(Cover for Isaac Asimov’s Foundation, image by Michael Whelan)
Last week we started a rousing, multi-site discussion of Isaac Asimov’s novel, Foundation, which demonstrated that over half a century after its original publication his galaxy-spanning story continues to spark conversation. Today we continue with the discussion covering the second half of Foundation. Please feel free to join in on the conversation regardless of whether you participated in this group read or not.
For my part, this return four years later to a novel I spent much of my life assuming would be too inaccessible to enjoy was a real pleasure. Although I recall the overall arc of events that occurs in the Foundation trilogy, it had been long enough that the specific story elements had alluded my memory and thus the series of vignettes felt fresh. Having just read a few Asimov novels and short story collections I am impressed with the fact that Asimov can tell sweeping, idea driven stories like Foundation and can also tell more intimate stories focused on more humanity-centered issues like he does in stories like The Currents of Space or the stories in I, Robot and that both types are equally effective.
When last we left the stories of the Foundation, Mayor Salvador Hardin was about to take an ill-advised trip to Anacreon, the place most-threatening to the Foundation. A lot happened on that trip and afterwards and it is that part of the story that we discuss below.
Hopefully everyone got the correction email. My initial set of questions mistakenly said “Hari Seldon” in place of “Salvor Hardin” in the first question below.
Salvor Hardin was the first character in the book that we got to spend any significant time with. What are your thoughts on the grande finale of his plotting, scheming and maneuvering to get the Foundation through to the next Seldon crisis?
This has been an interesting reading experience because of the characters and their actions. It is rare for me to read books with protagonists who make me question whether or not I should be rooting for them, and Foundation is full of those. The conceit is that we are on the side of the Foundation, this little planet/organization that could and its founder Hari Seldon’s proclamation that his psychohistory exists so that he can limit the time of the Empire’s fall and work towards a restoration of the Empire. But in that we see men practicing deceit and potentially unethical political maneuvering in order to further their aims in keeping things on the course that they feel Seldon predicted. Hardin is the first that we see do this in earnest and he is an interesting character. He is the first but not the only character we will see practicing the kinds of things we often decry in our own leaders and it is fun but unsettling to be cheering him on in his clever scheming. It helps because at this point the Foundation is Terminus, a planet on its own and so I stand up and cheer with Hardin and Ponyets and Mallow as they outwit and outmaneuver their competition.
Hardin’s last words to me seemed an acknowledgement of his success in guiding them through the present crisis while also being something of a sigh of relief that his part in the grand scheme was complete and he could perhaps rest and enjoy the rest of his life. And although we don’t see Hardin anymore I am tickled by the fact that his sayings keep him alive in the future and in a small way keep his hand in current events.
What are your thoughts on the way in which control/manipulation to achieve Foundation ends began to shift with The Traders?
The chapters of the traders and the merchant princes were favorites the first time I read Foundation and they were as enjoying this time around. Seldon’s visit in Hardin’s time had warned that the religious platform that had guided them through the second crisis could not prevail. But rather than just jump so far ahead that the religious ideas could be abandoned completely, Asimov shows a transition as the merchants continue to use the superstitions and mythology to introduce commerce into the equation and thus gain a financial foothold. The story of Gorov and Ponyets is a very nice transitional sequence that leads to one of my favorite characters of the series, Hober Mallow, a transition that ends beautifully by bringing in what has come before in the form of one of Hardin’s witticisms.
The traders for me represent the loveable rogue archetype that became a part of my life in my youth in the persons of Han Solo and Slippery Jim DiGriz. So it isn’t surprising that I enjoy them and their scheming very much. As I sit here thinking about it I find it funny that I feel conflicted about characters using politics or religion to manipulate events but don’t feel that same compunction when it comes to making a buck. Is that a lifetime of capitalism at work or does it somehow feel less “schemey” when comparing money to someone’s religious or political ideals? I’m not sure but it was an interesting contradiction that I just realized as I sit here typing this.
One of the interesting things about Seldon’s psychohistory is how much one man can actually affect it. In Foundation we see characters like Hardin and Mallow as key figures for positioning things just right to work towards Seldon’s later predictions. Do you see this as a contradiction to what Seldon said about psychohistory at the beginning of our story or part of an overall plan? Discuss.
I don’t see it as a contradiction at this point largely because we are still unsure exactly what Seldon is up to when we close the final page of Foundation. His grand plan is still a big mystery. I do think his series of vignettes in the course of the Foundation’s history are a mirror of what we have seen throughout our own history. It could be argued that history plays out the way it does and would do so in spite of the actions of any one individual, and yet Asimov shows us key characters that are, pardon the cliche, “in the right place at the right time”. Think Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (and assassination), Winston Churchill’s wartime orations or Roosevelt’s New Deal and you see individuals who made decisions that had far-reaching consequences. And while none of these men worked in a vacuum or accomplished these tasks on their own, they are key figures at touch points of history and that is what I think Asimov does with his characters across the years of the Galactic Empire’s collapse and predicted rebirth. It is paradoxical to some degree but it makes me wonder if Seldon, looking back over the course of mankind’s history, would be able to recognize and account in his predictions for the idea that individual’s can have lasting effects on the course of history. I cannot wait to see how it all plays out.
Did you see similarities or differences between the way in which Salvador Hardin and Hober Mallow operated and what are your thoughts about this final section of Foundation? Would you have been content as a reader back then with how everything played out?
I see both characters as two sides of the same coin. Both are well-versed in their particular areas of expertise and both use their wits to anticipate the actions of the leaders they are going up against and use that anticipation to set events in motion to follow a path that will end in a way that they can control. Both take risks and yet in Asimov’s bird’s eye view of the history we are seeing there is little doubt that the risks will lead to anything but reward. But despite years of being conditioned to know that more often than not things will work out for the story’s “heroes”, Asimov keeps things exciting as you try to guess just how he is going to do it.
It is important to remember that these stories were first printed in sf magazines. Asimov mentions in the introduction that he had planned all along to write a series of stories and purposefully ended things on a cliffhanger. Had I been alive reading the stories that make up this novel my contentment would have been largely dependent on my knowledge of the way sf mags worked and whether or not Asimov mentioned anywhere that he was going to continue cranking out parts of the history of the Foundation. I would have hated to only get portions of this story if I was left wondering if I was ever going to get more. As it is the novel itself leaves you satisfied with some engaging ideas while at the same time practically compelling you to keep reading as there are many unanswered questions, including “Will Seldon show up again?”
Has your concept/thoughts of what Seldon was trying to do changed at all since the book began?
It has only changed in that I am seeing the things I just mentioned above and am anxious to see how these impressions will hold up against the little that I remember of the next book and the lot that I have forgotten.
Any final thoughts on the story as a whole, its structure, what it did or did not accomplish, how it worked for you, etc?
This has been a very interesting reading experience, especially as I straddle the fence between this group read and the reading going on over at the Classic Science Fiction Book Club. The story structure has been more universally accepted in this group and while most on both sides acknowledge that this is not their favored style of novel, there are some who just could not find enjoyment in the read/re-read. And I understand both sides. I am not yet at a point where I have such a vast experience with classic science fiction that I can judge Asimov against his peers or even against the vast sum of his own work and so my personal experience is that I am as enamored of this novel as I was the first time I read it four years ago. It is not conventional storytelling, to be sure.
In the introduction to Foundation Asimov acknowledges the lack of action and “physical suspense” in this book. He quotes writer/critic James Gunn’s praise of the series in which he says “Action and romance have little to do with the success of the Trilogy–virtually all the action takes place offstage, and the romance is almost invisible–but the stories provide a detective-story fascination with the permutations and reversals of ideas”.
Gunn describes it perfectly. Much of what takes place does so offstage and what we see is largely just characters having conversations with one another. Like stories in which the plot device is characters sitting around a fire, at a bar, etc. telling stories, this variation of that style works for me. We have occasion in our lives to meet people who may make an impression on us in brief moments and that is what I experience with the characters in Asimov’s collected vignettes.
The political and economic plotting and maneuvering combined with the ideas of large-scale government maintain relevance in today’s world and the almost unfathomable scale of the Galactic Empire can stir even the 21st century imagination.
________________
You know the drill folks, leave a link to your discussion post below and let fly with the comments. It was a pleasure reading this with you and I do sincerely hope you’ll take a deep breath this week, cleanse your palate with some non-Foundation reading, and will come back beginning this coming weekend to start reading the second book of the trilogy, Foundation and Empire.
I love that you say Asimov can tell “sweeping, idea driven stories.” I feel the same way. I wrote in one of my responses that I didn’t connect with the characters but with the story. And the story raises so many issues that have been relevant during history and are still present today. I loved how the first part is a rise of religious control and then the second part moves to the rise of commerce and more importantly, money. As I’m writing this I can hear the Cabaret song, “Money made the world go Round” in my head.
I’m somewhat surprised that there wasn’t that much resolution at the end of this one. But I think you warned me of this during last week’s discussions. I still don’t know the grand plan and I’m wondering if I won’t know the grand plan until the final page of the last book. And I’m having a hard time picking up pieces of the plan. I see his progression but I haven’t come across a clue that screams “remember me!” Maybe I am missing something.
I’m trying to remember other books that I have read that don’t have a clear cut good guy. Maybe that is why this book endures over time, since not many of us are completely good. We have all made mistakes. And we are used to hearing stories of politicians and business people who take advantage of situations for their own good. Are we just used to this behavior?
I’m not sure if we are used to it or if we are just so programmed to expect it from everyone that we are resigned to it. Either way it is a sad commentary on what our politicians have given us to look up to.
It makes even more sense to not expect a complete resolution when you look at the history and realize that this was a succession of short stories featured in magazines and that Asimov was being a bit crafty himself, assuring himself of future income by leaving the story at cliffhanger endings or not entirely resolving things. Even the trilogy itself only deals with a certain period (300 years?) of the thousand year plan. His later novels presumably deal with more of that time but I have yet to read them. My own opinion is that while I do want to read them the trilogy is a satisfying story arc.
In the introduction Asimov is very upfront about the fact that this idea came to him as he was on his way to a meeting with Campbell to pitch an idea he had not yet come up with, and that he hit on the fall of an Empire idea and he and Campbell quickly banged out the overall plan. So not a lot of foresight went into the creation and yet we are dealing with a man who was arguably brilliant in many fields and over the course of the stories I think he makes the ideas work very well.
You can’t blame a writer for trying to secure more contracts and to earn more money. It kinda proves part of his thesis, that money equals power. Charles Dickens would also do the same thing. Each chapter of his books were published in magazines and all of them ended with a cliffhanger to bring the reader back. And TV shows do it now, especially at the end of the season.
Sometimes a good story doesn’t have a lot of foresight. Asimov was smart enough to let the story play out and to see where it took him. Or at least that is my opinion. It is much different from The Way of Kings, which the author obvious took time to plan out. But I have enjoyed both of them. If I had to choose which one I liked more I would choose Sanderson’s novel, however that wouldn’t be all that fair since they are two very different types of stories.
It is good to know that the trilogy is satisfying to a certain degree.
Yes it does, doesn’t it. Ol’ Asimov had a bit of the Hober Mallow in him, didn’t he? I think he let the story play out as well and I don’t mind that when it makes for an entertaining ride, as Foundation does.
And I agree, they are both so very different types of books and styles of writing not to mention the very different methods of publishing now days. Writing sf or fantasy for the magazines is certainly much different than the enormous tomes that are standard in publishing today.
I think Hober Mallow was one of my favorite characters of the bunch. There was a simplicity to him, even though he was manipulative.
He was definitely my favorite, but again it is more because he fits that spacer archetype that I enjoy.
One thing I noticed while reading the second half is that characters like Hardin’s moral ambiguity helps to add a layer of complexity that I didn’t expect to see with such little time spent with each character.
Here are my answers to the questions:
Hari Seldon was the first character in the book that we got to spend any significant time with. What are your thoughts on the grande finale of his plotting, scheming and maneuvering to get the Foundation through to the next Seldon crisis?
I think he was incredibly lucky. I think this is a plot device you really just have to go with to make it work for me. I don’t see how he could have known people like Salvador and Mallow would come along and use his plan for there own gain while maintaining the Foundation at the same time.
What are your thoughts on the way in which control/manipulation to achieve Foundation ends began to shift with The Traders?
It was interesting to see how a few individual’s used Seldon’s plan to rise to personel power for themselves. I never got a sense that they ever did the things they did for the benefit of the Foundation itself. I read it as gaining power for themselves and the Foundation was a tool they used for their means for their own ends.
One of the interesting things about Seldon’s psychohistory is how much one man can actually affect it. In Foundation we see characters like Hardin and Mallow as key figures for positioning things just right to work towards Seldon’s later predictions. Do you see this as a contradiction to what Seldon said about psychohistory at the beginning of our story or part of an overall plan? Discuss.
It’s interesting. Seldon is a pure genius I guess if he planned on characters like Hardin and Mallow working things out to benefit the Foundation amd at the same time as themselves. I guess Seldon could foresee these ” types ” of people rising to power and using the Foundation as a tool to benefit themselves and he could guess that they would maintain and grow the Foundation at the same time as it would be a powerful tool for them to use. Which in the end helps Seldon’s goal of advancing the Foundation through time.
Did you see similarities or differences between the way in which Salvador Hardin and Hober Mallow operated and what are your thoughts about this final section of Foundation? Would you have been content as a reader back then with how everything played out?
No. I would not have been content if this was just a stand alone book. Essentially I read about the rise of power of two men I didn’t really care for and didn’t see if the Foundation made it for the 1,000 years. I’m glad there is more to the story.
Has your concept/thoughts of what Seldon was trying to do changed at all since the book began?
I find it interesting in seeing how his characters reliance on using manipulation over violence is used over time enabling the Foundation to survive.
Any final thoughts on the story as a whole, its structure, what it did or did not accomplish, how it worked for you, etc?
I find the story much darker the second time around this time. I didn’t remember the story as being as down when I read it the first time. I also didn’t remember the feeling of Asimov religion basing as much the first time when I read the book as I did the second time around. This time I tried to deleve deeper into the words and this time it stuck out to me how when religion was brought up in this novel it was used for manipulation and not shown in a postiive light in my opinion. I was curious about that and I did read online that Asimov was an atheist.
I like that to some degree we have fields that predict things like crowd behavior and others that study history and make predictions or graph trends or whatever as those things lend a degree of credibility to the idea of psychohistory despite the fact that, like you said, you largely just have to accept the general conceit and go with it.
Hardin and Mallow in particular definitely used their skill for personal gain, but I don’t think that that was their only aim, or at least I don’t see it that way. They weren’t altruistic or idealistic at all, but at the same time I think they demonstrate the idea of “what is good for the Foundation is good for me” so in that sense I do think they had Foundation aims in mind but felt the only way those things would be accomplished is to be the only one in charge of everything…not a lot of trust in a group of people and a lot of paranoia, especially on Hardin’s part, when too many people were brought into the loop. I think that is called “Enlightened Self Interest”, lol! They definitely had that.
I hadn’t picked up entirely on that theme of gamesmanship over violence but you are so right. Asimov’s characters can talk their way out of about anything, can’t they? Or manipulate their way around it. Although I’m not one to stand on the soap box to preach against violence in fiction (unless it is unnecessarily graphic or pointless to the story) it is refreshing to read a story where violence is considered an incompetent way to handle things and that the main protagonists actually practice what they preach.
I certainly picked up on Asimov’s feelings about religion when I read it the first time but like you was even more cognizant of it this time, in large part because it mirrors what is a very prevalent attitude in today’s society: that religion is for the manipulation of the weak-minded and other variations on that theme. I surprisingly take no offense to it because I certainly expect that attitude from an atheist and am very used to that being the attitude of many people I come into contact with on a regular basis, but also because although it may be thinly veiled it is not, to my mind, a direct attack on any one religion or any one “god”.
It is a dark story and like you I didn’t pick up as much on that the first time. I wasn’t cognizant as much of the dual nature of the protagonists or that maybe I shouldn’t be so wholly invested in their success just because we are made to feel they are the “good guys”. Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoy their deft maneuvering, but I just feel the tiniest bit conflicted about it this time.
I also missed the point that both the characters used manipulation instead of violence. I wrote that they used their wit to get their way, but they also used manipulation instead of pulling out a weapon. That is interesting. Now I’m curious if this theme will continue in the next book.
Nope, sorry, the next book is a non-stop bloodbath. Be warned. (It is April Fool’s Day, isn’t it?)
Oh man, spring sounds nice doesn’t it?
It feels like Spring here today, 62 degrees, a warm breeze, blazing sun. And then they are predicting a rain/snow mix tonight. Hooray.
Asimov’s treatment of psychohistory, the prediction of the Future, still resonates. In Heinlein’s THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, the super-computer HOLMES IV gives the probability of future events happening on a regular basis.
I’ve seen enough glowing reviews of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress that it really should be one of the next Heinlein’s I pick up. And it is conveniently just a shelf away, after all.
It’s so interesting, Carl, the differences in your reaction to Hardin and your reaction to the “loveable rogues” like Mallow. Neither of them are traditional good guys. they both manipulate people to get what they want, but so many readers are OK with what Mallow does, and not so OK with Hardin’s style of manipulation.
that’s yet another thing that I love about science fiction – it exposes us to our own insecurities in subtle and interesting ways (Yes, contemporary literature exposes plenty of insecurities, but I think genre fiction is a little more subtle and underhanded about it, perhaps because we’re not expecting it?).
Perhaps it is a life under capitalism, we’re used to money manipulation, inflation, getting sold a bill of goods, etc. But when it comes to faith and religion, we have much higher expectations from our religious leaders. So when we’re exposed to a fictional manipulative religious leader, it throws us for a loop.
To forward the Foundation, there can be no sacred cows!
I liked the characters in the second half of the book a lot better. I think that maybe part of the difference is that in the first half, the Hardin types have outright political and religious power. In the second half, they’re exerting influence by sticking to their professions, which seems to be a bit more respectable, even though they are just as manipulative as the characters in the first half of the book.
I think that the idea of a manipulative religious leader here is interesting, especially because if one looks at the history of Catholicism, there have been quite a few scheming popes… we just often choose to ignore those parts of history and to put religion on a pedestal.
I think it is just the taint of politics, Andrea. I can’t think of any other reason. The last two decades of politics here in America have really sickened me, more than anything how divisive they are and how people we normally get along with can be so hateful and angry when politics come up. That and the fact that we are so often disappointed by the actions of those we choose to be our leaders.
I agree with you about sf and fantasy as well. I think it is a more subtle or in some way more acceptable way to be confronted with societies ills, with our own foibles and prejudices and attitudes, etc. We can more easily take or leave those messages when there is an entertaining story, it doesn’t feel so much like being hit over the head with “reality” the way some literary fiction feels.
And we do expect more from our religious leaders although they too have been a big letdown over the last decade or so, or at least the media focus on all that is wrong makes it seem like things are worse than they used to be.
Grace, I think you hit it right on the head. There is that history of religious scheming and for some reason that and political scheming seem much worse than economic scheming despite the fact that we would probably all agree that they are equally bad. Maybe it is easier to accept the economic stuff when you are doing okay economically yourself. I think we are all suffering equally when it comes to politics and it is easier to be less forgiving of political chicanery.
I think though that part of the reason why I was okay with the economic scheming was because trade was really the only thing that Terminus had going for it. It had no resources of its own, and if it didn’t go the way of trade it would end up being a feudal society, since most technology is based upon having metal. For me, trade was a necessity for them, whereas religious control was more of an outright manipulation that ceased over time to be necessary for survival.
speaking of politics and related machinations, have you ever seen the movie Wag the Dog?
I haven’t; what’s it about?
Yes, I actually saw it in New York City when it first came out, I was visiting there with a friend. Very clever and very funny if I remember it correctly.
I liked your comment about Asimov writing these stories in the first instance for magazines. It was a bit like a ‘light bulb’ moment on his style of writing for this novel.
The thing is – I didn’t actually dislike either Hardin or Mallow. On the whole I preferred Mallow and I think you make a good comparison with the likes of Han Solo. Personally, and I realise this will sound really cycnical, I think that politics goes hand in hand with manipulation and maneouvering so Hardin’s behaviour wasn’t a surprise. The surprise was that I ended up wanting him to succeed – particularly with the second attempt on Foundation – where he actually looked as though he might be in a tight spot. Yes, I can’t help liking Mallow more. He’s a charismatic rogue and he’s successful. It’s much easier to be forgiving of somebody if they’re achieving commercial success – it’s what most people would like to achieve and so it makes the techniques used a bit more acceptable.
Lynn 😀
There are many more people who are dogmatically passionate about studying sf history. For me it is just very interesting and I try to make some effort to read the stories keeping in mind not only when they were written but what their publication history was. If I’m going to be critical of a story having an abrupt end, for example, I want to know that at least part of the cause may have been due to editing to get it to fit a specific space requirement.
I’m cynical that way too regarding politics, sad to say. I did like that Hardin seemed like he might have overplayed his hand at the end, even though the first time I read it I suspected it would all work out.
Mallow is a great rogue, I regret that his part of the book isn’t a bit longer.
I posted this on Red’s blog, but want to put it here too:
When I read this – and this discussion is convincing me I NEED to read it again, SOON – I kept comparing how Asimov was putting together a future history to how Poul Anderson was doing it. I think, because I liked some of Anderson’s characters so much, Asimov came out second best, and now I wish I’d not made that comparison, since the authors and the books are really so very different. The one thing I did do was read all three books back to back and considered them a single huge novel. There is still a long way to go in this tale, and many twists, or at least direction changes, in store. Dang, I really do need to re-read these!
I think that is an easy thing to do though Richard, even if it perhaps isn’t a fair comparison. But when you have these Grand Masters I think it is only natural to compare one to the other. I think we do the same thing with contemporary authors whose works are set in similar settings.
I too think the only way to read these is as a three novel set considering it just one big interconnected story. Its too bad you aren’t reading them along with us.
I’m glad you pointed out how Hardin’s sayings still carry through the years. It’s obvious he did the right thing if later generations are still looking up to him.
It’s also fun to read about heroes that get by with their wits and it’s not just a lot of rescuing damsels in distress, shooting their way out of a tight spot or jumping out of speeding vehicles.
Foundation has been an enjoyable read and I’m looking forward to Foundation and Empire now 🙂
He did indeed have a major impact on future generations, didn’t he?
And yes, part of the appeal of these books is that they were written during a time when a lot of pulp stories were also written and yet these are quite different in their structure and subject matter.
I’m glad you are coming along for the next book.
I am ashamed to admit that I judged Mallow less harshly than Hardin merely because I was totally picturing him as Han Solo. I can be so shallow.
You touched on so many things that I was thinking of also that I would not have been able to express as well as you so I’m glad I didn’t try, especially about second-guessing cheering for the Foundation and leaders being in the right place at the right time. I also have different gut reactions when it comes to comparing manipulation of religion v. money. I have no answers, just the same questions.
I’m not adding much to the discussion, just mostly saying ditto, ditto, ditto! And thank you. Looking forward to Book 2.
Well I’m glad I’m not alone in thinking of Han Solo when I think of Hober Mallow. They are certainly cut from the same cloth. I could see Mallow captaining a Millenium Falcon of his own.
I don’t have any real answers either and I think it is funny that I didn’t see things this way at all the first time I read the books back 4 or 5 years ago. Its fun seeing things differently, or just noticing things this time.
Happy you are coming along for the next one!
I can see why you like this book Carl. I am see the resemblance between this and Star Wars. I was not that sure about the first part of the book, but the second part drew me in even more.
I wonder how close to the book the movie is going to stay..:)
I don’t know, GD. I have always thought this would be a difficult story to film and still have it retain the same feel as the book. For one thing there isn’t near enough action in the first book to market it as is to any but the most geeky film fan. I’d rather see them not do it than see them completely mess it up.