I have read "Foundation's Edge" only once, about 25 years ago, and LOVED it. The new structure of a full novel instead of a series of short stories, allowing for a slow burn crescendo with the whodunit element, the mystery element of looking for the origin world, the exploration of ancient and exotic worlds, the incredible technology of Trevize's ship. All of this made me overlook the flaws mentioned in this video, so this is a fascinating revisit for me.
In Foundation's Edge, the reasons why both Foundations are suspicious (First Foundation suspecting the Second Foundation to still exist and the Second Foundation suspecting that there is a third party with greater developed science of Psychohistory) is because in both Foundations' points of view, the Seldon Plan should have failed when the Mule appeared. The Mule was someone/something that wasn't predicted by Seldon. After the Mule was defeated by the Second Foundation, they did their best to restore the Seldon Plan to the proper path it should take. Even so, the best the Second Foundation could do would be to keep the deviations from the plan to be as minimal as possible as their advancement of Psychohistory could still only be applied to the prediction of the masses. Not predict individual actions. But when the Second Foundation's newest speaker was inspecting the path that the Seldon Plan was taking, he learned that it was following the plan almost too accurately. In the end, the actions taken by both members of the First and Second Foundations in this novel were actually being guided by the members of Gaia. They wanted someone capable of "independent thought/analysis" to "check" which plan or path would be the "right" one for the good of the galaxy or humanity in the galaxy. The First Foundation, the Second Foundation or Gaia's paths. PS: Just like Hari Seldon created the First and Second Foundations to be his Plan A and Plan B, Gaia was one of Daneel Olivaw's Plan A or Plan B for the galaxy. Olivaw's backup plan was Hari Seldon.
You would be amazed at how many readers missed all of that because they seem to think that Gaia either represents "communism" or a Borg-like elimination of individuality, even though the books are explicit that it not the case. In the prequel novels, Seldon and Cleon have a conversation about a push to create a representative government on Trantor. Seldon is sympathetic to the idea of democracy, but concedes Cleon's point that it simply cannot work with such a huge population. Gaia was Daneel's way of dealing with the problem of trying to truly unify the vast population of humanity in a manner that didn't require autocrats or secretive oligarchs. Gaia was the *only* actual *democracy* out of the three options.
*Rewatches the video, and pays closer attention.* Huh. It does seem like Asimov was slanting the deck in favor of the solution/ending he wanted, instead of writing out what happens and how everyone reacts. Also, I can see more similarities between ME3 and this, which makes me wonder how much this inspired Mass Effect's trilogy.
+Herman Cillo Honestly not a lot at all in my experience. It inspired the ending, and possibly parts of Legion dialogue. But the two universes are miles apart, I always thought ME took far more from Dune, Star Wars and Trek than Asimov
+Joseph Hobbs Mass Effect does have bits and pieces from a lot of franchises. To me, it's always looked like Mass Effect is only using the other stuff as inspiration, rather than copying something directly. Barring the ending of ME3 being a copy of the ending of Foundation's Edge, which I agree is rather blatant and was poorly executed.
Herman Cillo Yeah I certainly wouldn't call ME uninspired, as a writer myself I realise that everything's derivative. It was original in its own way and it used other good works to springboard off of. But yeah, ME3 was just pure copy paste, it was embarrassing. I still think I learned a lot from the series, I certainly enjoyed it. But that last half of ME3 was watching a franchise fall apart, it was just continually failing to deliver
+Joseph Hobbs I haven't played ME3 yet. (Damn $50 of DLC to have the full game. I'm SO glad I got ME3 for free!) So I'll make my full judgement once I've finished playing it. Fortunately, the bits and pieces I keep seeing on one stream I watch all point to the majority of ME3 being really good, save for the rushed and cobbled together ending.
I really hated _Foundation's Edge_ when I first read it (just a couple months after finishing the Foundation trilogy proper). Since then I've reevaluated it somewhat. It is an interesting thriller/mystery that starts off slow and unfolds at an ever-accelerating pace till the big showdown. Trevize is by far the most developed character in any book with "Foundation" in the title, and one of the reasons I'm drawn to science fiction is that you often have very accessible, relatable personalities placed in positions where they must make decisions with implications that go far beyond anything they can possibly comprehend. In retrospect the cliffhanger is exciting, though I didn't like it at the time. (At the time I saw Trevize say "Hey, the Plan shouldn't be going so smoothly, the Second Foundation must be out there;" and Gendibal say "Hey, the Plan shouldn't be going so smoothly, there must be someone else out there," whom I started thinking of as the Third Foundation. Then when Old Man Gaia said that he/they/Gaia didn't know anything about Earth either, I just rolled my eyes and said "Oh for God's sake, you mean there's a _Fourth_ Foundation too? At the end of the next book are we going to have to go look for the Fifth Foundation?") Nevertheless, my most significant objections remain: chucking the Plan in favor of something else is a real betrayal of the spirit of the original series. It's here that we learn that psychohistorians are far more interested in using mind control than statistical analysis like they're supposed to, and I greatly disapprove. And Gaia is such an abhorrent notion. It might as well be the Borg. They really should have turned out to be a malevolent force, if not here then in a later story; but in every iteration that I know of, everyone either takes them at their word that they really are a beatific host, or is proven wrong in assuming they're not.
+aperson22222 - Why do folks like you keep saying that Gaia is like the Borg? It is really no different than a lot of people running a direct democracy over the internet! They're all still *individuals*, they just also instinctively know what is going with everything else around them. The Plan doesn't actually get "chucked". Indeed, if Seldon had lived long enough to keep running the numbers he probably would have discovered Galaxia. A Second Galactic Empire was *not* the *best* possible future humanity. It was merely the only one which he had the numbers to calculate for within his lifetime. Seldon expressed sympathy for the idea of democracy, but had to concede to Emperor Cleon that he couldn't see any way that it could actually *work* even on Trantor with its massive population, much less across the galaxy. Yet, you will notice that Gaia doesn't stop the Plan. Just the reverse, both Branno and Gendibal are sent off to continue working to advance it. Just as Gaia had helped it get back on track after the Mule screwed everything up. This is because Galaxia is what comes *after* the Second Galactic Empire. Humanity needs a new system. An empire may provide the semblance of order, but only at the expense of making everyone into a subject of a distant government that doesn't even notice or think about individuals very much. Gaia/Galaxia democratizes the entire galaxy. No two points are more than one step away from each other. There are no uncountable layers of government bureaucracy between the average individual and the ultimate ruler as there would be in an empire.
***** I don't have time to go point-by-point on this. Suffice it to say I'm not convinced. Mind control means there are no viable alternatives to government policy. That means a one-party state, and those can never be truly democratic.
I like the book a lot, but I don't like how both Foundations are taken off the rails. I always feel that this plan actually doesn't happen as there is an Encyclopedia Galactica printed in 1020 FE (that is quoted at the beginning of each chapter of the trilogy). This means that the one-min Galaxica (that Gaia wanted to establish) either didn't happen, or maybe it was altered (in that a part of Gaia rules each planet, but it is not all-encompassing
Sometimes, it is better to leave things unknown. This makes the reader think - to ponder what if. This is something that competent writers do to engage their readers.
I would have loved a novel about how the First & Second Foundations mixed it up a little, and then finally made peace & created a fusion. Because that's probly what Seldon had in mind.
Ah yes I remember but I’M not telling ... this’s why the Foundation series is so EPIC! Maybe Jonathan Frakes should direct this 4 the small or big screen/has similar sense of humour 2 said narrator.
"That way is the path of stagnation..." It is hard to label a galaxy spanning empire of peace and prosperity as "stagnant" and not "ideal". What exactly does humanity have to overcome at that point that is so important as a character building exercise?
+Joshua Pelfrey - The basic limitations of being human. How about becoming *more* than human? Evolving? *Any* Gaian can know what is happening throughout the overall system, or gain awareness of what is happening in distant places. They can retrieve virtually any information they need from the collective memory of the superorganism. There are no authorities to tell them that information is restricted for purposes of "security". No government to decide what they do and do not need to know.
Asimov did re-use the 'Girlfriend is a Robot' idea later on, in Prelude to Foundation, maybe he decided in Foundation and Earth to retcon Bliss because he'd already started to put together work for that book? I seem to recall an interview with Asimov, where he said that it was more or less required by the publishers to add a bit of 'raunchiness' to his books, since Sci-Fi was the realm of teenage boys in their opinion, and so it would draw in buyers.
+PRDibble I wonder if that view is why Piers Anthony's characters have a problem keeping their clothes on...and then _Under a Velvet Cloak_ (2007) hits and everyone wonders just what is going on in old Anthony's mind. Second thought, perhaps we are better off NOT knowing.
+Bruce Grubb Heh, it's entirely possible, the late 70s and early-mid 80's was the era where women in sci-fi mostly existed for the purpose of being captured, ravished or both. I DO know Asimov deliberately wrote some of the more 'erotic' kind of sci-fi stories for income at some point in his life, so I suspect he understood what he was doing when he was told to change it, but I preferred his characters like Susan Calvin, now THAT was a strong female character.
Foundation's Edge was enjoyable enough, but it seems to me that it lacked the urgency and drive that the earlier stories, with their crises, provided. Sure, there's decisions to be made, but there's no crisis demanding an immediate decision, and certainly no obvious solution to the problem.
The way I received this book is that it's most a follow up to the Robot saga than to the Foundation saga. Psychohistory is no more the main topic, rise and fall of empires is not either. And yeah, Mass Effect 3 level of ending really turn me off...
This novel should have: 1. Abandon the First Foundation inmediately. Harla Branno and the other guy were just annoying. They should have just exiled Trevize out of ignorance and never appear again. 2. Introduce Gaia earlier and make the book about Gaia. You read 400 pages of a great Foundation story and then and ending that is like "Ok, I guess I'm done with this story". 3. Give the Second Foundation a more dignifying ending. Gendibal and Trevize were equals in the story and in the end Gendibal loses just because Trevize makes the choice. Why not make this story about the struggle between Gaia and the Second Foundation and make Trevize and Gendibal represent each faction? 4. Never but never explain The Mule's origin. Why did that happen? To justify Sayshell's neutrality over history? Make it just that The Mule lost to Gaia and never wanted to go there ever again. The best thing about that character was the mistery about his origin and how he was a singularity in the Seldon Plan. This was a good novel but a bad sequel in my opinion. It works great as a bridge between the Foundation and the Robots series though.
Robots don't exist or more accurately aren't widespread in the Foundation universe is because a huge majority of humanity in the galaxy, say 99.99999 something percent, originated from Earth's expansion and not the 50 or so Spacer planets (from the Caves of Steel time period). Earth humans shunned robots, while the Spacers (or Spacer society) that heavily integrated Robots as part of their daily lives slowly died out.
I'm really enjoying this series cant wait till the next one... And I agree with Molton Borron down there, you should do Dune, but do his sons stuff too... A decade of content for you at least. lol
Stay far away from the Dune Midquel novels, Paul of dune and especially Winds of Dune. Seriously that last book killed Dune for me, the book bridges Messiah and Children and it ends on a cliff hanger about a plan by the emperor to take back power that was never even hinted at in the original books. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder if it will work?? Basically a good chunk of the books is A: Butcher Pauls character, I mean really destroy the whole theme of the first book, Paul leaving Caladan for the first time and replacing it with a Hitchikers guide romp through the Galaxy, and turn him into an asshole B: make the Fenrings and especially their daughter Mary Sues, and fill the rest with tension by putting Main characters of future books in Peril. It's like wondering if Obi-wan and Yoda were going to survive their fight in Revenge of the Sith. Just stick to Legends of Dune during the Jihad, the authors seem to write better when they aren't hemmed in by continuity
I certainly prefer it to Fascist Mayor Branno!! Also, they are sort of a transition point, as they are individuals (we know from their Table politics) who are still capable of working as a groupmind (as they were getting ready to do, when Branno was threatening to blow them up.) I don't see them as psychic tyrants. As Gendibal says, they would act as "guides". I interpret that as "people who could teach a form of mentalic empathy (sort of like Gaia) and use their mentalic powers to keep society from being overrun by lying politicians, warmongers and tyrants." I'm definitely in the 2F's corner!!
I find it funny that ME3 literally tried ripping the ending off, and its attempt to steal the mystique and vast nature of this ending literally ruined their franchise. Three choices: A choice to maintain the original course and follow the plan (Destroy, or the Second Empire), The option to support psychic control over humanity and shape an empire via a select group of elite individuals (The Second Foundation, Control). Or the alternative, the creation of a hivemind that encompasses all life, deliberately revealed as a hidden twist "thrid opinion", and deliberately framed as the best choice of the three (Galaxia, or Synthesis) Its spectacular how much they missed the point, and how much they failed really. I find it sad no one sees how shameless the copy paste job was, and that ending is the reason I will never buy another Bioware game. It showed a complete lack of originality, and its annoying to see someone copy a work and just utterly botch it. Asimov's themes have never really applied to the ME universe
+Joseph Hobbs I don't disagree with that sentiment, and I think that BioWare really got off a little too easy on that issue, with a lot of people seemingly just deciding that Electronic Arts should take all of the blame. Not that it shouldn't take some, but BW definitely wasn't without a say in how it turned out. But despite that, I don't think it's wise to simply boycott BW completely because of it. Sure, their subsequent game Dragon Age Inquisition wasn't flawless, by any means, and the expansions for Star Wars: The Old Republic didn't save that game's story or change my opinion of it as a whole, but the games certainly weren't awful, and by not supporting the company, and encouraging them to do better in the future, then we only ensure that they'll never make it up to us for what they did.
I know we're getting on a tagent and I wrote a big angry comment so hey, but. While I understand what you mean, I can't help but feel like only depriving them of money will ever even get them to notice. The tidal waves of criticism and rage from online were so easily dismissed. They lied before, during, and after the whole debacle, straight up you-should-go-to-jail fraud on a mass scale. They demonstrated not only a lack of caring, but active contempt. Refusal ending, anyone? Even if I had the money to afford spending it on video games anymore, I can find so many examples of games and companies that treat me better. Why should I keep forgiving, when they're not even sorry? To EA and what's now called Bioware, I'm a boolean state. 1, paying customer, or 0, not paying customer. And that's it. I know such a boycott could almost never topple them or harm them much, but fuuuuck them. They don't get to cultivate investment and loyalty on purpose as a deliberate feature of their marketing, betray that in every sense, and then roll along with a 'oh, we can change them if we just stick with it'. Forgiving a wrong is always the decision of the wronged person, whether they want to do it or not.
+Joseph Hobbs Huh. I did not know of the similarity. I guess it's missed because the Foundation books aren't as well known in the mainstream. Heck, I might not make it through the Foundation series were I to read it without spoilers, because I loathe the idea of people being so predictable that you can tell what an entire universe is going to do with supercomputers/etc. Also, I'm not going to boycott Bioware because they are one of the best companies for having continuity in their work. Events in ME1 and ME2 affect ME3, people who you have rescued or helped will return later in the series, and the writing itself for the majority of the series is excellent. It's a pity the ending got screwed over by a leaked bit of info on the "dark energy" subplot, and that the execs obviously forced a certain amount of rushing into finishing ME3, as well as a certain amount of "leave it open for a sequel!" too. That's what really killed the ending of ME3.
+Joseph Hobbs I can't believe there are still people who shout "RUINED FOREVER!" At any excuse. An ending doesn't invalidate the journey, the world, the characters. I assume you didn't see the Extended Cut endings either... What happened with Mass Effect 3 was the lead writer left right before he was supposed to write the ending, and a new guy did it.
To all of you guys I'm not suggesting other people follow what I decided to do, yes I did see the odd flash of creativity of good work in say DA:I, or as you said Valter Östberg some parts of TOR. I just made my own personal decision because not only was the ending so blatantly devoid of originality, but the patronising "refusal ending" felt like just slapping fans in the face. There was no need to be so blaze when fan petitions raised thousands of dollars HuntrBlackLuna I agree with you completely, I'm not just complaining for the sake of it, in my eyes I'm just voting with my wallet. If they think that ending and that ending DLC was enough and that DR:I being what is was could just win people back, then they are sadly mistaken. I feel that Bioware has this false immunity due to our own nostalgia for games past. I'm just one guy, but however small I just feel the need to make my own stand on it. I'm not arrogant enough to think that I'm changing anything, but I won't blind buy from Bioware again, and nothing they have offered is remotely worth the money, I played a little DR:I using a friends copy, and I was honestly shocked at how lazy the narrative set up was, it just reinforced in my head the idea to boycott being a good one ***** I hear you loud and clear, I knew that I wasn't going to be able to get a lot of choices. ME2 taught me that it would be a few cameos, I understand how much pressure was on and how hard a non linear narrative is. But as a lover of Asimov's stories I was just annoyed to see the creativity, and have A, B and C endings shoved in my face by this random unlikable character. And worse than taking away my choice, I felt that it was a missed opportunity. They didn't *care* about synthesis enough to explore it beyond a few added slide screens. Following the Destroy path lead to the genocide of a synthetic race. It felt like if someone ripped off the ending to say Dune or 2001, slapped it on the end of their RPG and then show me that couple. "When will be the next sequel?" "In time. Time for one more story." To me that was worse than a shitty film adaptation by a mile. Herman Cillo Hey to each their own man. I have a lot of friends who still buy Bioware stuff, and if you love the games I won't belittle that at all, as long as it entertains you. Don't worry I'm the only guy I know who read Asimov myself, not in like a hipster way but just no one else heard of it :L So while people said how much it sucked I was thinking "Holy shit he ripped off that Foundation book!" I'd like to add that if you wanna avoid spoilers, the ending is different in that its pretty well done, and there's actually a whole book *after* dedicating to nitpicking and exploring the conclusion. ME4 will never have Shepard go back to his choice, but Asimov certainly did, and the story in my opinion's worth looking at (y) R3GARnator Sorry but ME3 did make it a dealbreaker for me. And not the original ending, the *extended ending*. The Refusal ending was badly written spite, designed to make Shepard sacrifice all of humanity for some stupid notion of freedom. "So be it" is proclaimed when the kid goes Goa'uld. The same screens, the same insulting picture of the aliens telling me about the sequel. If you still love it, fine I'm glad you like it. But ME3's poor story, poor ending, and outright contemptible DLC lead me to decide to not back them anymore, and DA:2 also lead me to that conclusion. The lead writer quit shortly after ME3 if I'm not mistaken, and while as I've said its hard to work under pressure, that's no excuse. I wouldn't give Bethesda, Platinum games or any other dev a pass with that ending, and Bioware is no different to me, just my opinion though Thanks for the responses guys, just saw these, and I do appreciate what you all said (y)
yeah, and ever notice how the biggest advocates of "free will" are the ones who want to use their will to conquer & tyrannize others? Example #1: Mayor Branno. Example #2. Certain politicians today who yell about 'freedom".
I liked Edge when it came out but this is where I feel it should have ended, cliffhanger or not. After this the stories just got fatter with tired plotting and terrible characterizations. In fact the whole 'pulling all the different stories together' thing, only ever felt like a moneymaking/publishing exercise. Plus itperhaps led to the whole fanboy service thing that has blighted a lot of modern popular culture.
I'm not sure if the video creator is reviewing the books or providing his views of how he sees the books. There are moments where it feels like he hasn't read the books in full or has misunderstood parts of them.
I like that the creator here is opinionated and I don't mind him being subjective with his interpretations at all. I did not particularly notice any excessive cursing. It can sometimes be useful for emphasis and such.
@@SJHFoto tbh I can't make out any swears in this one, the End of Eternity video, oh yes, that had swearing and vulgarity for maybe not much reason, but this?
