• Moneo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Can someone explain the draw of foundations. I found it incredibly boring in terms of prose, structure and overall concepts.

      I will admit that I straight up don’t vibe with the main gimmick, the fact that they can essentially predict the future by knowing enough about the past. Chaos theory throws a massive wrench in that idea and I found it hard to get in to the novel when so much relied on a concept that makes no sense practically.

      • Kaput@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        For my part I like how psycho history is like thermodynamics. Harry seldom is not predicting the future as much as tweaking a closed system’s evolution. The galaxy is huge and populated enough to be governed by statistics, yet estill limited to be closed system. The “Mule”? I know only the French name Mulet" does throw a wrench in the whole thing aka chaos. That is why there are two foundations the second one manages the unpredictable events.

        As for the writing style well that’s a matter of taste, I love Asimov’s style but am not literate enough to explain why.

      • herrvogel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        This is going to be spoilers:

        It doesn’t work in the books either. Chaos takes over and throws the long term predictions out of the window. Seldon’s plan doesn’t stay alive on its own because his math was prescient, it is actively kept alive by certain people’s deliberate actions and careful interventions to make sure the “predicted path” becomes a reality. It’s practically a millennium long social engineering project that needs constant supervision and babying from people who use a very effective statistical model to make decisions.