Jump to content

Talk:Foundation (book series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

"Asimov unsuccessfully tried to end the series three times — first, at the end of Foundation (first book in series)..."

Don't believe that. It was compiled from a collection of stories, and I don't believe Asimov had any intention of stopping at that point. Lee M 02:50, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote that, and apparently, you are correct. I checked in Asimov's biography (It's Been a Good Life, page 80) "On January 26, 1945, then, I began 'The Mule'. (which is the first half of Foundation and Empire). This means that all of the stories in Foundation and Foundation and Empire were published as short stories before they were published as novels. I'll modify the article. →Raul654 03:11, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

In the list of books, the second foundation trilogy is before the first one. Isn't it a mistake? Gakrivas 12:28, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

No, the second foundation trilogy takes place in between the two prequels, and entirely before the original trilogy. →Raul654 12:38, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Why I love Wikipedia

Prior to me listing this article on the main page about 4 days ago, I would have sworn it was complete and perfect - every time I saw this article pop up on my watchlist, I would shudder. But all the recent changes have shown me that even really good articles can get better. I love you guys ;) →Raul654 21:44, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

End of Eternity

While not part of the above list, the book The End of Eternity (1955) set before the robot stories is vaguely referenced in one of the later Foundation stories as an explanation for the absence of alien life in the Foundation universe.

I'd like to see some documentation for this reference. →Raul654 12:31, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
As it was added by me I should find it again. However I cannot give the exact location in the series where the Eternals were referenced, I just remember it was in a discussion between R. Daneel Olivaw and Hari Seldon, when Hari said that any aliens would destroy his equations. Thus it was either in Prelude or Forward. But it had been quite a long time since I last read them, but I am 100% sure about that reference - I only memorized it as I read End of Eternity shortly before. Can anyone help who just read those books now? Or do I have to read them myself again :-) But I first have to finish the second Uplift trilogy, and I am still in book one. andy 22:57, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It would have to be in forward the foundation. But they do talk about aliens destroying the seldon plan in the last part of Foudation and Earth. I even mentioned it in that article. →Raul654 23:03, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
Seems like my memory is mixing the different sub-stories a bit. I did a quick google search, and it seems like that reference was in Foundations Edge [1] - so it wasn't Hari then. At least with that posting you have a second proof. As I have only read FE in german, maybe I will reread in english, and then give a more detailled reference. andy 23:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It was mentioned in Foundation's Edge; do we have to get an exact quote to modify the article? I was thinking of changing "one of the later Foundation stories" to "Foundation's Edge". Lefty 23:36, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

Could someone find a citation for the following:

The End of Eternity also refers to a "Foundation" within its story.
I know, I know, I'd do it myself, but my copy is a time zone away. Also, it strikes me that the Eternals have mathematical techniques that Hari Seldon would envy: Preem Palver tells us that psychostatistics are not applicable to populations smaller than a planet, while Andrew Harlan can predict the historical consequences of moving a tin can from one shelf to another. Anville 18:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
AFAI can tell EoE does not reference "Foundation", but it does reference the term "Galactic Empire"... Exact quote: "The mere existence of Eternity at once wiped out the Galactic Empire. To restore it, Eternity must be done away with." (said by Noys) It also mentions that the Galactic Empire will be established prior to Earth going radioactive (and that to Noys' "calculations" this was merely "probability", not certainty).
To answer your question Anville... first of all, Harlan doesn't mathematically predict the historical consequences, as it is said that he must intuitively "guess" the correct MNC. The closest their math gets is the statistical accuracy of the Life-Plotters, which given the statistics of a person's life can determine "analogues" in a similar, but somewhat changed, reality. Beyond that it appears that the psychohistorical mathematics are relatively similar, dealing with the planet as a whole (partly why the Eternals sometimes missed the trees for the forest). The Eternals just have quite a bit more information of each point in time than Seldon ever had, thanks to Observers. (Thus for the Eternals psychohistory was a "clinically tested" science, whereas for the Foundation it was much more theoretical.) The only thing questionable is that the psychostatistics were derived extremely early (27th Century), but this could be entirely due to the feedback loop that was Eternity's existence. Also, once Eternity is estabilished it has access to all mathematical evolution after its establishment "instantly". This would be like Harry Seldon having access to the Second Foundation's psychohistory library while establishing the First Foundation.
No, the real magic of EoE is in the hands of the "Hidden Centuries" which boast that they don't do statistical analysis so much as they do "alternate probability viewing". Considering this took well into thousands of Centuries to develop it is obvious why Seldon didn't have it. (Quote: "We don't calculate alternate Realities. We view them. We see them in their state of non-Reality.")
I guess not much of the above discussion of mine is actually of interest to the article itself, but I'm hoping someone gets something out of it... WorldMaker 07:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Positronic Man

I think "The Positronic Man" by Robert Silverberg (a novelization of Asimov's short story "The The Bicentennial Man") could also be added to the list. Ausir

Primarily written

I don't think I'm splitting hairs with "primarily written" in the intro paragraph. This is supposed to be a page about the books, not the author, and a person who just reads the introduction might come away with the impression that they're all written by Asimov.Lefty 16:47, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)

The text of the article makes it very clear who-wrote-what. The introduction is supposed to be concise. Putting "primarily" there does more to confuse the issue than it does to clarify it. →Raul654 16:51, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how "primarily" confuses the issue unless the reader simply doesn't know what the word means.
The articles should be written in news style, so that a reader can stop at any point and still get the essential facts. If a person just read the intro, he would come away with the idea that Asimov was the sole author. I'm not suggesting that the minor authors be listed in the intro -- that would be giving them too much weight -- but just add an indication that Asimov was not the only one.
However, I'm not married to the idea, and unless someone else chimes in, I'll accept the status quo.Lefty 16:20, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)
On second thought, you make a good point. I mean, I still think it's better as is, but I could live with your version. →Raul654 21:56, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Some notes

I think I, Robot should also be mentioned. It contains stories also in 'the Complete Robot', but also interesting binding text, no longer in the Complete Robot. I also added Mother Earth, a generally forgotten short story about the beginning of the Spacer Federation.

Here is also some interesting text about why Nemesis and End of Eternity should not be included in the Foundation Series (from http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/sf/foundser.html ):

Some people count 'The End of Eternity' and 'Nemesis' into the series. I do not. There are two main reasons for this :
Firstly, Asimov does not do it himself. In his introduction to 'Prelude to Foundation' he lists 14 books, and he has not mentioned 'the End of Eternity' among them. If he intended this to be part of the larger series (and considering that this boosts sales, why shouldn't he ?) he would certainly have added one of his finest novels. After all, in the afterword to 'Foundation's Edge' he does mention several of his earlier books, including 'the End of Eternity', but says it is "not entirely consistent with the references in this new book".
The same is true for 'Nemesis'. Although written after 'Prelude to Foundation', he could have mentioned in the Author's note that it was supposed to be part of the series. In stead, he explicitely states :
This book is not part of the Foundation Series, the Robot Series, or the Empire Series ... Of course, I might someday write another novel tying this one to the others, but then again, I might not.
I don't think he did this last thing.
Secondly, I don't feel the arguments that others mention for inclusion are compelling enough.
These arguments are twofold :
Both books contain notions that are not at odds with the Foundation series.
In 'the End of Eternity', the last chapter sees the freeing of History from the grasp of the Eternals; making the setting of a 'Galactic Empire' possible. Also, the story contains a 'Neuronic Whip' which can also be found in some works of the Empire series. I don't think this ties the stories into the Foundation series, but rather in Asimov's ideas for a human-only galaxy.
The same is true for 'Nemesis', which also ends with visions of 'Galactic Empires'. Asimovian, but not Foundation.
Some works IN the Foundation series have references to 'the End of Eternity' and 'Nemesis'.
In 'Foundation's Edge', Dom relates about the Eternals, whose "task it was to choose a Reality that would be most suitable to Humanity". He says "the story goes into great detail ... it has been written in an epic of inordinate length". (chapter 74)
In 'Forward the Foundation', Hari Seldon discusses mindreading and he refers to a story, twenty thousand years old, "... about a young women that could communicate with an entire planet that circled a sun named Nemesis" (part IV, chapter 5)
I consider these jokes by Asimov and I think the stories mentioned were those really written by IA himself. Thus, he insures for himself the accolade of having his stories remembered for 20000 years. After all, Hari Seldon also mentions Sisyphus (part II, chapter 3), another "myth" from pre-historic times.

Also, apart from the Second Foundation Trilogy, there have been many Robot books authorized by the Asimov estate (although I don't consider any of the posthumous sequels and prequels canon):

Isaac Asimov's Caliban (by Roger MacBride Allen) Isaac Asimov's Inferno (by Roger MacBride Allen) Isaac Asimov's Utopia (by Roger MacBride Allen)

Asimov's Mirage (by Mark W. Tidemann) Asimov's Chimera (by Mark W. Tidemann) Asimov's Aurora (by Mark W. Tidemann)

Isaac Asimov's Robot City

Odyseey (by Michael P. Kube-McDowell) Suspicion (by Mike McQuay) Cyborg (by William F. Wu) Prodigy (by Arthur Byron Cover) Refuge (by Rob Chilson) Perihelion (by William F. Wu)

Isaac Asimov's Robot City: Robots and Aliens

Changeling (by Stephen Leigh) Renegade (by Cordell Scotten) Intruder (by Robert Thurston) Alliance (by Jerry Oltion) Maverick (by Bruce Bethke) Humanity (by Jerry Oltion)

Isaac Asimov's Robots in Time

Predator Marauder Warrior (by William F. Wu) Dictator Emporer (by William F. Wu) Invader

Ausir

I tend to agree with Ausir. I think it's much beter if we stick closely with Asimov's outline, plus a few other obvious ones (The Second Trilogy, Foundation's Friends, etc). If Asimov didn't include it, I see no reason why we should. →Raul654 21:56, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

And what do you think of including the non-Asimov robot books? I haven't read any of them, but I googled them on some sites, and only the Roger MacBride Allen trilogy about Spacers (Caliban, Inferno, Utopia) is considered canon (like the Second Foundation Trilogy), or semi-canon, while the rest is mostly discarded as not really fitting Asimov's books. As for Nemesis and End of Eternity, I think there could be a paragraph about why some people think they're part of the Foundation universe, and why others think they're not. Ausir


I can't remember where I heard it, but I do believe the Caliban books were written with the consent of Asimov and/or the estate (can't remember which, but I think it was the estate). If that is the case, I think we should keep them (and only them). Also, I agree - a paragraph (in the article, not the timeline) about Nemesis and End of Eternity would probably be a good idea. I haven't read either of them, so I won't write that one. →Raul654 22:07, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

PS: Ausir, please use the preview botton instead of the save button. It makes it very hard to respond to your comment.

I found it, it was actually Asimov himself that accepted the outline of his trilogy (at least that's the official version). I have read both of these books, but it was quite a long time ago... Ausir

A man without memory, tied by blood to a city of robots. At his side, a mysterious woman whose life and memory he saved, whose love he has won for a second time. His name is Derec; hers is Ariel. In Changeling, Derec must answer the call of a besieged city on an alien planet. His new challenge is to protect a fantastic metropolis of robots from wolf-like beings that stalk the perimeters and threaten its destruction! In Renegade, Ariel finds herself the sole human on a planet of positronic robots and an alien race of shocking intelligence. Can Derec and Ariel solve the mysteries of the robots and the aliens in time to stop an all-out-war?

This is a short descrption of one of the Robot City books - I think we can all agree that they don't fit the Foundation series :) Ausir

Agreed. →Raul654 22:56, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree as well (by editing conflict) :-) I have read just a few of them, and didn't like them that much. And while the spacer worlds are referenced a bit in those stories, they form kind of a blind side alley of the main story. And I also have no problem if the reference to End of Eternity and Nemesis is mentioned as a "in joke" only, but those two should be mentioned in the canon at least. andy 22:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Maybe the Robot City/Robots in Time/Robots and Aliens series, while not considered 'canon', should also be briefly mentioned in the Books not Included paragraph? Ausir

Ausir and Lefty - since you guys seem to be intent on fixing up this and related articles (robot series, asimov, at al), can I suggest that you write the following: Foundation's Fear, Foundation and Chaos, and Foundation's Triumph. The other foundation articles exist because I started many of them, but I never wrote up the second trilogy (becauseI never read them). →Raul654 05:30, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC) PS: Thanks for all of the good work.


I also haven't read the Second Trilogy. Ausir

Me three Lefty 11:45, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

Hmmm, if I admit I read it I have to write those articles, right? Can I get away from it if I tell that it was some years ago and I forgot most already? :-) andy 13:03, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've created stubs for the books in question, so you no longer have any excuse to shirk your Wikipedian duty :-) :-) Lefty 03:59, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
I've also created stubs for the Caliban trilogy books. Ausir

Complete

Hmm, I think that now this article pretty much is complete :). Ausir

The modified introduction

I'm like what the new opening is trying to say, but the phrasing sucks. Give me a day or two to think about it, and I'll see what I can do with it. →Raul654 03:23, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker of English, so my wording might sometimes be odd - do with it whatever you want :) Ausir 19:26, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Foundation series on screen

I think a section focused on movies based on the stories from the Foundation universe is worth adding. I know of "The Bicentennial Man" movie, "I, Robot" movie (in the works), and several episodes of Out of the Unknown, a British TV series from the 60s, based on robot short stories. I've also heard rumors of a planned Foundation movie, but I don't know any details. Anything more? Ausir 19:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Such things would be better off at the Robot series article. IMHO, this article is becoming too overloaded with stuff from the related books, and is moving too far away from the "Foundation Series" premise. Inforomation about those particular movies belongs at the Robot series article instead. →Raul654 19:30, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Raul. Jacob1207 00:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the text about Shekhar Kapur directing foundation movies needs to be removed. Several years ago I found two obscure articles that said this, however the articles were several years old at that time. I think it's safe to say that he won't be making them. (thank god) If people do not believe the text should be removed, I think at the very least a recent article on the subject should be cited.

Request clarification

"robot revolution started by creating a No Law Robot and then New Law Robots."

I think someone should write a one sentence description of what "no-law" and "new-law" robots are. (I never read Caliban, so don't look at me) →Raul654 17:00, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

I also haven't read it, but from what I've googled, the no law robot (Caliban) was a robot without laws of robotics implemented, and the new laws robots had the laws of robotics modified - they couldn't harm humans, but weren't required to prevent harm from happening, and the new 2nd law was that each robot had to find his own reason to being. Ausir 17:07, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Picture

I added the picture of Seldon from Hari Seldon - it needs a picture in case it gets featured on the main page :). Ausir 12:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Word Counts

The word count numbers at the top of this article have always bothered me, so I went and verified them. Without discussing how I got them, here are the word counts for the books:

  • Foundation - 70,407
  • Foundation and Empire - 77,451
  • Second Foundation - 72,021
  • Foundation's Edge - 137,368
  • Foundation and Earth - 143,193
  • Prelude to Foundation - 132,118
  • Forward the Foundation - 122,054
  • Foundation and Chaos - 119,444
  • Foundation's Fear - 150,306
  • Foundation and Triumph - 110,449

Total - 1,134,811

→Raul654 21:52, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism

Unless someone complains real fast, I'm adding some criticism. An encyclopaedia should not only regurgitate facts.

--

LeandroGFCDutra 14:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What criticism? →Raul654 15:25, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

--- I don't know if this is the place to put it, but this is my favorite book series EVER and I'm so happy it's a featured article. Ilyanep 16:42, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been a featured article for a while but I didn't want to put it on the main page until I could find a day to be here to "babysit" my beautiful prose. →Raul654 17:02, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Emperor Cleon

Is there a Cleon I in the series or is it supposed to be Cleon II. In any case, Cleon II is an important character in the first part of Foundation and Empire, so I think we should mention him. Ilyanep 02:53, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cleon I is an important character in the prequels. Ausir 07:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Cleon I was the one who funded Seldon. Clean was killed, and replaced with Agis XIV. Agis fell (I don't think they said how), and then the commission of public safety took over, with the child-emperor cleon II as a figurehead. →Raul654 07:54, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
According to the "The General" in Foundation and Empire Cleon II was the last strong emperor, under which Bel Riose waged war on the Foundation, and that was at least 150-200 years after the Commission. Cbing01 08:17, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Three cheers for Asimov's continuity! Although I don't have Foundation and Empire at hand, I'm pretty sure that "The General" says Hari Seldon worked during the reign of Daluben IV. More specifically, I believe Lord Brodrig or Bel Riose tells this to Cleon. It's either a continuity error or an ill-informed character; either option sounds pretty plausible. — Anville 21:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Hari Seldon was a scientist of the reign of the Emperor, Daluben IV. He was a psychohistorian; the last and greatest of them all. " →Raul654 21:42, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Well, don't be too harsh on him. After all, this is supposed to take place as the government and society that have bene static and universal for 20,000 years begins crumbling. Information is being forgotten and muddled, and people don't care as much about education and history - the Foundation's cult of science and the ridiculous archeologist from The Mayor make this clear enough. It makes sense that people in the Empire would forget and confuse things like this. It happened in real late Roman society, which is what this is based on.Kuralyov 02:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Foundation/Wikipedia

Am I the only one here that thinks that this is a special literary series to be discussing on [Wikipedia], considering that encyclopedias figure so importantly in the plot? I know we don't want to give anything away... Can we at least mention Wikipedia under "cultural impact"? --lenehey

You should read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references →Raul654 18:20, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Read it. Agree with it. Still think mention of Wikipedia under the cultural impact heading is appropriate. It seems to me that the goals of Wikipedia (and certainly of my goals as a contributor to Wikipedia) and that of Asimov's Foundation are the same. Yes, the Foundation in some sense was a cosmic joke played by Hari Seldon, the Foundation never realizing that they were just a diversionary tactic from the real work done by the Second Foundation -- Nevertheless, the message of peace through understanding could not be more clear. This is one reason I care about Wikipedia, and I suspect many others as well. I benefit from Wikipedia as a user nearly every day, but I contribute because I believe it benefits society as a whole as well. --lenehey
I, too, contribute for the nebulous thing called "greater good". (Also to alleviate the hopelessness and loneliness only an MIT education could provide.) However, my personal reasons for the 1200-odd edits I've made don't count as Wikipedia history, nor are they particularly reflective of the Foundation saga. If somebody did a survey, following good statistical procedure, and found that some high percentage of Wikipedia contributors joined up because they'd read Foundation, then I'd be happy to see that datum reported here. Otherwise, the idea that the Foundation stories impacted Wikipedia is just that—an unsupported idea. Without some data to support the historical cause-and-effect relationship, it is only an opinion, and I think an unpleasantly vain one.
The edition of Britannica I have at home came out after the Foundation saga began to spool from Asimov's brain. Why isn't it an example of the saga's "cultural impact"?
Best wishes, Anville 00:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, good point -- anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Perhaps cultural impact is not the best heading for mentioning the parallels of Wikipedia and Asimov's Foundation. I don't think you can compare Wikipedia with previous encyclopedias, though. First, previous encyclopedias were compiled for profit, not for the greater good, as you say. Secondly, the difference between Wikipedia and previous encyclopedias is qualitative, not just quantitative. But, I have one question for you, what would Asimov say about Wikipedia if he were still alive? As you probably know, he authored several encyclopedia articles himself. (As I recall from one of his many editorials in Asimov's Science Fiction Mag (yes, I am a fan) one article he wrote was on amalgam.) I think he would certainly have drawn some parallels. Yes, it is conjecture, and probably not appropriate for the article.
  • I feel the parallel between the work of Asimov's Foundation and that of the Wikimedia Foundation is very strong.
It came to me when I was bragging about an edit of "mine" to my lady. I would certainly not brag to anyone else, but that is one reason some of us have ladies. And I thought about just that thing, that I could take pride in my small contribution to the whole, but a very small and humble pride indeed. At that moment, a very specific scene in Second Foundation swam into my mind (Chapter 8, Seldon's Plan). The First Speaker is explaining the nature of the Plan to a Student.
"...The Seldon Plan is neither complete nor correct.... Over a dozen generations of men have pored over these equations, worked at them... They've done more than that....
"Before you obtain your Speakerhood... you yourself will have to make an original contribution to the Plan.... Why...why—" He looked upward, "There!"
The whole wall seemed to whirl down upon him.
"This," he said, "is mine."
The First Speaker's contribution is but a small part; he takes great pride in it; but he would never dream of doing so in any public way. (Of course the whole Plan is secret!)
Anonymity is not quite the word, but certainly humility, and yet an odd kind of humility, taking pride in one's contribution to the whole. Neither Foundation is the only such collaborative project, but the image came to me very strongly, and the link is clear.
I have no idea how to present this link within this or any article, outside of this Talk page. It is a fine article, but the link to the Wikimedia Foundation should be noted. — Xiong (talk) 05:19, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
Good points but I think you missed an obvious one; Wikipedia is probably just the first (and if successful, the final) implementation of Asimov's "Encyclopedia Galactica" :-) --Neilrieck 11:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Robots & Aliens

In Isaac Asimov's introduction in "Changeling" (ISBN 0-441-73127-9) by Stephen Leigh, referred to as being associated with the Foundation universe, Asimov explains why aliens don't appear much in his books - and says "In fact, at no point anywhere in my writing has any robot met any alien" (Introduction, page ix).

However, in a short story of his - "Victory Unintentional", anthologised in "The Complete Robot" the ZZ-series robots encounter the aliens of Ganymede.

Should "Victory Unintentional" belong to the Robots/Empire/Foundation universe, or be taken by itself (notwithstanding its references to positronics etc.)? Why did Asimov exclude it from his comments? Are there are other examples of robots & aliens?

ThomasTheTank 08-May-2005 0100hrs

"Let's Get Together" and "Victory Unintentional" are not part of the Robots/Empire/Foundation universe, even though they are included in The Complete Robot and feature robots obeying the Three Laws. Ausir 08:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Foundation Novellas

Cleon the Emperor and Dead Hand should be included somewhere on the page. They were written by Isaac Asimov himself, and are described as "Foundation Novellas" on the pages I linked to. I've read the foundation series randomly (determined by what I could get my hands on), so my memory might be a bit fuzzy, but I'd put Cleon the Emperor directly before Foundation, with Dead Hand directly after it.

These are both stories included within the Foundation books. The former became a chapter in Forward the Foundation, and the latter is included in Foundation and Empire. Anville 19:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Impact on Star Wars

  • Anyone else think that the Jedi are pretty similar to the Second Foundation?Kuralyov 4 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
    • They are similar only in one respect -- the second foundation's ability to manipulate the thoughts/emotions of others is similiar (in practice) to the Jedi mind trick. On the other hand, this is a rather small similarity, if you looked, you could probably find a half-dozen similarities elsewhere. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 03:39 (UTC)
    • There are more than that, I think: the Jedi and the Second Foundation both work to preserve the galactic government; they both are/were based on the capital planet of the Galactic Empire; they both search out their new recruits at a very young age, or else it's impossible to train them; they're both run by a "Council"; they both are hunted down to extinction by the Galactic government they try to protect (or at least, in the Second Foundation's case, so they let on)...Kuralyov 4 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

From The Darth Side: Memoirs of a Monster:

In the tranquility born of extreme evasive manoeuvring I found my thoughts drawn to Sullust. The Force may work in mysterious ways but its sense of symmetry is uncanny: the Rebel fleet is massing on exactly the other side of the galaxy from Endor, cast off in the darkness of the opposite rim.
Twin foundations separated by a galaxy, one sworn to uphold order and other sworn to disturb it. [2]

Anville 12:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

New Asimov/Foundation wiki

The articles on the Foundation Unviverse are outstanding, they cover a great deal of content. However, it seems Wikipedia makes cataloging and joining the Foundation Universe articles a little difficult. So I've found and revamped a Foundation/Asimov wiki on wikicities. Contributors to and readers of the Foundation Universe articles are more than welcome to expand on it, as right now it is basically an empty shell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levenbreech Vor (talk • contribs) 16:54, January 10, 2006 (UTC)

apart from this & The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, there is no other 20th century popular fiction featured articles... so i'd like to invite editors of this page, who know what it takes to get something in the same genre featured, to comment on this article: The Illuminatus! Trilogy. its another cult sci-fi series that has been quite influential in the last few decades. its up for peer review before FAC here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Illuminatus%21_Trilogy. any comments in that peer review welcome. Zzzzz 15:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

thx to everyone who contributed to or commented on this article in the past few weeks. this article is now up for "featured article" status. please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Illuminatus! Trilogy to vote Support or Oppose with your comments. Zzzzz 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Star Wars claim

Is there any citation for this paragraph: "George Lucas used elements of the Foundation series to construct the universe in which Star Wars is set, including propulsion by hyper-drive, lightsabers (evolved from force field penknives), and the Galactic Empire (although Lucas' Empire was by definition evil, while Seldon openly says that in principle the First Empire is not evil)." Propulsion by hyperdrive and galactic empires are common as dirt in science fiction. It also seems like a stretch to derive lightsabres from the force field penknives. If there's no citation, then we should cut this paragraph. Makgraf 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I cut the paragraph. Makgraf 02:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
See Steven Hart's "Galactic Gasbag" in Salon (10 April 2002). I've found other bits and pieces in the Web, too, even though mirrors of old versions of this article provide an enormous amount of background noise. See here (also here) for lightsabers and other miscellaneous stuff, and here for miscellaneous stuff in general. Anville 19:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the links! They still don't convince though. The middle two both claim an Asimovian origin for the lightsabre but neither other any proof, only speculation. "The major inspiration for the lightsaber might have been Foundation by Isaac Asimov" and from the next one "it may be the inspiration for the lightsaber of Star Wars fame" [emphasis added]. Both seek to support the argument by claiming that Coruscant is a direct steal from Trantor (the first mentions this as well). It is true that Coruscant does seem pretty directly stolen. But Coruscant is not in the orginal trilogy. In fact it is one of the few (the only?) element from a Star Wars book incorporated into a Star Wars movie. So their 'Lucas stole lightsabres because he stole Trantor' falls down because it was Timothy (in the Thrawn series) that stole it. Makgraf 08:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Not entirely true. An "Imperial Planet" with one big city covering its entire surface has appeared in early screenplays of the first Star Wars. There are even some pretty famous Ralph McQuarrie sketches of the planet. They dropped out the idea of showing it because it would be too expensive in the seventies. Later, in 1991, Timothy Zahn brought it back, and named it Coruscant. Lucas liked the name and continued to use it. But I think it is pretty obvious that, to say the least, Coruscant is an homage to Trantor. Maclaine 13:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Coruscant is a homage to Trantor. Are you sure about their being a worldcity "Imperial Planet" in the earlier screenplays of the first Star Wars. Because I looked through some scripts [3] and couldn't find it (but again, this really isn't my area of expertise). The Coruscant entry pushes the orginal mention in a script of a world-spanning city to Return of the Jedi. Which would put it out of the timeframe of when lightsabres were being invented. We probably should have something in the article about Trantor/Coruscant but the other stuff seems too speculative. Makgraf 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. In early screenplays, the Imperial Planet was known as Alderaan, but it was not a city planet. This notion was only considered for Return of the Jedi. This is better explained in the Star Wars Official Site: [4] Anyway, it still constitutes a Trantor reference, in my opinion. As you already stated, I can't find any indication that lightsabers came from the Foundation series. The notion of a Galactic Empire is pretty common in early science fiction, and it is possible that Lucas borrowed this idea from several places, not just the Foundation trilogy. Maclaine 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's defintely a Trantor reference. Seems like there's a consensus to not put in any of the speculative things and restore the Trantor section. Makgraf 20:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I do think that "paying homage" would be a better word choice than "direct borrowing". In some ways; Coruscant is the antithesis of Trantor. (Coruscant expands verticly into the sky and is open [at least if your well to do enough to live high enough up]. Trantor expands verticlly downward into the ground and is covered by linked domes; kind of like living in a cave no matter how well off you are.)

Question from Anonymous

*** A quick request; What order is listed in the Prelude to Foundation? *** (this is meant to be a temporary post. Please remove this note - afterwards.) Comment was from User_talk:24.82.91.150, moved out of article

I put a link to the Prelude to Foundation list in the article, but in case the IP changed and you don't get the message I left on your talk page please don't edit questions into Wikipedia articles. Makgraf 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading List

I think this section should be split out into it's own article. It's bound to duplicate a similar section in the Empire Novels and a similar section in the Robot Novels section. By spliting it and having all groups link to it, it would making further edits on it much easier. But instead of calling it the "recommended reading list", I'd recomend calling it something like chronical ordering of events in the combined Robot-Empire-Foundation series. Note that this would also allow editors to later add events discribed between the novels that wasn't in any of the novels "present". Jon 14:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Along these lines, I'd like to do a little bit of organizational work on the "List of Books" (section 8). I'd like to make three top-level headings: 8.1 Robot Series, 8.2 Galatic Empire Series, and 8.3 Foundation Series. I'd add "main article" links for the Robot and Galactic Empire series. I wouldn't actualy add/remove any of the novels, just a resturcture. Any objections? I agree with Jon's comment above, but don't have the energy to tackle a full split. netjeff 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

There are two tags at the top. Fulfil them. Alientraveller 17:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

I think this article has spoilers in it but i can't look for just that reason. anybody care to check on this? Cryo921 08:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

West Wing reference highly dubious

Removed - this character is nowhere close to a popular culture reference

In The West Wing episode , Janel Maloney's character Donatella Moss leads a discussion of office assistants regarding the impending release of their salary information by the opposition party instructing her coworkers to respond respectfully and not complain to the media about their pay. Bradley Whitford's character (Moss's supervisor) greets her after the discussion by calling her "Jo-jo," a reference to Jo-Jo Joranum, a democratic activist in Forward the Foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.75.191 (talk) 15:07, September 22, 2007 (UTC)

Whole Asimov Work in the series=

You wrote that Asimov cited "The end of eternity" and "Nemesis" in his last works. This is correct, but he cited also "Fantastic Voyage" and "The gods themselves" (and, possibly, the series "Norby", I never read, but I remember a citation about a little robot which could be Norby). I recently read the whole series following internal chronological order (which is wrong, because the stories are not well connected amoung them, and there is an abyss between those from the 50s and those from the 80s)and easily noticed references to other Asimov stories. Unluckely, I didn't notice the pages where I found them and, however, I read them in the Italian translation, so I imagine that the location on pages is different form the original one. When you have time, read Asimov's production in chronological order by pubblication (what I'll do next time) and you'll easily find the citations. Adam from Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.129.223 (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Organization

I think this article could use a little better organization of content. Things that could improve the article,

  • Subcategories based on novel hierarchy.
  • Bullets.
  • Trimmed Synopsis.
  • Segment for random facts.
  • Single separate page for all Asmovian characters list.
  • Single separate page for Fictitious Asmovian Planet list.

Nw15062 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Galactica

I think I was looking for a discussion about how Wikipedia IS the Encyclopedia Galactica. Could/Would anyone from W confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.8.110 (talk) 07:00, March 19, 2008 (UTC)

Timeline inconsistencies

There seems to be a big and distracting (at least to me) timeline flaw in the original 3-book series; in chapter 16 of Second Foundation the narrator says that the year is 11,692 Galactic Era and 419 After Seldon; but the very beginning of the book clearly states Seldon's birth year as 11,988 GE! this is from my 1982 hardback edition. I just checked my paperback from 1983, and oddly enough, it's listed as 455 A.S. but still the same year in GE. I wonder what caused Asimov to make such a glaring mistake. Citizen Premier (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad category

This article is listed as part of the Space operas category, incorrectly, it seems. The definition from the category page: "Space opera is a genre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic adventure, interstellar travel, and space battles where the main storyline is centered around interstellar conflict and character drama."

The Foundation series is science fiction that emphasizes sociology, mathematics, and political action. Most plot resolutions occur "off-stage", merely narrated afterward by characters.

As for the items in the definition: Romance appears rarely, in my judgment. Interstellar travel is taken for granted, but gallivanting about the galaxy seems (again, in my judgment) rather routine, not something that is expected to fascinate the readership. Space battles often occur -- but almost never during the story line, only in the recap; it was a recognized facet of Asimov's writing that dramatic events normally occurred "off-stage" (and a facet that he himself was conscious of). Asimov has even been criticized as a writer with poor character-"drawing" talents. (FWIW, I do not judge that his stories would be improved with stronger characters.) As for interstellar conflict, much of the Foundation series deals with non-violent ways to effect political action; not necessarily negotiated agreement, but at least conflict that is radically different from (e.g.) Star Wars, an archetypal space opera.

I advise deleting the Space Opera category link. Others' thoughts on this? Jmacwiki (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain I agree; taken a space opera, the foundation series would be rather poor, but I'd say it still has many dramatic elements. Citizen Premier (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly acknowledge the drama, but it is not of the usual style for "operas". Anyway, if I understand you correctly, you disagree with my analysis and my assessment of the series -- but you agree that it isn't a space opera. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Forward the Foundation cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Characters in Foundation.

Asimov based many of the characters in Foundation on Workmates at the U.S.Naval Yards where he worked during the War. As for Wikipedia being the real 'Galactica'; (we all know Wiki Staff in the U.S. come into work each day. Take off their hats, wipe their foreheads theatrically and sigh 'Galaxy'! (Ebling Miss)).Johnwrd (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Another cultural impact

The collection of stories, The Worthing Saga by Orson Scott Card, takes two major ideas from the foundation series. A world covered in metal that is one big city, which is the capital of the empire and a planet filled with people who can see and control minds (although they are much further developed and more likely to use their power), but they do try to keep everyone's lives better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.243.219 (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


What about Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda? There is a galactic civilisation which collapses there is even a secret society preserving the knowledge of the old empire, and something like psychohistory that the character Trance uses. Fegor (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Variables Uncontrolled

I notice that towards the end of the initial plot summary it says:

'The people living there are working on an all-encompassing Encyclopedia, and are unaware of Seldon's real intentions (for if they were, the variables would become too uncontrolled).'

The variables would become too uncontrolled? Surely it is hidden from them because knowing the future would cause you to act in an atypical method, thus disrupting the predictive ability of psychohistory. The original statement would suggest regular behaviour would be 'controlled' by the variables and that atypical behaviour would cause them to become uncontrollable rather than merely unpredicatable. Sorry if this is too nit-picky, but just something about this sentence seemed to grate with me, you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.36.201 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Cigars

What was this doing in the 'Later Sequels' section? :

"Although featured prominently in the original trilogy, cigars are conspicuously absent from these two prequels. "

For now, it's been removed due to irrelevance and lack of citation.

jg (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Empire Series Order

I am wondering why "the stars, like dust" is numbered 6 and "the currents of space" is numbered 7 in the reading order when Asimov's reading order [5] and the empire series article both list them in the opposite order. Is this a mistake or intentional? If intentional, where is it based? Gsapient (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources that place Currents of Space before The Stars, Like Dust are using the "Author's Note" that Asimov included in Prelude to Foundation, where he writes that The Currents of Space is the "first" of his Empire novels, and The Stars, Like Dust is his second. However, the events in the two novels clearly place The Stars, Like Dust much earlier - by an order of thousands of years - in the chronology. It is generally regarded that Asimov simply erred when he was making his list for Prelude. Macduff (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Subdividing "Cultural Impact"

The Cultural Impact section is getting so large (rightly so, IMO) as to be unwieldy: a very long list of disconnected paragraphs. So I have divided along one line, roughly "impact within fiction" and "impact out here".

However, this only begins to reduce the unwieldiness. Perhaps revised subtitles would be better, so that real-world events related to the fiction (such as the Hugo for Best All-Time Series) might be listed with the non-fiction items.

Please edit boldly! Or at least make suggestions here. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: It is not clear that mentioning (say) New Line's interest in making a Foundation movie belongs in the "Cultural Impact" section at all -- unless we consider that the economic impact (of a movie version of the story) qualifies as a "cultural impact". Maybe we need a different section for events and news items about "publishing" the story -- completely separate from its impact. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler In Inappropriate Place

The line in the introductory section: "It is eventually revealed that the Second Foundation is located on the capital planet, Trantor, at the center of the (first) Empire." is a big spoiler.

The Wikipedia article on spoilers states:

Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.

This spoiler is not under any such section headings, so I do not think it should be in the introduction part of the article.--79.66.68.213 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia no longer carries "spoiler WARNINGS", not spoilers. Wikipedia:Spoiler says:

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.

--Narayan (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia carries spoilers, but I do not think they should be in the introduction section of an article.

Check any book, game or movie article - end spoilers are never in the introduction.--79.66.68.213 (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are free to move that part to a better place in this article. Not just to delete it. --Narayan (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dors in the Second Foundation Trilogy

What happens in Dors's & Seldon's final meeting? What happens to her afterward, i. e. is it known how she spent the rest of her lifetime? I'd really love to know. Thanks… -- 91.11.231.119 (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Obvious Correlation of Wikipedia

Has anyone who constributes to this article considered this? Leeirons (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate upon this point? The trilogy is concerned with the fall of the Galactic Empire. Is Wikipedia 'falling'? 88.108.111.126 (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Leeirons meant Wikipedia was more like the Encyclopaedia Galactica than the Empire. Not sure about that myself, as the EG brought together the finest minds in the galaxy and kept them in seclusion to complete their work, whereas Wikipedia is written by very ordinary minds, working part-time and for free, and is a work in progress rather than directed at any eventual conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.197.104 (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent spelling of "Darrell"

Most sources and my copy of "Foundation and Empire" use two r's in the spelling. The spelling in Wikipedia's articles is inconsistent, and the titles of the articles concerning the Darrell family use the incorrect spelling. 74.119.204.229 01:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Arkady Darell does not appear in "Foundation and Empire". One "r" is correct.GroveGuy (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Osama Bin Laden

A reference to the Guardian as a reputable source for a theory about Asimov's Foundation series being an influence of Osama Bin Laden is absolute rubbish. That is purely hear-say and proves absolutely nothing beyond the possibility that some writer at a newspaper wanted to write a sensationalist story and found a very loose correlation between the two. It even has the little caveat at the end that there is no confirmation, which leads me to ask, why this is even on the page? --Adammichaelroach (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Maybe we should just cut that part?--Narayan (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I of course think it should be cut.Adammichaelroach (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series merge discussion.

  • An AfD for Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series was recently held and closed as no consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series). The closing admin stated, "There is not really a solid consensus at this time between whether or not to merge, versus delete, with a weak minority of keep. Therefore, "merge" discussion should take place further, at the article's talk page." Shooterwalker redirected the article here after the AfD closed, and I have reverted, as I do not believe a redirect/merge should occur unless a consensus is developed to do so. I am opposed to merging the timeline into this article, because it is well organized right now as a separate article and logical fork. Obviously the Foundation series is quite notable, and the project would not benefit from deletion of the timeline, its a useful aid subject to verification by the books themselves (if not also commentary). Other similar articles on Wikipedia such as Chronology of Star Wars have also survived similar deletion campaigns. I can drag up many more examples of useful timelines if needed.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The outcome of the AfD was pretty clear that the Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series article should not be kept as it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and had weak support. As the closing administrator clearly stated, the no consensus was between deletion or merging, not keeping. It doesn't matter the status of other articles but the individual merits of Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Your argument is suggesting to keep that article, which is not part of the outcome of the AfD. Discussing to keep the article is not the appropriate option, but whether or not there is something worth merging from the timeline within this article before making the other article a redirect or deleting it.
I concur with Milowent in that I also oppose merging the timeline with this article as all the content is unreferenced and non-notable. I do not think that anything from Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series should be kept and that article should be a redirect to this article as Shooterwalker did. Jfgslo (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Redirect: Personally, I think the AFD is pretty clear in a consensus that this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If deletion is off the table, the only other options are to redirect or merge. I boldly redirected this article. But I won't object if someone wants to add dates and such to the merge target, so long as it complies with WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Redirect. As I said at the AfD, it does not seem to pass the General Notability Guidelines; however, the information is pertinent to understanding the series, so it should be part of a Plot section and not its own article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Robot Mystery novels

Are Mark W. Tiedemann's three "Robot Mystery" novels — Mirage (2000), Chimera (2001) and Aurora (2002) — "canonical" or not? That is, does anyone know if they were authorized or requested by the Asimov Estate, like the Second Foundation Trilogy? I discussed them in Three Laws of Robotics, but I haven't found anything on the Web saying just how official they're supposed to be. Anville 10:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

They are approved by the Estate. Whether that makes them "canonical" or not, I leave to someone else. Jmacwiki (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Enemy Within (Foundation and Earth)

Surely the ambiguity in the closing paragraphs of Foundation and Earth centers around Trevize's expression of the possibility that intelligent life from another galaxy may invade our galaxy i.e. the galaxy which he (and we) inhabit. Despite his "twinge of trouble," Trevize asserts that, "it is not as though we had the enemy already here and among us." But the narrator pointedly closes the book (final paragraph) by drawing the reader's attention to Fallom, the extra-intelligent child and, in particular, to her "hermaphroditic, transductive, different" eyes. If, as suggested, she is an example of that "other intelligence," the chances of a future Galactica are, at best, uncertain.PeadarMaguidhir (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to start new talk page archive

Some of the discussions on this page date back to 2007. Hardly conversations worth continuing. Gohst (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving Robot and Empire series

I've made a new proposal to rename the related Isaac Asimov's Robot Series and Isaac Asimov's Galactic Empire series in line with this article and the naming conventions. Please have your say on the discussion there. --xensyriaT 19:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Second series

Is it "The Caliban Trilogy" or "The Second Foundation Trilogy?" —ScouterSig 16:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Caliban trilogy is not the second foundation trilogy, they are two separate trilogies.70.51.8.110 (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Actually wikipedia calls it the "Second Robot Series", the first novel of this trilogy being Isaac Asimov's Caliban, I don't know why that novel is not included in the table with all the novels in the foundation's universe Lessio (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"Nemesis" is not a stand-alone book

Despite Asimov's (forced by his publisher) claim that "Nemesis" was a stand-alone novel by the time it was published, it was apparently on purpose written in such a way that it might be fitted into the Foundation universe any time later. A recent treatise[1] has presented evidence that "Nemesis" contains deliberate allusions to the Spacers and their calendar established in "The Robots of Dawn", to the Galactic Empire and even to Hari Seldon. With the known reference in "Forward to Foundation", "Nemesis" was finally accepted as another novel from the Foundation universe and should be listed here. Nafiris (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed links between Nemesis and the Foundation universe, but I wouldn't go so far as to consider Nemesis truly a part of it. First of all, Asimov himself said “This book is not part of the Foundation Series, the Robot Series, or the Empire Series,” and I would like to see a source for your claim that he was forced to say this. Furthermore, the are several contradictions between Nemesis and the Robot/Foundation universe, as mentioned here:
  • “When Trevize and Pelorat finally reach Earth's solar system in 'Foundation and Earth', they do not detect a companion star for Sol, such as described in 'Nemesis'.”
  • “There are no robots in 'Nemesis'. There were robots when humans had not left Earth, and robots accompanied the first Earth colonists (Spacers) to the first interstellar colonies. The expedition to the Nemesis system is supposedly the first time humans have left the solar system, which places it firmly between the time of Earth-bound humans and the time of 50 Spacer worlds... yet there are no robots in 'Nemesis'.”
  • “[...] the development of hyperdrive is presented completely differently in the Robot stories, as is the development of off-earth colonies.”
–Darkday (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Nothing different was to be expected, with "Foundation and Earth" published three years before "Nemesis", I daresay! ;-) But two of your arguments are in fact dealt with in the quoted book. (1) Nemesis is a high-velocity star: It crosses 2 l-y within 5000 years, acc. to "Nemesis". If it more or less keeps its speed beyond that date, then by the time Trevize and Pelorat arrive (17 millenia after its perihelion) it would be about 6 l-y from Sol and escape attention. (3) The entire set of Robot stories is dismissed by the authors, based on Han Fastolfe ascertaining in "The Robots of Dawn" that they are but Spacer myths and should not be taken at face value. That argument the authors support by contradictions explicitly referred to in "Dawn", notably the incompatibility of Steven Byerley and Andrew Martin with R. Daneel being the first attested humaniform robot in history. (2) The argument about robots lacking from "Nemesis" is also mentioned in passing but, unfortunately, not adressed.
As for "forced by his publisher", I find in Asimov's autobiography indeed that his editor Jennifer Brehl had explicitly demanded a novel which was "not part of either the Foundation series or the Robot series, but ... an entirely independent background."[2] Seems that Asimov cheated her on that one! :-) Nafiris (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
In I, Asimov, he wrote: “[...] I suggested that I go back in time and write and write Prelude to Foundation [...] Jennifer Brehl at once agreed and, sensing my weariness with the Foundation books, suggested that the novel after that be not part of either the Foundation series or the robot series, but be an entirely independent product, with a completely new background.” My interpretation of that is quite different from yours: Of course Doubleday would have preferred another Foundation novel. The previous two had been best-sellers, and Foundation's Edge had even won a Hugo. However Jennifer Brehl realized that Asimov was growing tired with Foundation, so she decided to give him a break and suggested (not demanded) a stand-alone novel.
But anyway, I'm not denying that there are a couple of links and references between Nemesis and the Foundation saga. I just think “Nemesis is part of the Foundation universe” should be considered a theory, not a fact. –Darkday (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Codex, Regius (2014). From Robots to Foundations. Wiesbaden/Ljubljana. ISBN 1499569823.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  2. ^ Asimov, Isaac (2009). I, Asimov:A Memoir. Random House Publishing Group.

Infobox image

J 1982, I need help on choosing the replacement of the current infobox image, which belongs to only Foundation (Asimov novel). I found images from the following publications:

Which one do you think I should upload? --George Ho (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea, since I don't contribute with uploadings. I just think this looks the best. https://www.amazon.com/Foundation-Empire-Second-Foundations-Edge/dp/0345340507/ J 1982 (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Pinging FT2 and Deagol2 for their opinions. --George Ho (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Given that the series is composed of a large number of books, I do not see a huge difference between an image of the first book and an image of the trilogy. I would leave it unchanged. Deagol2 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. What Deagol2 said, and also the lead image is often *representative of* the topic, or an example. An image of 4+ books is likely to be smaller (think mobile devices), and more confusing to the reader (in some sort of "image-y" sense) than a simpler and more straightforward image of just one book, usually but not always the first. A bit like how for iPhone you'd choose one type of iPhone, not a picture that tried to include every kind of iPhone ever to use that name. The purpose of the lead image is to entice and clearly stand for the topic, or illustrate it - the clarity criteria matters a lot. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@FT2, Deagol2, and J 1982: I inserted an additional rationale in the file page and decided to leave the infobox image as is. --George Ho (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Impact in non-fiction - Martin Seligman - bad reference

Reference 9 provides no link to justify the claim that Martin Seligman successfully predicted the 1988 US elections. Seligmans wikipedia page makes no reference to this claim, or his predictions. Searching online for similar claims, i found this page [6] which, in its first paragraph, indicates that the predictions were based on which candidate was more positive in their speeches, etc. This is a far cry from psychohistory. I'd recommend that the claim be removed from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.4.226 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Seligman specifically states (p.204), "We try to predict the actions of large groups--the votes of an electorate, the emigration of a people." He also emphasizes that he is using techniques to predict, not merely postdict, as previous "psycohistory" studies had done. That he used blunter instruments (like political speech vocabulary) to measure the predictors than Hari Seldon is not important to his claim. Jmacwiki (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Cliodynamics

Is the comparison of cliodynamics and psychohistory mentioned in the sources ? As cliodynamics was devised much later, I don't think that paragraph belongs there in the article.

Two of the references there are shown as sfns to Turchin 2008 and Turchin 2015 - but nowhere are the full details of those given. -- Beardo (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed it. It is in no way relevant to that section. Cliodynamics is mentioned in the article for Psychohistory, and that seems sufficient. Shilton (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foundation_(book_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1235229192"