Celebrating What Is Best In Science Fiction: Foundation

Sad Puppies ^ | 5/12/2015 | Noah Ward

[OK Sun]

Over the past month we here in the Sad Puppies Revolutionary Vanguard Party Ministry of Truth have received a number of questions about which classic works of SF do and don't exemplify the goals of the Party. While our cohort John Z. Upjohn has done a fantastic job identifying SJW-infused works, we do not wish to present ourselves as wholly negative, so today we're going to talk about one of the all time great works of SF, a classic of yesteryear which could never win a Hugo today.

Yes, Isaac Asimov's Foundation.

This is of course a story about a group of intellectually superior men -- and only men -- who set about to seize the galaxy from the effete and liberal Galactic Empire. It's a daring plan that requires subtle ground work and will take centuries to realize, not unlike our current project to wrest control of fandom from the Nielsen Hayden clique.

The parallel is made clear in the opening chapter, set on the city-planet of Trantor, capital of the empire. The Trantorians are all elitist snobs who see themselves as superior to the provincials who populate the rest of the galaxy, even though it's clear that Trantor wouldn't be able to survive without constant food shipments from agrarian worlds. It would be anachronistic to impose modern controversies on the story, but no doubt Trantorians see the rest of the galaxy as a bunch of inbred, racist hicks whose opinions should be ignored. Certainly that's the case for Hari Seldon, a brilliant scientist who has proven mathematically that the Empire has become too soft and liberal to survive -- that the vast welfare state the Imperial government has built up will soon go bankrupt, thus proving how misguided liberal policies are. ...

[reviled downesdad]

Asimov’s foundation was my relaxation in grad school, still think of Harry Seldon today, the math specifics never bothered me.

[muir_redwoods]

Asimov had wonderful ideas described in wooden prose

[samtheman]

Asimov had interesting ideas, and a reasonably pleasant writing style. I would say, however, that his style is rather 1940s or 1950s. It has an inherent macho swagger and a constant, implied, "Step aside there fellows -- you seem to missing the obvious thing; it's lucky for you that I happen to be here and can point it out to you!" I don't consider him much of a stylist, but he's easy reading.

That's a good assessment of Asimov's fiction in general, though I did like his robot stories, and their integration into Foundation.

His non-fiction was superb.

[rstrahan]

1 and 2 were ok, 3 just seemed an afterthought.

[vladimir998]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Dune-Brian-Herbert/dp/0765353709 The actual novel is called “Spice Planet on pages 3-202. I enjoyed it for two reasons: 1) it’s a pretty good (although conventional) 1950s-60s space adventure story, 2) it was fascinating to see the difference between the original novel and the later published version. Talk about an upgrade!

[Bernard]

The first 3 books were written as a set. Everything in the series after that was written because the publisher wanted to keep the franchise going and offered good money to the author.

Sort of "Foundation Book 4 - Jumping The Shark"

[Gideon7]

Isn’t Nolan or somebody slated to do a miniseries on HBO? It was mentioned about a year ago but I haven’t read anything lately about it.

[squarebarb]

Thank you so much for keeping us up on the Sad Puppies and the rebellion against the SJW’s in the science-fiction field! Keep it up, there are a lot of sci-fi and dystopian fans here on FR. Loved your blog background.

I lurk regularly at Vox Day’s site and am much heartened by the high spirits and defiance expressed toward the ultra-left political crowd that has taken over SF, not only in words but deeds. I wish it were going on in other areas of the literary world. Maybe it will. Just looking into this controversy over the Hugos I have learned more about the literary world and publishers in a month than in the previous ten years. Man it is a can of worms.

Thanks, look forward to more posts about the Sad and Rabid Pups and sci-fi in general.

[Pearls Before Swine]

A generation ago, I was completely enthralled by the Foundation series. When I skim it now, I’m less taken by the writing style. But, the concept of the book is incredible: that there could be a thermodynamics of history. It gives hopeful precision to the off stated notion that history more or less repeats.

[Holdem Or Foldem]

“his style is rather 1940s or 1950s.”

Well shazaam, Foundation was Published in 1951.

[ClearCase_guy]

Well, I know. It’s just that it shows. America was a very different country then,and even nerdy science fiction writes were just naturally manly. The style used by Asimov (and plenty of others) is not from the world of Johnny Depp or Barack Obama.

[zeugma]

Yes. Chaos theory is also completely ignored by the global warming alarmists.

[Holdem Or Foldem]

For 1950s’ style of which you speak try some Heinlein, he was a naval academy graduate and could be a real red-neck when he wanted to be. “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” an “Stranger in a Strange Land” are two of his best imop.

[Cronos]

The foundation series is a must, along with the Robot series (they intertwine at the end) — even accessible to non-scifi fans

[Cronos]

He bases this on real history (the fall of the Roman Empire and its aftermath)

[Cronos]

ok, we're going to have a serious disagreement. Over-rated? The foundation series? No way.

One needs to realise that this is the basis of the star wars sage -- Trantor=Coruscant etc.

[Cronos]

Collaborate with someone who can — seriously — your ideas may make fantastic books.

[Do the math]

Very good observation. You get an A+ for your post.

[sargon]

I read it in the late 80s - early 90s. I thought it was overrated.

Same here. Meh.

[vladimir998]

“Over-rated? The foundation series? No way.”

There are other reasons to dislike the series:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/dec/04/paul-krugman-asimov-economics