Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

newworker.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 186 posts

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#101

Post by gerikson »

globular-toast wrote: post #83
gerikson wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or don't. There's so much more better SF out there.

The point was more that the female characters turn up in books two and three. Three in particular. If you like SF you can't go wrong reading all of Asimov IMO. The entire Robots/Empire/Foundation series is fantastic. It doesn't mean you can't also read other, "better" SF either. Asimov's main SF work will take a few months to read at most.

I have read a lot of Asimov. That's why I said there's better stuff out there.

Even his contempories were better - Bester and Simak run rings around him.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#102

Post by fransje26 »

pavlov wrote: post #10
TMWNN wrote: post #5

>Furthermore, he has a system of volunteer spies in which children report on their parents, and neighbours on each other. This cannot possibly work well since eventually everyone reports everyone else and it all has to be abandoned. Asimov was mistaken here. The East German Stasi did implement a system in which many, many people (not literally everyone, but a staggering percentage) reported on each other.

And North Korea maintains a system of neighborhood surveillance, mandatory self-criticism sessions, and hereditary social classes which are perhaps closer to “1984” because they are so well established now. When it collapsed, East Germany was still led by the same people who had created it. The Berlin Wall only existed for 28 years. North Korea is a multi-generational prison.

No. East Germany did not start existing with the Berlin Wall. The system was in place well before that, and so was the Stasi.

It spanned more than 40 years, and was absolutely multi-generational.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#103

Post by throwaway290 »

GJim wrote: post #82
buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No more relevant today than it was 5 or 10 or 20 years ago tbh

You are being downvoted by those who see the world solely though American eyes and with only recent experience of American politics to draw on. I know HN is USA centric, but bugger me! I didn't expect to see such a narrow viewing of the world stage in the voting on here. EDIT: And I'm getting drive-by downvotes for pointing this out! Nice.

I can see your argument but I'm non american and think you underestimate the impact of USA on global stage.

It was(?) de facto the most powerful democracy with most innovation and broad influence over the world, USAID and so on. Every dictator and tsar had to count with values like freedom of information and tolerance and following laws and trading instead of fighting.

Now it's still maybe powerful but those values and influence coming from it are changing very quickly and that is super recent

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#104

Post by nl »

jibal wrote: post #90
nl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What nl is attempting to do above Um wow talk about bad faith! Actually it's been about 35 years since I read Animal Farm, so I took what the review said as valid.

Asimov's review says it's a satire of the Russian Revolution, not of fascism. (Just pointing out the fact, not at all agreeing with the vile accusation against you.)

Huh - yes you are right. I don't know what I was thinking, but it was very wrong.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#105

Post by srean »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #67
throwaway894345 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orwell and Asimov are talking about something entirely different than drawing flawed conclusions due to inexperience—they’re talking about people with access to the facts and choosing not to believe them. For instance, Alex Pretti’s murder was recorded from several angles and yet the American right still broadly claims that he attacked the agents, that he pulled his gun on them, etc. You don’t need to be an expert in…

These Minessota videos are classic examples of what Scott Adams used to call "two different movies being played on the same screen", in this case quite literally. From the point of view of a left leaning person, that movie shows a man being assassinated for no reason at all, nothing justify what happened. From the point of view of a right leaning person, Alex Pretti was actively interfering with law enforcement, and…

These so called right leaning people were, in the recent past, crying themselves hoarse that they have all the right and moral prerogative to carry arms at a protest.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#106

Post by willis936 »

globular-toast wrote: post #83
gerikson wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or don't. There's so much more better SF out there.

The point was more that the female characters turn up in books two and three. Three in particular. If you like SF you can't go wrong reading all of Asimov IMO. The entire Robots/Empire/Foundation series is fantastic. It doesn't mean you can't also read other, "better" SF either. Asimov's main SF work will take a few months to read at most.

Are you referring to the literal planet rather than a woman? That character felt particularly of self insert fantasy (oo a hot 20 year old in love with the aged professor).

Regardless, stopping at the first book is a good recommendation. Asimov demonstrated he didn't understand what made his own work interesting. Granted mystery boxes are hard, but he took an immediate about-face on psychohistory and retconned any bit of intrigue with rather vanilla stuff. The first book is outstanding.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#107

Post by int_19h »

harry8 wrote: post #47
melagonster wrote: post #38

>Nor did he foresee any difference in the role of women or any weakening of the feminine stereotype of 1949. This is funny for me. The most common type of criticize for Asimov's work is that people complain Asimov did not add enough women in his book. The world is changing so quickly.

I enjoyed reading "Foundation" recently. The total lack of female characters was jarring to say the least. Worth the read if you haven't. Not much like the AppleTV series.

Try "The End of Eternity" to see how Asimov dealt with female characters when they were there...

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#108

Post by MomsAVoxell »

fake-name wrote: post #74
kleiba wrote: post #73

> This is an extraordinarily inefficient system of keeping everyone under control. To have a person being watched at all times means that some other person must be doing the watching at all times (at least in the Orwellian society) and must be doing so very narrowly, for there is a great development of the art of interpreting gesture and facial expression. https://theresanaiforthat.com/

You don't even need an AI. This is such a core misunderstanding that Asimov seems to have, and it kind of kills his entire analysis for me. The assumption is that only some small fraction of a fraction of the people who could be surveilled at any time are being surveilled. The crux of the thing is that everyone COULD be under surveillance at any time, so in effect everyone must behave as if they are being observed be…

Fully agree with how it seems Asimov has misunderstood something, or perhaps been myopic about seeing the world of 1984 with commitment .. another thing that killed his analysis for me was that he didn’t seem to understand the immensely dire conditions of 1984, vis a vis low quality razors, etc., nor that the sociological aspects he implies as banal (implying orwells disregard for proles) were as a consequence of years of brutal war. Asimov didn’t seem to want to scratch deeper into 1984 - he was, I believe, more responding to the world of 1980, which was after all an entirely different yet strikingly similar world to the novel, kind of like political parties.

I have respect for both authors, but for sure I’d rather have a drink and share a sausage with Orwell at a party than wall-flower with the collective absorbing Asimovs rants didactic. Pretty sure the gin’d be cheap anyway.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#109

Post by TitaRusell »

rsynnott wrote: post #92
riffraff wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Trump and his administration also prove what GP is saying. Few care about the truth. Trump states obvious lies so blatant ("prices will go down 200%") that anyone who cares could tell they are untruth without needing to look up any paper trail, but it does not matter. Mike Johnson just quoted St Paul as saying you should respect the authority forgetting that the Romans beheaded him . And it's not like the Bible i…

That’s the interesting bit; Winston’s job turns out to be largely redundant. You don’t need to hide the evidence that the chocolate ration used to be higher; if a sufficiently charismatic person with sufficiently stupid hair says that it has increased, a lot of people will believe that.

How many Americans give a shit about history?

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#110

Post by globular-toast »

gerikson wrote: post #101
globular-toast wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was more that the female characters turn up in books two and three. Three in particular. If you like SF you can't go wrong reading all of Asimov IMO. The entire Robots/Empire/Foundation series is fantastic. It doesn't mean you can't also read other, "better" SF either. Asimov's main SF work will take a few months to read at most.

I have read a lot of Asimov. That's why I said there's better stuff out there. Even his contempories were better - Bester and Simak run rings around him.

Feel free to make more recommendations. I record every single one I get and usually read them eventually.
Post reply on HN