Talk:The Foundation Series/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


"Asimov unsuccessfully tried to end the series three times — first, at the end of Foundation (first book in series)..."

Don't believe that. It was compiled from a collection of stories, and I don't believe Asimov had any intention of stopping at that point. Lee M 02:50, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote that, and apparently, you are correct. I checked in Asimov's biography (It's Been a Good Life, page 80) "On January 26, 1945, then, I began 'The Mule'. (which is the first half of Foundation and Empire). This means that all of the stories in Foundation and Foundation and Empire were published as short stories before they were published as novels. I'll modify the article. →Raul654 03:11, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

In the list of books, the second foundation trilogy is before the first one. Isn't it a mistake? Gakrivas 12:28, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

No, the second foundation trilogy takes place in between the two prequels, and entirely before the original trilogy. →Raul654 12:38, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Why I love Wikipedia

Prior to me listing this article on the main page about 4 days ago, I would have sworn it was complete and perfect - every time I saw this article pop up on my watchlist, I would shudder. But all the recent changes have shown me that even really good articles can get better. I love you guys ;) →Raul654 21:44, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

End of Eternity

While not part of the above list, the book The End of Eternity (1955) set before the robot stories is vaguely referenced in one of the later Foundation stories as an explanation for the absence of alien life in the Foundation universe.

I'd like to see some documentation for this reference. →Raul654 12:31, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
As it was added by me I should find it again. However I cannot give the exact location in the series where the Eternals were referenced, I just remember it was in a discussion between R. Daneel Olivaw and Hari Seldon, when Hari said that any aliens would destroy his equations. Thus it was either in Prelude or Forward. But it had been quite a long time since I last read them, but I am 100% sure about that reference - I only memorized it as I read End of Eternity shortly before. Can anyone help who just read those books now? Or do I have to read them myself again :-) But I first have to finish the second Uplift trilogy, and I am still in book one. andy 22:57, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It would have to be in forward the foundation. But they do talk about aliens destroying the seldon plan in the last part of Foudation and Earth. I even mentioned it in that article. →Raul654 23:03, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
Seems like my memory is mixing the different sub-stories a bit. I did a quick google search, and it seems like that reference was in Foundations Edge [1] - so it wasn't Hari then. At least with that posting you have a second proof. As I have only read FE in german, maybe I will reread in english, and then give a more detailled reference. andy 23:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It was mentioned in Foundation's Edge; do we have to get an exact quote to modify the article? I was thinking of changing "one of the later Foundation stories" to "Foundation's Edge". Lefty 23:36, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

Could someone find a citation for the following:

The End of Eternity also refers to a "Foundation" within its story.
I know, I know, I'd do it myself, but my copy is a time zone away. Also, it strikes me that the Eternals have mathematical techniques that Hari Seldon would envy: Preem Palver tells us that psychostatistics are not applicable to populations smaller than a planet, while Andrew Harlan can predict the historical consequences of moving a tin can from one shelf to another. Anville 18:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
AFAI can tell EoE does not reference "Foundation", but it does reference the term "Galactic Empire"... Exact quote: "The mere existence of Eternity at once wiped out the Galactic Empire. To restore it, Eternity must be done away with." (said by Noys) It also mentions that the Galactic Empire will be established prior to Earth going radioactive (and that to Noys' "calculations" this was merely "probability", not certainty).
To answer your question Anville... first of all, Harlan doesn't mathematically predict the historical consequences, as it is said that he must intuitively "guess" the correct MNC. The closest their math gets is the statistical accuracy of the Life-Plotters, which given the statistics of a person's life can determine "analogues" in a similar, but somewhat changed, reality. Beyond that it appears that the psychohistorical mathematics are relatively similar, dealing with the planet as a whole (partly why the Eternals sometimes missed the trees for the forest). The Eternals just have quite a bit more information of each point in time than Seldon ever had, thanks to Observers. (Thus for the Eternals psychohistory was a "clinically tested" science, whereas for the Foundation it was much more theoretical.) The only thing questionable is that the psychostatistics were derived extremely early (27th Century), but this could be entirely due to the feedback loop that was Eternity's existence. Also, once Eternity is estabilished it has access to all mathematical evolution after its establishment "instantly". This would be like Harry Seldon having access to the Second Foundation's psychohistory library while establishing the First Foundation.
No, the real magic of EoE is in the hands of the "Hidden Centuries" which boast that they don't do statistical analysis so much as they do "alternate probability viewing". Considering this took well into thousands of Centuries to develop it is obvious why Seldon didn't have it. (Quote: "We don't calculate alternate Realities. We view them. We see them in their state of non-Reality.")
I guess not much of the above discussion of mine is actually of interest to the article itself, but I'm hoping someone gets something out of it... WorldMaker 07:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Positronic Man

I think "The Positronic Man" by Robert Silverberg (a novelization of Asimov's short story "The The Bicentennial Man") could also be added to the list. Ausir

Primarily written

I don't think I'm splitting hairs with "primarily written" in the intro paragraph. This is supposed to be a page about the books, not the author, and a person who just reads the introduction might come away with the impression that they're all written by Asimov.Lefty 16:47, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)

The text of the article makes it very clear who-wrote-what. The introduction is supposed to be concise. Putting "primarily" there does more to confuse the issue than it does to clarify it. →Raul654 16:51, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how "primarily" confuses the issue unless the reader simply doesn't know what the word means.
The articles should be written in news style, so that a reader can stop at any point and still get the essential facts. If a person just read the intro, he would come away with the idea that Asimov was the sole author. I'm not suggesting that the minor authors be listed in the intro -- that would be giving them too much weight -- but just add an indication that Asimov was not the only one.
However, I'm not married to the idea, and unless someone else chimes in, I'll accept the status quo.Lefty 16:20, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)
On second thought, you make a good point. I mean, I still think it's better as is, but I could live with your version. →Raul654 21:56, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Some notes

I think I, Robot should also be mentioned. It contains stories also in 'the Complete Robot', but also interesting binding text, no longer in the Complete Robot. I also added Mother Earth, a generally forgotten short story about the beginning of the Spacer Federation.

Here is also some interesting text about why Nemesis and End of Eternity should not be included in the Foundation Series (from http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/sf/foundser.html ):

Some people count 'The End of Eternity' and 'Nemesis' into the series. I do not. There are two main reasons for this :
Firstly, Asimov does not do it himself. In his introduction to 'Prelude to Foundation' he lists 14 books, and he has not mentioned 'the End of Eternity' among them. If he intended this to be part of the larger series (and considering that this boosts sales, why shouldn't he ?) he would certainly have added one of his finest novels. After all, in the afterword to 'Foundation's Edge' he does mention several of his earlier books, including 'the End of Eternity', but says it is "not entirely consistent with the references in this new book".
The same is true for 'Nemesis'. Although written after 'Prelude to Foundation', he could have mentioned in the Author's note that it was supposed to be part of the series. In stead, he explicitely states :
This book is not part of the Foundation Series, the Robot Series, or the Empire Series ... Of course, I might someday write another novel tying this one to the others, but then again, I might not.
I don't think he did this last thing.
Secondly, I don't feel the arguments that others mention for inclusion are compelling enough.
These arguments are twofold :
Both books contain notions that are not at odds with the Foundation series.
In 'the End of Eternity', the last chapter sees the freeing of History from the grasp of the Eternals; making the setting of a 'Galactic Empire' possible. Also, the story contains a 'Neuronic Whip' which can also be found in some works of the Empire series. I don't think this ties the stories into the Foundation series, but rather in Asimov's ideas for a human-only galaxy.
The same is true for 'Nemesis', which also ends with visions of 'Galactic Empires'. Asimovian, but not Foundation.
Some works IN the Foundation series have references to 'the End of Eternity' and 'Nemesis'.
In 'Foundation's Edge', Dom relates about the Eternals, whose "task it was to choose a Reality that would be most suitable to Humanity". He says "the story goes into great detail ... it has been written in an epic of inordinate length". (chapter 74)
In 'Forward the Foundation', Hari Seldon discusses mindreading and he refers to a story, twenty thousand years old, "... about a young women that could communicate with an entire planet that circled a sun named Nemesis" (part IV, chapter 5)
I consider these jokes by Asimov and I think the stories mentioned were those really written by IA himself. Thus, he insures for himself the accolade of having his stories remembered for 20000 years. After all, Hari Seldon also mentions Sisyphus (part II, chapter 3), another "myth" from pre-historic times.

Also, apart from the Second Foundation Trilogy, there have been many Robot books authorized by the Asimov estate (although I don't consider any of the posthumous sequels and prequels canon):

Isaac Asimov's Caliban (by Roger MacBride Allen) Isaac Asimov's Inferno (by Roger MacBride Allen) Isaac Asimov's Utopia (by Roger MacBride Allen)

Asimov's Mirage (by Mark W. Tidemann) Asimov's Chimera (by Mark W. Tidemann) Asimov's Aurora (by Mark W. Tidemann)

Isaac Asimov's Robot City

Odyseey (by Michael P. Kube-McDowell) Suspicion (by Mike McQuay) Cyborg (by William F. Wu) Prodigy (by Arthur Byron Cover) Refuge (by Rob Chilson) Perihelion (by William F. Wu)

Isaac Asimov's Robot City: Robots and Aliens

Changeling (by Stephen Leigh) Renegade (by Cordell Scotten) Intruder (by Robert Thurston) Alliance (by Jerry Oltion) Maverick (by Bruce Bethke) Humanity (by Jerry Oltion)

Isaac Asimov's Robots in Time

Predator Marauder Warrior (by William F. Wu) Dictator Emporer (by William F. Wu) Invader

Ausir

I tend to agree with Ausir. I think it's much beter if we stick closely with Asimov's outline, plus a few other obvious ones (The Second Trilogy, Foundation's Friends, etc). If Asimov didn't include it, I see no reason why we should. →Raul654 21:56, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

And what do you think of including the non-Asimov robot books? I haven't read any of them, but I googled them on some sites, and only the Roger MacBride Allen trilogy about Spacers (Caliban, Inferno, Utopia) is considered canon (like the Second Foundation Trilogy), or semi-canon, while the rest is mostly discarded as not really fitting Asimov's books. As for Nemesis and End of Eternity, I think there could be a paragraph about why some people think they're part of the Foundation universe, and why others think they're not. Ausir


I can't remember where I heard it, but I do believe the Caliban books were written with the consent of Asimov and/or the estate (can't remember which, but I think it was the estate). If that is the case, I think we should keep them (and only them). Also, I agree - a paragraph (in the article, not the timeline) about Nemesis and End of Eternity would probably be a good idea. I haven't read either of them, so I won't write that one. →Raul654 22:07, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

PS: Ausir, please use the preview botton instead of the save button. It makes it very hard to respond to your comment.

I found it, it was actually Asimov himself that accepted the outline of his trilogy (at least that's the official version). I have read both of these books, but it was quite a long time ago... Ausir

A man without memory, tied by blood to a city of robots. At his side, a mysterious woman whose life and memory he saved, whose love he has won for a second time. His name is Derec; hers is Ariel. In Changeling, Derec must answer the call of a besieged city on an alien planet. His new challenge is to protect a fantastic metropolis of robots from wolf-like beings that stalk the perimeters and threaten its destruction! In Renegade, Ariel finds herself the sole human on a planet of positronic robots and an alien race of shocking intelligence. Can Derec and Ariel solve the mysteries of the robots and the aliens in time to stop an all-out-war?

This is a short descrption of one of the Robot City books - I think we can all agree that they don't fit the Foundation series :) Ausir

Agreed. →Raul654 22:56, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree as well (by editing conflict) :-) I have read just a few of them, and didn't like them that much. And while the spacer worlds are referenced a bit in those stories, they form kind of a blind side alley of the main story. And I also have no problem if the reference to End of Eternity and Nemesis is mentioned as a "in joke" only, but those two should be mentioned in the canon at least. andy 22:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Maybe the Robot City/Robots in Time/Robots and Aliens series, while not considered 'canon', should also be briefly mentioned in the Books not Included paragraph? Ausir

Ausir and Lefty - since you guys seem to be intent on fixing up this and related articles (robot series, asimov, at al), can I suggest that you write the following: Foundation's Fear, Foundation and Chaos, and Foundation's Triumph. The other foundation articles exist because I started many of them, but I never wrote up the second trilogy (becauseI never read them). →Raul654 05:30, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC) PS: Thanks for all of the good work.


I also haven't read the Second Trilogy. Ausir

Me three Lefty 11:45, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

Hmmm, if I admit I read it I have to write those articles, right? Can I get away from it if I tell that it was some years ago and I forgot most already? :-) andy 13:03, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've created stubs for the books in question, so you no longer have any excuse to shirk your Wikipedian duty :-) :-) Lefty 03:59, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
I've also created stubs for the Caliban trilogy books. Ausir

Complete

Hmm, I think that now this article pretty much is complete :). Ausir

The modified introduction

I'm like what the new opening is trying to say, but the phrasing sucks. Give me a day or two to think about it, and I'll see what I can do with it. →Raul654 03:23, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker of English, so my wording might sometimes be odd - do with it whatever you want :) Ausir 19:26, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Foundation series on screen

I think a section focused on movies based on the stories from the Foundation universe is worth adding. I know of "The Bicentennial Man" movie, "I, Robot" movie (in the works), and several episodes of Out of the Unknown, a British TV series from the 60s, based on robot short stories. I've also heard rumors of a planned Foundation movie, but I don't know any details. Anything more? Ausir 19:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Such things would be better off at the Robot series article. IMHO, this article is becoming too overloaded with stuff from the related books, and is moving too far away from the "Foundation Series" premise. Inforomation about those particular movies belongs at the Robot series article instead. →Raul654 19:30, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Raul. Jacob1207 00:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the text about Shekhar Kapur directing foundation movies needs to be removed. Several years ago I found two obscure articles that said this, however the articles were several years old at that time. I think it's safe to say that he won't be making them. (thank god) If people do not believe the text should be removed, I think at the very least a recent article on the subject should be cited.

Request clarification

"robot revolution started by creating a No Law Robot and then New Law Robots."

I think someone should write a one sentence description of what "no-law" and "new-law" robots are. (I never read Caliban, so don't look at me) →Raul654 17:00, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

I also haven't read it, but from what I've googled, the no law robot (Caliban) was a robot without laws of robotics implemented, and the new laws robots had the laws of robotics modified - they couldn't harm humans, but weren't required to prevent harm from happening, and the new 2nd law was that each robot had to find his own reason to being. Ausir 17:07, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Picture

I added the picture of Seldon from Hari Seldon - it needs a picture in case it gets featured on the main page :). Ausir 12:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Word Counts

The word count numbers at the top of this article have always bothered me, so I went and verified them. Without discussing how I got them, here are the word counts for the books:

  • Foundation - 70,407
  • Foundation and Empire - 77,451
  • Second Foundation - 72,021
  • Foundation's Edge - 137,368
  • Foundation and Earth - 143,193
  • Prelude to Foundation - 132,118
  • Forward the Foundation - 122,054
  • Foundation and Chaos - 119,444
  • Foundation's Fear - 150,306
  • Foundation and Triumph - 110,449

Total - 1,134,811

→Raul654 21:52, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism

Unless someone complains real fast, I'm adding some criticism. An encyclopaedia should not only regurgitate facts.

--

LeandroGFCDutra 14:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What criticism? →Raul654 15:25, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

--- I don't know if this is the place to put it, but this is my favorite book series EVER and I'm so happy it's a featured article. Ilyanep 16:42, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been a featured article for a while but I didn't want to put it on the main page until I could find a day to be here to "babysit" my beautiful prose. →Raul654 17:02, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Emperor Cleon

Is there a Cleon I in the series or is it supposed to be Cleon II. In any case, Cleon II is an important character in the first part of Foundation and Empire, so I think we should mention him. Ilyanep 02:53, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cleon I is an important character in the prequels. Ausir 07:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Cleon I was the one who funded Seldon. Clean was killed, and replaced with Agis XIV. Agis fell (I don't think they said how), and then the commission of public safety took over, with the child-emperor cleon II as a figurehead. →Raul654 07:54, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
According to the "The General" in Foundation and Empire Cleon II was the last strong emperor, under which Bel Riose waged war on the Foundation, and that was at least 150-200 years after the Commission. Cbing01 08:17, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Three cheers for Asimov's continuity! Although I don't have Foundation and Empire at hand, I'm pretty sure that "The General" says Hari Seldon worked during the reign of Daluben IV. More specifically, I believe Lord Brodrig or Bel Riose tells this to Cleon. It's either a continuity error or an ill-informed character; either option sounds pretty plausible. — Anville 21:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Hari Seldon was a scientist of the reign of the Emperor, Daluben IV. He was a psychohistorian; the last and greatest of them all. " →Raul654 21:42, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Well, don't be too harsh on him. After all, this is supposed to take place as the government and society that have bene static and universal for 20,000 years begins crumbling. Information is being forgotten and muddled, and people don't care as much about education and history - the Foundation's cult of science and the ridiculous archeologist from The Mayor make this clear enough. It makes sense that people in the Empire would forget and confuse things like this. It happened in real late Roman society, which is what this is based on.Kuralyov 02:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Foundation/Wikipedia

Am I the only one here that thinks that this is a special literary series to be discussing on [Wikipedia], considering that encyclopedias figure so importantly in the plot? I know we don't want to give anything away... Can we at least mention Wikipedia under "cultural impact"? --lenehey

You should read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references →Raul654 18:20, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Read it. Agree with it. Still think mention of Wikipedia under the cultural impact heading is appropriate. It seems to me that the goals of Wikipedia (and certainly of my goals as a contributor to Wikipedia) and that of Asimov's Foundation are the same. Yes, the Foundation in some sense was a cosmic joke played by Hari Seldon, the Foundation never realizing that they were just a diversionary tactic from the real work done by the Second Foundation -- Nevertheless, the message of peace through understanding could not be more clear. This is one reason I care about Wikipedia, and I suspect many others as well. I benefit from Wikipedia as a user nearly every day, but I contribute because I believe it benefits society as a whole as well. --lenehey
I, too, contribute for the nebulous thing called "greater good". (Also to alleviate the hopelessness and loneliness only an MIT education could provide.) However, my personal reasons for the 1200-odd edits I've made don't count as Wikipedia history, nor are they particularly reflective of the Foundation saga. If somebody did a survey, following good statistical procedure, and found that some high percentage of Wikipedia contributors joined up because they'd read Foundation, then I'd be happy to see that datum reported here. Otherwise, the idea that the Foundation stories impacted Wikipedia is just that—an unsupported idea. Without some data to support the historical cause-and-effect relationship, it is only an opinion, and I think an unpleasantly vain one.
The edition of Britannica I have at home came out after the Foundation saga began to spool from Asimov's brain. Why isn't it an example of the saga's "cultural impact"?
Best wishes, Anville 00:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, good point -- anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Perhaps cultural impact is not the best heading for mentioning the parallels of Wikipedia and Asimov's Foundation. I don't think you can compare Wikipedia with previous encyclopedias, though. First, previous encyclopedias were compiled for profit, not for the greater good, as you say. Secondly, the difference between Wikipedia and previous encyclopedias is qualitative, not just quantitative. But, I have one question for you, what would Asimov say about Wikipedia if he were still alive? As you probably know, he authored several encyclopedia articles himself. (As I recall from one of his many editorials in Asimov's Science Fiction Mag (yes, I am a fan) one article he wrote was on amalgam.) I think he would certainly have drawn some parallels. Yes, it is conjecture, and probably not appropriate for the article.
  • I feel the parallel between the work of Asimov's Foundation and that of the Wikimedia Foundation is very strong.
It came to me when I was bragging about an edit of "mine" to my lady. I would certainly not brag to anyone else, but that is one reason some of us have ladies. And I thought about just that thing, that I could take pride in my small contribution to the whole, but a very small and humble pride indeed. At that moment, a very specific scene in Second Foundation swam into my mind (Chapter 8, Seldon's Plan). The First Speaker is explaining the nature of the Plan to a Student.
"...The Seldon Plan is neither complete nor correct.... Over a dozen generations of men have pored over these equations, worked at them... They've done more than that....
"Before you obtain your Speakerhood... you yourself will have to make an original contribution to the Plan.... Why...why—" He looked upward, "There!"
The whole wall seemed to whirl down upon him.
"This," he said, "is mine."
The First Speaker's contribution is but a small part; he takes great pride in it; but he would never dream of doing so in any public way. (Of course the whole Plan is secret!)
Anonymity is not quite the word, but certainly humility, and yet an odd kind of humility, taking pride in one's contribution to the whole. Neither Foundation is the only such collaborative project, but the image came to me very strongly, and the link is clear.
I have no idea how to present this link within this or any article, outside of this Talk page. It is a fine article, but the link to the Wikimedia Foundation should be noted. — Xiong (talk) 05:19, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
Good points but I think you missed an obvious one; Wikipedia is probably just the first (and if successful, the final) implementation of Asimov's "Encyclopedia Galactica" :-) --Neilrieck 11:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Robots & Aliens

In Isaac Asimov's introduction in "Changeling" (ISBN 0-441-73127-9) by Stephen Leigh, referred to as being associated with the Foundation universe, Asimov explains why aliens don't appear much in his books - and says "In fact, at no point anywhere in my writing has any robot met any alien" (Introduction, page ix).

However, in a short story of his - "Victory Unintentional", anthologised in "The Complete Robot" the ZZ-series robots encounter the aliens of Ganymede.

Should "Victory Unintentional" belong to the Robots/Empire/Foundation universe, or be taken by itself (notwithstanding its references to positronics etc.)? Why did Asimov exclude it from his comments? Are there are other examples of robots & aliens?

ThomasTheTank 08-May-2005 0100hrs

"Let's Get Together" and "Victory Unintentional" are not part of the Robots/Empire/Foundation universe, even though they are included in The Complete Robot and feature robots obeying the Three Laws. Ausir 08:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Foundation Novellas

Cleon the Emperor and Dead Hand should be included somewhere on the page. They were written by Isaac Asimov himself, and are described as "Foundation Novellas" on the pages I linked to. I've read the foundation series randomly (determined by what I could get my hands on), so my memory might be a bit fuzzy, but I'd put Cleon the Emperor directly before Foundation, with Dead Hand directly after it.

These are both stories included within the Foundation books. The former became a chapter in Forward the Foundation, and the latter is included in Foundation and Empire. Anville 19:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Impact on Star Wars

  • Anyone else think that the Jedi are pretty similar to the Second Foundation?Kuralyov 4 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
    • They are similar only in one respect -- the second foundation's ability to manipulate the thoughts/emotions of others is similiar (in practice) to the Jedi mind trick. On the other hand, this is a rather small similarity, if you looked, you could probably find a half-dozen similarities elsewhere. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 03:39 (UTC)
    • There are more than that, I think: the Jedi and the Second Foundation both work to preserve the galactic government; they both are/were based on the capital planet of the Galactic Empire; they both search out their new recruits at a very young age, or else it's impossible to train them; they're both run by a "Council"; they both are hunted down to extinction by the Galactic government they try to protect (or at least, in the Second Foundation's case, so they let on)...Kuralyov 4 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

From The Darth Side: Memoirs of a Monster:

In the tranquility born of extreme evasive manoeuvring I found my thoughts drawn to Sullust. The Force may work in mysterious ways but its sense of symmetry is uncanny: the Rebel fleet is massing on exactly the other side of the galaxy from Endor, cast off in the darkness of the opposite rim.
Twin foundations separated by a galaxy, one sworn to uphold order and other sworn to disturb it. [2]

Anville 12:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)