Foundation and Empire by Isaac Asimov (3 stars)

Opinion seems to be divided on the relative merits of each of the foundation novels, but in my mind, this is definitely a weaker novel. The story is less fractured, but even though we have more time to get to know the characters, they turn out to be far less interesting than those of the first book, such as Salvor Hardin and Hober Mallow. Bayta and Toran just bob along in the tide of history and the only interesting feature is the mysterious Mule. I hope he sticks around in the third book so we can get to know him better.

Honestly this book felt like a filler device: necessary to flesh out the historical details and introduce a great conflict between the Mule and the Second Foundation.

There were however a few pieces of dialogue that stuck with me. I liked the irony in Ebling Mis' swearing using the word unprintable

...taking care of every little piece of their unprintable lives.

and could just picture him busting out a frustrated:

Ga-LAX-y!

I also loved this characterisation of Mayor Indbur, it reminded me of a former manager of mine:

Mayor Indbur, third of his name, and second mayor of Foundation history to be so by right of birth, recovered his equilibrium, and lifted another sheet of paper from the neat stack at his left. It was a report on the saving of funds due to the reduction of the quantity of metal-foam edging on the uniforms of the police force. Mayor Indbur crossed out a superflous comma, corrected a misspelling, made three marginal notations, and placed it upon the neat stack at his right. He lifted another sheet of paper from the neat stack at his left...

3 stars.

Foundation by Isaac Asimov (3.5 stars)

The hugo for "best all-time series"? Seems a little prematurely awarded in 1966, given how young science fiction was, but hey it beat lord of the rings, so I had better read it.

Asimov creates a grand plot arc where 'psychohistorians' can make long and accurate predictions into the future about immensely complex systems - the political and economic interactions of millions of worlds populated by humans scattered throughout the galaxy. I was willing to suspend disbelief on that actually being possible and get into enjoying a plucky group of scientists defending the intelligence of the galaxy through an age of barbarism, but I found the writing style took some of the shine off what could have otherwise been brilliant.

The story is broken into a series of short stories along lines such as "The Encyclopedists", "The Mayors", "The Traders" etc. which has the effect of removing any meaningful character development and introducing fairly jarring shifts between time and groups. I think if I had known beforehand that it was originally published as a series of short story serials I would have been more forgiving.

The central problem seems to be trying to cover many centuries of time and events without digging into the real details. I think if you described the set-up, a futuristic fall of rome, and some of the ideas presented in this book such as: presenting technology as a religion to enable central control, and conquest through trade in trinkets, to another author, it could be re-written into a fantastic book.

As it stands I enjoyed the book, but I doubt the series will get my 'best of all time' award.

3.5 stars.

The Reader by Bernhard Schlink (3.5 stars)

This novel begins strongly - Schlink paints detailed pictures as they are frozen in the young Michael Berg's brain: Hannah pulling on her stocking, riding her bike. As Michael's interest in Hannah dwindles with his increasing interest in his peers, my interest also dwindled, where was this leading? Lots of spoilers ahead...

The story soon switches gears and Schlink places the contrast of Hannah's previous life as a SS guard in the concentration camps over Michael's image of her as a lover. In Michael's struggle to both understand and condemn Hannah's crime, Schlink raises the dilemma of the post-WWII German youth: wanting to point the finger in shame and anger at their parents' generation and yet understand and love them as family at the same time.

I wanted to pose myself both tasks - understanding and condemnation. But it was impossible to do both.

Michael struggles with a new picture of someone he thought he knew well. Faced with the evidence of her having Jewish children read to her before sending them to the gas chambers he questions their entire relationship - what sort of person is she?

Would she have sent me to the gas chamber if she hadn't been able to leave me, but wanted to get rid of me?

And given he had chosen her, what sort of person did that make him?

But the finger I pointed at her turned back to me. I had loved her. Not only had I loved her, I had chosen her.

I found this section of the book intriguing as it was a subject I had wondered about myself after visiting Auschwitz and then Germany. However, while it was interesting I didn't find it particularly moving.

At the end of the novel we discover that Hannah has spent much of her time in prison first learning to read and write, then learning about the Holocaust. To me this felt a little disingenuous and a ploy to try and make the reader sympathise with Hannah. I also thought her suicide before Michael had to deal with the reality of interacting with her and caring for her was a huge cop out.

Thought provoking. This is also one of the rare instances where the movie is almost as good as the book.

3.5 stars.