First in the stunning Second Foundation Trilogy

Hari Seldon has been nominated as First Minister by Emperor Clean. But as his appointment is being considered, Hari's simple life grows complex with bodyguards, assassination attempts, staff discord and the continuing public debate over artificial intelligence. As the friction over whether robots have souls heats up, two A.l.s, Joan of Arc and Voltaire, go rogue and flee. The chase is on.

A rousing adventure that combines intellectual debate with the ingenious possibilities of true science fiction, Foundation's Fear will bring Asimov's greatest creation back to a new and bestselling life.

Gregory Benford won the Neubla Award in 1980 for his novel Timescape.

"[Benford] brings out the complexities of a galactic empire that Asimov never filled out..the first book stands well on its own."

'Denver Post

"[Benford] took on the huge task of answering questions [raised in the original], and difficult as it may sound, he pulled it off with style..Rest assured, Asimov's work is in good hands."

'Craig E. Engler

Editor and Publisher

of Science Fiction Weekly

"A richly rewarding delight.Benford writes up to his usual high standard and excels in bringing Asimovian concepts.to vivid, visually compelling life."

'Publishers Weekly

(starred review)

"Intriguing and engrossing.[a] curious blend of reinventions and retrospective criticism."

'Kirkus Reviews

(starred review)

In honour of the clear and conciseness of the Good Doctor....

1. This is NOT a Foundation book. Those who are going into it with that expectation please ditch it now - or else you'd end up like me and hate the book. This is a Benford book set in a 'Benford-altered' Foundation universe.

2. Having never read Benford before this, I hope this is not his normal style. Perhaps the author noticed the mess himself, as hinted by the comment in the Afterward: "Those who think it is easy to write clearly ... should try it"). Hallmark of a badly written novel - when you find yourself grappling to UNDERSTAND what the author is trying to say through that ornate prose and end up not even caring whether you do or not. Nobody writes as clearly as does Asimov, but surely they can find someone who does better than this!

3. The neologisms ... UGH! Perhaps it's just me, but lots of techno-babble does not equal hard SF. Intergrating technical information seamlessly into the narrative is a skill that Benford doesn't seem to appreciate. And calling a spade a spade does not detract from the science. Words such as 'mathist', 'stim', 'sim', 'pan'; 'meritocrats', 'tiktoks', 'memes' etc etc etc do not add to the narrative. It took me 8 pages to figure out what a 'pan' is - call me dumb if you will but I don't believe this kind of thing doesn't detract from the story.

4. Professor of Physics or not - Mr. Benford, you're now in someone else's universe, please show some respect. Wormholes are en vogue today - who knows what will be in 10 years time. Throwing them into a galaxy that did very well without them for 16 books for the sake of 'up-dating' is arrogant and will, I suspect, date 'Foundation's Fear' more than otherwise. Perhaps I could've accepted them had they been central to the plot - alas, they were not.

5. Hari Seldon as James Bond doesn't work. If I wanted to read action-adventure, I would. I can just imagine Roger Moore jumping out of that elevator shaft, dusting off his jacket and saying to the on-lookers: "Just dropping in." That is NOT Hari Seldon. Speaking of which... what's happened to Seldon anyway? He is confused, impatient, apathetic, cold and hard. In 'Forward the Foundation' Asimov clearly explains that Seldon is his alter ego. I can see the Good Doctor turning in his grave.

6. And speaking of turning in his grave - the VIOLENCE oh the violence of the book. Asimov is one of the last frontiers of bloodless fiction. He abhorred murder and used it when he must (such as a murder mystery) and 99% off the stage. Since when is brute force valued more than intellect in an Asimov book? In 'Foundation's Fear' - Seldon not only quite happily bats someone to death but also plans mass murder and gloriously baths in it's aftermath. With the assistance of ....

7. ... Daneel. I fell in love with him during my teenage years and is probably among the minority that let out whoops of joy when Asimov dragged him kicking into the 'Foundation' series. ;-) The Daneel in this novel is a changed robot - he is no longer grave and gentle (stern and aloof were the two most common adjectives used). And he seems to have lost the Laws of Robotics somewhere along the way. The mass murder of Lamurk's agents - not a flicker of indecision; the mind swipe of Lamurk - not a flicker of regret ... on the other hand the robots (his brethern) are obviously more important to him. As a previous reviewer commented, to me Daneel is the most threatening figure in the novel.

8. Does Benford have a problem selling his novelettes? 150 pages of Joan of Arc and Voltaire and 50 pages of 'pans' - that's 1/3 of the whole novel! Why did Asimov's estate even allow these?

9. Benford points out the inconsistencies of the whole saga in his Afterward. If only he didn't create more - I sometimes wonder whether he read the original series. I'm not a nitpicker and I'm not talking about trivia like dates and population - characters changed personalities (Seldon, Dors, Daneel, Amaryl); characters disappeared (Raych); backgraound of the galaxy changed (aliens, tiktoks, wormholes); and events clearly documented in previous volumes ignored (Seldon never saw Daneel again after his turn as Demerzel; Dors' role was never well publicised; the public understanding of Earth! ).

10. Throwing in a comment about the 'ugliness of "sociohistory"' and the cute chapter titles do not save the book. Especially when the novel lectures you like you're an idiot. We're not and we get the point without being told to us point blank again and again and again...

Sorry to be so long-winded. But this is an extremely frustrated fan writing! ;-)


Foundation's Drear   October 26, 1999
 24 out of 27 found this review helpful

I disagree with those who criticize Benford for neither writing like Asimov nor adopting the now outmoded science underlying the great Foundation trilogy. Asimov himself developed a more polished style in later works, and, as a scientist, would doubtlessly approve the use of the most accurate technology. Such criticisms miss a more damning point -- that "Foundation's Fear" is a bad book by any standard. The book is bloated with pointless dialogue and description. The hamhanded plot telegraphs the "twists" so far in advance that their final arrival is cause for relief rather than surprise. The secondary characters are so paper thin that it's impossible to understand their motivations or to develop any sympathy for them. Benford does manage better with his main character. His exposition of Hari Seldon's character and of the development of psychohistory provide believable coverage for holes in Asimov's account. But Benford sacrifices some of the character's credibility by having Seldon engage in James Bondian heroics while avoiding a series of implausible assassination attempts. But worst of all are the scenes with the Voltaire and Joan of Arc artificial entities. Their actions and reactions to events around them are unrealistic, the development of their "characters" doesn't make sense, and and their philosophizing about artificial entities mostly rehashes points that have been made better by more skillful writers.

I borrowed this book from the library, and am glad that I didn't waste $6.00 on it. I advise everyone else to either do the same or skip straight to the vastly superior Greg Bear book, which can be read independent of "Foundation's Fear." If you insist on owning the book, wait to find it for 50 cents at flea markets, where it should be appearing in abundance soon.


Help For Insomniacs   November 3, 2000
 21 out of 23 found this review helpful

Normally, I do a lot of my reading on the train (BART for those of you familiar with San Francisco), getting to and from work. An engrossing book keeps me awake and I read it relatively quickly. "Foundation's Fear", especially the first half of it, set a recond for putting me to sleep. There were days in when I only managed to read a couple of pages. A paragraph or two and I'd be out, even before the train started moving. As others here have pointed out, there is a lot of boring dialogue and description and much of it focuses around the Voltaire and Joan of Arc artificial entities. Hundreds of pages of philosophical noodling and descriptions of imaginary scenes conjured up in cyberspace become numbing.

Then there's psycohistory! Asimov used it as a vehicle to further his plot, he didn't try to flesh it out in detail. Benford does, and it just doesn't work on that level. If elaborate statistical analysis worked that well think what it could do to major sports. He also indulges in long-winded detailing of psychohistory's graphical output. This also goes on and on. And there's the imperial government, which is autocratic, but also seems to be subject to democratic constraints at the same time.

Benford discusses in the "Afterward" all the considerations involved in extending Asimov's Foundadtion series, and there were many. To his credit, he didn't try to imitate Asimov's style and he introduced technologies not used in the original books. And some parts of the book are faster-paced and more entertaining. I thought the section on "Panucopia" was the best, but there were other good scenes.

This book has it good points and its bad ones. It's two hundred pages too long and there are inconsistencies that are already well-documented by others. On the whole it isn't very satisfying. Those wanting to do the full sequence should be prepared to plod through, others probably should bypass this one altogether.


Not Asimov. Definitely not. Not too bad either.   July 7, 1999
 13 out of 14 found this review helpful

I don't agree with many of the other reviewers that this book is a waste of time. I agree that it could have been written better, and that it certainly is not written in Asimov-style.

The characters are described far too detailed to be Asimov-style, too much thoughts, pondering, talk talk talk. I really hated the parts in which the sims go on forever. I really like the Foundation series, so I had to force myself to finish this book, to be able to read the next one properly.

Benford writes a story in which psychohistory is almost fully developed. I guess since it is good enough to predict the past, it should enable Seldon to make small extrapolations to predict the future. In Asimov's Foundation books, this was not the case, so why did Benford predict the past with it? Major contradiction.

I hate the wordprocessor disease. Just like Asimov and Clarke, people who use a wordprocessor create lengthy stories. Look at "Foundation" itself, it is short and energetic (I guess I am getting old: "they don't write stories like that nowadays").

Hari Seldon becomes Prime Minister of the Empire. This is utterly ridiculous. Thousands of pages have been written about the Foundation and it was never mentioned before.

Hari Schwarzenegger was very able to prevent being assasinated over and over again. Hari is a super hero. He is a stud as well, a sexual superman. His genes should be preserved for the Galactic Gene Pool.

In all stories related to the Foundation traveling is done with hyperships. Benford is too much a scientist to let go of his own ideas and introduces worm holes. I think he is showing no respect for the story. The worm holes just don;t fit.

Where the hell do the tiktoks come from. And to be able to make strange twists and turns in the story, he introduces sims, memes and alien civilations. Why didn't Asimov think of that? Maybe because such things are used only by people who want to want to use far-fetched SF-items to create a real SF-story. The Foundation series was not exciting enough, and hey look what the cat dragged in. I don't like it. Asimov didn't need it, Benford does.

The next Mister Fantastic item is dragged in by the cats: immersion in pans and raboons and even in Hari's own formulas and the Mesh. How convenient.

Gee, foundations, what a nice word, just drop it in somewhere, who cares. The word 'Foundation' has to be used somewhere in the book, so why not use it in the last chapters. Seldon is rambling away and suddenly there it is, the magic word.

I look forward to reading "Foundation and Chaos". My partner read both "Foundation's Fear" and it's follow-up, "Foundation and Chaos", and she told me the second is much much better. I guess I don't dislike it as much as I dislike "Foundation's fear".

If you like the Foundation series, please read this book. Don't let all the criticism bother you. This book still contains some nice SF-ideas and plot changes and philosophical development (I wished Benford would have used that for another book, and not for a book in the Foundation series).


Uhhh....   March 14, 2000
 11 out of 11 found this review helpful

Firstly, I have read all three books in the new series. I would ask you to save your money, as the only real reason you would want to read these books is if you are an Asimov die-hard, and must include anything remotely Asimov-ian in your collecion.

I must say, though, that if you are insistent on reading this series anyway, skip this first one. Oh my God. Nothing like Asimov (as you can tell by these other reviews). Even Daneel acts differently, which is a shame.

It truly seems that when the Asimov estate approached Benford to write this novel, he quickly read the Foundation series, then merely tied in several story ideas Benford himself was working on anyway, slapped them together with a minimum of stitching, and turned them into something remotely Foundational.

I also noticed that you can get no real sense of time (in later books, Hari and Dors's pan adventure is explained to be quite a long period of time's worth, but you can't tell that at all from Benford's book -- it seems like only a week at most). As a matter of fact, if you read Bear's or Brin's entries (which are much better by the way -- Greg Bear's is more action-oriented and fast-paced, where poor David Brin has to bat clean-up and seems to do more explaining for the whole mis-begotten affair than anything else) you'll see the other two authors almost trying to shy away from Benford's novel: there's hardly anything mentioned in Bear's book regarding the Voltaire and Joan sims until the end (thank goodness -- they were annoying and the most pointless characters in this book, and, unfortunately, they were the majority of it), and Brin worked with the sims as best he could.

Avoid the first book, but give the other two a try. There's not much you'll miss at all if you don't read "Foundation's Fear" that couldn't be explained in three sentences. Actually, I think that's exactly how it was explained in the following books anyway! As mentioned before, even though I think the last two are better, Bear's book is a classic sci-fi action film in book form, and Brin's book almost makes you want to hate the robots for being so "controlling" of humans. But they're still better written and thought out than "Fear".

I've never read anything else by Mr. Benford, and not planning on it.