Over rated Authors-Isaac Asimov

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

There are a couple of big reasons why a book read in school may seem awful, even though they are good:

• Students are asked to read books that they aren't be interested in.
• Students are asked to read books in ways that they aren't interested in.

When I see 1-star reviews of classic books, I commonly see statements of being made to read it for school. I'd rather schools not try to make students read great literature, as I think it actually discourages reading. If reading isn't enjoyable, people won't read.

I'm reading Moby Dick now, and enjoying it. I recognize that not everyone will like it. On the other hand, I can't get into James Joyce, while others love his books.

Originally Posted by taustin

That depends on the part you snipped out - who gets to define harm. Is it the person who owns the robot, or the one who created it? Certainly there are those who believe the the S&M lifestyle is psychologically harmful to both participants. So whose definition gets used? Because there's no definition inherent in the Three Laws. (I believe Asimov addressed that potential for conflict at one point, in a story, didn't he?)

Well, if the robots are in your BDSM chamber, they presumably have been informed about what the people involve consider to be harm. It is a tricky subject. I think what you would have to do is to ask what a human would do in a given situation, with incomplete knowledge. Also, you would need to factor in that a robot wouldn't have the same self-preservation needs as a human. For example, if a human is witnessing a mugging, intervening would be optional, as the human would be risking their lives. The robot isn't alive, and the robot doesn't have to worry about safety. The robot is sort of like a super-hero, in having powers greater than normal humans, and the issue is more of judgment than ability.

Asimov had a number of stories dealing with the edges of the three laws. One story allowed robots to harm humans because the robots were programmed with a very narrow definition of human.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

When I see 1-star reviews of classic books, I commonly see statements of being made to read it for school. I'd rather schools not try to make students read great literature, as I think it actually discourages reading. If reading isn't enjoyable, people won't read.

As with everything in education, there are conflicting views on why we teach what we teach. There is definitely a view that we should be encouraging reading of any form, to improve literacy (and, arguably, to allow for differences in the needs and interests of individual students). Yet there is also a need to expose students to reading at deeper levels, for information and interpretation.

Asimov had a number of stories dealing with the edges of the three laws. One story allowed robots to harm humans because the robots were programmed with a very narrow definition of human.

Yet that story wasn't really about the robots. It was about the people. By modifying our definition of a person, we are able to slip into our baser instincts and disregard higher principles. (It was the laws of robotics in that case. Presumably he also meant the laws laid down by governments and religions in the more general sense.)

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

I don't think that's quite right.
I gather that he just wants to re-define "classic" to (a) include anything he likes, including Douglas Adams and Star Shmek, and (b) exclude anything he doesn't like or which he personally finds hard to read.

Touche. I concede the point.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Asimov had a number of stories dealing with the edges of the three laws. One story allowed robots to harm humans because the robots were programmed with a very narrow definition of human.

And in my favortite Donovan & Powell story, a robot let them get *killed*...
...because it was given a very loose version of the first law and because the "death" was strictly temporary. And even there, the robot was compelled to make the period of "death"...well... interesting...

Not going to spoil it but if anybody ever gets to make a *real* I, Robot (probably as a TV miniseries) Donovan & Powell are going to steal the show.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Yet that story wasn't really about the robots. It was about the people. By modifying our definition of a person, we are able to slip into our baser instincts and disregard higher principles. (It was the laws of robotics in that case. Presumably he also meant the laws laid down by governments and religions in the more general sense.)

Well, if we go with that (perfectly accurate) read, none of the robot stories are about robots. All the robot stories are really about humans and their foibles, from the "Frankenstein complex" of Luddites (the reason he started writing robot stories in the first place), to the sledgehammer message that if *humans* lived by the Three Laws they would in fact be better humans, which he followed up in his latter years by making we-all-know-who the guardian of humanity. (He makes a better Guardian than Multivac, too.)
There are many reasons why his Robot stories resonate so strongly and their veiled ruminations about humanity are just one of them.
For every way anybody can raise about Asimov being overated it is easy to raise several that suggest he is way more *underrated*: as a writer/philosopher.
One could do far worse than to try to live a "Robotic" Three Laws life.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Well, if we go with that (perfectly accurate) read, none of the robot stories are about robots. All the robot stories are really about humans and their foibles...

It seems to me that modern robot science-fiction, its editors and readers are sometimes hypocritical. They laud Asimov but damn any new robot fiction that demonstrates robots with human personality. Asimov often broke this rule. His robots were not true robots. They exhibited character. I think that's fine and necessary. Modern editors / readers seem to have forgotten that. Robots are the modern imps. See the drones in Iain Banks.

For that matter, I suppose Asimov's robot torch has been passed to Iain Banks.

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by Rizla

His robots were not true robots. They exhibited character.

Depends on your definition of "robot", I guess. Asimov's robots had brains that were said to be similar to human brains - including personality.
Some stories even acknowledge that - saying that personality is something only positronic robots have.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Rizla

It seems to me that modern robot science-fiction, its editors and readers are sometimes hypocritical. They laud Asimov but damn any new robot fiction that demonstrates robots with human personality.

Can you give some examples of work that they damn? I have not seen this tendency but maybe I have just missed it.

Also, having robots that is like humans does not seem to give anything new to write about.

[QuantumIguana]

Having some human-like personality traits doesn't mean that they aren't true robots. Even the robots in Karel Čapek's play R.U.R (where the term 'robot' comes from) exhibited human traits. These days, we often distinguish between an android, which has a body and mind which resembles a human from a robot, which has a non-human body and mind. But that's a fairly recent distinction, and an android is really a subset of robots.

If you have a robot who's function is to interact with humans, a physical and mental resemblance to humans is desirable. For other types of robots, it isn't necessary for the robot to look or act like a human. Of course, not every action that we do needs to be done by the robot in the same way. You could have a robot push a vacuum cleaner, but it turns out it is easier to build a Roomba.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Well, if we go with that (perfectly accurate) read, none of the robot stories are about robots. All the robot stories are really about humans and their foibles, from the "Frankenstein complex" of Luddites (the reason he started writing robot stories in the first place), to the sledgehammer message that if *humans* lived by the Three Laws they would in fact be better humans, which he followed up in his latter years by making we-all-know-who the guardian of humanity. (He makes a better Guardian than Multivac, too.)
There are many reasons why his Robot stories resonate so strongly and their veiled ruminations about humanity are just one of them.
For every way anybody can raise about Asimov being overated it is easy to raise several that suggest he is way more *underrated*: as a writer/philosopher.
One could do far worse than to try to live a "Robotic" Three Laws life.

Good post

Asimov is my favorite sci-fi author by far. I don't even really read sci-fi these days, though...very rarely.

I can understand not liking Foundation to some extent. They are definitely big-concept books...just the argument that individuals rarely matter in the big scheme of things probably gets to some people). Plus the first book and a half or so are really just a compilation of short stories. They're a bit dry.

But the Robot books are genius, especially the Lije Bailey novels.

And my favorite Heinlein book is A Door Into Summer...mechanical drafting machines? Nuclear World War III before 1980 (IIRC). Etc. Sci-fi gets outdated, that's how it goes.

[Freeshadow]

"Door into summer" is IMO a romance story. A beautiful one.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

"Door into summer" is IMO a romance story. A beautiful one.

Yes, the protagonist sure loves his cat.
The things he does to recover Petronius...!

[Greg Anos]

I just read this thread end-to-end (with Warren Zevon in the background...)

Asimov just wrote and threw it at the wall...And most of it stuck.

Even so... most of it was forgettable. But when he was on, he was ON.

The Ugly Little Boy, It's a Beautiful Day, The Last Question, Liar!, The Fun They Had...

But that is the difference between then and now. No TV, no ability to re-watch a movie, reading was IT for entertainment. And more demand that there was quality product to fill with. And not as much interest in immersing yourself in a long book days on end. An hour or two's read, that was what people wanted. 10-50 pages a pop...Today, you turn on the babble box...

(As to Dune, it fell apart for me when I realized the Arrakis ecology was a mono-culture. What is the one thing you know, beyond any shadow of doubt, about a mono-culture? It is always ARTIFICIAL! And it is unstable! So who made it, and why. And how close to the times portrayed? Not a peep out of Herbert about that, ever... See Joe Haldeman's Mindbridge.)

[QuantumIguana]

When Asimov was writing, there were other entertainments than reading. Radio was huge, and not just for music, radio dramas were quite popular. People also went to more live theater, live music, sports and movies.

There was no shortage of novel length works in those days. It's just that there was also more of a market for magazines filled with short stories. Short stories fell out of favor, but with e-readers have become viable again.

[Anabran]

"Dune, it fell apart for me when I realized the Arrakis ecology was a mono-culture. What is the one thing you know, beyond any shadow of doubt, about a mono-culture? It is always ARTIFICIAL! And it is unstable! So who made it, and why. And how close to the times portrayed? Not a peep out of Herbert about that"

I though it was an excellent commentary on the monoculture of our petroleum based society. also on Mass Addiction,

And how all of our presumed alliances or long standing & rivalries are superficial and quickly evaporate& Change when the one thing we all depend on is threatened Like Fiat Currency and fractional reserve lending.
and how private corporations who control banking & the "mono crop"(oil) are the true masters
of our lives ( The Guild & Choam in Dune)

Just like U.S. Federal Reserve and Exxon
and how they Make presidents and even so called Galactic Emperors in Dune Disposable Front men who must represent their interests or be quickly deposed .

One needs to read all the Herbert Dune Books if you have not, and think about our world here to day in late 2012 to see the true timelessness of Frank Herbert's writing IMHO.

its much deeper than predicting what kind of personal computers we would be using in the year 10,000 etc .