Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy

[CmdrAJD]

I read the Foundation Trilogy last year and enjoyed it, but I had to keep in mind that it was written in the 1940s (maybe the third one was the 1950s. I'm not sure). As I understand it, it was a series of short stories that Asimov put together to form a novel. The first book has five separate stories all set several years apart. There is almost no action in the book, but a great deal of people talking and being clever.

But by people, I mean men. There are almost no female characters in the first book, and the one that gets any real page time is very unpleasant and defined solely by her relationships to her husband and her father. It's a very 1940s view of women. Their only role in this future society is homemaking, and all they care about is fashion and household gadgets. Asimov may have been able to visualize a galactic empire and atomic generators that can fit into a locket, but the concept of women having positions in society outside the home was completely beyond his grasp. In the latter two books of the trilogy, Asimov does give female characters more substantial roles (I'll ignore the fact that they are manipulated into most of their actions, since most of the characters are being manipulated in some way, shape, or form); however, he still cannot seem to picture a society where they hold important positions. I don't mean to sound like any of this took away from my enjoyment of the books. It didn't. If anything, it gave me a real appreciation for how much our society has changed in the last 60 years.

The books are good and filled with interesting concepts, but they are definitely products of their time. I say give them a read.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, they're great stories, but don't go in expecting action and adventure and Star Wars style whizz-bang. They're mostly about political intrigue and philosophy. That's why people feel a movie would be hard to make as there isn't much action to show for it, nor much travelling, but lots and lots of talking.

Which is what makes it even more bizarrely incongruous that the person currently developing a movie adaptation of Foundation is... Roland Emmerich. I mean, seriously, huh?

Foundation would work better as TV series. The West Wing...IN SPACE!!!!!

That's a cool idea.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I love the Trilogy of books. It's just great fun. I also read Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth, which I think are better-written books but don't quite have the same feel to them. I would recommend reading the first one, at least. It's a series of short stories essentially and it's a fast read. Then read the next two. If you love it all, go on to the rest of the series. I'm not sure if it's better to go with the prequels next or the sequels, though.

 

[Lindley]

I heard some people mention that the Hyperion Cantos series is pretty good too.

I've read the first two books. The first is basically a series of short stories bound by a common framing story, but it's a bit of a let-down that the framing story never goes anywhere in that book.

The second book continues the framing story (with ties to many of the short stories).

I'll pick up the third sometime soon. I have a lot of books on my shelf and that isn't a priority. It was enjoyable enough though.

 

[FordSVT]

But by people, I mean men. There are almost no female characters in the first book, and the one that gets any real page time is very unpleasant and defined solely by her relationships to her husband and her father. It's a very 1940s view of women. Their only role in this future society is homemaking, and all they care about is fashion and household gadgets. Asimov may have been able to visualize a galactic empire and atomic generators that can fit into a locket, but the concept of women having positions in society outside the home was completely beyond his grasp.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the concept was "beyond his grasp". Remember, he was a commercial writer, writing to an audience.

We're all familiar with the DS9 ep. "Far Beyond the Stars", yes? Black space station captains and females with prominent military or political roles, maybe not what the audience for a magazine like "Astounding" was looking for in those days. Doesn't mean that Asimov wasn't "capable" of envisioning a future where women had more prominent roles in society than nurse, teacher and home-maker.

 

[Admiral2]

But by people, I mean men. There are almost no female characters in the first book, and the one that gets any real page time is very unpleasant and defined solely by her relationships to her husband and her father. It's a very 1940s view of women. Their only role in this future society is homemaking, and all they care about is fashion and household gadgets. Asimov may have been able to visualize a galactic empire and atomic generators that can fit into a locket, but the concept of women having positions in society outside the home was completely beyond his grasp.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the concept was "beyond his grasp". Remember, he was a commercial writer, writing to an audience.

We're all familiar with the DS9 ep. "Far Beyond the Stars", yes? Black space station captains and females with prominent military or political roles, maybe not what the audience for a magazine like "Astounding" was looking for in those days. Doesn't mean that Asimov wasn't "capable" of envisioning a future where women had more prominent roles in society than nurse, teacher and home-maker.

Susan Calvin is a good example of a woman with a prominent role in a business, namely U.S. Robotics and Mechanical Men. And professional women like Calvin are prominent in Asimov's later books and stories.

 

[Christopher]

...but the concept of women having positions in society outside the home was completely beyond his grasp.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the concept was "beyond his grasp". Remember, he was a commercial writer, writing to an audience.

I think that the Good Doctor himself would've said it was not so much beyond his grasp as beyond his ability. He freely admitted that he wasn't good at writing female characters in those days. He made more of an effort at it later on, though, and was a firm believer in feminism.

 

[JRoss]

The first three books are really the best. As said before, there is not a whole lot of action, although there are a few short fight scenes, IIRC. Despite this lack of combat, the books do manage to create suspense, or at least a desire to see what comes next.

 

[CmdrAJD]

...but the concept of women having positions in society outside the home was completely beyond his grasp.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the concept was "beyond his grasp". Remember, he was a commercial writer, writing to an audience.

Good point. Certainly Roddenberry ran into a similar problem with Number One in the 60s. It just struck me while reading the books (the first one particularly) how the female characters were portrayed.

I think that the Good Doctor himself would've said it was not so much beyond his grasp as beyond his ability. He freely admitted that he wasn't good at writing female characters in those days. He made more of an effort at it later on, though, and was a firm believer in feminism.

That's interesting to know. The Foundation Trilogy is the only Asimov that I've read, and I know very little about the man himself.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the concept was "beyond his grasp". Remember, he was a commercial writer, writing to an audience.

Good point. Certainly Roddenberry ran into a similar problem with Number One in the 60s.

That's a myth. The network actually loved the idea of a female first officer, but objected to Roddenberry casting a relatively inexperienced and little-known actress who was also his mistress. But GR didn't want to admit that, so he claimed they were sexist and forced him to drop the character.

I think that the Good Doctor himself would've said it was not so much beyond his grasp as beyond his ability. He freely admitted that he wasn't good at writing female characters in those days. He made more of an effort at it later on, though, and was a firm believer in feminism.

That's interesting to know. The Foundation Trilogy is the only Asimov that I've read, and I know very little about the man himself.

Well, he was certainly happy to talk about himself in his various essays, story introductions, and so forth, not to mention his 2-volume autobiography. (Not that he was any more egotistical than you'd expect from a writer -- he was just as prolific when it came to discussing just about any nonfiction topic.)

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, they're great stories, but don't go in expecting action and adventure and Star Wars style whizz-bang. They're mostly about political intrigue and philosophy. That's why people feel a movie would be hard to make as there isn't much action to show for it, nor much travelling, but lots and lots of talking.

Which is what makes it even more bizarrely incongruous that the person currently developing a movie adaptation of Foundation is... Roland Emmerich. I mean, seriously, huh?

Yeah, exactly. Explosions! Except there aren't any! So, you gotta figure that the story will be heavily modified to allow for amped up action and explosions. Some of the off-screen action will likely be moved to the forefront.

 

[CmdrAJD]

Good point. Certainly Roddenberry ran into a similar problem with Number One in the 60s.

That's a myth. The network actually loved the idea of a female first officer, but objected to Roddenberry casting a relatively inexperienced and little-known actress who was also his mistress. But GR didn't want to admit that, so he claimed they were sexist and forced him to drop the character.

Also good to know. I've believed that particular story since I first got interested in Trek back in junior high. I guess it really doesn't surprise me that it's not true. The idea that the network didn't want the female first officer or the "satanic" looking guy, so Roddenberry married one and kept the other is just a bit too pat.

 

[Christopher]

I've believed that particular story since I first got interested in Trek back in junior high. I guess it really doesn't surprise me that it's not true. The idea that the network didn't want the female first officer or the "satanic" looking guy, so Roddenberry married one and kept the other is just a bit too pat.

Well, it is true that they didn't want Spock. Roddenberry deserves credit for standing his ground on that one, certainly. But if he'd just recast Number One with a more accomplished actress, the network would've been fine with keeping the character.