Why Asimov Hated 1984
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- Most people think of 1984 as a great book. Well, one person didn't.
Listen in for Asimov's arguments and why I think he may have thought that way.
Music by CO.AG Music
/ @co.agmusic
"Why Asimov Hated 1984" was first published in Utopia Science Fiction Magazine
www.utopiascie...
I love Asimov's work, but I had no idea how naive he was. Orwell wasn't trying to predict the future. He was describing the present. And he was spot on.
Asimov's fictional work was largely garbage. It was fanciful and silly and completely non-credible. Orwell was a truth-teller, describing how humanity actually works.
But he framed it as a possible trajectory for the future, rather than a commentary on the present.
And thus Asimov thinks that it's not well thought out, and shows no real imagination.
Outside of a slightly longer time-frame and some technology no one could have really predicted, Orwell was pretty spot-on.
I always knew Asimov was naive, but this is another level.
I think of him more as optimistic. That’s why I think he didn’t vibe with Orwell. Nothing optimistic about 1984. Fascinating in its grimness. But dystopian all the same.
@@spectr__ it’s pronounced “room” 101. It can or may not rhyme with roof. Rough when yer room 101. Side face hair is just hate saying some hot gos. We really have to settle on newspeak I mean lo newspeak better.
Asimov was a dreamer. A true artist. Orwell was a pessimistic edgelord. There is a place in society for both, but one is much more useful than the other
Azimov: Orwell's world is not a realistic future.
Also Azimov: *proceeds to depict 10 000 th century spacecraft running on oil*
Wow. Orwell won that one, just took 40 more years. Only difference at the moment is the level of force. Baby steps.
You see the force flare up; like BLM demonstrations, occupy Wall Street and the college occupations surrounding Israel-Gaza. Not to mention the wholesale bombing of blocks of housing in the pursuit of Black Panthers. But the threat of force is a constant underlying Western Society and the best way for governments of assuring compliance.
As of 2024, we are far from 1984.
Asimov's writing was exemplary of the confident, progressive scientific liberalism of the US of the 50's-60's, alongside such as Star Trek and the like. If you are trying to write a better world into existence, you aren't going to like Orwell's depiction of a uniparty dystopia, which even if exaggerated, is not too distant from the cynical way politically motivated people use the media these days.
Exactly! Very well put.
Orwell's "1984" draws a lot upon "Anthem" by Ayn Rand which in turn draws upon "We" by Zamyatin, of which I only read "We" start to finish. I find these dystopian novels hitting too close to home to be entertained by them.
I think Orwell managed to point out that one of the major weakness of any social system is the dependency on accurate reporting of information about the world (including itself). If that is compromised, then all decisions are compromised.
He also shone a light upon the power of language itself. That it could be used to overthrow the power of people to act. Before action, or even the decision for action, the mind must construct a plan. If the language for action is corrupted, then all plans are corrupted.
What I do wonder though is how such a corrupted system could continue, unless there are an influential group with sufficiently accurate knowledge about the world and the people in it, to pursue systemic stability. North Korea seems to be a demonstration of this on the surface at least, but it's existence really depends on the actions of China and it could not sustain itself without that assistance. Similarly, a case could be made that Russia under Putin is in that category, and its existence is propped up ultimately by the threat of nuclear annihilation. This though may well be temporary in that when Putin falls there is no obvious person to replace him. Similarly, some new terrifying technology could be developed, and nuclear threats may no longer be enough to protect him.
Unlike stories, being "good" is not sufficient to overcome the "bad" and in this sense Orwell is a constant reminder that evil doesn't rest nor does it have to make sense to happen.
Honestly new speak doesn’t have a word for sideburns and that must’ve irked Asimov to be called “face side hair”.
1984 was scariest book I ever read. I am from Russia, so I couldn’t help but place myself in MC shoes. I tried to convince myself that this level of control is impossible to achieve. When you dumb down your population you do the same to your government too and no way you would be competent enough to control everyone. But it is actually easy to be a dictator. To keep everyone in constant state of fear and paranoia. Revolution can only happen with support of elites. It’s a bitter truth I’ve learned from our and Belorussian attempts at deposing government. And it’s easy to survey elites.
In the ‘80s, Asimov lamented the possibility that the human race would destroy itself before A.I. could take over. He seemed to regard digital intelligence as superior to biological intelligence. I found it tough to take Asimov seriously after that. At least, as a human being.
Hey, you got to remember he was all in on the optimism of the future and robotics and science. He also had some hard science credentials. Just like there are scientists warning of the dangers of ai, there are some championing the possible future of ai’s dominance. To me he stayed on brand with his ideas. After all he came up with the legendary ‘laws of robotics’.
Given the computing power available in the 80s, I am not surprised about his pessimism. I remember how big a deal the neural networks behind reCaptcha were ~10 years ago. Nobody except those 100% involved in the research expected AI to explode in usefulness in 2023 and 2024
The most dangerous people are articulate and stupid
Yeah, Asimov was cool and all, but totally disagree with his criticisms of Orwell. I think Asimov was totally jelly; sorry sideburns guy
Who knew Asimov had his head in the sand? Or worse, was a deliberate propagandist.
Great video. Everything I hear about Asimov on a personal level makes him seem like a very shallow person with a ton of blind spots.
Thanks so much for your comment. I do think that Asimov was an extraordinarily clever guy but also very arrogant and this becomes more pronounced as he got older and literally everything that ran through his mind was being published.
It's his opinion, not a psych evaluation. He's rught about the prose, too.
The problem with world of 1984 is that there is no room for the United States in it. Orwell disliked America and didn't know much about it, but to imagine a world where the US has embraced a rather gloomy socialism in thirty years is ridiculous (other than the bit about Airstrip One; most Americans at the time regarded Britain as little more than a combination museum/parking lot for the USAF).
But Americans, especially American SF writers, were on fire for the future- an American future full of cars, televisions, atomic power and rocket ships.
If you are looking for American dystopias, you're far better off looking into the consumer-driven capitalist hellholes of C.M. Kornbluth, Frederick Pohl, and others of the mid-1950s.
The two writers were coming from different directions. Asimov's works dealt with science and how we deal with it. Orwell was concerned with human nature and politics and how far things could go if we didn't stand vigil over our own freedoms.
Except Asimov's work is unscientific af, more akin to fantasy. While Orwell predicted the trajectory we're upon (and that is already reality in some countries)
Asimov is wrong about the inconsistent technology. While it is true that Orwell didin't go into much detail about the technological side of the world of 1984, he does mention the Artificial Intelligence. Some machine we today might call a language model. Writing poems without any human assitance. I too used to think this is silly. A mid 20 century style totalitarianism with technology like that?! But the reality has proven Orwell right, or at least closer to being right about the future than either me or Asimov.
It’s simple: Asimov was a Jewish socialist, and Orwell had correctly distilled the lessons of Russian Bolshevism (Jewish socialism) into literary warnings. Thusly, to ensure his ideological project could continue forward, Asimov had to discredit Orwell.
Thank you for you antisemitism.
Aasimov was mostly only right about 1984 not being science fiction, but as was noted, Orwell was not trying to be a science fiction writer. He put a lot of emphasis on the political leaders doing anything to stay in power, & increase their power. While that's true, it's ignoring what that "power" is: it's derived from the very apparatus & structure of the state. Their social power only exists within the context of that state system.
I see 1984 as a warning about human societies moving towards valuing of society & state, over the individual.
A biological analogy: our societies have thus far been closer to colonial organisms, where humans are the cells, & the society / state is the colony. 1984 shows us an advanced progress towards societies becoming more like multicellular organisms. Extreme specialization, where the individual is expendable, & the society / state has organization & value in itself, above & beyond the value it has to individuals. The individuals only have value insofar as they have value to the state. In a multicellular organism, individual cells only have value in the context of the greater organism, & they are regularly "encouraged" to commit apoptosis (cell suicide), with dissidents & outright revolutions (cancer) being squashed.
The "multicellular" society is one that takes its self-perpetuation to interests (over those of individuals) to the extremes. The state & broader society can be seen as having its own "spirit" (the "soul" of a nation), & that spirit in such societies is the sole source of value. These "spirits" become like gods. The people in "power" are like priests to these gods, only having power or legitimacy derived from their god. As a result, even the "most powerful" leaders have an interest in perpetuating their state / god, often to the point that their own values are subsumed & constrained by the values & interests of the state. The individual becomes meaningless, just a tool, a prop, a cell in a greater organism. Everyone is a slave; even the leaders are ultimately slaves to the state (they just benefit more).
Although Orwell may have had Stalin & communism in mind, 1984 is just as much a greater polemic & warning against any form of totalitarianism, including right wing variants like nazism.
I put that last word as lower case, because it's an evil that both includes & is bigger than the capital N Nazism that governed Germany. The capital N version was largely defeated. The lower case n version is widespread now. You see it in every call to "serve something bigger than yourself" (without any qualifications about what the nature of whatever bigger thing it is). You hear it in the famous JFK quote, that we should ask not what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country. Which is entirely backwards: a country / society that does enough things for any given individual, such that it earns their loyalty & trust, won't have to tell such individuals to do that. That's something you have to tell people when the society is failing to earn those things from a majority of its people.
The western society now is 1984 in perfection and finetuned to work even better....but its crumbling and will not last...
the western society is 1984??? Have you seen the easter society, eh?
@@alexander_d1277 Yes, we've always been at war with Eastasia.
@@alexander_d1277 stay a little bit away from social media / news and maybe you'll see the doublespeak. Not made by the government itself, but by this technoculture made by corporations.
True, we're more at Cyberpunk than 1984, 1984 got a lot of ideas right, like the forever enemies, the forever warfaring, the being watched all the time, the inability to think...
The narrator seems to agree with Asimov. He is wrong. By the way, I once read Asimov's Guide to the Bible. I liken that to reading Mao's Guide to Stand-up Comedy.
Thanks for your comment. Definitely don't agree with Asimov here. For me, 1984 is tied with Neuromancer for greatest work of dystopian fiction ever written. Personally of the opinion that Asimov just didn't get it and was probably a little jealous. Also with you on Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Asimov become extraordinarily arrogant as he got older and everything that passed through his mind was getting published.
I'm certainly open-minded enough to entertain contrarian views, but I think Asimov missed the boat here. Thomas Pynchon's absolutely genius essay on 1984 specifically addresses the issue of making lists of what Orwell got right and what he got wrong, which in Pynchon's view was completely missing the point. He goes on to describe the difference between prediction and prophecy. By the latter criterion, 1984 is utterly brilliant and as relevant as ever. Much as I love and admire some of Asimov's work (though a lot of it is, to put it kindly, less than memorable) I have to say that Pynchon is on every conceivable level a better writer and more formidable intellect. His take on 1984 is no exception.
Asimov was a brilliant guy--but man, his views on THIS are just wincingly, objectively wrong, almost across the board. Woof. o_0
"What is this nonsense? Where are the Robits?!" One thing I think Asimov was somewhat correct on though was on Governments being fairly weak compared to home grown movements. Movements that ironically now are using the very tactics that Orwell predicted, to the letter. We live in a world where your job and lifestyle is in peril if you stand up and say the wrong thing, even if its 100% fact based, fairly apolitical and doesn't hurt anyone. 50 years ago you could openly say a lot more and the worst consequence would be an awkward conversation. It's not always the government enforcing that, it's the mob mentality. But that will lead to future government policy, or a new government eventually. Asimov didn't get it. Maybe too optimistic. Which is fine, but you need balance. Too optimistic is just naivity.
Good video! Just subbed, will check your other stuff for sure!
Just a small nitpick: I see you've used a few moments of AI videos. Ok, as long as you don't fill the video with only AI, I don't see much problem using it to fill gaps. BUT, you could just as easily get some human art in open databases like deviantart and use for that, you would only need to tag/mark/name the author. Using for just a few seconds (like you used the AI images/ videos) is ok and they would appreciate.
Thanks a lot for your comment. Filling the gaps can be a bit of a challenge to be honest. Will definitely be looking at deviantart for alternatives.
1984 while inspired by Stalin I often found it is more about toletalism as a whole no matter the road to it. Orwell wad explore they ways the masses could be controlled by a goverment. How one can convince people the truth is a lie and the lie is the truth. You see some of the ways in the real world today but in slightly differnt ways. As for Asimav's view of 1984 as acience fiction I say how he's view of the genrn is too narrow to be trusted. By his narrow view writers like Philip K Dick whose novels had vary little if any interest in the future and Harry Turtledove would not be science fiction others.
One of them wrote about a potential future (and warning) of humans and their dehumanising flaws, the other wrote about (and was enthusiastic for) a post-human future and its dehumanised flaws and ambitions while not valuing it's human creators.
I never regarded '1984' as science-fiction. It's more a political pamphlet set in the near future. It describes his worries about the present.
Asimov was a sheltered academic nerd and is vastly overrated. I read many of his books as a kid but at that age was easily satisfied and lacking experience.
I agree. Except for the fact that true nerds know their sciences while Asimov's 'sci-fi' is fantasy at best. Imagine regulating AI with DiReCtiVeS knowing what we know about it nowadays. Just to name one.
In the book, the reader is made feel that there is no hope for any change. In reality, after the death of Stalin, Soviet Union turned into a much better place when it is today under Putin, even though it was never comparable to Western democracies. I am not blaming Orwell to write a propaganda book, but the cold war paranoia made it so, as well as Animal Farm, which suggests the false image that leaders in communist countries are as rich as Elon Musk or something. Not saying that everyone was equal there, but inequality was way less than in a capitalist country.
You did not read the book carefully. In 1984 Soviet Union was already fallen, and its fall was predicted in Animal Farm.
I don't think 1984 is meant to be realistic. It's more of an idea, or an emotional experience. The exaggerations provoke stronger emotion.
That was a great insight into the novel. Thanks!
@@TheRabidPanda Appreciate it. Let me know if there's any other novels you'd like to hear about in the future
@@Fell-Purpose Starship Troopers was my favorite novel in High School, but I haven't read it recently.
I cannot disagree more with Asimov's assessment of 1984. It seems as if he's taking the book as a work of non-fiction and it fails to address every issue that might come with such an event to happen, when it is a work of fiction that just considers what it might be like to live under these conditions. The novel doesn't cover the rise of Big Brother or gives much in ways of the history of how this government came to having such total control over its citizens. (There are plenty of non-fiction books one can find to fill in the gaps on this matter.) I've never had a problem with these omissions and find the story itself compelling enough to hold my interest. As far as it being "dull" I also disagree. I've read the book many times--more than any other in my life --and have never found it dull. My first time reading it I didn't fully understand it, but as my own political knowledge expanded I started to see how prophetic it was and can hear the rhetoric of the Inner Party in the dialogue (or rather monologue) of modern political figures. I only agree that the characters are a bit wooden and one dimensional, especially Julia whom we know next to nothing about (but Orwell never wrote women characters particularly well), but they are products of their repressive environment, fighting a system infinitely greater and more powerful.than themselves. I've only read I, Robot so I cannot comment what type of writer he was. The book left no great impression on me. I don't really think of 1984 (same as A Clockwork Orange)as science-fiction. Harlan Ellision often squirmed at the category and preferred "speculative fiction" as a better description. Just because a story is set in the future doesn't make it science-fiction, but everyone has their own definition of science-fiction. Asimov's criteria on judging 1984 seems very shortsighted. It's like reading Animal Farm and picking apart all the things that animals are incapable of doing and not seeing it as an allegorical fable.
@@madahad9 Great point about animal farm here
1984 should not be taken literally. It is a metaphor for religion.
Only according to Reddit.
Newsflash: the herd mentality manifested in most western countries, the constant requests for harsher laws regulating speech and free ideas... Those people are like cultist. See the reaction of select high volume influencers to the recent attempt at candidate Trump's life in USA.
Man IS a spiritual creature. 'Kill' God and it will be replaced by any figure strong enough. Governments love playing God.
Heh. Asimov is really naive guy. This is just USSR with extra steps.
Which totally collapsed five years after 1984.
@@michaelnewsham1412
It was predicted in Animal Farm. 1984 is about the whole world.
1984 is obviously a great book, but Asimov was not wrong in many aspects of his criticisms... especially the foresight to recognize how it would be leveraged in the emerging Red Scare in the US.
Sorry Azimov - I'm team Orwell.
Funny that Asimov took it upon himself to criticise Orwell's writing. Asimov's stories are pretty good - Foundation in particular - but his writing is pedestrian at best, and his 'characters' cardboard.
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." -- Princess Leia
Yet, Yuval Noah Harari has made some chilling suppositions about what might be possible for the dictators of the future, empowered by advanced surveillance technology and AI.
Because Asimov is a fantasy author sold to the masses as the best sci fi author ever. There's a reason why nowadays we have stuff like 'hard' sci-fi. As time went on, bright people realized the worlds he writes about, as interesting as they may be, are unrealitic and far from practical application of physics.
Authors like Orwell and Jules Verne actually, factually and unarguably predicted scientific applications that saw the light of day, a few years after. Social sciences, in the case of Orwell ofc.
Fantastic comment here
I'm sure glad there's variety and people who see things differently and use different modes of expression all get to share their creations. Orwell and Asimov both.
This is the first video I have seen by you, and it was interesting Asimov and Orwell. One thing about Orwell though is that I always found him kind of dated. I recommend people read his dystopian take to understand the development of the literature, but in the recent years, I find Octavia E. Butter to be of more relevance to our era with her Parable series. That might just be me
For me, Samuel R Delany seems to be the most relevant
I love Asimov, so this is… Embarrassing.
@ElSasser2007 I have the same feeling - but then it was Asimov in the 80s saying this so trying not to let it dampen my perspective of his early work
@@Fell-Purpose Tolstoy and Shaw both trashed Shakespeare. It happens.
Asimov has grown more wrong as the years have passed. It takes only a dodgy flu bug or a bit of anti-immigration rioting to cause governments to slip a few steps down the icy totalitarian hill. Canada and the UK come inexorably to mind. What was Asimov thinking when he made the comment about his perceived lack of perpetual war? What did he think Korea, Vietmam, and the various proxy wars were? To say nothing of events which skated close to the edge of the cliff. Some of the history of that time remains murky. For example, Stalin seems to have permitted the Korean War after Kondrashev recruited an American code clerk codenamed "Jack", whose information let the Soviets read the American codes and learn that Korea was outside America's apparent defence perimeter.at the time. Even the glacier of the Cold War and nuclear threat could not totally contain conflict. I don't see the Party in "1984" as being Communism only. Stalinism did not arise from nothing. It reflected a template. So did the Reich. Orwell was describing this template. I fear that we are going to face 1984 long before we face a society which benefits from mathematically calculated history with occasional corrections to account for unforeseeable abberations such as The Mule, or Lyndon Johnson.
Sadly they both fell into the trap of becoming neoliberal propagandists with little faith in the working class, to my knowledge at least Asimov evolved out of some of his worse hang ups but Orwell flat out forsake his anarchist roots for security of station in Britain which is unacceptable.
Orwell was a socialist, but a pessimistic one. You watched a movie and did not read his book or other writings.
Orwell is for Adults and Asimov is for kids and nerdy teens.
Because he didn't write it.
Nobody's perfect, I guess.
Asimov couldn't imagine that his beloved progressivism would develop into the very incarnation of 1984 - wokeism.
Grouchy because the chocolate ration been reduced to twenty grams?.Telescreen watching you? You're actually carrying an electronic tracking device, but it's not to guard against anti-wokish thoughts- it's so capitalist corporations can follow your movements so they can quickly zoom in on every opportunity to sell you something.
Asimov was hella dumb.
Asimov attacking Orwell's ability as a writer is hilarious. Orwell was not a great novelist. But Asimov is just shit. The only people who read him are science-fiction fans. And Asimov criticising Orwell for not putting in robots and other crap like that, is doubleplussshit
I find it very funny to imagine Winston Smith saying farewell to his robot butler before leaving for the Ministry of Truth
Sorry. But I love and grew up on Asimov. He is a great writer. I think he misunderstood 1984. I think his own sci fi and positive side of humanity biases blind him to what Orwell accomplished. His pessimism of the human condition and governmental control has borne him out to be a prophet. I think Asimov would be truly aghast and saddened to see the state of the world today.
@@marvintillman7113 I like Asimov's ideas. But I'm not a fan of his writing style. The characters in his books are written paper thin and boring.
@@steffenpanning2776 I get you. Can’t argue it either. He’s more about the epic scale of story than particular characters. That’s his gift, in fleshing out a universe and living systems.
@@marvintillman7113 I gotta disagree with you and agree with OP and Stephen. Been treating too get into the Foundation books recently. Not only the novels are very "dated" (for example, all characters are men, at least in the earlier chapters - stuff that I can look past) but the prose is very bland. 1984 had a nearly poetic prose. It's a whole another level
Fake news
Asimov was not very clever. Author of pulp fiction.