posted
That's second - foundation trilogy, not a trilogy about the second foundation. It's series of three books written by authors commissioned by Asimov's estate in the Foundation universe. I saw the first one Foundation's Fear in a used book shop, so I picked it up. I'm really not enjoying it much at all.
Have other people read these? What did you think and is it worth it to try the other two?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As much as I love some of Asimov's work, I never got into his Foundation books. Too dry for me.
I tend to stay away from books which cleverly try to seem to have been written by an author, usually printing the deceased Author's name in bold type, while hiding the "written by someone else" small at the bottom.
In every case where I've read one, it hasn't lived up to the original.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's second - foundation trilogy, not a trilogy about the second foundation. It's series of three books written by authors commissioned by Asimov's estate in the Foundation universe. I saw the first one Foundation's Fear in a used book shop, so I picked it up. I'm really not enjoying it much at all.
Have other people read these? What did you think and is it worth it to try the other two?
I like most of what I've read by the three B's. Brin, Bear and Benford are all excellent writers.
I couldn't even finish the first book in this horrible trilogy. And I've tried twice, so far. There's like a paragraph here and a paragraph there of stuff that's of any interest whatsoever, and then they go back to the reconstructions of Voltaire and Jean d'Arc. Spare me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I mean there were some lame parts (the Voltaire/Joan sims were introduced with little explanation, leaving me scratching my head for a number of pages. Then they went on and on and on...ad nauseum.) But I like alot of the ideas. And the 2nd and 3rd books were pretty cool since they dealt with other robots who were not followers of Daneel and their view on Daneel and the Zeroth laws. Giskardians and Calvinians, I think they were. I don't know. I liked alot of the discussion they had. And there was a nice setup to Foundation 5&6. Psychohistory was more mathematically described, which I've always wanted to envision.
I could think of worse books. They were interesting and explained alot of things that might have been left out.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. I found them fascinating, well-written extrapolations of where Asimov seemed to be going with the series when he died. The style was very different from Asimov's--they weren't trying to mimic him at all--but the ideas felt like they were his.
Maybe it's just me and my lack of aesthetic judgement again.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
