How we cite our quotes: (Part.Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #1
[…] Haut Rodric monopolized the conversation by describing—in minute technical detail and with incredible zest—his own exploits as battalion head during the recent war between Anacreon and the neighboring newly proclaimed Kingdom of Smyrno. (II.2.22)
Notice how Asimov doesn't go into the details about the recent war, though they are in "technical detail." That's because violence isn't important to the novel. The novel focuses instead on the inner politics and decision-making going on behind the space battles. (With that said, we wouldn't have said no to a good space chase scene.)
Quote #2
"Stop the bribes immediately and while you can. Spend your effort in strengthening Terminus itself—and attack first!" (III.1.51)
Whenever anybody says something like this in Foundation, you know you're not supposed to be rooting for him. Like Sermak, the guy who makes these friendly remarks—and we all remember what happened to him. (Right? You guys did read the book—or at least the summary?)
Quote #3
Sermak's lips twitched. "It says: 'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.' That's an old man's doctrine, Mr. Mayor." (III.1.56)
Not old man, Sermak—learned man. You seemed to have mixed the two up, but we'll let it slide this time.
Quote #4
"Certainly. That was the time to begin all-out preparations for war."
"On the contrary. That was the time to begin all-out prevention of war. I played [one kingdom] against the other." (III.1.65-66)
All-out war is inevitable, so it's time…not to prepare for war, but to prevent it? It sounds so backward, and yet so not backward at the same time. Hm. This must be what they call good writing.
Quote #5
Lepold grew excited. "Space, yes. You're absolutely right, you know. We must strike first. It's simply self-defense." (III.3.49)
To strike first is self-defense? Now that just sounds backward—almost as if he's trying to justify violence against another country? But that's just silly. It doesn't make any sense unless…oh.
Quote #6
"I wouldn't say that. We repaired the Imperial cruiser for you, though my board of navigation wished it for themselves for research purposes." [Wienis] repeated the last words ironically. "Research purposes! Yes! Yet you would not have repaired it, had I not threatened war." (III.6.25-26)
Violence breeds a violent outlook on the world. Take Wienis. He only knows war, so he only sees war. This renders him utterly blind to Hardin's true intention and strategy because it has nothing to do with war.
Quote #7
And, with a yell of despair, Wienis changed his aim and shot again—and toppled to the floor with his head blown into nothingness.
Hardin winced at the sight and muttered, "A man of 'direct action' to the end. The last refuge!" (III.8.21-22)
Violence has a tendency to backfire on the violent. In this case, the backfire is literal, not to mention deadly. And probably messy.
Quote #8
"Maybe! And maybe the idea was to have us go all chivalrous and gallant, into a stupid defense of the [missionary]. He was here against the laws of Korell and the Foundation. If I withhold him, it is an act of war against Korell, and the Foundation would have no legal right to defend us." (V.4.92)
Mallow had let the missionary die, which seems like an act of violence—but Mallow is the hero of "The Merchant Prince." But isn't violence supposed to be bad in Foundation? Yes, but that's what makes Foundation complex and interesting rather than preachy. Also, the missionary was a fraud in the end, so there's that.
Quote #9
"He wanted the glory of conquering a rebellious province and his men wanted the loot such conquest would involve. So while the people were still gathered in every large city, cheering the Emperor and his admiral, he occupied all armed centers, and then ordered the population put to the nuclear blast." (V.10.46)
When men are glorified for committing violent acts, surprise! Sometimes they commit unnecessary violent acts—all for the sake of glory. In Foundation, most of the violent characters seek some form of glory, and this guy—a rebel admiral—got away with it.
Quote #10
"If nuclear power makes them dangerous, a sincere friendship through trade will be many times better than an insecure overlordship, based on the hated supremacy of a foreign spiritual power, which, once it weakens ever so slightly, can only fall entirely and leave nothing substantial behind except an immortal fear and hate." (V.13.44)
In a phrase: make love not war. Erm, make trade at any rate. We're more likely to be friends with someone who trades with us than someone who snootily overlords us.