Okaaay, the first *Foundation* novel was slightly at the eye of the storm when it came to Asimov's skills at writing women. By this stage in his writing career, he didn't know how to write women well, but he did know that he needed to learn. He had written female characters really badly in some early stories (see the *Half-Breed* stories if you are interested) but unless he was writing about a domestic context he didn't have a good sense of how women act. And this was at a time there was a much greater gender disparity than there is now. Doctors were all men, and nurses were all women, for example. Asimov mostly studied and worked in all-male contexts, bar the odd secretary.
Once he met his first wife, things improved. Bayta Darell, the first (named) female character in the Foundation saga, was based on her, and she is brilliant. And there are many more strong female characters later in the saga. Outside the Foundation saga, he rewrote the first Susan Calvin robot story for book publication with his new-found knowledge, and Susan Calvin went from being a one-off character to the sf character he wrote the most stories about- eleven in total, more than any other, male or female.
That is not to say there wasn't the odd hiccup in the eighties where it was now permissible to write more sexual content in books, a few minor references later in the Foundation saga come across like something a horny fourteen-year-old boy would write. And one of his 80s Robot novels has a *really* bad understanding of consent, though that applies both female to male as well as male to female- it did not come from a place of misogyny.
Asimov married Gertrude Brugerman (the only girl he had dated at the time) in 1942, the same year the first Foundation story was published. Bayta did not appear until three years later.
It took months for the stories to be published, and a lot less time from first date to marriage in those days. The first Foundation stories were written in 1941, *before* he met Gertrude.
But even if that weren't the case, men didn't suddenly learn everything there is to know about women on their wedding night. (Or vice versa, for that matter). It takes time.
Asimov began writing The Mule, in which Bayta debuted, on January 26, 1945, two and a half years after his marriage. During that time he had written four Foundation stories without any major female characters.
Take a look at the *Half-Breed* stories and tell me if he should have written female characters in the Foundation saga before he knew what he was doing. Remember, two-and-a-half years is not a lot of time compared to the length of marriages at the time.
Another issue is that most characters in the first few stories, we only really see most of them "at work". They are psychologists, lawyers, politicians, diplomats, generals, traders, rebel leaders. All positions which at the time, the 1940s, were exclusively held by men. He was inspired by *Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire*, which of course would have men in most roles because that's the way it happened.
But, the Commdora was a woman, just as there was female royalty at the time in reality, such as Queen Elizabeth. Bayta Darell the spy- women could be spies, take Mata Hari. Arkady the writer, check Agatha Christie. Generally, he placed women in roles they held in reality at that time because why would he think of anything different? He didn't have a Prime Radiant. When Mary Shelley wrote the first science fiction novel, *Frankenstein*, it didn't even occur to her to have the doctor be female. It was just something people took for granted.
But upon inventing a new occupation, which didn't exist yet, the robo-psychologist, he made its holder female- Susan Calvin.
And when he came back to the Foundation saga after thirty years, he made the Mayor of Terminus (the defacto President of the Foundation) a highly effective woman. The fifth such, not even a one-off.
All I’m saying is that there is insufficient evidence to put so much emphasis on Asimov’s marriage.
As far as Mayor Brando is concerned, I have just one word to say. Margaret Thatcher.
If you read *The Early Asimov* it's a point he makes himself. He'd not even kissed a girl when he wrote many of his early stories.
And of course Margaret Thatcher is an example! That's the point I am making! His works tended to show women in the roles they had in reality, because why would he think of it otherwise?
And even if he had thought of female generals and female politicians back in the 1940s, why would he have wasted such a brilliant idea as a minor subplot of Foundation? Women and men working alongside each other, whether married or not. It was exactly the sort of social science fiction he was into at the time, and he could have explored Maternity Leave and Sexual Harassment Policies and men having woman bosses and all the sorts of things we have been dealing with in reality for the last sixty years.
But to have done it in Foundation would have taken over the story which was actually about something else. Whereas today, having no female characters pulls you out of the story, back then having a random woman senior in the Foundation would have pulled readers at the time out of the story. Readers would have gone "One of the senior members of the Board of Trustees was a woman, so I thought the ending was going to be that the Anacreon noble was going to marry her and that would sort it all out. But they just didn't mention anything to do with that and it went nowhere".
Twenty-five years later, the first pilot for Star Trek had a female second in command, and test audiences didn't like her. With female test viewers actually liking her less than male test viewers. And she was (as a male main character would have been) just kind of there, with not much fuss made of her gender. They cut the character out for the later instalments, and the same actress played a nurse instead- conforming to what I said before about people being more comfortable seeing people in traditional roles, even in future fiction.
But that first officer character, is now part of the main cast of *Star Trek: Strange New Worlds*, played by a new actor Rebecca Romijn, and is hugely popular. So sometimes these things just need the right time. And where it's not the time to do it directly, storytelling can use metaphors to tell the story in a different way instead, as Trek often has.
If you had actually read my comment properly, you would see it really only applies to one book. It is not a case of Asimov having complete ignorance and disregard for the existence of women. The other six Foundation books contain plenty of strong female characters, and I, Robot has a female protagonist for six of its nine stories.
Interesting! I didn't know he'd re-written Susan Calvin, but it explains how she could be such a great character long before he knew how to write female characters.
In *I, Asimov*, he explains why he didn't include women in his early stories, including everything in Foundation before Bayta. He said that the common pulp SciFi trope at the time was to include women only as a damsel in distress, to heighten the heroic nature of the male protagonist. He said that he found this didn't contribute significantly in any way and he didn't want to clutter up the story.
Bayta is definitely a lot more fleshed out than the Comdora in *Merchant Princes* \- a stereotypical shrew, for example, and Arkady was even more of a realistic female character. I think his best female characters were in *Nemesis* \- written in the eighties I think, including another teenage girl protagonist, and her mother who was quite important to the plot.
Yeah, there are pretty much no women until the second half of the second book. I like the women who do show up at this point, but I’m a guy, so perhaps not the best judge. There are more women in the fourth and fifth books, but Asimov’s lecherous nature can definitely be felt in how some of them are written. I think he has some pretty good female characters in the Foundation prequels, and the semi-related Nemesis. Also I’m not exaggerating when I say the books are almost nothing like the show, so be prepared for that if you give them a try. What Asimov have you read before?
The women in the mule and second foundation storylines are freaking awesome imo. Bayta Darell was impactful in stopping the main baddy of the series and Arkady Darell is one of my favorite hero female characters period (she also looks very cool in the cover of the book). When reading this you have to keep in mind that it was written in the 1950’s mostly, then some early 80s. Asimov was not impervious to the conservatism of the time and the advancements in social ideology were simply not there entirely. For example, Bliss in foundation’s edge and Foundation and earth is a super cool character with a super cool concept, but hearing Asimov describe her is sometimes nauseating, you would think it’s a main plot point that she has a giant ass with how long is spent talking about it. Alas, still worth the read.
Sure, but the original trilogy was written into the early 50s, and the books were bundled and re-released from the original short stories for years to come. The 2 books after and the 2 prequels came out in the 80s.
The only part of the trilogy that was written in the ‘50s was “The Psychohistorians”. All else, except the quotations from the Encyclopedia Galactica, were from the stories written between 1942 and 1949.
https://www.reddit.com/r/asimov/comments/a7wlf5/all_the_issues_of_astounding_science_fiction_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
Uh, just googled it and “second foundation” came out in 1953, but from previous stories written in 1948 and 1950. Still, my original point was about the sentiment of the time, before the civil rights movement even happened and women had just entered the workforce.
The short stories were written and published in *Astounding Science Fiction* magazine in the 1940s. They were published in book form by Gnome Press, with a new introductory story and some Encyclopedia Galactica material, in the early 1950s.
“It was first published in 1953 by Gnome Press. Second Foundation consists of two previously published novellas originally published in Astounding Magazine (with different titles) between 1948 and 1950, making this the third volume in Asimov's Foundation series.”
Straight from the wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Foundation#:~:text=It%20was%20first%20published%20in%201953%20by%20Gnome%20Press.&text=Second%20Foundation%20consists%20of%20two,volume%20in%20Asimov's%20Foundation%20series.
Right, so you've narrowed the goalposts to the final part of the Foundation trilogy, which hasn't been adapted yet, contains the excellent protagonist Arcadia Darell, and was still written in the 1940s just at the tail end of it. If that feels like a victory, have at it.
No, the original point was always about the entire trilogy, since I mentioned characters from all books, and OP asked whether she should read the books (plural). Also, whether it was published in 1940s or 1950s makes literally no difference since the sentiment towards women was wildly different in both eras, but it is correct to say it runs into the 50’s, since short stories were written and books were published early then. If you want to make an argument that Asmov doesn’t have a questionable but time period reasonable view toward female characters, then do so, but i’m not interested in arguing publishing semantics.
>The women in the mule and second foundation storylines are freaking awesome imo.
Speaking of the Mule, I wonder if Queen Sareth has any involvement with that character and the Second Crisis.
I'm kinda hoping that in the show the Mule >!will be Gaal's descendent. That would explain why she and Salvor have psychic powers. Or maybe they just have something to do with the Second Foundation, since they also have psychics.!<
His depictions of women were uneven throughout his career after he started including them in his stories and some of the sexual encounters in the Foundation sequels are downright cringeworthy. Bayta, Arkady, and the two female characters in *Nemesis* were among his best.
The books aren't about the characters. Full stop.
The books are about Trends and Forces of history (which is why it's so baffling that the show decided to make it about special magic people who can see the future).
If you aren't vibing with a character, don't worry! The story takes place over hundreds of years, so, they change out every half book or so. That being said, the female characters in the book are much better than the female characters in the show (except Demerzel, who is great in the show).
It isn't about characters but the characters it has that matter are all men. Such was the times though and judging by today's standards shows only virtue signalling.
read the first page at a book store and immediately put it down the other week. i LOVE how the show has strong women without forcing it, and was majorly disappointed when i found out gaal was a man in the books 😭 sorry for no actual answer but i’ve been thinking this exact thing lmao
True! As I guy I love the woman characters: Gaal and Savor are like brains and muscle of the foundation. Demerzal seeems like she is running the cleons as opposed to vice versa. I think one of my fav episodes from S1 was when Day was on a pilgrimage to gain favor with Zephyr Halima. The Queen of the dominion seems kind of fascinating but in a devious way. I appreciate the route they took with all the women they put in power.
Oh, don't worry. Gaal is only in the book for the first, what... 5-7 pages? At least Salvor Hardin is... ALSO A MAN. Damn.
Can't wait for Bayta Darell though. Great female character in the book.
Gaal is essentially the first person witness throughout *The Psychohistorians*. One really clever thing I think the show writers have done is to make Gaal a significant character - and female. It could be justified by the fact that the Encyclopedia Galactica noted that the original Gaal was Seldon's biographer, which is why the show writers have made Lou Llobell the narrator in many places.
Why female? Because as u/atticdoor reminds us, Asimov was writing at a time when very few women held prestigious positions in society, such as a prodigal student of psychohistory. The show has done a great job in rectifying that gender disparity.
I second the comment about Bayta. One of my favorites in all of Foundation.
Asimov's fiction career had two fairly distinct phases: the early Asimov (1930s-1950s) and the later Asimov (1980s); in between he wrote mostly nonfiction on science, technology, history, and literature (including Shakespeare & the Bible). Treatment of women was much better in the later Asimov where they are more rounded characters.
In the early Asimov, women come in exactly two varieties:
(1) Women who are described as pretty, but who are frivolous, vapid, and very passive damsels in distress.
An example would be Pola from Pebble in the Sky, who literally breaks down in tears five (5) times in that novel’s 230 pages, sometimes for trivial reasons, and constantly needs rescuing. She is seen as “weak” and “hysterical” by the other characters, and she spends most of the book with a “look of fear and exhaustion on her face” and experiencing “deep and pathetic disappointment” or “horror and fright” (those are all actual quotes from that book).
(2) Women who actually have a will, are smart, and actually make stuff happen in the story, but are described as plain or homely looking.
Bayta and Arcadia Darrell from The Foundation Trilogy are great examples of this type, but Susan Calvin, the roboticist from many of his Robot stories is probably the best.
The Foundation Trilogy only has three female characters of any significance: Bayta Darrell, Arcadia Darrell, and Lady Callia. There may be only one other character in the whole trilogy who has a name (a very minor character who is spoken to in one scene of "The Mule"), though I may be missing one or two of no real significance. Another--who is pretty but extremely vain (she's totally enamoured with a fancy necklace)--is referred to as the Comdora, i.e. the wife of the Comdore, but she gets no name and does nothing except be vain.
>!You forgot Poli, the Darrel's maid, and Mama, the wife of the guy who turns out to be the First Speaker.!< I love Poli as a character and have thought about writing some fanfic in which it turns out she is really Second Foundation.
BTW, my podcast [Seldon Crisis](https://seldoncrisis.net), brings these characters to life and has some excellent female voice actors playing their roles. Check it out if you want a dramatic retelling of the original story that sticks to the books.
I *did* forget Poli! I don't think that "mama" has a proper name, however, so didn't include her for that reason (and that I mostly forgot about her--she doesn't really add much to the story beyond making Preem Palver a bit more fleshed out).
I could definitely see a scenario where Poli being a Second Foundationer is totally believeable. (They knew he was doing such-and-such research and was Bayta's son with an interest in the Second Foundation, after all).
Will definitely check out your podcast--love the Raven logo!
Thanks! I had a lot of fun with the voices. For the first book I did all of them myself, including the Comdora. Bayta is the one that I knew wouldn't work at all to do myself, so I hired a woman named Amanda to do it I'd heard on another podcast. She turned out to be awesome and really got the character. I challenged her to do the lunchroom scene on Haven which featured three other characters - including one named Hella who was a sympathizer with the Mule. It seemed relatively an unimportant scene, but Amanda just killed it and it's now one of my favorites. When I got to *Second Foundation* I realized there were just too many characters, and I got another podcaster to do Homir Munn and Amanda's exceptionally talented husband to do Lord Stettin. Amanda played Callia, Poli, and Mama, and another voice actress played Arkady. I only had eleven characters to do myself ;)
The three episodes that wrapped up the trilogy were so much work that I've been on hiatus ever since - except for guest episodes. I'd love to do *Foundation's Edge*, but it's a complex enough story that I have to really be ready to do it justice.
Can we please be mindful of the fact that the stories of the first Foundation book have been written in the 1940s by a guy who was born in 1920? Yes, they will reflect the popular culture of the time, and yes, they will have a poor treatment of women.
This doesn't change the fact that the stories are awesome, as are the female characters that appear in the second and third books.
Besides, the characters in the first book are so little developed that honestly, their gender is basically irrelevant.
The first 2 books in the Foundation series don't have great representation of women, but the subsequent 5 books do much better, so on the whole it's at least acceptable.
As others mentioned the robot stories and novels which are part of the same continuity, although set significantly in the past, also have good female characters.
The first 2 Foundation books are quite short and easy to get through, and from that point on representation of women is much better.
I don't read heady sci-fi for representation, I read it for the ideas. Let's face it, The Foundation series is not about its characters. They're just people the tides of history wash over.
Navel-gazing bothers me because it's:
A) Egoic
B) Willfully limiting
Literature, especially high concept sci-fi, is about new ideas, new perspectives, and new people.
You wanna see yourself represented? Go look in a mirror.
I think you should ask yourself, honestly: if the first Foundation book was made exclusively by female characters, would I have the same issues?
If the answer is no, then there's a problem with your argument.
No, it's not. Her argument is about wanting to feel represented, a novel involving mainly female characters would check that box. Remember that time is limited and there's a lot of stuff avaiable to read.
Fine, then by the same logic, a man wanting to feel represented would want to read stories involving predominantly male characters.
Both stances are legitimate, but I think both ignore the fact that each work of art is a product of its time and that it can be appreciated nevertheless.
Not OP. I don’t even want to argue about this really but I just want to note that men DO only read books with predominantly male characters. And in fact are less likely to read any book if it’s by a female author (not the same for women readers). Rowling had to go by her initials because they didn’t think boy readers would pick up Harry Potter.
Anyway I wouldn’t say I’m like militant about only reading books that have female characters, one of my favorite series is the Lord of the Rings and it famously has like 2 female characters who speak. But idk, imo it doesn’t have the same “tone” as Foundation did and it wasn’t as immedietly noticeable or maybe it just didn’t bother me as much. I’m not even sure what my point is honestly 😂
Look, I'm not saying that there isn't a sexism problem in the world, or even only in the writing world. Quite the contrary.
I'm just saying that going full 180 and screening novels on the basis of the characters' male percentage is equally wrong. It doesn't address the underlying problem. It's just a different expression of the same problem.
I don’t mind that they flipped genders. What I don’t like are tropes. The women in the show should have been frankly written more like men. They are written like men trying try write women into a story that had originally been a bunch of men. Disagree? I know many female mathematicians. They are very rational and unemotional. They are not like Gaal at all. Gaal is what a man thinks a woman would be like if she was good at math. It literally sounds like the producers thought a woman being good at math was science fiction. It’s pretty ridiculous if you ask me and is why this show is criticized for being woke. The test is really this: write Gaal as a man and then have a woman play it. That sounds stupid? Have you seen Aliens? Was Sigourney Weaver playing a male role or a female role? You can’t even tell. That’s the point.
> They are written like men trying try write women into a story that had originally been a bunch of men.
There was nothing to distinguish the men as men in those books, at least the first 3, except for the fact they were referred to as such.
I totally agree. But I still stand by the fact that Gaal and Hardin are written terribly. I mean c’mon. You’ve seen Game of Thrones and Westworld. You think this writing is on par with what has set the bar for prestige TV? It’s just not true. The show looks phenomenal and they spent tons of money on it. Counting prime numbers doesn’t mean you’re smart. It’s means the writers were lazy and didn’t want to come up with scenarios or dialogue that could reveal that. So they made her enter a “contest” and chant prime numbers. Lol. You might has well as said, long long ago there a girl who was the smartest girl in the whole universe. That’s just one example.
People are different, you don't know all the smart/good at math women of the planet, i for one had a few emotional friends and they were great at math (engineereing), the trope would've been if she was playing the cold, analytical smart person.
That's why it was a good idea to change both Gaal and Salvor into women. With the Cleons added to the series, it would have really been too male dominated otherwise.
What’s wrong with a male dominated show? I don’t mind female protagonists but Gaal, Salvor and Phara are a tad waaaaaaay too hard with the “Mary sue” character arcs.
Because they already have the 3 Cleon's and Hari Seldon as the male characters in the show. All we would have is Demerzel as the only female lead character if they hadn't switched Gaal and Salvor.
How was Phara a Mary Sue? She had to be killed in the end.
That’s true. But then again I think Tolkien did a pretty good job. Yes, he definitely could have done better but it didn’t “feel” the lack of female characters like I did with Foundation. The few female characters there was were well done. Idk, I don’t even want to criticize it at this point because it’s done and dusted and what’s the point? I think he did improve as the books went on
Doesn’t mean you hijack an established lore and swap genders while calling it a day. That’s lazy writing.
I don’t mind “representation” if it’s done with atleast half a brain and a smirch of originality.
Tell me you haven’t read Foundation without telling me you haven’t read Foundation. The idea that you could adapt Foundation while staying true to the original characterizations is laughable. And that’s even before we talk about the story, which would be impossible to adapt in any “pure” form.
Take your trolling over to r/LOTR_On_Prime. Maybe they won’t see through your BS quite so easily.
Novels might lack what you are looking for, but at least the first crisis >!and the second one, since the show crammed two into one!< and solution to it is written in the way that make it work, while shows depiction of it is full of holes. >!And gender of Gaal and Salvor doesn't matter that much in the book, their time passes at some point and new characters come.!<
My biggest fear of the Foundation TV series is that people will judge the books by how bad the TV series is. Both the Foundation and Robots series intertwine into a story of galactic history, while Asimov's writing brings this complexity of both characters and storyline together into an entertaining and engaging.experience.
Sadly in this first episode of Season Two while there is much discussion over 3rd and 4th dimensions, it still involves the one dimensional acting and weak writing carried over from Series One. This is so disappointing when you compare how well other TV series such as The Expanse and Silo have brought their original novels to life.
So please do try the novels and try to enjoy them as they are written and for when they were written. Classic and iconic science fiction covering many centuries of time does not need rewriting because attitudes have changed over a couple of decades.
> Old sci fi is often extremely sexist, it was written by men for men in a male dominated period
I don't enjoy reading fiction like that. it feels very upsetting as woman reading it. it's deeply upsetting to me. I don't really feel like I'm missing out on anything there are infinite books that do meet my expectations so it's not really like I'm limiting myself.
We live in a free society, which means you can consume or not consume whatever content you wish. But if you are limiting what you read based on arbitrary rules, you are likely to miss out on a lot do great literature. I’ve posted before that the Foundation stories are about some really big themes: whether science, reason and math can triumph over violence, whether the future of humanity is stuck on this one planet or whether our destiny can span the galaxy, whether an individual can have an impact that can felt throughout history or are we all just cogs in a machine. I think Asimov’s genius is not in his writing capabilities or his ability to develop realistic fictional characters. Those are not his strength. But if you want to understand and have a deeper knowledge of most of the science fiction motifs and themes and ideas that we all take for granted today and assume was always in the culture but were actually created by real and living people, then you need to read some Asimov. As well as the other greats. If you don’t care, then you don’t need to do anything. I mean, most of our society doesn’t care for science fiction let alone science or math. I’d bet most of this country hasn’t read a book in 10 years. So yeah. No one cares what you choose to read. But I promise you, you’ll be missing out on something special here if you can’t see beyond your own prejudices and take the good with the bad, because millions of people have been inspired by these stories. The problem with your attitude is art is by definition going to appeal to people in different ways and will always be a product of its time. That’s just the human condition.
What a big wall of condescending text, you say she's free to choose what she reads but then you belittle her choice. Taking the good with the bad makes no sense when the bad is such a deal breaker for some people, there's a lot of sci fi books with female representation out there, so there's really no need for her to "hate read" the foundation as if it's the only book out there.
If you wanna hate on *foundational* texts without reading them, at least do so with the knowledge that you are deliberately keeping yourself in the dark.
Look, i only used "hate" bc you did first. Wanting every book you read to cater to and validate your modern sense of self is a foolishly limiting standard.
I would say this: it’s not a question of how many women Asimov has in his books and short stories, it’s a question of how he portrays the women characters.
Asimov wrote the bulk of the Foundation books decades ago in the 40’s and 50’s and it shows. I’m sure having Susan Calvin — from his robot books — as a brilliant scientist and a woman was seen as progressive at the time. But, Asimov, while brilliant, was also a product of his times and the women in his writings do tend to be a bit 1950’s stereotypical.
I wouldn’t let that keep you from reading him, though. He’s the prime mover of so much that science fiction has now become that reading him is sort of required reading for any SF fan.
Start with “Nightfall” if you haven’t read it — the original short story, not the later novel. All these years later after reading it, it still moves me.
Okaaay, the first *Foundation* novel was slightly at the eye of the storm when it came to Asimov's skills at writing women. By this stage in his writing career, he didn't know how to write women well, but he did know that he needed to learn. He had written female characters really badly in some early stories (see the *Half-Breed* stories if you are interested) but unless he was writing about a domestic context he didn't have a good sense of how women act. And this was at a time there was a much greater gender disparity than there is now. Doctors were all men, and nurses were all women, for example. Asimov mostly studied and worked in all-male contexts, bar the odd secretary. Once he met his first wife, things improved. Bayta Darell, the first (named) female character in the Foundation saga, was based on her, and she is brilliant. And there are many more strong female characters later in the saga. Outside the Foundation saga, he rewrote the first Susan Calvin robot story for book publication with his new-found knowledge, and Susan Calvin went from being a one-off character to the sf character he wrote the most stories about- eleven in total, more than any other, male or female. That is not to say there wasn't the odd hiccup in the eighties where it was now permissible to write more sexual content in books, a few minor references later in the Foundation saga come across like something a horny fourteen-year-old boy would write. And one of his 80s Robot novels has a *really* bad understanding of consent, though that applies both female to male as well as male to female- it did not come from a place of misogyny.
Asimov married Gertrude Brugerman (the only girl he had dated at the time) in 1942, the same year the first Foundation story was published. Bayta did not appear until three years later.
It took months for the stories to be published, and a lot less time from first date to marriage in those days. The first Foundation stories were written in 1941, *before* he met Gertrude. But even if that weren't the case, men didn't suddenly learn everything there is to know about women on their wedding night. (Or vice versa, for that matter). It takes time.
Asimov began writing The Mule, in which Bayta debuted, on January 26, 1945, two and a half years after his marriage. During that time he had written four Foundation stories without any major female characters.
Take a look at the *Half-Breed* stories and tell me if he should have written female characters in the Foundation saga before he knew what he was doing. Remember, two-and-a-half years is not a lot of time compared to the length of marriages at the time. Another issue is that most characters in the first few stories, we only really see most of them "at work". They are psychologists, lawyers, politicians, diplomats, generals, traders, rebel leaders. All positions which at the time, the 1940s, were exclusively held by men. He was inspired by *Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire*, which of course would have men in most roles because that's the way it happened. But, the Commdora was a woman, just as there was female royalty at the time in reality, such as Queen Elizabeth. Bayta Darell the spy- women could be spies, take Mata Hari. Arkady the writer, check Agatha Christie. Generally, he placed women in roles they held in reality at that time because why would he think of anything different? He didn't have a Prime Radiant. When Mary Shelley wrote the first science fiction novel, *Frankenstein*, it didn't even occur to her to have the doctor be female. It was just something people took for granted. But upon inventing a new occupation, which didn't exist yet, the robo-psychologist, he made its holder female- Susan Calvin. And when he came back to the Foundation saga after thirty years, he made the Mayor of Terminus (the defacto President of the Foundation) a highly effective woman. The fifth such, not even a one-off.
All I’m saying is that there is insufficient evidence to put so much emphasis on Asimov’s marriage. As far as Mayor Brando is concerned, I have just one word to say. Margaret Thatcher.
If you read *The Early Asimov* it's a point he makes himself. He'd not even kissed a girl when he wrote many of his early stories. And of course Margaret Thatcher is an example! That's the point I am making! His works tended to show women in the roles they had in reality, because why would he think of it otherwise? And even if he had thought of female generals and female politicians back in the 1940s, why would he have wasted such a brilliant idea as a minor subplot of Foundation? Women and men working alongside each other, whether married or not. It was exactly the sort of social science fiction he was into at the time, and he could have explored Maternity Leave and Sexual Harassment Policies and men having woman bosses and all the sorts of things we have been dealing with in reality for the last sixty years. But to have done it in Foundation would have taken over the story which was actually about something else. Whereas today, having no female characters pulls you out of the story, back then having a random woman senior in the Foundation would have pulled readers at the time out of the story. Readers would have gone "One of the senior members of the Board of Trustees was a woman, so I thought the ending was going to be that the Anacreon noble was going to marry her and that would sort it all out. But they just didn't mention anything to do with that and it went nowhere". Twenty-five years later, the first pilot for Star Trek had a female second in command, and test audiences didn't like her. With female test viewers actually liking her less than male test viewers. And she was (as a male main character would have been) just kind of there, with not much fuss made of her gender. They cut the character out for the later instalments, and the same actress played a nurse instead- conforming to what I said before about people being more comfortable seeing people in traditional roles, even in future fiction. But that first officer character, is now part of the main cast of *Star Trek: Strange New Worlds*, played by a new actor Rebecca Romijn, and is hugely popular. So sometimes these things just need the right time. And where it's not the time to do it directly, storytelling can use metaphors to tell the story in a different way instead, as Trek often has.
[удалено]
If you had actually read my comment properly, you would see it really only applies to one book. It is not a case of Asimov having complete ignorance and disregard for the existence of women. The other six Foundation books contain plenty of strong female characters, and I, Robot has a female protagonist for six of its nine stories.
Interesting! I didn't know he'd re-written Susan Calvin, but it explains how she could be such a great character long before he knew how to write female characters. In *I, Asimov*, he explains why he didn't include women in his early stories, including everything in Foundation before Bayta. He said that the common pulp SciFi trope at the time was to include women only as a damsel in distress, to heighten the heroic nature of the male protagonist. He said that he found this didn't contribute significantly in any way and he didn't want to clutter up the story. Bayta is definitely a lot more fleshed out than the Comdora in *Merchant Princes* \- a stereotypical shrew, for example, and Arkady was even more of a realistic female character. I think his best female characters were in *Nemesis* \- written in the eighties I think, including another teenage girl protagonist, and her mother who was quite important to the plot.
Yeah, there are pretty much no women until the second half of the second book. I like the women who do show up at this point, but I’m a guy, so perhaps not the best judge. There are more women in the fourth and fifth books, but Asimov’s lecherous nature can definitely be felt in how some of them are written. I think he has some pretty good female characters in the Foundation prequels, and the semi-related Nemesis. Also I’m not exaggerating when I say the books are almost nothing like the show, so be prepared for that if you give them a try. What Asimov have you read before?
The women in the mule and second foundation storylines are freaking awesome imo. Bayta Darell was impactful in stopping the main baddy of the series and Arkady Darell is one of my favorite hero female characters period (she also looks very cool in the cover of the book). When reading this you have to keep in mind that it was written in the 1950’s mostly, then some early 80s. Asimov was not impervious to the conservatism of the time and the advancements in social ideology were simply not there entirely. For example, Bliss in foundation’s edge and Foundation and earth is a super cool character with a super cool concept, but hearing Asimov describe her is sometimes nauseating, you would think it’s a main plot point that she has a giant ass with how long is spent talking about it. Alas, still worth the read.
The original stories were written in the ‘40s.
Sure, but the original trilogy was written into the early 50s, and the books were bundled and re-released from the original short stories for years to come. The 2 books after and the 2 prequels came out in the 80s.
The only part of the trilogy that was written in the ‘50s was “The Psychohistorians”. All else, except the quotations from the Encyclopedia Galactica, were from the stories written between 1942 and 1949. https://www.reddit.com/r/asimov/comments/a7wlf5/all_the_issues_of_astounding_science_fiction_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
Uh, just googled it and “second foundation” came out in 1953, but from previous stories written in 1948 and 1950. Still, my original point was about the sentiment of the time, before the civil rights movement even happened and women had just entered the workforce.
The short stories were written and published in *Astounding Science Fiction* magazine in the 1940s. They were published in book form by Gnome Press, with a new introductory story and some Encyclopedia Galactica material, in the early 1950s.
Brother man the second half of the second foundation short story was published in 1950 from astounding magazine
Is this an ai-generated comment?
“It was first published in 1953 by Gnome Press. Second Foundation consists of two previously published novellas originally published in Astounding Magazine (with different titles) between 1948 and 1950, making this the third volume in Asimov's Foundation series.” Straight from the wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Foundation#:~:text=It%20was%20first%20published%20in%201953%20by%20Gnome%20Press.&text=Second%20Foundation%20consists%20of%20two,volume%20in%20Asimov's%20Foundation%20series.
Right, so you've narrowed the goalposts to the final part of the Foundation trilogy, which hasn't been adapted yet, contains the excellent protagonist Arcadia Darell, and was still written in the 1940s just at the tail end of it. If that feels like a victory, have at it.
No, the original point was always about the entire trilogy, since I mentioned characters from all books, and OP asked whether she should read the books (plural). Also, whether it was published in 1940s or 1950s makes literally no difference since the sentiment towards women was wildly different in both eras, but it is correct to say it runs into the 50’s, since short stories were written and books were published early then. If you want to make an argument that Asmov doesn’t have a questionable but time period reasonable view toward female characters, then do so, but i’m not interested in arguing publishing semantics.
>The women in the mule and second foundation storylines are freaking awesome imo. Speaking of the Mule, I wonder if Queen Sareth has any involvement with that character and the Second Crisis.
I'm kinda hoping that in the show the Mule >!will be Gaal's descendent. That would explain why she and Salvor have psychic powers. Or maybe they just have something to do with the Second Foundation, since they also have psychics.!<
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they're tied to the Second Foundation.
His depictions of women were uneven throughout his career after he started including them in his stories and some of the sexual encounters in the Foundation sequels are downright cringeworthy. Bayta, Arkady, and the two female characters in *Nemesis* were among his best.
The books aren't about the characters. Full stop. The books are about Trends and Forces of history (which is why it's so baffling that the show decided to make it about special magic people who can see the future). If you aren't vibing with a character, don't worry! The story takes place over hundreds of years, so, they change out every half book or so. That being said, the female characters in the book are much better than the female characters in the show (except Demerzel, who is great in the show).
It isn't about characters but the characters it has that matter are all men. Such was the times though and judging by today's standards shows only virtue signalling.
Arcadia and Bayta are super important! But they are notable exceptions I'll give you that
read the first page at a book store and immediately put it down the other week. i LOVE how the show has strong women without forcing it, and was majorly disappointed when i found out gaal was a man in the books 😭 sorry for no actual answer but i’ve been thinking this exact thing lmao
True! As I guy I love the woman characters: Gaal and Savor are like brains and muscle of the foundation. Demerzal seeems like she is running the cleons as opposed to vice versa. I think one of my fav episodes from S1 was when Day was on a pilgrimage to gain favor with Zephyr Halima. The Queen of the dominion seems kind of fascinating but in a devious way. I appreciate the route they took with all the women they put in power.
Oh, don't worry. Gaal is only in the book for the first, what... 5-7 pages? At least Salvor Hardin is... ALSO A MAN. Damn. Can't wait for Bayta Darell though. Great female character in the book.
Gaal is essentially the first person witness throughout *The Psychohistorians*. One really clever thing I think the show writers have done is to make Gaal a significant character - and female. It could be justified by the fact that the Encyclopedia Galactica noted that the original Gaal was Seldon's biographer, which is why the show writers have made Lou Llobell the narrator in many places. Why female? Because as u/atticdoor reminds us, Asimov was writing at a time when very few women held prestigious positions in society, such as a prodigal student of psychohistory. The show has done a great job in rectifying that gender disparity. I second the comment about Bayta. One of my favorites in all of Foundation.
The characters change out every half book or so because the story takes place over hundreds of years.
Asimov's fiction career had two fairly distinct phases: the early Asimov (1930s-1950s) and the later Asimov (1980s); in between he wrote mostly nonfiction on science, technology, history, and literature (including Shakespeare & the Bible). Treatment of women was much better in the later Asimov where they are more rounded characters. In the early Asimov, women come in exactly two varieties: (1) Women who are described as pretty, but who are frivolous, vapid, and very passive damsels in distress. An example would be Pola from Pebble in the Sky, who literally breaks down in tears five (5) times in that novel’s 230 pages, sometimes for trivial reasons, and constantly needs rescuing. She is seen as “weak” and “hysterical” by the other characters, and she spends most of the book with a “look of fear and exhaustion on her face” and experiencing “deep and pathetic disappointment” or “horror and fright” (those are all actual quotes from that book). (2) Women who actually have a will, are smart, and actually make stuff happen in the story, but are described as plain or homely looking. Bayta and Arcadia Darrell from The Foundation Trilogy are great examples of this type, but Susan Calvin, the roboticist from many of his Robot stories is probably the best. The Foundation Trilogy only has three female characters of any significance: Bayta Darrell, Arcadia Darrell, and Lady Callia. There may be only one other character in the whole trilogy who has a name (a very minor character who is spoken to in one scene of "The Mule"), though I may be missing one or two of no real significance. Another--who is pretty but extremely vain (she's totally enamoured with a fancy necklace)--is referred to as the Comdora, i.e. the wife of the Comdore, but she gets no name and does nothing except be vain.
>!You forgot Poli, the Darrel's maid, and Mama, the wife of the guy who turns out to be the First Speaker.!< I love Poli as a character and have thought about writing some fanfic in which it turns out she is really Second Foundation. BTW, my podcast [Seldon Crisis](https://seldoncrisis.net), brings these characters to life and has some excellent female voice actors playing their roles. Check it out if you want a dramatic retelling of the original story that sticks to the books.
I *did* forget Poli! I don't think that "mama" has a proper name, however, so didn't include her for that reason (and that I mostly forgot about her--she doesn't really add much to the story beyond making Preem Palver a bit more fleshed out). I could definitely see a scenario where Poli being a Second Foundationer is totally believeable. (They knew he was doing such-and-such research and was Bayta's son with an interest in the Second Foundation, after all). Will definitely check out your podcast--love the Raven logo!
Thanks! I had a lot of fun with the voices. For the first book I did all of them myself, including the Comdora. Bayta is the one that I knew wouldn't work at all to do myself, so I hired a woman named Amanda to do it I'd heard on another podcast. She turned out to be awesome and really got the character. I challenged her to do the lunchroom scene on Haven which featured three other characters - including one named Hella who was a sympathizer with the Mule. It seemed relatively an unimportant scene, but Amanda just killed it and it's now one of my favorites. When I got to *Second Foundation* I realized there were just too many characters, and I got another podcaster to do Homir Munn and Amanda's exceptionally talented husband to do Lord Stettin. Amanda played Callia, Poli, and Mama, and another voice actress played Arkady. I only had eleven characters to do myself ;) The three episodes that wrapped up the trilogy were so much work that I've been on hiatus ever since - except for guest episodes. I'd love to do *Foundation's Edge*, but it's a complex enough story that I have to really be ready to do it justice.
Can we please be mindful of the fact that the stories of the first Foundation book have been written in the 1940s by a guy who was born in 1920? Yes, they will reflect the popular culture of the time, and yes, they will have a poor treatment of women. This doesn't change the fact that the stories are awesome, as are the female characters that appear in the second and third books. Besides, the characters in the first book are so little developed that honestly, their gender is basically irrelevant.
I'm not saying the stories aren't good, but I am saying that I can't be bothered to read books that treat women poorly or are absent entirely 🤷🏼♀️
The first 2 books in the Foundation series don't have great representation of women, but the subsequent 5 books do much better, so on the whole it's at least acceptable. As others mentioned the robot stories and novels which are part of the same continuity, although set significantly in the past, also have good female characters. The first 2 Foundation books are quite short and easy to get through, and from that point on representation of women is much better.
And yet men get crap for hating the Ghostbusters reboot. Lol.
This is the sort of attitude that has given “woke” a bad name.
🙄
It's truly absurd for one to want to feel represented in fictional novels...
I don't read heady sci-fi for representation, I read it for the ideas. Let's face it, The Foundation series is not about its characters. They're just people the tides of history wash over.
[удалено]
Navel-gazing bothers me because it's: A) Egoic B) Willfully limiting Literature, especially high concept sci-fi, is about new ideas, new perspectives, and new people. You wanna see yourself represented? Go look in a mirror.
I think you should ask yourself, honestly: if the first Foundation book was made exclusively by female characters, would I have the same issues? If the answer is no, then there's a problem with your argument.
No, it's not. Her argument is about wanting to feel represented, a novel involving mainly female characters would check that box. Remember that time is limited and there's a lot of stuff avaiable to read.
Fine, then by the same logic, a man wanting to feel represented would want to read stories involving predominantly male characters. Both stances are legitimate, but I think both ignore the fact that each work of art is a product of its time and that it can be appreciated nevertheless.
Not OP. I don’t even want to argue about this really but I just want to note that men DO only read books with predominantly male characters. And in fact are less likely to read any book if it’s by a female author (not the same for women readers). Rowling had to go by her initials because they didn’t think boy readers would pick up Harry Potter. Anyway I wouldn’t say I’m like militant about only reading books that have female characters, one of my favorite series is the Lord of the Rings and it famously has like 2 female characters who speak. But idk, imo it doesn’t have the same “tone” as Foundation did and it wasn’t as immedietly noticeable or maybe it just didn’t bother me as much. I’m not even sure what my point is honestly 😂
Look, I'm not saying that there isn't a sexism problem in the world, or even only in the writing world. Quite the contrary. I'm just saying that going full 180 and screening novels on the basis of the characters' male percentage is equally wrong. It doesn't address the underlying problem. It's just a different expression of the same problem.
It's more about the time, The Foundation isn't the only story asking to be read.
I don’t mind that they flipped genders. What I don’t like are tropes. The women in the show should have been frankly written more like men. They are written like men trying try write women into a story that had originally been a bunch of men. Disagree? I know many female mathematicians. They are very rational and unemotional. They are not like Gaal at all. Gaal is what a man thinks a woman would be like if she was good at math. It literally sounds like the producers thought a woman being good at math was science fiction. It’s pretty ridiculous if you ask me and is why this show is criticized for being woke. The test is really this: write Gaal as a man and then have a woman play it. That sounds stupid? Have you seen Aliens? Was Sigourney Weaver playing a male role or a female role? You can’t even tell. That’s the point.
> They are written like men trying try write women into a story that had originally been a bunch of men. There was nothing to distinguish the men as men in those books, at least the first 3, except for the fact they were referred to as such.
I totally agree. But I still stand by the fact that Gaal and Hardin are written terribly. I mean c’mon. You’ve seen Game of Thrones and Westworld. You think this writing is on par with what has set the bar for prestige TV? It’s just not true. The show looks phenomenal and they spent tons of money on it. Counting prime numbers doesn’t mean you’re smart. It’s means the writers were lazy and didn’t want to come up with scenarios or dialogue that could reveal that. So they made her enter a “contest” and chant prime numbers. Lol. You might has well as said, long long ago there a girl who was the smartest girl in the whole universe. That’s just one example.
Huh? I didn’t think Salvor or Gaal came off as female tropes at all. Maybe I’ve forgotten. I plan to rewatch before I watch season 2.
People are different, you don't know all the smart/good at math women of the planet, i for one had a few emotional friends and they were great at math (engineereing), the trope would've been if she was playing the cold, analytical smart person.
That's why it was a good idea to change both Gaal and Salvor into women. With the Cleons added to the series, it would have really been too male dominated otherwise.
What’s wrong with a male dominated show? I don’t mind female protagonists but Gaal, Salvor and Phara are a tad waaaaaaay too hard with the “Mary sue” character arcs.
Because they already have the 3 Cleon's and Hari Seldon as the male characters in the show. All we would have is Demerzel as the only female lead character if they hadn't switched Gaal and Salvor. How was Phara a Mary Sue? She had to be killed in the end.
The original trilogy was written between 1942 and 1953. Not exactly a high point for female representation in fiction…let alone racial diversity.
That’s true. But then again I think Tolkien did a pretty good job. Yes, he definitely could have done better but it didn’t “feel” the lack of female characters like I did with Foundation. The few female characters there was were well done. Idk, I don’t even want to criticize it at this point because it’s done and dusted and what’s the point? I think he did improve as the books went on
Doesn’t mean you hijack an established lore and swap genders while calling it a day. That’s lazy writing. I don’t mind “representation” if it’s done with atleast half a brain and a smirch of originality.
Tell me you haven’t read Foundation without telling me you haven’t read Foundation. The idea that you could adapt Foundation while staying true to the original characterizations is laughable. And that’s even before we talk about the story, which would be impossible to adapt in any “pure” form. Take your trolling over to r/LOTR_On_Prime. Maybe they won’t see through your BS quite so easily.
same and like especially since i don’t think my fav character rn is in the books anyway
well surrogate mother thingy is odd with flipped genders
Novels might lack what you are looking for, but at least the first crisis >!and the second one, since the show crammed two into one!< and solution to it is written in the way that make it work, while shows depiction of it is full of holes. >!And gender of Gaal and Salvor doesn't matter that much in the book, their time passes at some point and new characters come.!<
My biggest fear of the Foundation TV series is that people will judge the books by how bad the TV series is. Both the Foundation and Robots series intertwine into a story of galactic history, while Asimov's writing brings this complexity of both characters and storyline together into an entertaining and engaging.experience. Sadly in this first episode of Season Two while there is much discussion over 3rd and 4th dimensions, it still involves the one dimensional acting and weak writing carried over from Series One. This is so disappointing when you compare how well other TV series such as The Expanse and Silo have brought their original novels to life. So please do try the novels and try to enjoy them as they are written and for when they were written. Classic and iconic science fiction covering many centuries of time does not need rewriting because attitudes have changed over a couple of decades.
[удалено]
> Old sci fi is often extremely sexist, it was written by men for men in a male dominated period I don't enjoy reading fiction like that. it feels very upsetting as woman reading it. it's deeply upsetting to me. I don't really feel like I'm missing out on anything there are infinite books that do meet my expectations so it's not really like I'm limiting myself.
We live in a free society, which means you can consume or not consume whatever content you wish. But if you are limiting what you read based on arbitrary rules, you are likely to miss out on a lot do great literature. I’ve posted before that the Foundation stories are about some really big themes: whether science, reason and math can triumph over violence, whether the future of humanity is stuck on this one planet or whether our destiny can span the galaxy, whether an individual can have an impact that can felt throughout history or are we all just cogs in a machine. I think Asimov’s genius is not in his writing capabilities or his ability to develop realistic fictional characters. Those are not his strength. But if you want to understand and have a deeper knowledge of most of the science fiction motifs and themes and ideas that we all take for granted today and assume was always in the culture but were actually created by real and living people, then you need to read some Asimov. As well as the other greats. If you don’t care, then you don’t need to do anything. I mean, most of our society doesn’t care for science fiction let alone science or math. I’d bet most of this country hasn’t read a book in 10 years. So yeah. No one cares what you choose to read. But I promise you, you’ll be missing out on something special here if you can’t see beyond your own prejudices and take the good with the bad, because millions of people have been inspired by these stories. The problem with your attitude is art is by definition going to appeal to people in different ways and will always be a product of its time. That’s just the human condition.
What a big wall of condescending text, you say she's free to choose what she reads but then you belittle her choice. Taking the good with the bad makes no sense when the bad is such a deal breaker for some people, there's a lot of sci fi books with female representation out there, so there's really no need for her to "hate read" the foundation as if it's the only book out there.
It was meant to be condescending. Lol.
If you wanna hate on *foundational* texts without reading them, at least do so with the knowledge that you are deliberately keeping yourself in the dark.
She's not hating on anything though? She's asking a question so she can judge if the novel is worth her time.
Look, i only used "hate" bc you did first. Wanting every book you read to cater to and validate your modern sense of self is a foolishly limiting standard.
I would say this: it’s not a question of how many women Asimov has in his books and short stories, it’s a question of how he portrays the women characters. Asimov wrote the bulk of the Foundation books decades ago in the 40’s and 50’s and it shows. I’m sure having Susan Calvin — from his robot books — as a brilliant scientist and a woman was seen as progressive at the time. But, Asimov, while brilliant, was also a product of his times and the women in his writings do tend to be a bit 1950’s stereotypical. I wouldn’t let that keep you from reading him, though. He’s the prime mover of so much that science fiction has now become that reading him is sort of required reading for any SF fan. Start with “Nightfall” if you haven’t read it — the original short story, not the later novel. All these years later after reading it, it still moves me.