Posted on 05/31/2015 1:37:18 PM PDT by OK Sun
Asimov’s foundation was my relaxation in grad school, still think of Harry Seldon today, the math specifics never bothered me.
Asimov had wonderful ideas described in wooden prose
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.
1 and 2 were ok, 3 just seemed an afterthought.
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!
Sort of "Foundation Book 4 - Jumping The Shark"
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.
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.
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.
“his style is rather 1940s or 1950s.”
Well shazaam, Foundation was Published in 1951.
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.
Yes. Chaos theory is also completely ignored by the global warming alarmists.
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.
The foundation series is a must, along with the Robot series (they intertwine at the end) — even accessible to non-scifi fans
He bases this on real history (the fall of the Roman Empire and its aftermath)
One needs to realise that this is the basis of the star wars sage -- Trantor=Coruscant etc.
Collaborate with someone who can — seriously — your ideas may make fantastic books.
Very good observation. You get an A+ for your post.
Same here. Meh.
“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
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.