Trilogy is on enough lists that I may be peer pressured into finishing off the trio, but the next two would have to be an improvement, or at least of comparative brevity, else I would not be able to stand it for even that long.
This book's been on my shelf for a long time, and Asimov's name has been rocketing my brain for even longer, ever since I watched the Will Smith 'I, Robot' adaptation. Hype extended over long periods of time tend to sour the penultimate experience, which goes some way in explaining my inordinate amount of exasperation with so short a text. However, Asimov's three rules of robots continues to haunt me, and excerpts of his other works, along with his support of Shelley's [b:Frankenstein|35031085|Frankenstein The 1818 Text|Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1498841231l/35031085._SY75_.jpg|4836639] as one of the true pieces of science fiction in the face of those who would claim him as the true pioneer of the genre demonstrate that he as author had his admirable spots outside of this particular text. It's just rather a let down how, despite being discretely fed by a long and rich history (the early events of Foundation remind me of the Exodus sections of the Old Testament, especially with regards to Jewish people, although the resulting calcification into religious authoritarianism and capitalistic manipulation strays too close to various stereotypes for me to comment further upon. It must be mentioned, though, that Asimov was indeed Jewish). Still, it was always two men, likely white (the Asiatic characterization of the dying Galactic Empire and various antagonist forces later on was too much to ignore) in a Sherlock/Watson and/or Sherlock/Moriarty Socrates-level discourse had little variations in characterization beyond the initial wide eyed youth/aged prophet set up. Tedious, especially when any woman's inclusion centered around a character-encompassing obsession with jewelry.
I really don't see myself reading anymore Asimov after this, but who knows. At least starting with this one likely reduced the frequency of the usual "you started with the wrong one here's the one to start with" song and dance in response to my evaluation. I've got another sci-fi ([b:On Strike Against God|134442|On Strike Against God|Joanna Russ|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1423800886l/134442._SY75_.jpg|129528] - [a:Joanna Russ|52310|Joanna Russ|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1423801257p2/52310.jpg]) lined up, and while I've previously read and liked that author, the genre really doesn't do as much for me as it did when I was younger. I suppose I can't stand works that try to draw over-encompassing conclusions that only factor in the last 500 years or so of human history. To overcome that is a tall order for any work, but a smaller scope and less presumptuous judgments about entire civilizations can do wonders, as can a less monotone grasp on character/plot development. We haven't come all this way from the days of Shakespeare for nothing.
I'm beginning to understand why these days I favor, out of these three types of escapism, historical fiction first, fantasy second, and science fiction third. With historical fiction, liberties taken with the realities of events are more overtly graded, and there is less concern with theorizing entire centuries together on the backbone a few cut and dry paradigms. Fantasy runs wild, but the best ones are marvels of creativity, and I don't feel that human nature is being packed into a tiny, often blinkered, box of superficial trends and Eurocentric archetypes. Asimov's 'Foundation' builds itself some of the worst tendencies of science fiction when it comes to pretending as if the 1950's boardroom of white men could sustain itself for thousands of years, and while the first introduction of psychohistory was interesting, the fifth iteration of genius-pleb dynamic, whose only novelty was a shadow of the female hysteric, was all too much. This tome was a mere 200 pages, but the fact that the two official sequels and a number of spin offs succeeding these worked in tandem to make the author a giant of the SF field is rather disappointing, to say the least. The Foundation Trilogy is on enough lists that I may be peer pressured into finishing off the trio, but the next two would have to be an improvement, or at least of comparative brevity, else I would not be able to stand it for even that long.
This book's been on my shelf for a long time, and Asimov's name has been rocketing my brain for even longer, ever since I watched the Will Smith 'I, Robot' adaptation. Hype extended over long periods of time tend to sour the penultimate experience, which goes some way in explaining my inordinate amount of exasperation with so short a text. However, Asimov's three rules of robots continues to haunt me, and excerpts of his other works, along with his support of Shelley's [b:Frankenstein|35031085|Frankenstein The 1818 Text|Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1498841231l/35031085._SY75_.jpg|4836639] as one of the true pieces of science fiction in the face of those who would claim him as the true pioneer of the genre demonstrate that he as author had his admirable spots outside of this particular text. It's just rather a let down how, despite being discretely fed by a long and rich history (the early events of Foundation remind me of the Exodus sections of the Old Testament, especially with regards to Jewish people, although the resulting calcification into religious authoritarianism and capitalistic manipulation strays too close to various stereotypes for me to comment further upon. It must be mentioned, though, that Asimov was indeed Jewish). Still, it was always two men, likely white (the Asiatic characterization of the dying Galactic Empire and various antagonist forces later on was too much to ignore) in a Sherlock/Watson and/or Sherlock/Moriarty Socrates-level discourse had little variations in characterization beyond the initial wide eyed youth/aged prophet set up. Tedious, especially when any woman's inclusion centered around a character-encompassing obsession with jewelry.
I really don't see myself reading anymore Asimov after this, but who knows. At least starting with this one likely reduced the frequency of the usual "you started with the wrong one here's the one to start with" song and dance in response to my evaluation. I've got another sci-fi ([b:On Strike Against God|134442|On Strike Against God|Joanna Russ|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1423800886l/134442._SY75_.jpg|129528] - [a:Joanna Russ|52310|Joanna Russ|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1423801257p2/52310.jpg]) lined up, and while I've previously read and liked that author, the genre really doesn't do as much for me as it did when I was younger. I suppose I can't stand works that try to draw over-encompassing conclusions that only factor in the last 500 years or so of human history. To overcome that is a tall order for any work, but a smaller scope and less presumptuous judgments about entire civilizations can do wonders, as can a less monotone grasp on character/plot development. We haven't come all this way from the days of Shakespeare for nothing.
["]Your opinions are yours, of course. Still you are rather young."
Dryly. "It is a fault that most people are guilty of at some period of their life.["]
adventurous
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Foundation is more relevant now that ever. The trends and underlying human psychology Asimov captured were and stay cultural relevant. If you’re a fan of space and fiction, this is definitely the series for you.
adventurous
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
The book is a bit disparate, since this is but a collection of short stories. I felt that it ended on a dull note. It would have been more exciting if it ended with Hardin's story, or if Seldon had at least made an appearance after the last Seldon Crisis was summarized so roughly. So far, these work much better as a serial than a novel; but that's exactly how they were developed to begin with.
Jacek Rozenek jak zwykle stanowi wartość dodaną do treści książki. Koncepcja religii płynącej z umiejętnego sprzedania energii jądrowej cudownym mindfuckiem :)
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
How did no one ever introduce me to Asimov when I was a kid? Imagine a sci fi novel where the heroes win by outthinking their opponents, where "violence is the last resort of the incompetent." Asimov's prose is clean and dry, and it's easy to fly through his books. I'll definitely be tracking down the other books in the series.
This book just wasn’t my cup of tea. It reminded me very much of Dune for the political narration and unbearably slow pace. Except I really loved Dune.
I think this novel suffers greatly from multiple and significant time jumps. Narrating events centuries apart means that no character stands out because none of them stays with the reader too long. Also, there is not one single woman in this story. I know it was the 1950s when it was published, but still, really?
So yeah, overall I’m not impressed…
I think this novel suffers greatly from multiple and significant time jumps. Narrating events centuries apart means that no character stands out because none of them stays with the reader too long. Also, there is not one single woman in this story. I know it was the 1950s when it was published, but still, really?
So yeah, overall I’m not impressed…