Over rated Authors-Isaac Asimov

[Fat Abe]

One might say that Science Fiction is an acquired taste. The field is not as exploitative or sappy as romantic storywriting. The number of authors who have made it in SF is actually small, when you think about it. Every one of the writers in Silverberg's anthology, Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume One, 1929–1964, is well known to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sci...9%E2%80%931964

Certainly Asimov belongs in the same class of writers as Heinlein, del Rey, Bester, etc. Isaac may not be in the same league as Sturgeon, but, that is a matter of personal preference. Because SF does not aspire to the lofty ideals of great literature, the average fan is satisfied with a good plot and mild amusement. SF was not haute cuisine, nor was it nouvelle cuisine. That was the credo Asimov followed, and who can blame him? Was the world ready for esoteric, new wave Sci Fi when he was writing? Yes, and no. Thomas Disch was brilliant and ahead of his time. But not in a commercial sense, meaning he never raked in the big bucks like Asimov or Bradbury. Possibly, the operative word was accessible. Drift a little, but not too far afield. If China Mieville were writing in 1950, he would have been shunned. Incomprehensible, way too avant garde. Could Asimov have altered his writing style over the years? Not after he tasted fame and publicity. That would be like asking Stephen King to pen The Brothers Karamazov. Rather than critique Asimov for what he wasn't, let's just say there are many writers in the universe to read besides this one man. Asimov is neither overrated or underrated. After all, he did not get a Nobel prize, did he? Try other authors, even Doris Lessing. No comment on her. Why? Because it takes a lot of reading to tell how good or important a writer may be, in his/her lifetime.

[HomeInMyShoes]

I don't know, I'm reading Golem100 by Alfred Bester and its plenty exploitative in a cheesy B-science fiction movie way. I have to say, I picked it for a laugh and it's been a quality selection based on that requirement.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by crich70

As for robots attacking people Asimov's characters speak about trying to deal with the "Frankenstein Complex" that the public seem to have about robots.

His Zeroth Law of Robotics does open the door for this. If Robots may violate the First Law if, in the Robot's opinion, it is necessary to protect humanity, then the robots could do pretty much anything, depending on their definition of harm to humanity.

[HomeInMyShoes]

All you need to do is redefine humanity and our kettle is cooked. It's been the premise behind a lot of stories and movies.

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

All you need to do is redefine humanity and our kettle is cooked. It's been the premise behind a lot of stories and movies.

Wasn't that the purpose of the shibboleth used by a robot in Foundation's Edge? It's been awhile since I read that.

[HomeInMyShoes]

I want/need to read Asimov. One of these days. One of these days.

[QuantumIguana]

There were stories where the Robots were programmed with restricted definitions of human. That affects the First Law.

Asimov compared his three laws to tools:

1) A tool must not be dangerous to its user
2) A tool must perform its function
3) A tool must be reliable

We would want an automated drill to stop if there is a person in its way, but as long as the work area is clear, we want the drill to do its job. And we want it not to break down, but that's subordinate. We might need to use the tool even if it breaks it, depending on how urgent the task is. Asimov's Laws are essentially the same idea, we want the Robot not to hurt people, to obey orders so as it can do so without hurting people and to protect itself so long as doing so doesn't harm people or violate orders.

There are tricky things with robots, you probably don't want the robot obeying just anyone's orders. Otherwise, people would order the robot to come home with them. The robot would have to come out of the box prepared to take orders from only its owner (and from customer support). The first law gets tricky. You wouldn't want the robot to restrict voluntary actions, a robot which forbade humans from playing sports wouldn't be a good robot. The Zeroth Law gets really problematic. It is difficult to imagine the horror of the Black Death. But those who survived found that their labor was suddenly much more valuable, and the status of peasants improved. Suppose they had robots that could cure the Black Death. With the Zeroth Law, the robots could decide that humanity was better off with the Black Death than without it. The First Law would require the robots to provide the cure. The Zeroth Law would allow them to withhold it. We might want a robot to interfere with a mugger, even if it hurts the mugger, but we probably wouldn't want a robot to be taking such big matters into their own hands. We benefited from the Black Death, but to choose the Black Death would be horrific.

[kennyc]

I think James Joyce is more over-rated than Asimov by far!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by crich70

Yep the movie "I Robot" isn't strictly speaking a direct translation of the book to movie. ....

Oh, YOU'RE THE ONE that work up this nicely snoozing thread....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I want/need to read Asimov. One of these days. One of these days.

Yes you should.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I think James Joyce if more over-rated than Asimov by far!

If only James Joyce had written stories about robots...

[kennyc]

He did.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

Certainly Asimov belongs in the same class of writers as Heinlein, del Rey, Bester, etc. Isaac may not be in the same league as Sturgeon, but, that is a matter of personal preference. Because SF does not aspire to the lofty ideals of great literature, the average fan is satisfied with a good plot and mild amusement.

*Asimov* didn't, and many other SF writers don't - but that doesn't mean that "SF" doesn't, or that no writers in SF do. As for aspiring to the ideals of great literature, you could look at "Gravity's Rainbow," at "The Handmaiden's Tale," at "The Sparrow," at "The Time-Traveller's Wife," at "Never Let me Go", or at "Fahrenheit 451", and at many things written by Ursula LeGuin, and at Ted Chiang's short stories. Whether these works have achieved the lofty goals of great literature is, of course, a different question.

SF was not haute cuisine, nor was it nouvelle cuisine. That was the credo Asimov followed, and who can blame him? Was the world ready for esoteric, new wave Sci Fi when he was writing? Yes, and no. Thomas Disch was brilliant and ahead of his time. But not in a commercial sense, meaning he never raked in the big bucks like Asimov or Bradbury. Possibly, the operative word was accessible. Drift a little, but not too far afield. If China Mieville were writing in 1950, he would have been shunned. Incomprehensible, way too avant garde. Could Asimov have altered his writing style over the years? Not after he tasted fame and publicity. That would be like asking Stephen King to pen The Brothers Karamazov. Rather than critique Asimov for what he wasn't, let's just say there are many writers in the universe to read besides this one man. Asimov is neither overrated or underrated. After all, he did not get a Nobel prize, did he? Try other authors, even Doris Lessing. No comment on her. Why? Because it takes a lot of reading to tell how good or important a writer may be, in his/her lifetime.

I've always thought it interesting that Asimov significantly cut back his SF production in the late 50's, focusing instead on non-fiction.

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I don't know, I'm reading Golem100 by Alfred Bester and its plenty exploitative in a cheesy B-science fiction movie way. I have to say, I picked it for a laugh and it's been a quality selection based on that requirement.

Yeah, that was kind of his "comeback novel after 25 years or whatever of not writing SF; I like his earlier stuff better.

[elcreative]

You can't include "The Handmaiden's Tale" in a discussion involving SF, it isn't SF as Margaret Atwood went to great lengths to say...

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by elcreative

You can't include "The Handmaiden's Tale" in a discussion involving SF, it isn't SF as Margaret Atwood went to great lengths to say...

She can say whatever she wants of course. But attempting to lift it out of the mire of science fiction, as some people see it, doesn't mean it isn't science fiction. It reminds me of an old joke: how many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.