i'm not actually recommending any of those authors (except maybe thoreau, who might not fit the "novelist" label anyways), just saying they have written stuff that could be considered subversive.i did read the original foundation trilogy way back, and while i didn't hate them the way sms and dot seem to, i also didn't find them particularly good. if i remember correctly (highly unlikely), some aspects of the story line could be considered subversive, in a way vaguely similar to how dune might be considered somewhat subversive. a stretch...? perhaps. i didn't put all that much thought into it, sorry to say.
the time stuff you mention makes sense to me sort of, there's already a lot of cliches about "wasting time" in modern society, i find thinking about "time" as being more useful when i just adopt a sense of urgency about living a life without time...
however, you have lost me a little here:
"The kind of novel that sells, wins prizes, etc, will necessarily be one that reflects life back in a way that gives it the coherence, unity, and meaning it is objectively missing. I say, an interesting novel is one that approaches this task with the gravest doubts."
in my limited experience, the kind of novels that usually sell are the ones with a ton of action. When you talk about novels that reflect life with unity/coherence, that kind of thing was more popular in the 19th and 20th century, literature seems kinda dead to me these days?
A lot of the reason i still sometimes visit internet anarchy is i like to understand other people's frames of mind, and i would like to understand how other people use the ideas that they preach.