JohnBillingsley.Net  

The Foundation Trilogy 

by Isaac Asimov

Reviewers:

John Billingsley

Simon

Philip

Scott

Amy

Jen

Mouse

Lenore

Cynthia

Pauline

The Foundation Trilogy 

by Isaac Asimov

Review by John Billingsley

At the risk of sounding snarky, I think The Foundation Trilogy is one old graybearded fogey of a book: from its wooden dialogue to its banal characterizations, TFT takes me back to grampa's era, when science fiction was not expected to have any literary value whatsoever and was, generally speaking, ghettoized as genre fiction for adolescent boys.

That said, I quite enjoyed TFT, it tickled my nostalgia bone.  I grew up reading Arthur C. Clarke, Bradbury, Fritz Leiber, A.E. Van Vogt, Jack Williamson, Clifford Simak, et al: pure yarn spinners who wrote fast-paced, snappy novels with enough intelligent speculative content to make you feel like you were getting some spinach with your happy meal even if, in your heart of hearts, you knew you just wanted the burger.  When I was growing up, I'd always turn to a sci-fi novel when I was burned out on 'adult fiction' and I  needed to remind myself why I started reading in the first place: for the pure fun of it, the mindless roller-coaster ride rush of image, sensation, derring-do.

As a kid, I read comic books, Doc Savage novels, pulp mysteries, sci-fi, Mad Magazine, anything FUN  that didn't ask me to 'struggle' with demanding prose.  But, inevitably, after jonesing on this so-called 'trash', I'd be ready to pick up something that WOULD challenge me on all levels - prose  that addressed the question 'what does it mean to be human'  and did so in ways that very much demanded 'struggle'.  I find I still read much the same way I did when I was younger, interspersing serious works of fiction and history with light popular novels and murder mysteries, and I don't want to ever feel so 'obligated' as a reader to spinach that I forever forego hamburgers.  I like hamburgers.

However, I do think that every reader needs a healthy diet, just as ever eater needs a healthy diet: hamburgers in moderation, as a treat, spinach as a staple (that sounds foolish - I love demanding fiction much more than I'll ever love spinach, but you know what I mean).

That's why I don't tend to choose books like TFT for us to read.  I agree, this just isn't a well-written novel, no doubt about it.  A good book asks you to slow down, tune in, and risk perceiving the world anew.  A piece of genre fluff asks you to kick off your shoes, have a cocktail and pass the time of day.  But who needs a bookclub for that, huh?

And still.  Still.  I did enjoy The Foundation Trilogy.  Not enough to read the various prequels and sequels Asimov wrote, but I found it a pleasant way to spend a couple of days, in front of the fire zipping through the pages.  I liked it the same way I like a good mystery novel, a good acrostic puzzle.  It was intelligently structured, it kept me guessing (of course we knew who the Mule was, but how would he be stopped) and ultimately I think it posed a fairly provocative philosophical question (the spinach) that belied its space opera content.

I didn't think it would be great, or even good, literature, so I didn't bring a false set of expectations to bear when I picked it up (nor do I deny the fact that there is speculative fiction that does qualify as literature).  So, I would propose that we take it on its own terms and talk about some of the questions it raises and agree, at the outset, that as a piece of prose it's crap.

Cheery, friendly, old fashion Norman Rockwellian 50's era Astounding Magazine scifi crap.

But here's my question - who were you rooting for at the end, First Foundation or Second Foundation, and why?

Do you think Asimov took sides?  Was he a 2nd Foundation Man or a lst Foundation Man?  We ask ourselves the same question today, really: how much freedom are we prepared to sacrifice for greater security?  What would we be prepared to do without if, in return, we could guarantee our safety and our peace of mind?  Certainly we will always pay lip service to 'civil liberties', but our atavistic response seems to be different, empowering the people who lead us to restrict and impinge on our liberties in return for the promise of greater security.  Isn't that what Asimov's getting at?  And on a related note, is he embracing the concept of empire and a deterministic viewpoint or is he subtly satirizing it?  I don't know much about the man, or any of his other works: he was one of the few sci-fi writers that I never really had much time for as a kid.  So I don't know whether or not I give him too much credit in suggesting that perhaps he is tweaking our noses with Hari Seldon's mathematical construct that 'solves' the 'problem' of humanity by reducing our souls (en masse) to quantifiable formulae. 

But whether you think he's advocating something or satirizing something, the questions that are brought up by these books are relevant to what we are experiencing now.  (For instance: Does More Empire or No Empire Offer the Best Solution to the World's Woes - an Oxford Debate) Certainly you'd come away from the first book, perhaps two, of this trilogy thinking jeesh, what an unreflective product of his times Asimov was, incapable of envisioning a political structure that was not in some way, shape, manner or form authoritarian.  And yet . . .

2nd Foundation, as the sine qua non of authoritarianism (ya don't even know you've got a boss man, really, they're that high above and far beyond you), seems to make Asimov queasy, at least . . . . 

(One other thought - as a primer in the nature of geopolitical power and how it expands, I think he was very astute.  From superior science comes a certain amount of clout that a culture then augments through the inculcation of religion, and solidifies through the imperialistic practice of unequal trade.  Not an unperceptive reading of how empire becomes empire.)

The Foundation Trilogy 

by Isaac Asimov

Review by Simon

SYNOPSES
1. "Foundation"
The Galactic Empire has ruled the Milky Way for millennia, and now faces decline. Some of its provinces on the periphery have already begun asserting their independence, and the future for imperial order looks bleak. Coupled with the decline of empire is the reversion of many provinces to a pre-atomic age. It looks as if the empire will divide into small kingdoms, each vying with each other for supremacy, fighting incessant petty wars, and engaging in cloak and dagger diplomacy. Thus civilization itself is threatened by an era of feuding, anarchy and war. The future of civilization in the galaxy depends upon a group of scientists exiled to Terminus, a planet on the edge of the galaxy. They are busy developing an "Encyclopedia Galactica" that will act as a giant repository of all knowledge. The founder of the settlement and encyclopedia is Hari Seldon, a psychohistorian, who applies mathematical principles to all areas of life, including psychology, history and politics. He has determined that history operates according to mathematical axioms. Of course, this places tremendous power in the hands of the scientist-mathematicians who can do this. So to utilize that power these scientists set up "The Foundation" with the dual aim of eventually replacing the declining Galactic Empire, and restoring order to the galaxy. Among Seldon's successors in this scheme are Salvor Hardin and Hober Mallow, both hard-nosed technocrats of the Foundation.

2. "Foundation and Empire".
The Foundation goes from strength to strength as the Empire weakens. Before it's too late, the Empire makes one final push to destroy the Foundation. The Emperor's armies, led by General Bel Riose, launch an attack, but are eventually defeated. Yet just as the Foundation is about to claim victory, they find a new and more powerful adversary in the Mule, a mutant being with the power to control people's emotions and render them his obedient slave. With such power at his command, the Mule soon becomes a warlord and all but destroys the Foundation. Just when he though he'd won, the Mule is warned that his victory is a one hollow as there is a Second Foundation more powerful than the first.

3. "Second Foundation".
Survivors of the First Foundation attempt to find the mysterious Second Foundation before the Mule does. In the end, a 14-year-old girl defeats the Mule and the Second Foundation unites the remaining disparate forces of the galaxy into a new Empire.

COMMENTARY
1. Prose.
Asimov gives the barest of descriptions, whether of characters, scenes or actions. A person is tall or short, bald or hairy. And they are either angry or happy or sad. A building is metal, plastic or glass. Instead of descriptive paragraphs that set a scene, or convey a particular mood or image, much of the first two novels are taken up with dialogue. Regrettably, most of it is delivered in the same stilted monotone, whereby most of the characters speak the same way as everyone else. It's hardly a great narrative style. Quite ironically, there's a great deal more exposition in the third novel of the trilogy than in the first. This time, Asimov didn't drive all the action through dialogue. Yet his attempts at more sophisticated prose in "Second Foundation" flounder, as for example this: `His tongue had apparently skidded to a halt in a lengthening silence' (bk. 1, ch. 1). In the end, his prose is plodding, lifeless and dull. 

2. Characterization.
The lack of good narrative prose goes hand in hand with the general lack of characterization. Asimov barely describes his characters to us, and we get to know them mainly through their dialogue. Yet because one person's dialect and manner of speech is much like the rest, we end up with a heap of people who are so like one another as to be barely distinguishable from each other. This lack of distinction makes them appear cold and soulless and that, in turn, makes me dislike them.

There is one character that is different from the rest, and he is as good an example of bad characterization if ever there was one. Lord Dorwin, from "Foundation", is a pompous ambassador who doesn't pronounce his `r's. He is also a proponent of the `Owigin Question', a crude allusion to Charles Darwin that is so laughable as to be insulting. He's hardly an imaginative creation, being more like someone a junior high school child might dream up in a school essay.

3. Plot.
With a decent narrative and some good characters, the plot of each novel could have worked better. As it is, the essential plot relies upon a simplistic and erroneous logic. There is no exploration of the human condition, but simply a proposal that a branch of mathematics, in the form of `psychohistory', can forecast history, even to the point where scientists will be able to restore order to chaos. Psychohistory is described as `the science of human behaviour reduced to mathematical equations' ("Second Foundation", Prologue). The vagaries of human psychology, history and politics seemed to have mystified the author. He even described `man' as a `mystical generalization' ("First Foundation"). Asimov, being a scientist who hated mysteries, therefore sought to dispel them by having his fictional scientists develop appropriate mathematical theories and solutions. Each chapter is a new era in the Foundation's history, and as people come and go, its logical imperative proceeds virtually unhindered; that is, until it is destroyed in the second novel, only for the Second Foundation to triumph in the third. Thus the trilogy is not really about people, or exploring the human condition. It is about Seldon's mathematics-based psychohistorical theory, and its role in bringing order to chaos. It is about the triumph of the physical sciences over nature, particularly human nature and history. It's not just bunkum, but badly written bunkum that lacks
life.

The Foundation Trilogy 

by Isaac Asimov

Review by Philip Allardice

This was one of these books with a great storyline. The one thing that everybody agrees with is the lack of description in the Foundation Trilogy. When I first started reading this book i enjoyed it much. Morning and day I was reading until I finally finished it. It took me about a few days to actually finish the trilogy.

1.Foundation

Foundation is the first of the trilogy; it is set far in the future. Still everything isn’t going too good with the Galactic Empire. The central planet, honeycombed and tunneled with offices and staff, is defenseless to attack. The only person willing to stand up to this approaching situation is Hari Seldon, a psychohistorian and mathematician. Seldon can scientifically predict the future, and it doesn't look pretty: a new Dark Age is appointed to send humanity into barbarism in 500 years. He thinks of a scheme to save the knowledge of the race in an Encyclopedia Galactica. But this attempt will take quite a long time to finish.

2.Foundation and earth

The psycho-historian Hari Seldon takes advantage of his science and technology, the Foundation survived its neighboring warrior-planets. But now it has to face the Empire, it is still the most powerful force in the Galaxy, even in its death distress. When an aggressive general wants to get back the Empire's honor. He turns the fleet towards the Foundation, the only hope for the planet of scholars and scientists lies in the hands of Hari Seldon. But not even he could have predicted the birth of the creature called the Mule-a mutant intelligence its got the strength greater than a dozen battle fleets. It’s a power that could turn the strongest man into an obedient slave.

3.The Second Foundation

At the moment the Foundation is safe. But there was a hidden Second Foundation to protect the first. The Mule only has to find it; he was getting closer all the time. Only Arkady, a 14 year-old girl seemed to have the answer!

Comments-
I enjoyed the story of this book but I thought that the there was hardly any description of the characters. This book didn't live up to my expectations, I had heard many great things about this trilogy. I particularly was not happy with the last book of the trilogy, second foundation, it had the least description. I really needed to watch a bit of Star Trek Enterprise to cheer myself up.

The Foundation Trilogy 

by Isaac Asimov

Review by Scott

I enjoyed the Foundation Trilogy very much.  I do admit to a large amount of sentimentality - along with Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov was my introduction to an entire genre of fiction that I still read.

This trilogy centers around one main idea - the idea of psychohistory as a valid science.  Nearly 50 years after it was written, the concept still invokes curiousity.  Theories of order in chaotic systems are very popular in science right now, and psychohistory could be an ultimate result.

But even though that concept is the main idea, very little time is spent discussing the nuts and bolts of it.  The science of psychohistory and it's consequences are present, but the book is not ABOUT them.  The trilogy is mainly a series of mysteries.  A question is asked in each novella, "How are we going to solve this crisis?" and then the characters are set about solving the problem.  Asimov's skill is in the unfurling of mystery, and that skill is on display here and I found it very satisfying.

The Foundation Trilogy 

by Isaac Asimov

Review by Amy

Ok, before we begin, I think I should tell you that I chose to look at these books from a Hollywood point of view.

Book One aka Backstory... When you start to read Foundation you realize that we are getting the history of what is happening. The First Foundation on Terminus is trying to keep what the Galactic Empire knew from being lost by creating an Encyclopedia of their knowledge. We never get to really know any of the characters except for the main character of Hari Seldon. We learn about psychohistory and why the Encyclopedia was a sham. I found myself wondering whether or not we were going to have any of the characters fleshed out. The story was alright but I found myself having to keep a diary of what was happening so that I could get some sort of timeline.

Book Two aka The heart of the matter... Foundation and Empire. The Empire is now losing its luster and it's hold on the galaxy. I found this book to be a little better with keeping characters interesting. Bayta and Toran are fleshed out more than any of the characters before. We know that the Empire has changed,  but due to time and the fact that all in life is cyclical, so has the Foundation. First they used technology as a basis for religon to rule, then we have the board of trustees and then we get into merchant princes where economy is the most important factor in day to day life. The Foundation starts to break down and the traders are starting to vie for power. There is also a new threat in a mutant named The Mule. This mutant destroys what was left of The Empire and then turns his sights on The Foundation. Bayta and Toran are part of the resistance and they must use all they know to keep the Traders from falling like the Foundation. There have been hints since book one about the second Foundation world and in the end we find out that The Mule is not who we expected him to be. We leave this book with a fight for both Foundation worlds.

Book Three aka The Shaky Resolution...  Second Foundation. I found this book to be too rushed and so are my thoughts on it. Our heroine, Arkady Darell is young and impatient, but she is the only one with the vision to see this through. The Second Foundation is in the last spot that we could  possibly think it is and yet I found all of this predictable. I do have to admit that there were times when I did not know who to root for... The First or The Second Foundation.  The Empire or The Foundation? I felt that there was so much more to resolve and yet I had too many avenues to follow. The one thing that I found interesting was the interrelationships between characters. They were all tied together in some form whether by family or political lines. Sometimes by both.

The Foundation Trilogy 

by Isaac Asimov

Reviewed by Jen

I have to admit that I started Foundation Trilogy much later than most people - Reviews were being posted before I even picked up my copy. Luckily, sleep is optional for university students (:P).  So, as I read the trilogy I was following along with the reviews.  I have to agree with some of you that Asimov was not so concerned with building up all the characters.  Often he used a character for a short time just to relay an important part of the story line without having to come right out and say it. 

So did I like the trilogy?  I'd have to say yes.  Being in university, a lot of my reading is hard core academic, and requires me to be completely alert with highlighter in hand.  Foundation Trilogy has interesting concepts - psychohistory being the most emphasized.  This got me to think about it, but it was light enough to sit back and enjoy the story.  In my other pleasure readings I tend to opt for pop-culture just to take a break from constantly having to think about what I read on an academic level.  So Foundation Trilogy was nice.

To answer John's question, "who was I rooting for," that's a tough question.  We started off with the "first" foundation and followed their story throughout the trilogy, so I couldn't help hoping that they would succeed.  Had Asimov told the story from the point of view of the second foundation, I'd probably be rooting for them.

The Foundation Trilogy 

by Isaac Asimov

Review by Mouse

To start, I guess I should profess to being a fan of Asimov's.  It's funny, I was fascinated by his socio-political commentaries and essays, long before I was aware that he wrote SF ^o^  maybe that has something to do with it? 

I liked TFT.  I agree, JB, it does bring one back ..but not quite as far back to to grandpa's time...with a publication date of 1949, I think it actually ahead of itself for what it was attempting, and I don't believe that this is necessarily a negative aspect of TFT.   I agree that it's not a well written novel - it's not a novel at all, never intended to be one.  It is a collection of short stories and should be read with that kept in mind.  I think to hold it up to the bar of the era's comparative literature is unwarranted and that if anything, it reflects where we were as a reading audience before space programs, before moon landings, before had all her moons.  

I think Asimov was indeed satirizing society as he saw it, but within constrictive (salary-dependant perhaps?) perimeters.  A back handed perspective that allows the reader to agree and yet be a wee bit challenged?   I loved the presentation of the 'science' of 'psychohistory; - just loved it!  I especially enjoyed the fact that it wasn't spelled out for us, and we were left to our own creativeness as to the 'how' of it.  Hari Seldon and his talent for mathematically providing predilection of events, was the lie of the story that I was willing and wanting to buy into.  And perhaps there's just enough feminist in me to totally dig Arkady!  You go girl! 

I know many of you didn't care for the character development (or lack of)  -  but considering the time line, I think if Asimov had delved to greater depths of his character's psyche, we'd be reading the encyclopedia of the Foundation, and not the trilogy.  No, not every character is attempting to grow, or change, or experiencing some chapter-defining evolution, but personally, I think the characters did what we needed them to do - moved the story along...and they did that with a under appreciated simplicity.   

Who was I rooting for?  Noone, because I felt more like a observant than a participant.  I was more fascinated by how they were doing, than to want one to succeed over the other.  Did I like it ?  yes...and I kept thinking throughout the whole thing...Lucas must have used Asimov as his Foundation .

The Foundation Trilogy 

by Isaac Asimov

Review by Lenore Leckvold

I will have to say right up front that while I did not love these books I did find the story line interesting.   I enjoy reading books which are very character driven and this was not the case with the Foundation Trilogy.  The story itself and the outcome was fascinating but I would have enjoyed it more if the characters had been more accessible and developed.    Due to the continuing change in the cast of characters I found the story difficult at times to follow.  I found myself really becoming involved in the story and with the characters in the last part of the third book, “Second Foundation”.  Perhaps that is because the characters stayed fairly consistent and I had the chance to get to know them and care about them.  I have never read any of Isaac Asimov’s other books so I do not know if this is typical of his style or not.  

The Foundation Trilogy 

by Isaac Asimov

Reviewed by Cynthia Ross (pittapuma)

First, John, great choice.  I joined this club to try books I had never thought about and this one proved to be a different experience again.  The process of reading this book and trying to glean data was quite enjoyable.... However......

This book itself will not be an addition to my library.  It had an interesting premise, and brought out interesting questions, but seemed to be lacking in detail, and, I guess, style.  The prose seemed downright awkward at times (and coming from me...).  The idea of really digging into statistics really interests me, but I found my old Quantitative Methods course more riveting (I know, I have to get out more).  Reading This book felt like reading flash cards; just as I would get into the situation, we'd jump to another.  I think this effect came about because of the minimalist (had to throw an “ist” in) approach to the characterizations.  I found that I could just manage a visual picture of the characters, but that was all.  I got no sense of why anyone was doing anything.  No, actually, I got the sense that the characters didn't know why they were doing anything.  It was as though nobody needed a subconscious with Hari Seldon taking care of everything.

I suspect that this treatment of the characters might have been a conscious effect by the author.  After all, he wrote a story about how individuals don't count as much as the mob mentality.  I did think that Asimov created an interesting irony.  Hari Seldon made a plan to create a future more to his liking, in other words, he demonstrated a belief in free will; but his plan choked off the people of his future from making their own decisions. The Seldon Plan became fate no matter what you did as an individual.

This book was written in three parts, at three different time periods of the author's life.  I found that the different parts felt a lot like the time period in which they were written, as well as futuristic.  The first book had me picturing worlds with Humphrey Bogart and James Cagney playing different characters, while constantly chewing on cigars.   Foundation and Empire brought the fifties to mind, with the Macarthy-like mistrust of the Empire and Foundation for each other.  The stalemates and cold wars became the standard of politics.  Labour saving gadgets became so important to the banal home lives.  The final book didn't leave so much of a flavour.  I'm not sure when it was written.  Perhaps the time when it was written is so similar to the present that I can't see the stereotypes.

Simon made a good point about “future” political climates resembling our feudal past.  I agree that this seems to be a trend.  However, I think it was used well here.  For a political organization to be truly new, it might have to be portrayed as an unrecognizable system, like the Second Foundationists.  That's a tough task for an author.  It's made a little more simple or recognizable if this new paradigm is shown next to “the old ways”.

A favourite game of mine worked in this book.  I sometimes try to see if the characters in a story work as commedia del'arte characters.  I can't tell you why, but I get a kick out of it.  Here's how it worked for me:  the best Columbina seemed to be Bayta,  Bel Riose, Salvor Hardin were Condittore, Ebling Mis was dottore, the Mule struck me as Pantelone, and Hari Seldon, disappearing and reappearing, was, of course, Harlequin. There was a theme I seemed to notice that I hesitate to mention.  The roles, and characterizations of women were a little irksome to me.  For a book that was so scanty on descriptions, it jarred to read of Bayta constantly cooking the men's meals, in an apron.  The Commdora of Korell (was she ever given a name?) was easily distracted from nagging her husband once jewelry was given her.  Marriage was only something “legal” that women wanted.  Even when Bayta killed Ebling Mis, the Second Foundation took credit for manipulating her and the situation.  I do mention it because I've read a number of other books written at the same period, and they do not jar on me as this did.

The Foundation Trilogy 

by Isaac Asimov

Reviewed by Pauline MacDonald

btw - my burger of choice would be boca :) w/ a gluten-free bun and lots of lettuce and some tomatoes and mustard! And I'll have a regular coke w/ that too ;)

Ok... so I was looking forward, very much, to reading these books. *Sigh* was... I'd seen much of Asimov's writings as being one of the Holy Grail's of sci-fi, being a bit more hard core than a lot of the mental floss/space opera I usually read. I'm having to redefine what I consider hard core & mental floss :(

I approached these books after having come off reading all 7 of Lisanne Norman's Sholan alliance books (6 of them were repeat reads, the 7th was released in January this year), and was very much into a heavily descriptive mindset. This was NOT the way to approach Asimov! 

TFT is a set of connected yet disconnected vignettes, for lack of a better way to call them. There is a unifying element in them (the foundation) but there's no common character thread in them. I found this exceptionally disconcerting to say the least.

The 'science' in these books was certainly bizarre (esp since I have a masters in psychology and can't say I've ever seen or heard the likes of the psychohistory as presented!!) and was not something that I found to extend my knowledge of science or even make me think of the knowledge of science required.

The language, while intelligent, certainly was not emotive or evocative of interest for me. I found it nearly as dull as Paul Johnson's read from earlier (that says something!) had I been able to read each vignette and grasp it's reason for being, I might have enjoyed this trilogy; but all I've managed to do was start to get into a vignette, and suddenly I'm thrust forward again, and have to recollect my bearings with barely a chance to hang on. 

Like I said, the language is crisp, the dialogue is clean (except the lord in book 1 who didn't do the letter R), but there is a noticeable dearth of description. I'm a visual person by nature, and thrive on descriptive narratives in lieu of character driven works. In Asimov, I was lacking both. this left me floundering for a handhold and certainly did not endear me to it in a 'page turner' sense.

The science did nothing for me (except muddy already dirty waters) and was certainly nothing along the extent that I've gotten used to by read Ben Bova or Kim Stanley Robinson and certainly, there wasn't the character development or even character affinity that I'm used to like I get from Lisanne Norman or Anne MacCaffrey.

I must be a different era in the sci-fi bits, because even though I could certainly SEE the genius behind the writing, it didn't move me at all, and certainly didn't leave me wanting to venture further into his works and for that, I'm disappointed. I'm still thinking I may read "I, Robot" at some time, but not after a month of heavy descriptive narratives like I've just come off...

The Foundation Trilogy 

by Isaac Asimov

Review by Marsha Robertson

The Foundation Trilogy is comprised of the books Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation.  The stories in these books were originally written as short stories and serials for Astounding Magazine over a period of about 9 years. 

Foundation sets up the ideas of a Galactic Empire, the Foundation, and psychohistory.  Psychohistory is defined in the book as "that branch of mathematics which deals with the actions of human conglomerates to fixed social and economic stimuli".  Hari Seldon, one of the few characters mentioned through all the stories, is also introduced. Seldon's Plan for holding the Galactic Empire together is based on his psychohistorical calculations and is set in place in this book.

Foundation and Empire continues the series as stories about the struggles for power inside and outside the Empire, and the progression of Seldon's Plan.   This book also introduces The Mule, who seems to be an undefeatable force and a variable that Seldon's calculations did not consider.

The Second Foundation stories were the original end of the series.  The book describes a hunt for the Second Foundation where the hunters may or may not have been controlled by the hunted, the hunted may or may not have been found by the hunters, and what seems to be independent thought and action on any of their parts may not be so. I first read this trilogy when I was around 10 years old.  I remember that the politics made little or no sense to me then, but I liked the ships and all the technology.  It also led me to read many of Asimov's other books, both fiction and non-fiction.

When I reread the stories this time, I still liked the ships and the all the technology, and I actually understood the politics (scary!).  I did also still like the plot.  It was a little difficult to keep track of the characters in the first book, but since the stories were written separately, and years apart, I can't really fault that. I think the rest of the material is a bit better connected, simply because it was originally in serial form.

The part I didn't like about the stories is that the twists and/or solutions for the mysteries were frequently based on things that the reader didn't know about.  This makes me feel cheated. If I can't deduce the answer when the author has presented all the clues to a puzzle, that's one thing, but I swear that in this case all the clues aren't there!  I don't remember having this problem when I read Asimov's mysteries.