Originally Posted by Prime Junta
The Foundation trilogy has aged better IMO because its ideas have survived better. Psychohistory is still an intriguing concept, the decline of a great empire and the emergence of a new one from its ashes is as valid a story premise now as it was then. But it does have all of Asimov's weaknesses, too, only slightly mitigated by the fact that he had to work harder at editing and polishing them than his later books, when he was churning out a couple of them a year.

Absolutely agree - and also with the thoughts about the robot series. Those two combined are why I am not so big on the later Foundation books!