Pierre
3/4/2010
After finishing this first novel of the Trilogy (and my first Asimov), it is obvious that he intended to write follow-ups. As I cannot rate the series as a whole yet, this first book does not stand by itself as some in other series do. The comparison is easy with Dune where the first book does and leave you with a sense of grandeur and a need and want to explore its Universe and the protagonists/antagonists further. I do not have the same urge to pursue reading this series though I will try to persist.
Asimov tells the story through 5 different protagonists, one in each chapter, each relating details of single events, more or less unrelated. The overall purpose of building a new Empire is difficult to grasp for the reader through these historical micro-events (Seldon Crisis) as they seem to only generate a purpose for the character, not an empire. Further, these five are all quite manipulative, lacking warmth and morals and not very likeable as main characters usually are. On the opposite, Paul of Dune was a character greater than life with clear purpose as time went on but with human frailties and emotions, in other words multi-dimensional. I wonder if this first Foundation book gathered a wide fan base or it only happened following the publication of the trilogy.
As many are fans of the series, I would love counterpoints on my assessment of this book. I did not pursue reading the trilogy.