Seeing If A Book I Loved Holds Up

One of the good things about flying, and the hours spent sitting in airport terminals, is that it gives me an excuse to do some reading. Keeps me occupied, keeps me from being tempted to buy heavily overpriced airport food*, and of course, reading is fun! Anyway, it gave me the opportunity to reread Asimov's Foundation. I originally read the Foundation series in junior high, and when I picked up Spider-Man/Human Torch last - jeez January, it's been that long? - I also picked up Foundation. I just hadn't taken the time to read it.

Basic summary, for those of you unfamiliar with the series. A scientist known as Hari Seldon has utilized a science known as psychohistory - which predicts future events based on the concept that large groups of people are predictable, and odds of them doing certain things can be calculated** - to determine that the current Galactic Empire will decay completely within three centuries, and that will lead to over 30,000 years of anarchy before a new Galactic Empire emerges. Seldon proposes to create an Encyclopedia of all knowledge, which will enable the anarchy to be limited to 1,000 years. At least, that's what he says will help.

The Empire, eager to be rid of his doom-saying, sets him and his scientists up on a planet at the edge of the galaxy, and this book is largely about the threats the planet faces in its first two hundred years of existence.

The thing about Foundation, and I think this is true for Asimov's Robots series as well, is that the sci-fi stylings seem like window dressing. The space ships with faster than light travel, blasters, personal force fields, 3 Laws governing robotic behavior, all that, are just there to help establish the setting, the rules of the world. What it's really about, is people. Not surprising, given the premise is that large groups of people are predictable and can be manipulated (provided they aren't aware of it), and that this can enable one to shape the future. Given that, it raises the question of what actions one can take to manipulate people to preserve Hari Seldon's Plan? The planet the Foundation is set on is a tiny world, no metals, only limited natural resources, a planet that's only real resource is that it's full of scientists. A world full of scientists, surrounded by aggressive worlds where science is being lost, because people are no longer taught to understand how things work, only how to keep something running. So if a person works in a power plant, they know to pull a switch if the dial goes into the red, but they don't understand why the dial went into the red, or what them pulling the switch is doing, or even the basic principles behind how the power plant works. Now how, one supposes, can that work to the Foundation's advantage?

What's interesting is that Foundation is set up similarly to I, Robot***, in that it's like a series of novellas, all loosely connected. In I, Robot, it's about dealing with problems that arise in the minds of robots due to the broadness of the 3 Laws. In Foundation, like I said, it's people using an understanding of the human mind to keep the Foundation out from under another world's boot.

The curious thing is that the protagonists are rarely what one would describe as admirable men. They are often concerned with garnering power or profit for themselves. Power, because they think they would be best suited to run things. Profit, when applicable, because the characters involved are Traders and that's what they do****. Honestly, some of their tactics are reminiscent of things Lex Luthor or Wilson Fisk might do. Agreeing to investigate the loss of Foundation ships, but using the opportunity to establish exclusive trade agreements with other worlds. Owning a newspaper through several other companies, and using that to get the public to demand you be given more political power. Sure, it all seems to work out, as the people doing this stuff are clever sorts who do help keep the Foundation afloat, but they're often the actions that might best be filed under "the ends justify the means".

There are certain things that perhaps date the book. I find it a little surprising that in a setting so far in the future that no one is even certain where humans originated from (that's the plot of Foundation and Earth), they still would fall back on coal and oil when nuclear power is beyond them (as is the case for the Foundation's aggressive neighbors). I suppose it's easier to determine how to use those fuel sources, but you'd think that kind of knowledge would have been lost to the march of time along with mankind's original home. Also, the idea that they'd still have working space ships (with faster than light travel), when they use coal and oil for power sources on the planet. I suppose the ships (which run on something called "nucleics") just haven't all broken down yet, but it still struck me as curious. Ultimately though, I think it's part of what I mentioned about the sci-fi aspects just being for show, because it's really about people, and how they think and react, and the value in understanding that.

I was not disappointed by the book. Reading about people being clever, as long they aren't being complete jerks about it, is usually a good read. I find it's less fun to read about people outsmarting others when the clever one is someone I'd rather not root for*****. I do wonder about the implications of needing a Galactic Empire to minimize the anarchy, because it sounds very much like a monarchy (though the king is a figurehead by this point), and I wonder if the new Galactic Empire the Foundation would help establish would also be a monarchy. Their home planet seemed more similar to an executive/legislative set-up, but it didn't seem as though the council could really do much if the "mayor" (as almost all the population was concentrated in one city) decided to follow a particular course. I suppose maintaining a representative government that spans a galaxy could be a bit dicey, though faster-than-light-travel ought to solve some of those issues. Then again, the end of Foundation's Edge may have presented another solution, which I won't mention, in case you want to read the series.

* Six dollars for a freaking Extra Value Menu?! I'm not that hungry, thank you very much.

** If this sounds vaguely familiar, it's the same science Reed Richards used to justify his Civil War actions, when questioned about them by the Mad Thinker. At least, that was McDuffie's explanation, as opposed to the "I fear for Sue's safety" or "I watched my uncle get crushed by McCarthy hearings so we should always do what authority figures say" reasons JMS tried to stick him with.

*** If you think of the Will Smith movie when I saw that title, ignore it. The only thing they have in common is the 3 Laws of Robotics. The book was almost entirely bereft of shooting, and there were no high speed maneuvers on motorcycles.

**** In Asimov books, it's common to have a generic, one word, capitalized title to describe people. Trader, Foundationist, Spacer, Settler. I think it fits with the idea of grouping people for ease of prediction.

***** That's probably my problem with the generally unpleasant, godlike Batman DC was giving us for awhile. Yes, he's brilliant, but he's just unlikeable enough for me to enjoy it when things blow up in his face, and for me to want that to happen more often.