One of the reasons this book is a classic must be its influence over so much science fiction that came after it. But like so many creative works at the beginning of movements, Asimov's "Foundation" is primitive in comparison to later examples in the genre.
The first two-thirds of the book are gripping. Asimov is clearly writing about ideas here, and the ideas are interesting enough: that the...
more One of the reasons this book is a classic must be its influence over so much science fiction that came after it. But like so many creative works at the beginning of movements, Asimov's "Foundation" is primitive in comparison to later examples in the genre.
The first two-thirds of the book are gripping. Asimov is clearly writing about ideas here, and the ideas are interesting enough: that the lifespan of empires and social systems are similar, no matter the millennium or the duration of the system. The arc of the story is clearly and unabashedly taken from the fall of the Roman Empire. Asimov's thesis caused me to initially forgive such flaws as lack of characterization and perfunctory dialogue.
Unfortunately, by the last third -- or maybe as early as the story's middle -- the shorthand description of characters and endless pages of spoken exposition (which is often repeated from earlier chapters, revealing the seams of short stories that were later joined to make the novel) wore away my generosity of patience. The final straw was the brutal misogyny. For two-thirds of the book, female characters are almost non-existent. Later, the only women in the story are giggly, gullible bubbleheads or vindinctive, shrewish wives. That the book was originally published in the early 1950s is not an excuse for such a simplistic and binary view of women. Complex female characters, written by men and women authors, had long been a staple of fiction.
I'm told that the next book in the "Foundation" series is better than this first. My hope is that it must be.
hide