4 ms·

Foundation- this book blew my mind. What I found fascinating about it is that it’s a science fiction book but at its core it’s about how to resolve Geopolitical

Foundation- this book blew my mind. What I found fascinating about it is that it’s a science fiction book but at its core it’s about how to resolve Geopolitical issues using diplomacy. It feels like this should be a primer for anyone who wants to understand and improve modern geopolitics.

throwaway6734 5y ago
The prequels are pretty enjoyable (tracks the life of Seldon), but the sequels outside of the trilogy have been much more of a slog.
- joconde 5y ago
  My headcannon honestly throws away the sequels. They are the first books in the timeline that felt like really soft sci-fi. Not actually bad books, just out of touch with the rest of the story.
KerryJones 5y ago
Interesting. I read this book and became entirely disenchanted about the series (initially very excited as it was a favorite of my dad's, the TV show came out, Bill Gate, etc.). A couple of the issues I had: - The story is a bit contradictory in that "Psychohistory can't predict the live of 1 person" and then the story repetitively relies on a single person to pull people through Seldon Crises. - The entire story is a stereo typical "battle of wits" and you can instantly predict who will win/lose by their emotionality (if they are emotional, they will lose, if they are calm, they will win).
- joconde 5y ago
  Foundation is basically the story of Seldon’s plan, and of the leaders trying to keep it on track while handling the turning points predicted by psychohistory (“Seldon crises”). I think Seldon just assumes or hopes that his advice and the leaders’ judgment will be enough to not derail the plan. It’s like Asimov’s entire timeline, a series of visionaries steering the world in the direction they want. Except there’s an additional challenge, in that they have to act without derailing Seldon’s goals. I think the books do a great job of showing that conflict. Edit: agreed about the battle of wits aspect, but that’s also just Asimov being himself.
hermitcrab 5y ago
I read this a long time ago. Psychohistory is just too hard to buy. Human history is way too chaotic for that sort of modelling to be creditable.

throwaway6734 5y ago

The prequels are pretty enjoyable (tracks the life of Seldon), but the sequels outside of the trilogy have been much more of a slog.

joconde 5y ago
My headcannon honestly throws away the sequels. They are the first books in the timeline that felt like really soft sci-fi. Not actually bad books, just out of touch with the rest of the story.

KerryJones 5y ago

Interesting. I read this book and became entirely disenchanted about the series (initially very excited as it was a favorite of my dad's, the TV show came out, Bill Gate, etc.). A couple of the issues I had: - The story is a bit contradictory in that "Psychohistory can't predict the live of 1 person" and then the story repetitively relies on a single person to pull people through Seldon Crises. - The entire story is a stereo typical "battle of wits" and you can instantly predict who will win/lose by their emotionality (if they are emotional, they will lose, if they are calm, they will win).

joconde 5y ago
Foundation is basically the story of Seldon’s plan, and of the leaders trying to keep it on track while handling the turning points predicted by psychohistory (“Seldon crises”). I think Seldon just assumes or hopes that his advice and the leaders’ judgment will be enough to not derail the plan. It’s like Asimov’s entire timeline, a series of visionaries steering the world in the direction they want. Except there’s an additional challenge, in that they have to act without derailing Seldon’s goals. I think the books do a great job of showing that conflict. Edit: agreed about the battle of wits aspect, but that’s also just Asimov being himself.

hermitcrab 5y ago

I read this a long time ago. Psychohistory is just too hard to buy. Human history is way too chaotic for that sort of modelling to be creditable.