It’s a slightly click-baity title, but as we’re still generating more content for our magazines, this one included, why not?
My Sci-fi unpopular opinion is that 2001: A Space Odyssey is nothing but pretentious, LSD fueled nonsense. I’ve tried watching it multiple times and each time I have absolutely no patience for the pointless little scenes which contain little to no depth or meaningful plot, all coalescing towards that 15 minute “journey” through space and series of hallucinations or whatever that are supposed to be deep, shake you to your foundations, and make you re-think the whole human condition.
But it doesn’t. Because it’s just pretentious, LSD fueled nonsense. Planet of the Apes was released in the same year and is, on every level, a better Sci-fi movie. It offers mystery, a consistent and engaging plot, relatable characters you actually care about, and asks a lot more questions about the world and our place in it.
I’m a great admirer of Isaac Asimov, but Foundation - the book - hasn’t aged well at all.
The Foundation series is honestly some of the greatest high concept science fiction to be written. But you’re not wrong. That shit is hard to read now
A great many of the “old classics” really aren’t very good, IMO. Some of them are downright awful, in fact.
One that comes to mind that has garnered me many downvotes in the past is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which I disliked on pretty much every level. The characters were uninteresting, the worldbuilding was bad, the lunar culture made no sense and was an obvious “isn’t libertarianism awesome?” author insert, the Earthside baddies were cartoonishly stupid, the military conflict should have never worked out for the Lunarians, and Mycroft was a lazy deus ex machina.
How’s that for an unpopular opinion.
You’re probably right. I absolutely adored Heinlein, Stranger in A Strange Land and Moon is a Harsh Mistress were probably my favorite books EVER other then Foundation and Dune, but this was also 20 years ago when I was a teenager. I’m scared to read them again since I’m sure they haven’t aged well.
“The golden age of science fiction is twelve”, as they say.
Asimov had some amazing ideas, but he had absolutely no idea what women even were!
To be fair to the man: The early Foundation stuff was written in the late 1940s and early 50s, and he later freely admitted (it’s in his second autobiography, I, Asimov) that as a huge science/science fiction nerd he had no idea how to write women and avoided it.
His earliest stuff just has women as little more than arm candy, his later stuff turns them into really weird sex objects that are no more believable!
You are quite probably right: I must admit I haven’t read much of anything of his for ages, but in my teens I devoured as much as I could. That was nigh 30 years ago now, though, and not only have what’s acceptable changed, I have grown up, too. :)
I reread the Caves Of Steel trilogy recently, the first was written in the fifties, the last in the eighties. The difference is striking but not necessarily good! The only woman of note in the last one does have more agency than the only woman (at all?) in the first, but she is more obsessed with sex than a 14 year old boy! It’s honestly a little bit creepy
I’m curious what parts of Foundation hadn’t aged well in your opinion.
Is it just because Asimov struggled to write women?
This may be a more popular opinion than you think.
A lot of his work makes me cringe internally, and I grew up on a steady diet of his stuff. I’m always thinking of “I’m in Marsport without Hilda” and it was supposed to be ROMANTIC? Bruh.