Talk:Foundation series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleFoundation series is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 10, 2004.
Article milestones
January 10, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
March 8, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
February 1, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article

Spoiler In Inappropriate Place[edit]

The line in the introductory section: "It is eventually revealed that the Second Foundation is located on the capital planet, Trantor, at the center of the (first) Empire." is a big spoiler.

The Wikipedia article on spoilers states:

Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.

This spoiler is not under any such section headings, so I do not think it should be in the introduction part of the article.-- (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia no longer carries "spoiler WARNINGS", not spoilers. Wikipedia:Spoiler says:

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.

--Narayan (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia carries spoilers, but I do not think they should be in the introduction section of an article.

Check any book, game or movie article - end spoilers are never in the introduction.-- (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are free to move that part to a better place in this article. Not just to delete it. --Narayan (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Galactica[edit]

I think I was looking for a discussion about how Wikipedia IS the Encyclopedia Galactica. Could/Would anyone from W confirm?


I think this article has spoilers in it but i can't look for just that reason. anybody care to check on this? Cryo921 08:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New Asimov/Foundation wiki[edit]

The articles on the Foundation Unviverse are outstanding, they cover a great deal of content. However, it seems Wikipedia makes cataloging and joining the Foundation Universe articles a little difficult. So I've found and revamped a Foundation/Asimov wiki on wikicities. Contributors to and readers of the Foundation Universe articles are more than welcome to expand on it, as right now it is basically an empty shell. It can be found here: [1].

Robot Mystery novels[edit]

Are Mark W. Tiedemann's three "Robot Mystery" novels — Mirage (2000), Chimera (2001) and Aurora (2002) — "canonical" or not? That is, does anyone know if they were authorized or requested by the Asimov Estate, like the Second Foundation Trilogy? I discussed them in Three Laws of Robotics, but I haven't found anything on the Web saying just how official they're supposed to be. Anville 10:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

They are approved by the Estate. Whether that makes them "canonical" or not, I leave to someone else. Jmacwiki (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

20th century popular fiction featured articles[edit]

apart from this & The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, there is no other 20th century popular fiction featured articles... so i'd like to invite editors of this page, who know what it takes to get something in the same genre featured, to comment on this article: The Illuminatus! Trilogy. its another cult sci-fi series that has been quite influential in the last few decades. its up for peer review before FAC here: any comments in that peer review welcome. Zzzzz 15:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

thx to everyone who contributed to or commented on this article in the past few weeks. this article is now up for "featured article" status. please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Illuminatus! Trilogy to vote Support or Oppose with your comments. Zzzzz 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Star Wars claim[edit]

Is there any citation for this paragraph: "George Lucas used elements of the Foundation series to construct the universe in which Star Wars is set, including propulsion by hyper-drive, lightsabers (evolved from force field penknives), and the Galactic Empire (although Lucas' Empire was by definition evil, while Seldon openly says that in principle the First Empire is not evil)." Propulsion by hyperdrive and galactic empires are common as dirt in science fiction. It also seems like a stretch to derive lightsabres from the force field penknives. If there's no citation, then we should cut this paragraph. Makgraf 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I cut the paragraph. Makgraf 02:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
See Steven Hart's "Galactic Gasbag" in Salon (10 April 2002). I've found other bits and pieces in the Web, too, even though mirrors of old versions of this article provide an enormous amount of background noise. See here (also here) for lightsabers and other miscellaneous stuff, and here for miscellaneous stuff in general. Anville 19:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the links! They still don't convince though. The middle two both claim an Asimovian origin for the lightsabre but neither other any proof, only speculation. "The major inspiration for the lightsaber might have been Foundation by Isaac Asimov" and from the next one "it may be the inspiration for the lightsaber of Star Wars fame" [emphasis added]. Both seek to support the argument by claiming that Coruscant is a direct steal from Trantor (the first mentions this as well). It is true that Coruscant does seem pretty directly stolen. But Coruscant is not in the orginal trilogy. In fact it is one of the few (the only?) element from a Star Wars book incorporated into a Star Wars movie. So their 'Lucas stole lightsabres because he stole Trantor' falls down because it was Timothy (in the Thrawn series) that stole it. Makgraf 08:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Not entirely true. An "Imperial Planet" with one big city covering its entire surface has appeared in early screenplays of the first Star Wars. There are even some pretty famous Ralph McQuarrie sketches of the planet. They dropped out the idea of showing it because it would be too expensive in the seventies. Later, in 1991, Timothy Zahn brought it back, and named it Coruscant. Lucas liked the name and continued to use it. But I think it is pretty obvious that, to say the least, Coruscant is an homage to Trantor. Maclaine 13:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Coruscant is a homage to Trantor. Are you sure about their being a worldcity "Imperial Planet" in the earlier screenplays of the first Star Wars. Because I looked through some scripts [2] and couldn't find it (but again, this really isn't my area of expertise). The Coruscant entry pushes the orginal mention in a script of a world-spanning city to Return of the Jedi. Which would put it out of the timeframe of when lightsabres were being invented. We probably should have something in the article about Trantor/Coruscant but the other stuff seems too speculative. Makgraf 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. In early screenplays, the Imperial Planet was known as Alderaan, but it was not a city planet. This notion was only considered for Return of the Jedi. This is better explained in the Star Wars Official Site: [3] Anyway, it still constitutes a Trantor reference, in my opinion. As you already stated, I can't find any indication that lightsabers came from the Foundation series. The notion of a Galactic Empire is pretty common in early science fiction, and it is possible that Lucas borrowed this idea from several places, not just the Foundation trilogy. Maclaine 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's defintely a Trantor reference. Seems like there's a consensus to not put in any of the speculative things and restore the Trantor section. Makgraf 20:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I do think that "paying homage" would be a better word choice than "direct borrowing". In some ways; Coruscant is the antithesis of Trantor. (Coruscant expands verticly into the sky and is open [at least if your well to do enough to live high enough up]. Trantor expands verticlly downward into the ground and is covered by linked domes; kind of like living in a cave no matter how well off you are.)

Reading List[edit]

I think this section should be split out into it's own article. It's bound to duplicate a similar section in the Empire Novels and a similar section in the Robot Novels section. By spliting it and having all groups link to it, it would making further edits on it much easier. But instead of calling it the "recommended reading list", I'd recomend calling it something like chronical ordering of events in the combined Robot-Empire-Foundation series. Note that this would also allow editors to later add events discribed between the novels that wasn't in any of the novels "present". Jon 14:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Along these lines, I'd like to do a little bit of organizational work on the "List of Books" (section 8). I'd like to make three top-level headings: 8.1 Robot Series, 8.2 Galatic Empire Series, and 8.3 Foundation Series. I'd add "main article" links for the Robot and Galactic Empire series. I wouldn't actualy add/remove any of the novels, just a resturcture. Any objections? I agree with Jon's comment above, but don't have the energy to tackle a full split. netjeff 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent spelling of "Darrell"[edit]

Most sources and my copy of "Foundation and Empire" use two r's in the spelling. The spelling in Wikipedia's articles is inconsistent, and the titles of the articles concerning the Darrell family use the incorrect spelling. 01:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Arkady Darell does not appear in "Foundation and Empire". One "r" is correct.GroveGuy (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Question from Anonymous[edit]

*** A quick request; What order is listed in the Prelude to Foundation? *** (this is meant to be a temporary post. Please remove this note - afterwards.) Comment was from User_talk:, moved out of article

I put a link to the Prelude to Foundation list in the article, but in case the IP changed and you don't get the message I left on your talk page please don't edit questions into Wikipedia articles. Makgraf 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

There are two tags at the top. Fulfil them. Alientraveller 17:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

West Wing reference highly dubious[edit]

Removed - this character is nowhere close to a popular culture reference

In The West Wing episode , Janel Maloney's character Donatella Moss leads a discussion of office assistants regarding the impending release of their salary information by the opposition party instructing her coworkers to respond respectfully and not complain to the media about their pay. Bradley Whitford's character (Moss's supervisor) greets her after the discussion by calling her "Jo-jo," a reference to Jo-Jo Joranum, a democratic activist in Forward the Foundation.

Whole Asimov Work in the series=[edit]

You wrote that Asimov cited "The end of eternity" and "Nemesis" in his last works. This is correct, but he cited also "Fantastic Voyage" and "The gods themselves" (and, possibly, the series "Norby", I never read, but I remember a citation about a little robot which could be Norby). I recently read the whole series following internal chronological order (which is wrong, because the stories are not well connected amoung them, and there is an abyss between those from the 50s and those from the 80s)and easily noticed references to other Asimov stories. Unluckely, I didn't notice the pages where I found them and, however, I read them in the Italian translation, so I imagine that the location on pages is different form the original one. When you have time, read Asimov's production in chronological order by pubblication (what I'll do next time) and you'll easily find the citations. Adam from Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Second series[edit]

Is it "The Caliban Trilogy" or "The Second Foundation Trilogy?" —ScouterSig 16:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Caliban trilogy is not the second foundation trilogy, they are two separate trilogies. (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually wikipedia calls it the "Second Robot Series", the first novel of this trilogy being Isaac Asimov's Caliban, I don't know why that novel is not included in the table with all the novels in the foundation's universe Lessio (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


I think this article could use a little better organization of content. Things that could improve the article,

  • Subcategories based on novel hierarchy.
  • Bullets.
  • Trimmed Synopsis.
  • Segment for random facts.
  • Single separate page for all Asmovian characters list.
  • Single separate page for Fictitious Asmovian Planet list.

Nw15062 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Obvious Correlation of Wikipedia[edit]

Has anyone who constributes to this article considered this? Leeirons (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate upon this point? The trilogy is concerned with the fall of the Galactic Empire. Is Wikipedia 'falling'? (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Leeirons meant Wikipedia was more like the Encyclopaedia Galactica than the Empire. Not sure about that myself, as the EG brought together the finest minds in the galaxy and kept them in seclusion to complete their work, whereas Wikipedia is written by very ordinary minds, working part-time and for free, and is a work in progress rather than directed at any eventual conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Timeline inconsistencies[edit]

There seems to be a big and distracting (at least to me) timeline flaw in the original 3-book series; in chapter 16 of Second Foundation the narrator says that the year is 11,692 Galactic Era and 419 After Seldon; but the very beginning of the book clearly states Seldon's birth year as 11,988 GE! this is from my 1982 hardback edition. I just checked my paperback from 1983, and oddly enough, it's listed as 455 A.S. but still the same year in GE. I wonder what caused Asimov to make such a glaring mistake. Citizen Premier (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad category[edit]

This article is listed as part of the Space operas category, incorrectly, it seems. The definition from the category page: "Space opera is a genre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic adventure, interstellar travel, and space battles where the main storyline is centered around interstellar conflict and character drama."

The Foundation series is science fiction that emphasizes sociology, mathematics, and political action. Most plot resolutions occur "off-stage", merely narrated afterward by characters.

As for the items in the definition: Romance appears rarely, in my judgment. Interstellar travel is taken for granted, but gallivanting about the galaxy seems (again, in my judgment) rather routine, not something that is expected to fascinate the readership. Space battles often occur -- but almost never during the story line, only in the recap; it was a recognized facet of Asimov's writing that dramatic events normally occurred "off-stage" (and a facet that he himself was conscious of). Asimov has even been criticized as a writer with poor character-"drawing" talents. (FWIW, I do not judge that his stories would be improved with stronger characters.) As for interstellar conflict, much of the Foundation series deals with non-violent ways to effect political action; not necessarily negotiated agreement, but at least conflict that is radically different from (e.g.) Star Wars, an archetypal space opera.

I advise deleting the Space Opera category link. Others' thoughts on this? Jmacwiki (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain I agree; taken a space opera, the foundation series would be rather poor, but I'd say it still has many dramatic elements. Citizen Premier (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly acknowledge the drama, but it is not of the usual style for "operas". Anyway, if I understand you correctly, you disagree with my analysis and my assessment of the series -- but you agree that it isn't a space opera. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Another cultural impact[edit]

The collection of stories, The Worthing Saga by Orson Scott Card, takes two major ideas from the foundation series. A world covered in metal that is one big city, which is the capital of the empire and a planet filled with people who can see and control minds (although they are much further developed and more likely to use their power), but they do try to keep everyone's lives better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What about Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda? There is a galactic civilisation which collapses there is even a secret society preserving the knowledge of the old empire, and something like psychohistory that the character Trance uses. Fegor (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Forward the Foundation cover.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Forward the Foundation cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Characters in Foundation.[edit]

Asimov based many of the characters in Foundation on Workmates at the U.S.Naval Yards where he worked during the War. As for Wikipedia being the real 'Galactica'; (we all know Wiki Staff in the U.S. come into work each day. Take off their hats, wipe their foreheads theatrically and sigh 'Galaxy'! (Ebling Miss)).Johnwrd (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Variables Uncontrolled[edit]

I notice that towards the end of the initial plot summary it says:

'The people living there are working on an all-encompassing Encyclopedia, and are unaware of Seldon's real intentions (for if they were, the variables would become too uncontrolled).'

The variables would become too uncontrolled? Surely it is hidden from them because knowing the future would cause you to act in an atypical method, thus disrupting the predictive ability of psychohistory. The original statement would suggest regular behaviour would be 'controlled' by the variables and that atypical behaviour would cause them to become uncontrollable rather than merely unpredicatable. Sorry if this is too nit-picky, but just something about this sentence seemed to grate with me, you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


What was this doing in the 'Later Sequels' section? :

"Although featured prominently in the original trilogy, cigars are conspicuously absent from these two prequels. "

For now, it's been removed due to irrelevance and lack of citation.

jg (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Empire Series Order[edit]

I am wondering why "the stars, like dust" is numbered 6 and "the currents of space" is numbered 7 in the reading order when Asimov's reading order [4] and the empire series article both list them in the opposite order. Is this a mistake or intentional? If intentional, where is it based? Gsapient (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources that place Currents of Space before The Stars, Like Dust are using the "Author's Note" that Asimov included in Prelude to Foundation, where he writes that The Currents of Space is the "first" of his Empire novels, and The Stars, Like Dust is his second. However, the events in the two novels clearly place The Stars, Like Dust much earlier - by an order of thousands of years - in the chronology. It is generally regarded that Asimov simply erred when he was making his list for Prelude. Macduff (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Subdividing "Cultural Impact"[edit]

The Cultural Impact section is getting so large (rightly so, IMO) as to be unwieldy: a very long list of disconnected paragraphs. So I have divided along one line, roughly "impact within fiction" and "impact out here".

However, this only begins to reduce the unwieldiness. Perhaps revised subtitles would be better, so that real-world events related to the fiction (such as the Hugo for Best All-Time Series) might be listed with the non-fiction items.

Please edit boldly! Or at least make suggestions here. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: It is not clear that mentioning (say) New Line's interest in making a Foundation movie belongs in the "Cultural Impact" section at all -- unless we consider that the economic impact (of a movie version of the story) qualifies as a "cultural impact". Maybe we need a different section for events and news items about "publishing" the story -- completely separate from its impact. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dors in the Second Foundation Trilogy[edit]

What happens in Dors's & Seldon's final meeting? What happens to her afterward, i. e. is it known how she spent the rest of her lifetime? I'd really love to know. Thanks… -- (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Osama Bin Laden[edit]

A reference to the Guardian as a reputable source for a theory about Asimov's Foundation series being an influence of Osama Bin Laden is absolute rubbish. That is purely hear-say and proves absolutely nothing beyond the possibility that some writer at a newspaper wanted to write a sensationalist story and found a very loose correlation between the two. It even has the little caveat at the end that there is no confirmation, which leads me to ask, why this is even on the page? --Adammichaelroach (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Maybe we should just cut that part?--Narayan (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I of course think it should be cut.Adammichaelroach (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Enemy Within (Foundation and Earth)[edit]

Surely the ambiguity in the closing paragraphs of Foundation and Earth centers around Trevize's expression of the possibility that intelligent life from another galaxy may invade our galaxy i.e. the galaxy which he (and we) inhabit. Despite his "twinge of trouble," Trevize asserts that, "it is not as though we had the enemy already here and among us." But the narrator pointedly closes the book (final paragraph) by drawing the reader's attention to Fallom, the extra-intelligent child and, in particular, to her "hermaphroditic, transductive, different" eyes. If, as suggested, she is an example of that "other intelligence," the chances of a future Galactica are, at best, uncertain.PeadarMaguidhir (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series merge discussion.[edit]

  • An AfD for Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series was recently held and closed as no consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series). The closing admin stated, "There is not really a solid consensus at this time between whether or not to merge, versus delete, with a weak minority of keep. Therefore, "merge" discussion should take place further, at the article's talk page." Shooterwalker redirected the article here after the AfD closed, and I have reverted, as I do not believe a redirect/merge should occur unless a consensus is developed to do so. I am opposed to merging the timeline into this article, because it is well organized right now as a separate article and logical fork. Obviously the Foundation series is quite notable, and the project would not benefit from deletion of the timeline, its a useful aid subject to verification by the books themselves (if not also commentary). Other similar articles on Wikipedia such as Chronology of Star Wars have also survived similar deletion campaigns. I can drag up many more examples of useful timelines if needed.--Milowenttalkblp-r 18:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The outcome of the AfD was pretty clear that the Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series article should not be kept as it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and had weak support. As the closing administrator clearly stated, the no consensus was between deletion or merging, not keeping. It doesn't matter the status of other articles but the individual merits of Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Your argument is suggesting to keep that article, which is not part of the outcome of the AfD. Discussing to keep the article is not the appropriate option, but whether or not there is something worth merging from the timeline within this article before making the other article a redirect or deleting it.
I concur with Milowent in that I also oppose merging the timeline with this article as all the content is unreferenced and non-notable. I do not think that anything from Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series should be kept and that article should be a redirect to this article as Shooterwalker did. Jfgslo (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Redirect: Personally, I think the AFD is pretty clear in a consensus that this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If deletion is off the table, the only other options are to redirect or merge. I boldly redirected this article. But I won't object if someone wants to add dates and such to the merge target, so long as it complies with WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • But how does that improve the project?--Milowenttalkblp-r 03:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Redirect. As I said at the AfD, it does not seem to pass the General Notability Guidelines; however, the information is pertinent to understanding the series, so it should be part of a Plot section and not its own article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to start new talk page archive[edit]

Some of the discussions on this page date back to 2007. Hardly conversations worth continuing. Gohst (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Impact in non-fiction - Martin Seligman - bad reference[edit]

Reference 9 provides no link to justify the claim that Martin Seligman successfully predicted the 1988 US elections. Seligmans wikipedia page makes no reference to this claim, or his predictions. Searching online for similar claims, i found this page [5] which, in its first paragraph, indicates that the predictions were based on which candidate was more positive in their speeches, etc. This is a far cry from psychohistory. I'd recommend that the claim be removed from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving Robot and Empire series[edit]

I've made a new proposal to rename the related Isaac Asimov's Robot Series and Isaac Asimov's Galactic Empire series in line with this article and the naming conventions. Please have your say on the discussion there. --xensyriaT 19:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Nemesis" is not a stand-alone book[edit]

Despite Asimov's (forced by his publisher) claim that "Nemesis" was a stand-alone novel by the time it was published, it was apparently on purpose written in such a way that it might be fitted into the Foundation universe any time later. A recent treatise[1] has presented evidence that "Nemesis" contains deliberate allusions to the Spacers and their calendar established in "The Robots of Dawn", to the Galactic Empire and even to Hari Seldon. With the known reference in "Forward to Foundation", "Nemesis" was finally accepted as another novel from the Foundation universe and should be listed here. Nafiris (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed links between Nemesis and the Foundation universe, but I wouldn't go so far as to consider Nemesis truly a part of it. First of all, Asimov himself said “This book is not part of the Foundation Series, the Robot Series, or the Empire Series,” and I would like to see a source for your claim that he was forced to say this. Furthermore, the are several contradictions between Nemesis and the Robot/Foundation universe, as mentioned here:
  • “When Trevize and Pelorat finally reach Earth's solar system in 'Foundation and Earth', they do not detect a companion star for Sol, such as described in 'Nemesis'.”
  • “There are no robots in 'Nemesis'. There were robots when humans had not left Earth, and robots accompanied the first Earth colonists (Spacers) to the first interstellar colonies. The expedition to the Nemesis system is supposedly the first time humans have left the solar system, which places it firmly between the time of Earth-bound humans and the time of 50 Spacer worlds... yet there are no robots in 'Nemesis'.”
  • “[...] the development of hyperdrive is presented completely differently in the Robot stories, as is the development of off-earth colonies.”
Darkday (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Nothing different was to be expected, with "Foundation and Earth" published three years before "Nemesis", I daresay! ;-) But two of your arguments are in fact dealt with in the quoted book. (1) Nemesis is a high-velocity star: It crosses 2 l-y within 5000 years, acc. to "Nemesis". If it more or less keeps its speed beyond that date, then by the time Trevize and Pelorat arrive (17 millenia after its perihelion) it would be about 6 l-y from Sol and escape attention. (3) The entire set of Robot stories is dismissed by the authors, based on Han Fastolfe ascertaining in "The Robots of Dawn" that they are but Spacer myths and should not be taken at face value. That argument the authors support by contradictions explicitly referred to in "Dawn", notably the incompatibility of Steven Byerley and Andrew Martin with R. Daneel being the first attested humaniform robot in history. (2) The argument about robots lacking from "Nemesis" is also mentioned in passing but, unfortunately, not adressed.
As for "forced by his publisher", I find in Asimov's autobiography indeed that his editor Jennifer Brehl had explicitly demanded a novel which was "not part of either the Foundation series or the Robot series, but ... an entirely independent background."[2] Seems that Asimov cheated her on that one! :-) Nafiris (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
In I, Asimov, he wrote: “[...] I suggested that I go back in time and write and write Prelude to Foundation [...] Jennifer Brehl at once agreed and, sensing my weariness with the Foundation books, suggested that the novel after that be not part of either the Foundation series or the robot series, but be an entirely independent product, with a completely new background.” My interpretation of that is quite different from yours: Of course Doubleday would have preferred another Foundation novel. The previous two had been best-sellers, and Foundation's Edge had even won a Hugo. However Jennifer Brehl realized that Asimov was growing tired with Foundation, so she decided to give him a break and suggested (not demanded) a stand-alone novel.
But anyway, I'm not denying that there are a couple of links and references between Nemesis and the Foundation saga. I just think “Nemesis is part of the Foundation universe” should be considered a theory, not a fact. –Darkday (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ Codex, Regius (2014). From Robots to Foundations. Wiesbaden/Ljubljana. ISBN 1499569823.
  2. ^ Asimov, Isaac (2009). I, Asimov:A Memoir. Random House Publishing Group.

Infobox image[edit]

J 1982, I need help on choosing the replacement of the current infobox image, which belongs to only Foundation (Asimov novel). I found images from the following publications:

Which one do you think I should upload? --George Ho (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea, since I don't contribute with uploadings. I just think this looks the best. J 1982 (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Pinging FT2 and Deagol2 for their opinions. --George Ho (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Given that the series is composed of a large number of books, I do not see a huge difference between an image of the first book and an image of the trilogy. I would leave it unchanged. Deagol2 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. What Deagol2 said, and also the lead image is often *representative of* the topic, or an example. An image of 4+ books is likely to be smaller (think mobile devices), and more confusing to the reader (in some sort of "image-y" sense) than a simpler and more straightforward image of just one book, usually but not always the first. A bit like how for iPhone you'd choose one type of iPhone, not a picture that tried to include every kind of iPhone ever to use that name. The purpose of the lead image is to entice and clearly stand for the topic, or illustrate it - the clarity criteria matters a lot. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@FT2, Deagol2, and J 1982: I inserted an additional rationale in the file page and decided to leave the infobox image as is. --George Ho (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)