This really should be a book review post, but I liked my original title too much to change it. Also, the title allows me to expand upon my feelings about Isaac Asimov and his writings beyond I, Robot, which is the book I read that inspired this post. It’s a catch-all title so this post is going to act as a catch-all of my musings on the subject.
Let’s start with I, Robot. It’s likely one of my favorite Sci-Fi novels to date, and I was blown away by how much I enjoyed reading it. This isn’t because I expected to dislike it, but because I had no idea what I was in for.
I, Robot is a compilation of short stories told in an interview format. Though they follow different characters and ideas, they all take place in the same world and follow a mostly chronological order. The format itself is interesting because we have several short stories within a larger, overarching tale. A woman, the head of the biggest robotics company in the nation, is being interviewed about the AI beings the company has created. She and the reporter talk about the big breakthroughs in scientific discovery as well as the hiccups along the way, and what these two things mean for the future moving forward.
It’s an intriguing exploration of humanity and technology. What will we do when our society becomes this advanced? How will we handle a being that is essentially smarter, stronger, and more capable than we are? These questions are all addressed throughout the novel with characters who have multiple different viewpoints about the robots themselves. While there are a lot of problems the average person can likely anticipate concerning highly intelligent AI, Asimov goes deeper and includes stories discussing topics or issues with AI most would never even have thought of.
This novel feels like Asimov posing questions about AI and then directly answering them. He gives the reader a moment to think, “Wow, that’s a really great question, I wonder what would happen in that case?” and then answers the question for us so we can say, “Oh, that’s what would happen. How fascinating!” It’s always nice when someone does the work for you.
Giving the reader a moment to think about the problem before handing them the solution is a great story-telling method, in my opinion. It lets us feel like we’re in on the solution even though we (myself for certain, maybe you all would have figured it out) would have no hope of solving it on our own. I had very little clue which direction Asimov would go when each mini-story began, but by the end the direction made absolute sense, as if I’d known the entire time. He makes observations that feel like common-sense, but that few would actually think about when presented with the question of how humans would deal with highly-sophisticated AI.
All that is to say, I really enjoyed this book. I’ve read other Asimov novels with less enjoyment, which is what made this one so surprising. The concepts are often fascinating, and he writes about complex topics in a way that most people can easily digest, but the often blatant sexism or racism in his books is hard for me to overlook. Here we go!
I am generally not a person who will forsake reading a book because of a problematic author. I say generally because if Joe Goldberg’s book was selling in the B&N near me, I would avoid it like the plague. There are certain situations in which it’s absolutely not okay to support an author, or where I will avoid supporting them if it’s really easy not to do so. For example, the entire Harry Potter series can be thrifted due to how popular the books are. J. K. Rowling will see none of my money!
Another time where I don’t personally care about avoiding an author is if they’re already dead. I’m not helping their career any in this instance, and it’s likely their family are the normal type of problematic humans that we all are. So, generally, I am not a person who avoids books because of problematic authors.
This changes, however, when the author’s writing becomes problematic due to their beliefs. It is difficult to suspend disbelief in a book when certain characters are treated or behave in a way that doesn’t make sense in the world the author has built, and their actions are instead clearly a reflection of what the author thinks. This is pretty prevalent in a lot of Asimov’s novels.
The entire Foundation series has very little women in it, and the women who are in the series are often treated condescendingly. It makes little sense for such an advanced society, unless there were a specific mention of the society becoming more socially regressed as they progressed in other areas. There isn’t an in-world explanation for this, though. Asimov was just very sexist and misogynistic in his real life.
There are accounts of him pinching women’s bottoms, and occasionally biting unsuspecting women. Actually BITING them. He didn’t talk very kindly about people of color either. He thought himself so enlightened on these subjects that he felt his words or actions absolved. Asimov was the epitome of a person that would say, “What? Women love me!” when questioned about his antics. Or, “I can’t be racist, I have a black friend!”
In the book I just raved about, the main female character plays highly into the “frigid” bitch trope. She is the head of the company, but she is only successful at her job because she hates men. Yet, her biggest story is about her falling in love with someone who doesn’t love her back, and how that scarred her forever. I do really enjoy the novel, but getting over the portrayal of Dr. Susan Calvin was a tough one.
There are a few caveats to these issues, but I don’t think either of them give him a pass. The first I see most often is that Asimov wasn’t very good at writing round or dynamic characters in general, most of them have two defining traits at most. This is a large reason why he’s so successful, he’s built an incredible world in so few words because he can operate this world with the bare minimum of characterization. While I agree that this does describe Asimov’s writing, I don’t think the argument that this is “just his style” is an excuse for sexist or racist characterization/storytelling.
The other I see more often is that “Well, it was just the time!” Sure, except Ursula K. Le Guin was one of his contemporaries and she included plenty of well-written women and people of color. I suppose you can argue that she was a woman and thus would not have the same perspective of Asimov at the time, but that’s also a poor argument that excuses his improper thinking and bad behavior. Star Trek also debuted around this time, and while it isn’t a book it is an example of a work of Sci-Fi dominated by male writers that was extremely progressive.
Overall, I find that I do like Asimov’s stories and writing, but I don’t think there’s anything special enough in them that I would choose one of his books over another, more dynamic writer. There’s been a bit of a resurgence in the discussion around him due to the Foundation TV show, and I think it’s important to acknowledge that while he was clearly one of the pioneers of Sci-Fi and has written many great books, there are still issues within the writing that should be discussed and examined. This goes for all authors who were great writers but not so great people.
The Lit Wiz