Rating: 
Summary: The forward should contain an apology to the Asimov estate
Review: Simply put, this book does not fit any of the Foundation books. The characters act in ways different from Asimov's (including drug use) and the book goes *nowhere*. It introduces nothing of value to the series and left me wondering why I was so insistent on finishing it.If you insist on buying it, don't spend American money on it.
Rating: 
Summary: Foundation's Filler
Review: While I enjoyed the book I thought that the inclusion of the Joan of Arc and Voltaire characters were largely filler. The book would have been as good without them and would have left space for more development of the main characters.
Rating: 
Summary: A crime against The Grandmaster's beautiful universe.
Review: Confusing as hell. Chopped up into several poorly fitting pieces, containing teaser plot lines that are completely forgotten before they have a chance to go anywhere and focusing on all of the wrong things. I was befuddled by Benford's bizarre decision to just ignore all the other novels and force wormholes on the Glactic Empire when they seemed to have been managing quite well for twenty thousand years with just good old hyperdrives. The whole thing feels false, and while I'm sure Benford tried, (who would purposely make themselves the destroyers of Isaac Asimov's work?), I have to question whether he was completely ready for a project such as this. Did he publish the rough draft by mistake?
Rating:
Summary: More aptly titled - Foundation and Brute Force!
Review: As a loyal reader of the 'Foundation', 'Empire' and 'Robot' series and of Asimov himself - it was pure joy to find the series being continued by well-respected authors after Asimov's death. That joy has now turned into dread as I close the covers of 'Foundation's Fear'.... Bear better be better or else Brin won't get a look in. ;-) In honour of the clear and conciseness of the Good Doctor.... 1. This is NOT a Foundation book. Those who are going into it with that expectation please ditch it now - or else you'd end up like me and hate the book. This is a Benford book set in a 'Benford-altered' Foundation universe. 2. Having never read Benford before this, I hope this is not his normal style. Perhaps the author noticed the mess himself, as hinted by the comment in the Afterward: "Those who think it is easy to write clearly ... should try it"). Hallmark of a badly written novel - when you find yourself grappling to UNDERSTAND what the author is trying to say through that ornate prose and end up not even caring whether you do or not. Nobody writes as clearly as does Asimov, but surely they can find someone who does better than this! 3. The neologisms ... UGH! Perhaps it's just me, but lots of techno-babble does not equal hard SF. Intergrating technical information seamlessly into the narrative is a skill that Benford doesn't seem to appreciate. And calling a spade a spade does not detract from the science. Words such as 'mathist', 'stim', 'sim', 'pan'; 'meritocrats', 'tiktoks', 'memes' etc etc etc do not add to the narrative. It took me 8 pages to figure out what a 'pan' is - call me dumb if you will but I don't believe this kind of thing doesn't detract from the story. 4. Professor of Physics or not - Mr. Benford, you're now in someone else's universe, please show some respect. Wormholes are en vogue today - who knows what will be in 10 years time. Throwing them into a galaxy that did very well without them for 16 books for the sake of 'up-dating' is arrogant and will, I suspect, date 'Foundation's Fear' more than otherwise. Perhaps I could've accepted them had they been central to the plot - alas, they were not. 5. Hari Seldon as James Bond doesn't work. If I wanted to read action-adventure, I would. I can just imagine Roger Moore jumping out of that elevator shaft, dusting off his jacket and saying to the on-lookers: "Just dropping in." That is NOT Hari Seldon. Speaking of which... what's happened to Seldon anyway? He is confused, impatient, apathetic, cold and hard. In 'Forward the Foundation' Asimov clearly explains that Seldon is his alter ego. I can see the Good Doctor turning in his grave. 6. And speaking of turning in his grave - the VIOLENCE oh the violence of the book. Asimov is one of the last frontiers of bloodless fiction. He abhorred murder and used it when he must (such as a murder mystery) and 99% off the stage. Since when is brute force valued more than intellect in an Asimov book? In 'Foundation's Fear' - Seldon not only quite happily bats someone to death but also plans mass murder and gloriously baths in it's aftermath. With the assistance of .... 7. ... Daneel. I fell in love with him during my teenage years and is probably among the minority that let out whoops of joy when Asimov dragged him kicking into the 'Foundation' series. ;-) The Daneel in this novel is a changed robot - he is no longer grave and gentle (stern and aloof were the two most common adjectives used). And he seems to have lost the Laws of Robotics somewhere along the way. The mass murder of Lamurk's agents - not a flicker of indecision; the mind swipe of Lamurk - not a flicker of regret ... on the other hand the robots (his brethern) are obviously more important to him. As a previous reviewer commented, to me Daneel is the most threatening figure in the novel. 8. Does Benford have a problem selling his novelettes? 150 pages of Joan of Arc and Voltaire and 50 pages of 'pans' - that's 1/3 of the whole novel! Why did Asimov's estate even allow these? 9. Benford points out the inconsistencies of the whole saga in his Afterward. If only he didn't create more - I sometimes wonder whether he read the original series. I'm not a nitpicker and I'm not talking about trivia like dates and population - characters changed personalities (Seldon, Dors, Daneel, Amaryl); characters disappeared (Raych); backgraound of the galaxy changed (aliens, tiktoks, wormholes); and events clearly documented in previous volumes ignored (Seldon never saw Daneel again after his turn as Demerzel; Dors' role was never well publicised; the public understanding of Earth! ). 10. Throwing in a comment about the 'ugliness of "sociohistory"' and the cute chapter titles do not save the book. Especially when the novel lectures you like you're an idiot. We're not and we get the point without being told to us point blank again and again and again... Sorry to be so long-winded. But this is an extremely frustrated fan writing! ;-)
Rating:
Summary: I feel cheated
Review: On the subject of "hard science": Wormholes are just as much of a science fiction crutch as hyperships to explain interstellar travel, and I find it arrogant of the author to change the terminology. The quality of the story is much more important than small scientific details. Perhaps I do not have all of the information here. Okay, I was not expecting the author to exactly copy Asimov's style. I was expecting it to be similar in style to the original, but allowing the author to let his own style show through as well. Nor, I admit freely, am I a particularly "highbrow" reader. I am an engineer who reads for entertainment. Many of the classics of literature I have been unable to enjoy as they have gone over my head. Let's assume for the moment that it is an excellently written novel. The point is, it doesn't belong in the Foundation series. It is written in a style completely different from the original, and that style has made it inaccessible to many (perhaps a majority) of the fans of the original series. I believe that in attempting to continue another's work, an author must remain faithful to the vision and readership of the original. Clearly that did not occur here, perhaps inadvertently. The author expressed gratification that his book had gone through 6 printings as of June '97. Perhaps the author should ask himself how many of those people enjoyed the book, and how many bought it hoping it would appeal to them as the original did.
Rating:
Summary: A great quest to preserve the status quo? That's not SF!
Review: This *is* simply a bad book. A Hari Seldon plot interrupted with a couple poorly stiched in short stories. These would be an interesting read by themselves, but thrown into the midst of the book they interrupt the narrative flow breaking whatever hope the book had of being enjoyable. Mostly though, I kept on cringing at the social ideas presented: the premise of a galactic empire built on the roman model, the strong claim that for humans the ideal condition is to live in a Egyptian style catatonic empire, the thesis that any new developments in ideas, style, culture, immediately lead to chaos, war and degeneration. All this plus the idea of robots from ancient times as humanity's guardian angels, cocooning us into a safe existence with minimal danger, no development, edditing our history for our own good. I will never accept book (data) burning as neccessary. R. Daneel appears to attempt to squeeze humanity into a 1984 type of controled enviorment, our history, our technology, everything edited so that we can't hurt ourselves, he knows what's Best for us. To me he appears a much more sinister figure than any of the `bad' guys presented in the book. SciFi should be about the exploration of boundries, grappling with new ideas, science, technologies, aliens. Not about a desparate quest to preserve the status quo.
Rating:
Summary: Fear of Foundation's Fear
Review: I feel it my duty to discredit this installment of Asimov's wonderful Foundation series. To me, this book wandered way too far into an abstract type of Science fiction that I feel Asimov never delved into. I also feel that Asimov's characters (Seldon, Amarov, etc.) were fundamentally changed. Yugo Amarov was made into a eclectic people-person, when Asimov portrayed him as a reclusive, obsessive psychohistorian. I did not enjoy this book. But Bear's Foundation and Chaos redeems the series.
Rating:
Summary: THEY SHOULD HAVE LEFT ASIMOV'S WORKS ALONE !
Review: When will we learn that a great writer is a great writer because of his ideas, imagination and the style he presents them to us with. This book was a terrible attempt to copy a Grand Master. Although Benford is a wonderful writer on his own, could Picasso ever copy Michaelangelo's Mona Lisa? To me, this is a very sad moment. Asimov was one-of-a-kind!
Rating: 
Summary: Foundation for Adults
Review: I'm amazed at the range of reaction to this novel. I think it's superior to ALL Asimov's Foundation novels, because it integrates his ideas into modern scientific thinking, plus advances them (chaos theory, an explanation for why the galaxy's empty of aliens, etc). Maybe it's just too complex for most of his readership. Note that it SETS UP the ideas which emerge in the Bear & Brin novels -- as Benford explains in his afterword, he designed the arc of the series. He's simply a mature novelist, and his novels are subtly crafted.
Rating:
Summary: A very good read, but not Asimov
Review: Foundation's Fear is an very good read. It gives a view of the early Seldon - unfortunately, it is Benford's view, not Asimov's. The "dueling Sims" subplot, featuring Voltaire and Joan of Arc, is actually quite fascinating. The episode with the Pans could have been left out. It was stimulating enough, however, get me to read the other two prequels which were much better.
| 
