• @Captain_Shakespeare@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The sequels trend towards fewer, longer stories with a bit more characterization as compared to Foundation, but it never really stops being a series about moments in a larger history. I’d say give either prelude to foundation or Foundation and Empire a try, but odds are if those don’t grab you, none of them will.

      (importantly for those who don’t know already, the publishing dates vary widely across the series - with Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation released in the 50s, and the surrounding prequels and sequels arriving decades later. This can manifest as a jarring shift in writing style if you read them in chronological order instead of publishing order.)

    • @j4k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      I can read most of Asimov, but I don’t like the short stories from his early years as much. The broken but themed short stories are hard for me to stick with reading as a routine. His later stuff is much better than the earlier as far as books you can’t put down. They aren’t sequentially written though. The way Asimov ties in earlier story elements into his later books to interweave the different series together is interesting. Like you might totally miss many subtle references when reading the later books, and these have no impact on the story in question, but if you are reading them with the context of having already read the earlier books there are intuitive clues that guide you along. Like, there is an element of foreshadowing in the plot that is fun. Forward is good but also a slightly broken 3 part story from 3 different feature characters’ perspectives, but a sequential story in its own way. Still, I’m in a lull hiatus in my reading at the beginning of the third section. I just don’t do great with interruptions in fiction. I’ll probably end up binging the last section when I get around to it.