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

81–90 of 186 posts

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#81

Post by thombat »

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…

Indeed, this is such a central point that it's made clear in the first chapter:

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

Remarkable that Asimov could overlook this.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#82

Post by GJim »

buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #30
hleszek wrote: post #8

This is still so relevant now: > This Orwellian preoccupation with the minutiae of 'historical proof' is typical of the political sectarian who is always quoting what has been said and done in the past to prove a point to someone on the other side who is always quoting something to the opposite effect that has been said and done. As any politician knows, no evidence of any kind is ever required. It is only necessary…

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.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#83

Post by globular-toast »

gerikson wrote: post #78
globular-toast wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just stop with the first book. Keep reading...

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.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#84

Post by GJim »

krapp wrote: post #33
tenthirtyam wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my most fascinating reads of all time was "Brave New World Revisited" (1950s I think), a follow-up of "Brave New World" (1920s I think) by Aldous Huxley. Similarly, the point then was how the mass media and TV would eventually be used to mislead and deflect populations' attentions. Such innocent times when we thought the TV could be evil.

The TV was evil? I feel like people forget that so much of what they blame on social media now existed with television. Propaganda, misinformation, addiction, emotional manipulation, mind rot, overstimulation, excessive advertising, even moral panics blaming it for violence and deviant behavior. Television didn't create self-reinforcing bubbles of hyperreality because it represented a corporate model of reality appli…

> I feel like people forget that so much of what they blame on social media now existed with television

TV news/documentary broadcasts have a "fairness doctrine" in most of the democratic world [1], meaning both sides of political discussions must be presented. This is a very good bit of legislation which makes television (and radio) broadcasts much more impartial and open minded than a typical social media bubble.

TV programming might well be "mind rot" to some. But to equate TV news/documentaries with social media is a poor comparison. One is demonstrably worse.

[1] USA excepted. Obviously.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#85

Post by GJim »

jamescrowley wrote: post #45
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.

[flagged]

What is the point you are tyring to make?

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#86

Post by Twisell »

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…

No it's a core misunderstanding of the commenters (and AI ads placement). The quote is biased because it miss the next part of Asimov's essay.

> Orwell was unable to conceive of computers or robots, or he would have placed everyone under non-human surveillance. Our own computers to some extent do this in the IRS, in credit files, and so on, but that does not take us towards 1984, except in fevered imaginations. Computers and tyranny do not necessarily go hand in hand. Tyrannies have worked very well without computers (consider the Nazis) and the most computerised nations in today's world are also the least tyrannical.

Ok for that last sentence guess we'll have to check if what was true in 1980 still is in 2020's.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#87

Post by graemep »

GJim wrote: post #84
krapp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The TV was evil? I feel like people forget that so much of what they blame on social media now existed with television. Propaganda, misinformation, addiction, emotional manipulation, mind rot, overstimulation, excessive advertising, even moral panics blaming it for violence and deviant behavior. Television didn't create self-reinforcing bubbles of hyperreality because it represented a corporate model of reality appli…

> I feel like people forget that so much of what they blame on social media now existed with television TV news/documentary broadcasts have a "fairness doctrine" in most of the democratic world [1], meaning both sides of political discussions must be presented. This is a very good bit of legislation which makes television (and radio) broadcasts much more impartial and open minded than a typical social media bubble. T…

> TV news/documentary broadcasts have a "fairness doctrine" in most of the democratic world [1], meaning both sides of political discussions must be presented.

That is the problem. Most discussions have more than two sides. There are lots of shades of opinion and nuances. Showing just two viewpoints might not be quite as bad as the "memes" and straw man arguments that dominate social media, but it is well down the same road.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#88

Post by internet_points »

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.

Asimov comes off as incredibly naive.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#89

Post by internet_points »

fortran77 wrote: post #48

[flagged]

Even today in the United States people voted for someone who actively tries to dismantle the legal system, pushes for more control in the hands of the executive powers, uses the military against its own citizens, constantly questions election integrity, emphasizes loyalty over free speech, encourages a "Great Leader" cult of personality, attacks political opponents with all possible means, promotes isolationism, militarizes law enforcement, the list goes on. All these are hallmarks of totalitarianism – which is what 1984 is all about.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#90

Post by jibal »

nl wrote: post #49
TMWNN wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. More to the point, when it appeared many on the left attempted to wave this away by claiming that it was, as one put it, a "gentle satire" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm#Reception > when anyone who has read Animal Farm knows that it is in no way gentle in its satire. What nl is attempting to do above is the latest iteration of what Animal Farm and 1984 both received from those who could not stand…

> 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.)

Post reply on HN