thorne kingsley
Such a sweet and simple time... goodguys were good guys, badguys were bad guys... Tom Clancy is a sentimental writer, very chummy dialogue that may seem a little corny at first but eventually I just found it heartwarming. The tactics and action are clearly written and easy to follow, and (as is typical) the book is much better than the film.
Wraps up dune nicely, I can't see dune without it at this point. Maybe because I took a long break between one and two but the change in pace was fine for me. The purpose I gathered was to misdirect you all along, and I get that people attached to different elements of the multifaceted original and could be disappointed. This is more than an action adventure series about a savior hero. To me I don't need action set pieces or war in every chapter. I've seen some reviewers complain about the foreshadowing in prescience being heavy handed. Not sure if they finished the book, but most of the visions end up being inaccurate, and those that are unfold in unpredicted ways, which is a lesson about the future Frank has hammered home at this point. Maybe I'm just a fanboy, but compared to the clumsy adolescent prose of other authors in the genre I find the dune series to be high art.
The final book of the series. The 4th & 5th of this series follow just one set of characters, unlike the others which switch between characters and time periods.
The ideas introduced within may have been the most fascinating in any of the series, but the writing is pretty disappointing. The prose - which in Foundation #1 was crisp, rhythmic and highly detailed - becomes laborsome in this (I felt the same trudging style in Foundation #3, though somehow felt his writing was rejuvenated in Foundation #4). In previous books he successfully executed masterful plot-twists, in this book its better to consider these moments as “plot progression points” and not “twists”, and every chapter ends with some kind of ‘pre-adroll cliffhanger' moment.
The logical problems Asimov solves in previous books are like magic-tricks, they catch the reader off guard, and explain the solution with such rationale that as a reader you feel entertained and educated. By comparison, the logical discussions in Foundation#5 are verbose and at times obvious and a bit sophomoric.
The truth is - this is a visionary series, executed by a brilliant man with inconsistent writing talent.
This book explains and justifies some issues I was hung up on in three. The meta story is so much better and really intriguing and thought provoking. Asimovs twisty writing would be gimmicky but instead he justifies it with what is revealed. I liked this one a lot. It's definitely worth reading after the third, makes the series much much better overall. Can't wait to read the fifth.
I'm still into it, but the prose feels less elegant as this goes on. And, I guess at a point I get weary of the deusex machina. Everything is a big problem, until you find out one of the characters who has been standing in the room the whole time secretly is/has XYZ...
Its shocking that this is the ORIGINAL trilogy's ending in 1953, and that he let this ending hang for over a quarter of a century. As a fan, I would have been pretty pissed between 1953-1982. I suspect he was tired of writing it, because this ending feels like a TV show that got cancelled unexpectedly. I guess I will see how the 4th and 5th books work out. I have come too far already, but I'm glad I can keep reading this tomorrow instead of 25 years from now.
I want to know what people feel who have read it... HOW THE HELL did the foundation, being banished to the outer-rim of the galaxy, 50 years after its establishment, give up work as ENCYCLOPEDIAISTS and switch gears to make a massive leap forward in scaling nuclear generators from the size of a building to the size of a walnut??
According to this, atomic generators have existed for the entire time the empire has existed.. how can a technology 20,000+ years in existence suddenly make such a leap in the hands of the children of encyclopedia writers?
What can be said about this heart wrenching novel? Dostoevsky effortlessly explores human weakness, economic hardship, social injustice, depicts acts of nobility and selflessness, and evokes the very essence of love.
I think this is good for posterity, though I am suspicious some of these narratives were assembled by the author after the fact. Perhaps she was more conscious of the mindset of some of these movements, such as virtue signaling academics, but the parts about “alt-light” internet troll culture read as someone who is trying to fill in the motives of a culture she isn't part of and doesn't understand.