What Asimov book.....

[HanaBi]

Just completed Prelude To Foundation, and very enjoyable it was too.

Have made a start on Foundation again, but have also ordered a couple of books from the second Foundation trilogy ("..Chaos" and "..Triumph". Apparently the first book in this trilogy, Greg Benford's "Foundation's Fear" doesn't come highly recommended and can be skipped to Chaos without any great loss)

Foundation & Chaos, runs parallel with Foundation but from a slightly different perspective. I will look forward to reading it after Foundation.

[Nightmare]

I just started Foundation last night, and I'm embarrassed to admit that it's my first experience with Asimov. After years of reading only the newest whiz-bang hard sf, I'm finally introducing myself to the masters. I've enjoyed them all, but this is the first one that has really grabbed me. It gave me the "reader's high": that giddy feeling at the first sitting with a book when you realize you're really going to love this one.

[ghost8772]

Foundation I found hard to keep with, I know it was written for a weekly publication, but felt extremely disjointed. I did just reread Prelude to Foundation a month or so ago.will probably sneak back over to the robot novels again though once I finish up a few more authors on my plate.

[Omphalos]

Ive been on a bit of an Asimov kick lately. I am re reading things I have. A few months ago I re read the Foundation Trilogy. Im 1/2 way through a re read of the Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth (though I admit its been a good five weeks since Ive read any of either) and Im going to re read the Gods Themselves here again soon for a review I plan on writing of it. I also have a book by Asimov on the Bard that Ive been paging through lately, and another on Physics that has been calling to me from the shelf.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by ghost8772

Foundation I found hard to keep with, I know it was written for a weekly publication, but felt extremely disjointed.

Eh? Weekly publication????

No, these were originally published as separate stories in Astounding Science Fiction, a monthly magazine... but they weren't published back-to-back, either. They were spaced out between 1942 and 1950, and Foundation itself is comprised of the first four stories in the set (the other two are made up of two novelettes each). Anyone interested in seeing the exact information on dates of publication, etc., can find it at the end of The Early Asimov.

As for it feeling disjointed... I would disagree with it being disjointed (though it obviously struck you that way), but it is episodic -- intentionally so. A great deal of the series is that... as are several other related books. (For that matter, so are Cliff Simak's City and Jack Williamson's The Humanoids....) It's a technique that allows for covering vast periods of time and changing cultural norms in short compass, by a sort of temporal cross-sectioning.....

[PlanetJeff]

I started I, Robot today and so far I really like it.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by Omphalos

Ive been on a bit of an Asimov kick lately. I am re reading things I have. A few months ago I re read the Foundation Trilogy. Im 1/2 way through a re read of the Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth (though I admit its been a good five weeks since Ive read any of either) and Im going to re read the Gods Themselves here again soon for a review I plan on writing of it. I also have a book by Asimov on the Bard that Ive been paging through lately, and another on Physics that has been calling to me from the shelf.

I wonder where your nick is from, i think i saw the name in a PKD story.

Will you review the Foundations done by other than Asimov?

I like your review site by the way, have read many the reviews. I like how you can tell what a book is about without saying everything the book is about.


Also what do you think of the last two Foundations done by Asimov? I almost feel Asimov shouldnt have written them cause they weren't a very good ending to the amazing first trilogy.

[Fried Egg]

Originally Posted by Connavar of Rigante

Also what do you think of the last two Foundations done by Asimov? I almost feel Asimov shouldnt have written them cause they weren't a very good ending to the amazing first trilogy.

I realise your question wasn't directed at me but...

When you say the last two foundation books, do you mean "Prelude" and "Forward!"? Or "Edge" and "Earth"?

Personally, I loved "Edge" and "Earth" and thought they were every inch up to the standard set by the first three (although admittedly of quite a different style).

"Prelude" and "Forward!" were quite different again. More action oriented. Personally, I don't they're as good. Partly because they don't seem to gel with the original trilogy that well.

[Connavar]

I meant Edge,Earth.

I liked the characters, classic foundation characters but i didnt care for the story at all. The hole Gaia thing was alittle lame for me. I missed The Foundation feel. The first Foundation,Second Foundation people when the story was about them it was amazing. I felt it lost focus totaly in the end. Gaia ruined Foundation for me.


I havent even finished Foundation and Earth yet. Asimovs widow even said he didnt know how to finish the story well after Foundation and Earth since its a weak finale apparently cause it opens new questions. Which is exactly why he shouldnt have give in to pressure and should finished the story with Second Foundation.


Now its always remembered as a great trilogy with a somewhat weak ending thanks to the last two books. You see that everywhere, most fans rate The original trilogy high and the sequals not near as high. Check the threads in this forum for fav SF books, many write "Foundation Original Trilogy"

Havent read Prelude,Forward yet.


Action oriented in A Foundation story? thats very interesting.

Im looking forward to reading Prelude cause its about the legendary Hari Seldon.

[Fried Egg]

Connavar of Rigante

I liked the characters, classic foundation characters but i didnt care for the story at all. The hole Gaia thing was alittle lame for me. I missed The Foundation feel. The first Foundation,Second Foundation people when the story was about them it was amazing. I felt it lost focus totaly in the end. Gaia ruined Foundation for me.


I havent even finished Foundation and Earth yet. Asimovs widow even said he didnt know how to finish the story well after Foundation and Earth since its a weak finale apparently cause it opens new questions. Which is exactly why he shouldnt have give in to pressure and should finished the story with Second Foundation.

Now its always remembered as a great trilogy with a somewhat weak ending thanks to the last two books. You see that everywhere, most fans rate The original trilogy high and the sequals not near as high. Check the threads in this forum for fav SF books, many write "Foundation Original Trilogy"

It sounds like you have some quite firm opinions about and ending you haven't even read yet. I suppose that when I read Foundation and Earth, I had the advantage of not having read other people's opinions on it.

As for the ending being weak and leaving unanswered questions...well, I can't say to much because I don't want to spoil it for you when you eventually get around to finishing it but I can say that it goes a long way to tying together the foundation and robot series. It actually resolves some questions left open at the end of "Robots and Empire". And as I understand it, he had every intention of writing more books in the series to continue after "Foundation and Earth" so it wasn't supposed to be fully concluded.

"Second Foundation" actually left the question as to whether the Seldon plan would eventually suceed wide open. This question is actually resolved in "Foundation and Earth".

I think that "Edge" and "Earth" reflected a change in Asimov in that he had grown bored with the original notion of the Foundation and wanted to explore the idea that something else could be a more effective mechanism for securing mankind's future. One of the fascinating things about "Earth" is running debate between Golan Trevize and Blissenobiarella regarding the importance of individual freedom vs. the common good.

Action oriented in A Foundation story? thats very interesting.

Im looking forward to reading Prelude cause its about the legendary Hari Seldon.

"Forward the Foundation" carries straight on from "Prelude" and is also about Hari Seldon.

[Alurny]

The Naked Sun is sitting on my shelf waiting to be read. It is the first Asimov book I have managed to pick up. It is next in line..

[Fried Egg]

Originally Posted by Alurny

The Naked Sun is sitting on my shelf waiting to be read. It is the first Asimov book I have managed to pick up. It is next in line..

Although that book does stand on it's own, it's actually the sequel to "Caves of Steel" which might be worth reading first if you can get it.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by Fried Egg

Connavar of Rigante

It sounds like you have some quite firm opinions about and ending you haven't even read yet. I suppose that when I read Foundation and Earth, I had the advantage of not having read other people's opinions on it.

As for the ending being weak and leaving unanswered questions...well, I can't say to much because I don't want to spoil it for you when you eventually get around to finishing it but I can say that it goes a long way to tying together the foundation and robot series. It actually resolves some questions left open at the end of "Robots and Empire". And as I understand it, he had every intention of writing more books in the series to continue after "Foundation and Earth" so it wasn't supposed to be fully concluded.

"Second Foundation" actually left the question as to whether the Seldon plan would eventually suceed wide open. This question is actually resolved in "Foundation and Earth".

I think that "Edge" and "Earth" reflected a change in Asimov in that he had grown bored with the original notion of the Foundation and wanted to explore the idea that something else could be a more effective mechanism for securing mankind's future. One of the fascinating things about "Earth" is running debate between Golan Trevize and Blissenobiarella regarding the importance of individual freedom vs. the common good.

"Forward the Foundation" carries straight on from "Prelude" and is also about Hari Seldon.

Its not the ending might leave question unanswered that bothers me. I wrote about that just cause it bothers me that it points to Asimov not being clear on what planned with the two books.

Its cause of the Gaia thing and the hole story of Edge and Foundation and Earth that i lost interest and not even bothered to finish it.

I couldnt careless how the ending is,my problem is i lost interest before that. While i devoured every page of the old Foundation series.

The change in Asimov wasnt for good IMO. Which is why i wish he never wrote the last two books.

I should finish it but i dont like that i dont really care anymore its morejust to finish the thing.

Golan Trevize and Blissenobiarella debating about the importance of individual freedom vs. the common good was interesting but not near enough to build stories on. I enjoyed the characters and their ideas but there werent much of a story specially not what you wanted to see in a foundation book.

[Ursa major]

I read the original Foundation trilogy about thirty years ago. (I enjoyed them, but was never convinced about the social science basis - my gut feeling was that equations cannot be used in the way they were in the books.) I've still got the books somewhere - I ought to dig them out and give them another go.

I have recently purchased, but not yet got round to reading, The Complete Robot, with 31 stories in about 200,000 words, or so the intro says....

[Connavar]

Doesnt really matter if you dont think the equations cannot be used that way if you enjoy the story. I didnt like everything about the science but the story was great.

Plus Asimov i think is in Foundation, the other stories i have read very strong when its about the science. Sometimes he even reads almost too much science and too little fiction, not that its a bad thing.