Recently I've read a book that's really struck me as a great.  I know a lot of people sing Asimov's praises, and perhaps it's trite to add to the pile, but I just cannot help myself.  I've fallen in love with the Foundation series and I felt I just had to write my thoughts down!  I found Asimov rather late and I'm surprised I have not read him.  I enjoy science fiction, in fact it's my favorite genre, and I overlooked a giant like him and went on to other favorites like Bradbury or Orwell.  Recently, my computer was rendered inoperable with a computer virus, and I had a lot of spare time on my hands.  I picked up "Foundation and Earth" off the shelf, and I read the first half that evening.  I know, I started biting the sandwich at the end, without knowing it of course, but not having read the first book in the series in no way detracted from my enjoyment.  In fact, starting off with "Foundation and Earth" and then going back to read "Prelude to Foundation" helped me understand the fantastic scope of Asimov's ideas, which gripped me even more.

The series has a chilling premise that I often contemplate when thinking about human events.  In psychohistory, large scale forces enacted through large groups of humans are the most important forces in deciding the trajectory of human society, and that through some magical mathematics we can sum up human history into probabilities.  The quantized individual's behavior is swept up in mob psychology, where unseen yet wholly logical psychological forces sway mankind's destiny.  As a concept, I really wondered if Asimov could pull it off to where I could really believe it, and not just think "Well, he had to fudge this or that to make the entire idea work."  He pulled it off.  I could see an empire such as the Galactic Empire eventually decaying, for many of the subtle reasons he outlines in "Prelude to Foundation" for instance.  The cessation of the thirst for knowledge, a society flushed with so much information people specialize beyond reason, and the downward march of scientific knowledge, are trends and patterns that I could visualize and see as having major impacts over hundreds of years.  In a society flushed with material wealth and power, the complexity of the entire system in and of itself becomes a liability.  There's too much for a person to know, to research, to study, and much of what can be discovered might not be useful for future growth.   Eventually what happens, is that people who do not necessarily wish to devote their life to a certain field of study, have the confidence that somewhere, someone has, and that all the necessary knowledge is available to them at their fingertips.  Pure decadence.

I've heard some critiques that Asimov favors preaching an idea or ideology rather than fleshing out the characters and developing them.  I tend to disagree on this point.  While the characters are pawns to the larger ideas he wants to express, there is more than enough to learn and to enjoy about each individual character without turning the whole piece into an "I" novel.  Hari Seldon is an academic who grows bolder and bolder as the story progresses.  He's not just a doll with a string in his back, waiting for someone to pull it so he can spew the theories on psychohistory.  He has fears and concerns.  He has subtle wants and desires.  He shows compassion and has a set of ethics and morals he lives by.  I can much say the same for many other characters in his other novels, including Trevize, Hardin, and Colonel Pritcher.  Sure, they have larger meaning and they are useful in making useful points on the relationship of the individual to collective currents, but to say that Asimov sacrifices character development for that is a bit much. 

Sometimes when I write science fiction for fun I feel I was born in the wrong era.  A lot of the great thinkers and imaginers who've really done the heavy lifting have already put ink to paper a long time ago.  At least, in my imagination.  Asimov's mind was most certainly ahead of his time, and his insight into large, sociological forces often gives me pause and makes me wonder the power of my own existence in the backdrop of psychohistory.  Would I be like Hardin, a character whose personal qualities get him through his own Seldon crisis, or am I like Barr, who sees much of what goes on around him, but in all honesty, is not a serious enough actor to change any current.