4 ms·

Foundation is good. It just ain’t foundation the book. But it is probably impossible to film anyway. But Asimov himself ruined foundation in the 80s with the

Foundation is good. It just ain’t foundation the book. But it is probably impossible to film anyway. But Asimov himself ruined foundation in the 80s with the awful sequels and prequels. Nothing like the original.

nindalf 4y ago
Disagree. Asimov himself matured as he grew older and that improved his writing. In the original Foundation trilogy women are mere props. Things happen to them, they don’t make things happen. In his later years he was capable of writing a strong female character that actually did something. She’s easily my favourite character by Asimov. The 2 prequels are fascinating to me also because they explain why the creator of the Foundation did what he did and how he managed it. For example it’s taken for granted that the galactic empire was declining. But how, and why? It adds richness to the story by exploring this dimension. But I suppose that’s not for everyone.
- tehnub 4y ago
  What thoughtless slander. There are two strong female characters I recall: Bayta and Arkady Darell. They do plenty by their own volition and are central movers of the plot. You also imply that the empire's decline must be taken for granted, but that is explored at least in the Bel Riose story, and probably other places too. You might be due for a reread (assuming you even read them in the first place).
Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
Too much retcons, and shoehorning his three+ laws robots in it was beyong meh.
theshrike79 4y ago
Exactly. The first Foundation books were mostly men in rooms drinking whiskey, smoking cigars and congratulating themselves on how perfectly all their plans went. Then we get a time skip and GOTO 10, with some of the men now dead and new ones added. The YA-Terminus and over the top ST:Discovery-style cry-acting is a bit off-putting, but Lee Pace is so good it doesn't matter.

nindalf 4y ago

Disagree. Asimov himself matured as he grew older and that improved his writing. In the original Foundation trilogy women are mere props. Things happen to them, they don’t make things happen. In his later years he was capable of writing a strong female character that actually did something. She’s easily my favourite character by Asimov. The 2 prequels are fascinating to me also because they explain why the creator of the Foundation did what he did and how he managed it. For example it’s taken for granted that the galactic empire was declining. But how, and why? It adds richness to the story by exploring this dimension. But I suppose that’s not for everyone.

tehnub 4y ago
What thoughtless slander. There are two strong female characters I recall: Bayta and Arkady Darell. They do plenty by their own volition and are central movers of the plot. You also imply that the empire's decline must be taken for granted, but that is explored at least in the Bel Riose story, and probably other places too. You might be due for a reread (assuming you even read them in the first place).

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago

Too much retcons, and shoehorning his three+ laws robots in it was beyong meh.

theshrike79 4y ago

Exactly. The first Foundation books were mostly men in rooms drinking whiskey, smoking cigars and congratulating themselves on how perfectly all their plans went. Then we get a time skip and GOTO 10, with some of the men now dead and new ones added. The YA-Terminus and over the top ST:Discovery-style cry-acting is a bit off-putting, but Lee Pace is so good it doesn't matter.