Asimov's Foundation Is Bad Literature

Submitted by Kryptin t3_11bjoux in books

When I wanted to get into Sci-Fi, I looked into several recommendation list, and Foundation always came pretty high on these lists. It's heralded a sci-fi classic. Yet it is so bad that after reading it, I'm starting to challenge the general definition of 'Classic' as far as literature is concerned.

At first, I thought it would be pretty easy to complete because it is relatively short for a sci fi novel. Just 70,000 words. I was hoping it would be fast paced and cut right to the meat of the story without fluff and redundant descriptions/world building. But no. I was wrong and bored to tears by the novel.

Nothing happens for pages, ten thousand words, but just dialogue between characters about some future events or past events. No much description of these characters, they all feel like talking heads, and since the story is told from several character POV, you can't invest in any of the characters.

I suffered through the book, unable to read no more than 4,000 to 5,000 words per week. Sometimes, I'd take entire weeks or months off, because there's really no reason to go back to it. I should've DNF it. But I kept hoping it'll get good, enough to prove it as a classic read.

Oh God. To compound the issue, the prose is boring. The sentences are cumbersome and easy to get lost or confused by. The pacing is poor. Plenty of telling rather than showing. And even when the writer shows, it's tedious to follow and visualize what he's showing.

I'm a writer myself, and if write a book like this and send it off to traditional publishers, it will be rejected. Better books than this have been rejected or panned, so how does Asimov's book become a classic?

He was only 21 when he wrote the story, therefore hardly a skilled writer. He wrote all 70,000 words in roughly only a month, implying he never took the time to properly develop his ideas and refine his draft.

A prolific author, who published over 500 works of fiction in his lifetime, Asimov confessed that he had no time to read or write creative prose. What writer who doesn't read tell classic stories that stand the test of time? None. Foundation is a letdown that doesn't live up to its acclaim as a classic.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

JalenSmithsGoggles t1_j9y7p6h wrote

It's not intended to be a character driven story. Lack of character development doesn't matter because the story is focused on big picture ideas over the course of a very long time frame.

If you're not entertained by it, that's one thing. But to say nothing happens for 10,000 words is just ignorant and makes me question if you actually read it or just posting here to be contrarian.

285

NotAUsefullDoctor t1_j9yctrh wrote

I read I, Robot and some other collections of Asimov short stories in my teens, but didn't read Foundation til much later in life. I enjoyed it thoroughly, but unlike his other stories, it was from an academic perspective.

Reading Foundation you can see were different authors got their motivation, and you can see the "foundation" of modern sci-fi.

Along side that, Asimov has always been great at Man vs Nature (or Man vs Cold, Unfeeling Logic), and less about dynamic, three dimensional characters and internal turmoil.

If you are not into this style, that is about personal preference, not about quality of work.

PS OP saying essentially, "I'm a writer and therefore get to decide what is and is not good" is the most pretentious thing I have heard in a while.

119

caracallie t1_ja2klwl wrote

Re: the "I'm a writer bit" reminds me of when I was a kid and I didn't like Disney stars because I was jealous of their success and thought I could do better than them. Thing is, I grew out of that childish & petty mindset by the time I was 12, while OP most certainly did not

3

flareblitz91 t1_j9yfd1a wrote

I’ve only read foundation but i remember being impressed by how much does in fact happen.

36

altcastle t1_ja1qrdn wrote

It goes through a lot in a short time. The whole founding, the reveal, first crisis… all happen fairly quickly and are very interesting to me at least.

“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”

8

SFLoridan t1_j9yxmd3 wrote

Yeah, this seems to be the rant of somebody growing up on Twitter and looking for the short and quick dopamine release

36

GurthNada t1_j9ybv7w wrote

I'm not OP, but I too was indeed underwhelmed by Asimov. I genuinely thought I would enjoy it because I mostly read classic Sci Fi, and a ton of non-fiction, so from what I've read about Foundation, it seemed a good fit for me. But I found it badly written and a slog to read. I wanted to like it, but I couldn't.

7

Naturalnumbers t1_j9ygmx5 wrote

Foundation isn't the best Asimov introduction. I, Robot is a lot better to get you an idea of what he's going for in writing.

11

Corchoroth t1_j9zjz64 wrote

I would suggest the foundation itself is the main character. I do get your point though.

7

Kryptin OP t1_j9y84k1 wrote

It's not about whether I enjoined it or not. It about if it is a good story. Just ask yourself a question. Do you think that this book will be published if it were written today?

−124

DrCurtains t1_j9y8d8y wrote

Pride and Prejudice wouldn't be published today, does that make Jane Austen a bad writer?

65

Kryptin OP t1_j9y91qf wrote

I'm in the middle of reading Pride & Prejudice. The only other Austen's book I've completed is Sense & Sensibility. And judging with these, I'll say Austen isn't a very good writer. There are flashes of brilliance here and there. But overall, her stories aren't compelling. And her prose is cumbersome and bloated.

−137

DrCurtains t1_j9ya067 wrote

OP... are you the only good writer?

134

North_Yam_6423 t1_j9yl234 wrote

Apparently! Neither Asimov nor Austen can measure up to OP. OP needs to put their $ where their mouth is and identify the books they wrote. I highly doubt they compare to Austen or Asimov. Smdh

42

altcastle t1_ja1r9xa wrote

They’ve got what looks like a real bummer of a post about 2 years of self publishing so yeah, they’re clearly going through… something.

4

NoPerformance5952 t1_j9yjrch wrote

And yet Jane Austen is well known, and I doubt we've ever heard of any of your work. To say nothing about being a woman back then and having opinions about the economics of marriage

24

yeetedhaws t1_j9ypfzc wrote

Jane Austen's works were actually pretty fast paced for the time period, the writing norms of that time are just completely different then what we see today. You've probably already seen a few changes in writing style in your life time (I know a lot of new books during the 2000s-early 2010s had text lingo written in, now that's considered out dated). The fact that you can see flashes of brilliance even though her books are centuries old show that she was a great writer.

It seems you're confusing good literature with personal preference. I personally don't enjoy Faulkner or Steinbeck (hated east of Eden and grapes of wrath, as I lay dying was super morbid and a waste of time for me) but they are inherently outstanding authors because of how their books impacted people when they were published and how they continue to be relevant to people today (very few people know what the great depression was like but people can still get lost in a pilgrimage of a family trying to survive a hard time).

Aismov's foundation might have some antiquated writing techniques or prose but try to listen to how other people are reading and understanding it. They might point out something that proves why it's an enduring piece of literature. If people didn't gleam something from it, it would have been forgotten and would not be considered the classic people deem it to be.

22

EdTheWright t1_j9zul3j wrote

You are quite clearly a poor judge of writing quality.

10

sum1won t1_j9zzhbp wrote

Lmao

Even modern literature greats acknowledge that Austen was a good writer, especially her prose.

The only big author I can think of who hated Austen is Twain, and he appears to have done so tongue in cheek.

Maybe you're just bad at separating your personal taste from whether literature is actually good.

10

Daffneigh t1_ja2r3ja wrote

Wow the arrogance in this comment is astonishing. Austen’s stories aren’t compelling… to you. Millions of readers over 200 years would disagree.

3

shadow_stalker_20 t1_j9yc988 wrote

OP, I think you kind of miss the point here... Close to none of the classics we know would be published today, you can't judge a book by this factor. Besides, it very much is about whether you enjoyed it or not. You don't really criticize the book in your post: you name subjective things you didn't like (boring prose, unintrestting characters, lack of proper pacing), then proceed to declare that Foundation is not a classic. None of us have the right to say that in general, even less so if your points are not concrete (aside from the pacing, I'll admit it is a bit weird). Finally, why were you expecting the author to cut right to the meat, as you said? As far as I can tell, books have only recently started to become so fast-paced. Not to say that all stories prior to the 21st century are snore fests; I think they simply have a (mostly) different style.

48

Majestic-Rutabaga-28 t1_j9yp5pq wrote

You can see a clear cut between sf and fantasy authors who grew up with modern cinema(80's and up) and those before. Movies have hijacked the way to write novels. Actions scenes, descriptions, etc.Just compare Dunsany and Sanderson for example.

19

shadow_stalker_20 t1_j9zc4ev wrote

Haven't read Dunsany (yet), but I'm quite a fan of Sanderson, and it's really clear how much writing has changed in recent years. I'm not someone who "sees" the things they read, but Sanderson's novels really do feel like a movie with more details.

5

ReturnOfSeq t1_j9yeq4p wrote

Imagine saying Foundation wouldn’t be published today while Chuck Tingle exists.

19

sinofonin t1_ja0c4uc wrote

The entire outlook of Foundation is that it has a different look at what really matters in history and the outcome of the story beyond the individual. This is generally in contrast to a typical fictional story or even how we often tell our history which looks at individuals and their impact and importance. I think this way of thinking is actually becoming more relevant in modern story telling and history. Even if they still hold to some of the traditional story telling traditions of focusing on individuals.

It is unlikely Asimov gets this story written without being a known quantity. It is unusual. It isn't going to necessarily appeal to a broad audience. It is a classic in literature in large part due to the way it breaks from traditional story telling molds. Things are not classics because they are for everyone.

3

altcastle t1_ja1qxr3 wrote

You seem to think this is an incredible gotcha. But yes, I do, cause I subscribe to Clarkesworld. It also doesn’t matter at all cause it’s not like Dracula or the Bible would see the light of day.

2

Ventisquear t1_j9yirij wrote

I expected some profound analysis, but it's just the standard "I don't like it so it's bad literature"- only on steroids. Because this time it's "I am a writer myself so I know what's good or bad"

125

SlightlySane1 t1_ja1vhr0 wrote

There’s really nothing profound to analyze, I forced my way through all but the last book just to see what happens in the end but the last book is just an add on to the first. Nothing happens in about half of the books and the only mildly interesting story just abruptly ends.

−2

Algernon_Asimov t1_j9yrw2o wrote

> He was only 21 when he wrote the story, therefore hardly a skilled writer. He wrote all 70,000 words in roughly only a month, implying he never took the time to properly develop his ideas and refine his draft.

Let's start with some facts.

The Foundation "trilogy" which was published in the early 1950s was actually a collection of short stories that were published in the preceding decade. The book called 'Foundation' is actually a collection of the first four of those stories. The first one was published in 1942; the fourth in 1944. An additional opening story was written in 1951 for the collection.

So, he did not write all 70,000 words in one month.

At the time he wrote these stories (spanning his 20s), writing was a side hustle for him. In his main life, he was studying biochemistry at college, getting a job with a naval science laboratory (World War II was happening), being drafted into the army, getting out of the army, continuing his post-doctoral studies, getting a job at a pharmaceutical company. That was how his 20s were. That was the time he was writing those Foundation stories.

He didn't become a full-time professional writer until his early 30s, when he realised that his income from writing finally exceeded his income as a college associate professor.

It's also important to note the audience he was writing for. He wasn't writing for any book publishers. Almost no companies published new science-fiction books in the 1940s. The big market in that era was pulp magazines. He wrote on spec, and submitted stories to magazine editors.

> A prolific author, who published over 500 works of fiction in his lifetime, Asimov confessed that he had no time to read or write creative prose.

True. He was more concerned with conveying the story clearly, than writing fancy prose.

But his stories were popular. That's why they were collected into books in the early 1950s.

The reason they were popular was because of the ideas. Not the characters. Not the prose. Science fiction in those days was mainly about ideas, and Foundation had some great ideas.

Of course, the main idea was that the series would cover 1,000 years of future history, so there had to be a succession of characters from story to story. This also reflected the central assumption of psychohistory - that individuals don't matter. Form reflected function.

Apart from that, everything you complain about is simply your personal preference. You don't like Asimov's writing style. Other people do. It's as simple as that.

100

GraniteGeekNH t1_j9ztlq0 wrote

What he said.

I had all these interesting points to make, starting with that ridiculous error about writing it in a month (?!?!?) but you've made them all quite well.

13

DrCurtains t1_j9y4z9f wrote

>When I wanted to get into Sci-Fi,

>I'm a writer myself

Traditionalist writers not liking sci-fi/fantasy is such a well worn path that it's a trope all of its own.

You don't have to like it but its success and accolades speak for itself.

97

Kryptin OP t1_j9y5j40 wrote

I didn't say I don't like Sci fi. I said Foundation is bad literature.

−57

DrCurtains t1_j9y5z9x wrote

I guess my observation is that given the number of people and serious writers who disagree with you, you might be lacking the self awareness to measure the difference between "I don't like" and "is bad".

I couldn't get through the first season of breaking bad, it doesn't mean the writing, acting or production was terrible. I just didn't like it.

74

bhbhbhhh t1_j9yoe66 wrote

> I guess my observation is that given the number of people and serious writers who disagree with you, you might be lacking the self awareness to measure the difference between "I don't like" and "is bad".

As with Philip K. Dick's work, it seems very common to be highly critical of Foundation's technical quality.

10

cultfavorite t1_j9yvrms wrote

Metallica is poor baroque music—which is a dumb criticism and misses the whole point. Sci-fi is an ideas-first genre and Foundation is excellent sci-if. Sci-fi may not be a good fit for you, but you might like literary sci-fi.

16

BitterStatus9 t1_j9yapbu wrote

TL;dr….OP wrote hundreds of words, but in their post nothing “happened.”

91

NotAUsefullDoctor t1_j9ybu3j wrote

I slogged through OP's post. It just dragged on, being overly redundent without actually adding insite past "I didn't get it."

53

Ireallyamthisshallow t1_j9y74ro wrote

I don't really see anything here which really makes it 'bad' literature, it just sounds like it isn't for you. Nothing is universally liked.

89

Sumtimesagr8notion t1_jad6a0a wrote

The main problem is that no one considers Asimov "classic literature" so I don't see what he's whining about.

2

wongie t1_j9y8ew3 wrote

You simply went in with wrong assumptions and expectations of sci fi as a genre, it's one that is more thoroughly rooted in its ideas than for its literary merit. If you're getting into fantasy and want to look at it's roots you can go back to milestone titles like Lord of the Rings that itself builds on themes and archetypes that go back centuries and millennia. This isn't so with sci fi where it's core is rooted more in its technological themes so generally its a genre constrained by time seeing as the industrial revolution was only a few centuries ago.

Foundation is part of the Golden Age sci fi starting around the cusp of the start of WW2 onwards, an era of unprecedented technological development. Major sci fi works of this era aren't known for producing much of literary merit, in part because many works were published piecemeal in magazines over the course of many years, they aren't cohesive novels in themselves as you are reading them today. What makes works from the likes of Asimov stand the test of time as a piece of sci-fi is simply that his generation were the first to reflect on this post war political climate where technology was being seeing as the driving force of societal development and prosperity so became key milestone works within the genre.

If you seriously want to get into sci fi it's probably better you read modern titles and work yourself backwards rather than chronologically unless you're prepared to do a bit of background reading to understand the climate of when particular works were written. Likewise with other milestone titles like Dune, the sci fi equivalent of LoTR; it's hardly good literature itself either but it's a milestone title because it reformulates the scale and depth of themes that sci fi is capable of being relative to its contemporaries that were being published that were still coming off quite pulpy.

If you would prefer something of more literary merit, I suggest you drop the classics and pick up The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe written in the 80s; a sci fi tetralogy, starting with the Shadow of the Torturer, that is actually known for its literary merit.

62

Burnsidhe t1_j9y9jf2 wrote

If they do, they'll probably be back complaining that the Book of the New Sun is fantasy, not sci-fi, thus missing the point.

25

bhbhbhhh t1_j9ynvpz wrote

> generation were the first to reflect on this post war political climate where technology was being seeing as the driving force of societal development and prosperity so became key milestone works within the genre.

I would say this is highly inaccurate, given that the same could be said of Verne and Wells.

5

wongie t1_j9yx24p wrote

You are right, a more correct phrasing would be that generation was arguably the more or, imo, most significant.

6

Kryptin OP t1_j9yacv3 wrote

>You simply went in with wrong assumptions and expectations of sci fi as a genre, it's one that is more thoroughly rooted in its ideas than for its literary ability.

I did not know about this. I thought the primary purpose of fiction is to entertain, grabbing the reader with conflict and character depth. Everything else comes second. Foundation misses the bar in this regard. I like the ideas it explored like psychohistory, but I find that they could've been better developed and employed to tell a more engaging story than what we got in Foundation.

>Foundation is part of the Golden Age sci fi starting around the cusp of the start of WW2 onwards, an era of unprecedented technological development.

If you say so, I wonder what you think of Jules Verne and works like Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. It's not a perfect work, but still ahead of Foundation in my opinion. I think the Golden Age began with Jules Vernes era of Sci Fi. And works like Foundation, feels like a regression rather than progress from the previous era.

−56

hitch00 t1_j9yg8zx wrote

If you think the “primary” purposes of fiction are entertainment and character development, your view is far too undeveloped and myopic to put you in a position to make the sorts of pronouncements in your post. You have a lot to learn. The “character driven” stuff is good but it is a slice of one kind of fiction. You don’t have to like it, but please don’t judge it by this incorrect thinking.

61

flareblitz91 t1_j9yf6zi wrote

You think literatures primary purpose is to entertain? I disagree entirely.

31

sbsw66 t1_ja0ybuu wrote

me reading no longer human: how the FUCK did he miss the point of literature THIS BADLY?!

6

NoPerformance5952 t1_j9ymb5d wrote

The Jungle has entered the chat

A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich has entered the chat

Many works of literature are absolutely not there to do something as paltry as "to entertain". You having "fun" reading The Color Purple or The Bluest Eye?

18

Algernon_Asimov t1_j9ys5j3 wrote

> I think the Golden Age began with Jules Vernes era of Sci Fi.

You don't get to redefine the genre of science fiction all by yourself. It's generally accepted that the Golden Age of science fiction began in July 1939, when John W Campbell became editor of 'Astounding Stories'.

15

masakothehumorless t1_j9yfokf wrote

There are some sci-fi that are written as novels, but there are some that are written as "alternate future". Much like Black Mirror they imagine a particular technology or event, and attempt to extrapolate what would happen to society based on that. When telling a horror/dystopian story, short-form works fine as there are any number of ways things can go wrong. When telling a hopeful story, as many of the alternate future works try to be, more time has to be spent on how the pitfalls of dystopia were avoided, the struggles and horrors overcame, etc. I think of Foundation as a parallel to the alternate history books, where they imagine something like, "What if Napoleon never invaded Russia?" and extrapolate from there. Such a story can't be told over one person's lifetime in any meaningful way, the effects are too far-reaching. I don't think anyone who is truly honest with themselves will disagree that portions of Foundation are boring. But Foundation isn't remarkable for the pacing or prose, but for the ideas it introduces and the scope of it's narrative. Comparing to Jules Verne or H.G. Wells is fairly appropriate, as they all were enthralled by the possibilities of human ingenuity and dazzled by the brightness of the future they saw. It's true the older writers wrote better stories, but that doesn't take away from the ambition Asimov had to try to share his vision entire. Doubtless if Wells had written further novels to explore how humans became the Eloi and Morlocks as well as what happened to the nations of his day, or even what else was happening elsewhere in that future time, portions of that would have dragged a bit as well.

13

ReadyProposal t1_j9zrqwt wrote

How on Earth can you pretend to be "a writer" and somehow also not know that your "definition" of fiction is staggeringly limited and ignorant?

13

wongie t1_j9yeqxj wrote

The purpose of fiction can be for a lot of things beyond just entertainment especially how you view it. Plenty of my favourite works are ones I wouldn't even call entertaining myself but which I appreciate their thematic elements or commentary that they provide. Coincidentally you mention Verne and when contrasted with Wells you find that even back then, when it was known as scientific romance before sci fi became an established genre, you could see differences in story telling and their emphasis on entertainment or making some sort of moral commentary. If you continue to read sci fi you may find a work that you didn't necessarily enjoy reading but which the themes or elements alone will strike an accord with you.

My translation of Verne's work like 20k made for a more fun read than Foundation, certainly, but I still prefer Asimov simply because the post-war world is an era I'm more familiar with so have a better appreciation for the elements and issues he explores beyond Foundation, more so with I, Robot, and the context to which they were written compared than the stuff from the 19th century.

And, while you have an appreciation for Verne that's shared with a lot of other readers, the Golden Age as a moniker is generally a well established period to be from the late 1930s to the mid century where there was an explosion of authors so you can rightly praise Verne but sci fi readers wouldn't generally acknowledge the mid 19th century to be a golden age, let alone The Golden Age, because, as mentioned, sci fi wasn't even an established or recognised genre at that point and beyond big names like Verne and Wells you don't see a profusion of writers expanding the genre to the degree you see in from the late 30s.

9

UnderstandingDry4072 t1_j9yjqp5 wrote

OP, given that you dragged Asimov and Austen in prior comments, I’m curious who you consider to be a “good” writer.

62

Kryptin OP t1_j9z0aum wrote

I really can't say. Lots of authors have good books and not so good books. Dickens later writings were good, but his earlies works like Pickwick Papers and Sketches by Boz were insufferable. Same goes for Joseph Conrad. Edgar Allan Poe, Arthur Conan Doyle, Bram Stoker, I think these guys generally wrote well. For Sci-Fi, H G Wells, Jules Vernes, Mary Shelly I'd rank over Asimov.

−44

UnderstandingDry4072 t1_j9z9qjd wrote

So I think what has most people in this thread so hot and bothered is not that you didn't like Asimov, specifically; it's that you leaped immediately to saying that he's a bad writer.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it's perceived as fairly immature and self-centered to equate "I don't like this" to "it must be bad." Personally, I hate the works of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Herman Melville, and Hemingway, but I'm not gonna say they're bad writers.

It's okay to not like something and just move on, but I guess that wouldn't be very Reddit.

58

Skeptix_907 t1_j9zdp33 wrote

To be fair, you're strawmanning him. He didn't say Asimov in totality is a bad writer; he said that one of Asimov's books is bad. That's a world of difference.

−28

UnderstandingDry4072 t1_j9zf3mo wrote

Nah, read the rest of the comments, man. They've said Asimov is "hardly a skilled writer" and "Austen isn't a very good writer."

25

fckuse t1_jacxipp wrote

If a writer writes ONE great book remembered A HUNDRED years after their death, they're GREAT WRITERS...

2

ReturnOfSeq t1_j9yegwm wrote

Tbh OP it sounds like you’re a bad reader

39

frontbuttt t1_j9z4yr9 wrote

Post was boring and redundant, nominal vocabulary or word variety, completely uninspired. Plus he used “DNF” unironically, in a subreddit about Books and to critique a famous writer’s literary merit and prose... I’m afraid OP might be a bad writer too.

16

NoPerformance5952 t1_j9yk4s3 wrote

You write so much, but you say almost nothing. Many great writers produced timeless works at 21, and especially given that 21 was different 200 years ago versus today's 21.

And yes, there are hypothetical great novels that never made it to a publisher. Confederacy of Dunces was only published after the deceased author's mom pressed the manuscript on a reviewer.

28

Corchoroth t1_j9zkk0w wrote

I’m finishing right now! Last chapter, what a book!

4

JCSterlace t1_j9yw4bb wrote

Well, here's all the attention you ordered, OP.

21

North_Yam_6423 t1_j9yjqug wrote

As someone who just read the foundation series for the first time, I think you’ve missed the point of the books. Others here correctly point out it isn’t character-driven narrative, it’s exploring major philosophical and social questions. How reliant should we be on technology, for example. How do societies undermine and eventually destroy themselves? It focuses on the social body writ large, not a particular hero. It’s a wonderfully creative, exuberant, intellectually curious imagining of future society, the inevitable decay of everything we build, and what it means to be human (ex: should we merge with gaia?).

I’d also add that you’re not giving the series enough credit for how innovative it was when it was published. It shaped the entire genre of science fiction, including some of the most famous, beloved sci fi series like dune. At the risk of being intellectually lazy, I’ll say that if all these great, thoughtful writers found something wonderful in Asimov but you didn’t, it’s more likely you’re missing something, not them.

18

Girl77879 t1_j9zisin wrote

"The sentences are cumbersome and easy to get lost or confused"

In other words, you couldn't parse out what he was saying in one go, thus it's terrible literature. No, it makes you have to slow down and think. Which is how most classics are.

16

gardenpartycrasher t1_j9yg696 wrote

It’s almost like people have different tastes and those tastes don’t translate to sweeping generalizations of what is and isn’t “good literature!”

15

ReadyProposal t1_j9zra4h wrote

"I didn't enjoy this book" is a perfectly reasonable response. "This book didn't tickle my fancy and is therefore garbage" is a childish and ignorant position.

15

Radio_gugu t1_j9yb8is wrote

It's good sci Fi. It isn't claiming to be literary fiction

13

Chad_Abraxas t1_j9yn4zs wrote

Yeah... it's an interesting premise but the execution is not so great.

I am planning to watch the adaptation; I assume it has all the book's strengths with none of its weaknesses.

>What writer who doesn't read tell classic stories that stand the test of time? None.

I have to disagree with you there, however--Asimov has stood the test of time quite well. He is considered a seminal author in the sci-fi genre. His name is practically synonymous with sci-fi.

Foundation isn't his strongest work, but as you pointed out, it was also among his earliest work. His chops grew significantly the more he wrote.

Also, um...

>I'm a writer myself, and if write a book like this and send it off to traditional publishers, it will be rejected. Better books than this have been rejected or panned, so how does Asimov's book become a classic?

Have you read (or tried to read) Ready Player One? It's fucking abysmal, and yet it not only got published, it was turned into a HUGE hit. It makes Foundation look like Lolita. My point is that traditional publishers put out terrible garbage all the time. They don't make their decisions about what gets published based on merit; they make those decisions based on marketability. Source: I'm a writer, too--a pretty successful one, in fact.

13

Jack_Shaftoe21 t1_j9yh1q9 wrote

>What writer who doesn't read tell classic stories that stand the test of time?

Homer. Next question?

And yeah, Asimov's writing style is not very good, to put it mildly but it's absolutely delusional that a book like that would certainly be rejected today. The likes of Brandon Sanderson, Dan Brown and E. L. James sell tens of millions of books.

11

MorriganJade t1_j9y6ote wrote

I read it as a child, and I remember I really enjoyed it

10

boxer_dogs_dance t1_j9yiqi2 wrote

When I studied literature, we were told that there was a shift in critical opinion about what makes good literature in the 20th century. One of the changes was valuing short efficient concise prose. Hemingway was influential in this change but he was not the only influence. Before a certain time they are literally working toward different ideals than you are.

Classics are classic because enough people valued and appreciated them that they were not forgotten.

7

IAmThePonch t1_j9y6hp5 wrote

I’ve found I largely don’t have the patience for over half of the stuff I’ve read that’s considered “literature.” Ain’t nothing wrong with a well paced plot and straightforward character development

6

Majestic-Rutabaga-28 t1_j9yneun wrote

Weird obsessions with words count😆

You seems to dont know that the main things that makes SF classics is ideas. Not prose or character dev. Its not like an academic classic

6

InevitabIeCicada t1_j9yv2vq wrote

Asimov had a Very Good Brain and could make a certain type of person (or, many types of people) very interested in his ideas/plots in an intellectual way.

If that is not you, that's fine, but it's core to much of Sci-fi and that's why he has written so many classics, including science popularization. He's far better as a science popularizer than Sagen or anyone else I can think of, as far as written word goes, in my book.

6

WhyAreMyFeetGreen t1_j9z79rw wrote

I liked it, but it didn’t blow my skirt up. I adored Dune and all the rest of the books in that series. There is a difference in…almost the mindset of the writer between that series and all the others. For me, any novels, almost especially science fiction novels, including Foundation, written by men forty or more years ago are a little problematic. I read Rendezvous with Rama around the same time and the blatant sexism kicked me out of my reading flow badly. And Friday. I read that as a young girl and loved it, but when I reread it the main character is such a manic pixie dream girl.

Anyway there’s my two cents. Please, no one attack me for being a woman who reads scifi.

6

Corchoroth t1_j9zlev4 wrote

Mate, this means Asimov isn’t really your thing. But youre suggesting millions of readers judged wrong this trilogy. It’s considered a masterpiece for a reason, maybe you didn’t connect with that reason, and that’s ok. Maybe you would be more comfortable reading Bradbury or P.k.dick. Ps. Who isn’t a writer?

6

matthagan15 t1_j9y9dzk wrote

I highly enjoyed foundation, my roommate finished it in one day. I much prefer it to Dune.

5

minder125 t1_j9yffhq wrote

Dune I can read every few years and never tire of it.

5

EinFahrrad t1_j9yn7vc wrote

Well, he did read Edward Gibbons "Decline and Fall" before he pitched his idea for Foundation, if I remember correctly. The "foundation" of Foundation is therefore not rooted in fictional prose but in history, both in writing and philosophy. The changing characters are vehicles for exploring various forces that propel history like technology, trade and religion. The first book especially is a step by step description of how europe got through the very early medieval period after the fall of the western roman empire.

The narrative is more stringent and less episodic in the other two but the various philosophies of Historiography stay at the core of Foundation, for the most part. That's where the trilogy draws it's strength from and got it's accolades

5

dudinax t1_ja08fb9 wrote

It's an idea book, not an adventure story.

5

great_account t1_ja0fm6g wrote

You have no idea what you're talking about. The Foundation is the most pure sci Fi books you could read. Modern sci Fi doesn't understand this stuff.

5

jaymickef t1_j9y86gr wrote

Speaking of science fiction, always keep in mind Sturgeon’s Law, "ninety percent of everything is crap.” Or really, ninety percent of everything isn’t for you.

4

bofh000 t1_j9zali6 wrote

No, it isn’t bad literature, it’s just not for you. I find it quite illuminating how counting books by the words converges with “nothing happens for pages”.

4

McJohn_WT_Net t1_ja05xid wrote

You want brainless action where two-fisted threat-snarling he-men get the drop on one another with laser pistols while spaceships whirl hopelessly to shrieking destruction in deathtrap gravity wells and the lone pneumatic schoolgirl love interest screams and turns her ankle running away from the lust-driven chief robot, you want somebody other than Asimov. Fortunately, there's plenty of it out there for you.

4

terst_ t1_j9ydmr9 wrote

I loved it as a teenager, i'm re-reading the whole series, starting from the robots, and i'm really not enjoying it as much. The characters are pretty bi-dimensional and the few female characters are really badly written, sometimes even downright creepily (he later blamed it on having written it as a 20something virgin), the writing is a bit dull and the plots too often rely on deus ex machina or some plot armor. Probably some today wouldn't be published (one revolvs around a mistery of a "lemonade death" that's pretty ridiculous), but for when they were written they were absolutely revolutionary, some of the concepts introduced really amazing and they have influenced most of the scifi that followed.

3

SemiEmployedTree t1_j9z137c wrote

I had pretty much the same experience. Tried re-reading the series a few months ago and dropped it about half way thru the first book. I think Azimov's works were brilliant and original but haven't held up as well as some of the other Golden Age books.

Some experiences just can't be repeated.

2

Tanagrabelle t1_j9ze7mb wrote

I treat the first book as a collection of short stories that tie together. The thread connecting them? The survival and gradual thriving of the Foundation. Problems with the stories: as a woman, the fact that women weren't even NPCs. (sort of a joke)

Many sci fi apocalyptic stories are just like this. A healthy community with decent resources, isolated by distance, and how they have to deal with the threat of the neighbors now that law and order have broken down. Granted, most of the time they're set in a country, or even an island on Earth.

3

WeaponizedThought t1_j9zqdds wrote

Sounds like you are not a fan of one of the classics in regards to science fiction. Genres exist for a reason and new ones come about while old ones fade. Asimov was heralded because of the newness of the style of story and world created. It was one of his early works so yes improvement is obviously possible but not all stories are for everyone. Based on what you said stories without strong characters are not going to be enjoyable for you. Chalk it up as a learning experience for you as a reader.

3

peleles t1_ja0l7tx wrote

You should have said "here's why I don't like Asimov's Foundation."

Because that's what you're saying. There's no objective standard for good lit.

3

xkumo_ t1_ja10i72 wrote

>I'm a writer myself, and if write a book like this and send it off to traditional publishers, it will be rejected

You could never write a book like this.

3

Earl_Tucker t1_ja11h8j wrote

A lot of sci-fi seems to be 'idea' or theme-driven rather than character-driven. The characters often just exist as a vehicle for themes so long, dialogue-based scenes (often with very clunky dialogue) are pretty common. If you are fascinated by the ideas, no problem. If you want more "literary" elements - characterisation, believable motivations and relationships and so on - it gets frustrating. Also, I guess a lot of the ideas in sci-fi are recycled; it can be very genre-bound, so a lot of those ideas, once shocking or intersting, are overly familiar now. When Asimov was writing this stuff, they weren't so familiar. I thought Foundation was interesting but I had no desire to continue the series or re-read it.

3

imdb_shenanigans t1_ja1pchv wrote

Can you just stfu. Your post and your tone and the head up your ass is just annoying. Please go away.

3

marxistghostboi t1_ja25dis wrote

i agree with you that from a prose perspective it's uninspired. the scifi market was not particularly interested in classical prose tho. in the case of Foundation, it's more about fiction as a vehicle for thought expiriments, in this case about astronomy and political science. in that regard i think it's pretty revolutionary, but don't keep reading if you're nor interested in that, it will disappoint you

3

fckuse t1_jacxavq wrote

>I'm a writer myself, and if write a book like this and send it off to traditional publishers, it will be rejected. Better books than this have been rejected or panned, so how does Asimov's book become a classic?

Cringe of the day - because this "author" rejects a classic it must be trash...and they could - obviously, write a better book!

3

EliteFrosty1 t1_j9yho5t wrote

If you don't like this book, you likely will not like Dune either. You also might not like Hyperion Cantos. Dune is always recommended for scifi but I don't understand, it has probably made so many people give up on scifi since it's usually the first recommended book.

I finished Hyperion but it was difficult, but Dune was marked DNF at 50% or so. The writing is horrible. The worldbuilding is cool though but that's the only redeeming quality.

2

badheartveil t1_j9yv3t7 wrote

What was wrong with Hyperion? The only thing that rubbed me the wrong way was the male gaze parts and random irrelevant “intellectual” insertions.

1

EliteFrosty1 t1_j9yvqsf wrote

It's one of those books where I didn't like it till closer to the end, it was slow and kind of boring. However by the end, I was invested into the story and ended up enjoying it.

I could definitely see myself reading this series again, but still it was so slow. I'm usually fine with slower books but not in this case.

1

e430doug t1_ja12hkm wrote

Literature. What a loaded term that can mean whatever you want it to mean. Foundation is about imagination and ideas. Fiction doesn’t have to be character driven to be great. Asimov had some of the greatest ideas in Science Fiction.

2

jl_theprofessor t1_ja19rlr wrote

I’m so dumbfounded I don’t know how to respond.

2

comcaty t1_ja1dq1z wrote

Don't know why people get so offended by this sort of complaint. God forbid anyone expects to get enjoyment out of a leisure activity like reading fiction... You could have the best idea for a story ever, but if you write it in a way that makes it a chore to read, what you've created is a textbook guide to your idea, not a good story.

2

swallowsnest87 t1_ja1xh4r wrote

I love foundation the inaction is the best part and it’s very original. I’m also a writer and hope I can some day be that creative.

2

denimcat2k t1_ja1xsic wrote

When you've published as many books as Asimov, come back and let us know.

2

Ineffable7980x t1_ja2loef wrote

You can challenge it all you want, but this book will always be considered a classic.

However, I have the same issues with Asimov's writing that you do. He's that type of old school writer who is more enamored with ideas than he is with character or story. His writing can feel very stodgy and dull, and that's why I think he will always fall behind Arthur C Clark and Ray Bradbury on my list of great classic science fiction authors.

2

toast_mcgeez t1_ja3369s wrote

I agree too. I understand it was originally a serial published in pieces but I was always waiting for more as I read the first book. I even bought the second book in anticipation of continuing the series, but always seem to find a reason to read something else next.

Point being, it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but there tends to be a lot of pretentious opinions around classics and if you don’t like them, then you “just don’t understand” how great the work is, blah, blah, blah. As evidenced by the comments on this post.

I do enjoy the apple + series, if you’re looking for more of a fleshed out narrative. But I’m “low class” and don’t mind the source material being changed.

2

Gr3yt1mb3rw0LF068 t1_j9y7caz wrote

I read it recently as well. I do think you are right about the sentence structure. But I heard it on audible, do maybe they made it better to listen to.

1

Candid-Mark-606 t1_j9yd2m9 wrote

Yeah I wasn’t a fan either.

Edit: When I was in high school, my English/Lit teacher made a comment about how sci-fi in general has a lot of great ideas, but wasn’t known for its great writing. I disagreed at the time, because I had read some great sci-fi that was well written up to that point. Later when I read Foundation and a few other “Sci-Fi” classics I had to agree with her. Sure these are great ideas, but the writing sucks.

1

[deleted] t1_j9ye33q wrote

[deleted]

1

JFKman t1_j9yh3d0 wrote

Don’t do this.

1

mumblified t1_j9yia8g wrote

My bad I deleted the comment. It is kind of hard to discuss whether a book is well written or not without discussing the content though.

2

JFKman t1_j9ylhc0 wrote

Generally, people will be at least familiar. I’ve read it a few times and my perspective has changed on it. I think of it as a pulp novel at this point eminently readable though.

2

Vamoose87 t1_j9ytlbq wrote

I agree with your criticisms as they apply to the original 3 foundation novels (Foundation, Foundation and Empire, Second Foundation). They're kinda tough to get through, they meander too much etc. The prequels and sequels are much better. The Robot novels are also very entertaining. For me it was well worth reading them because they tie together the Robot novels and the other sequels/prequels.

1

ExistentiallyBored t1_j9yuok0 wrote

I read five of them and really only liked the first story from the first book. Also, by the ‘80s Asimov had clearly become the horniest man alive and was mostly describing women by the shape of their breasts.

There’s no disputing the value his sci-fi concepts had to the genre though.

1

AUWarEagle82 t1_j9z0dmy wrote

I found the Foundation series to be one of the best sci-fi I ever read. Ironically, I hated Dune and never finished reading the first book. Personal preferences are just that. Good luck with your future reading.

1

probablywrongbutmeh t1_j9z9rsx wrote

Asimov really didnt write good characters at all. His books are basically great premises for short stories that turned into books. He didnt write about people he wrote about ideas.

1

LordXak t1_j9zg0wy wrote

Asimov is an ideas guy, his characters are all cardboard cutouts. That being said Foundation is terrible and it only gets worse as the series goes on, and on, and on. Every book ends with a Deus Ex Machina moment where the super smart scientists pull some shit out of their asses to prevail over the space barbarians. There's much better sci-fi from the same era.

1

agajabigaba t1_j9zgzym wrote

I, too, wasn’t crazy about Foundation but I don’t think it was bad literature. I actually thought it was well written because the author was able to get me to understand the complexity of psychohistory”.

1

Obwyn t1_j9zlcuq wrote

Well yes, if you write a book like Asimov wrote Foundation then there is no chance that it would get published as a new novel today. Tastes have changed in the many decades since he wrote it....if Asimov wrote the same story in 2023 it would read very differently and be more character driven, and probably be 2-3 times as long.

If you don't like it, then don't read it. It's still considered a classic sci-fi novel regardless of your personal opinion of it.

1

Comprehensive_Tap_63 t1_j9znaz9 wrote

If you’re interested in sci-fi classics with tighter pacing and more intriguing prose, I recommend Ursula K Le Guin. Maybe start with Lathe of Heaven — it’s short and covers a ton of ground.

1

NoDragonfruit7115 t1_ja01qtg wrote

The prose is boring. That is true. But what if that's the point?

In the cold world of Foundation, where a good chunk of our story deals with mathematicians and psychologists, why be surprised when we are exposed to a hollow and dry prose that reflects the atmosphere of the world.

1

Markqz t1_ja0rfcn wrote

You forgot to mention the one-dimensional characters that seem to get re-incarnated over and over. The fact that it promises to tell you something, but then ends abruptly. That the author imagines a galaxy-wide empire but can't imagine women being anything but extras.

1

Maggot-Milk t1_ja112bd wrote

training in writing satire I hope?

1

Maorine t1_ja1ec98 wrote

I couldn’t finish it. Very disappointed.

1

HugoNebula t1_ja2nm7t wrote

SF is the literature of ideas, which may be the issue you have with Foundation.

1

Jamandi_Aldori t1_ja0bwjp wrote

Pretty much agreed on all fronts.

A lot of classic "Big Idea" sci-fi was like this, terrible as a book and as a work of fiction. Awful pacing, wooden characters, mouthpiece characters spouting exposition dialogue that no real person would ever say outside of an academic lecture.

Their value lay in the provocative ideas they explored and how the tried to look at the impact of social and technological change on humanity.

Of course, now we know that psychohistory is complete BS, history is not deterministic: Uncertainty and chaos reign.

But nonetheless, Foundation remains important because it is such a formative SF work, and had such a vast influence on the next century of SF that followed it.

−1

briunj04 t1_j9yat4t wrote

I agree. Went several paragraphs at a time without processing the information because I would get bored of the nonstop trade negotiations and politics. I feel like each of the five parts could have been reduced to one chapter. I get that it was innovative for its time, but the themes it innovated are easy to grasp by modern standards, and it’s aged poorly as a result imo

−2

Grace_Alcock t1_j9zelsf wrote

I read the first fifty pages and found it a tiresome repetition of tradition realist international relation theory, which doesn’t hold up well under systematic hypothesis testing, so the “this is the profound nature of things” tone put me off. This is my academic specialty, so it just made me roll my eyes.

But I have certainly enjoyed others of his books.

−2

OkOpportunity9794 t1_j9yqxeo wrote

You’re right. People will get upset because it is sacred. It was good for its time. It was influential, yada yada.

But objectively it is not very good writing. There’s much better sci fi out there.

−6