5 ms·

The legacy of their work is tainted by their person. Two things are independently true: 1) Asimov was a prolific writer who authored many works that were funda

by afro88 7y ago

The legacy of their work is tainted by their person. Two things are independently true: 1) Asimov was a prolific writer who authored many works that were fundamental in shaping science fiction into what we know it as today 2) Asimov sexually assaulted women on a regular basis But the way people see the first point will be through the lens of the second.

coldtea 7y ago
>But the way people see the first point will be through the lens of the second. Only certain people, who think themselves as saints and that others should be too, and judge creators by their failings. Most people care just for the work -- the fact they actually matters to them in 2020 and that they get to read --, and they could not give less ducks who some creator was and what they did in their personal lives.
- DagAgren 7y ago
  Not "most people". But people without a functioning moral compass, sure. That is not something to be proud of, though.
- ses1984 7y ago
  There is only a limited amount of time available to me. I can only consume so much media. If I have a choice between two books, one written by someone with a tainted legacy and one written by someone without a tainted legacy, I'm going to pick the book with a nice author. Of course you can't really apply ceteris parabus to books, but normally you have to decide what you're going to read on limited information, two very different books might seem close enough given you know little about either. When you choose what to read you reduce all the context and comparison to a decision. "author was a creep" definitely makes me less likely to want to read his work, especially if they are still alive and could personally profit.
  - thrower123 7y ago
    Which one is good though? Saints rarely make anything that is above mediocre quality. It's sad, but it is empirically true. Jesus, if we had omniscience into the personal lives of every person, and were to chose to disregard their works if they did things that are objectionable to the taboos of the day, we'd be naked, looking over our shoulders fearfully for leopards.
    - ses1984 7y ago
      There are more people in the world than just saints and creeps. There are also a ton of normal people who didn't grope hundreds or thousands of girls.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        Normal people rarely make good art. Even Bach, once considered a good family guy, was a heavy drinker and has knifed a few people in his time. Also, do you by any chance listen to Led Zeppelin or some such band? Speaking of "groping girls", that is.
        ses1984 7y ago
        I never said bad people never made good art. I personally would rather not glorify those people nor do I go out of my way to take in their art. I don't feel like I'm missing much. If I find out art I like was made by a bad person I don't clutch my pearls.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >There is only a limited amount of time available to me. I can only consume so much media. If I have a choice between two books, one written by someone with a tainted legacy and one written by someone without a tainted legacy, I'm going to pick the book with a nice author. The choice should be for the best book. Not the nicest author. In fact the "nicest author" would probably have the most boring work -- personal failings add spice to fiction writing (and poems, songs, etc).
    - ses1984 7y ago
      How can you know which book is best until you read both? I don't want to read scifi all the time. So when I do read a scifi book, I have tons of good ones to pick from. I actually recently read Foundation by Asimov and I don't see what all the big deal is about. It presupposes faster than light travel but not the spread of ideas. Also his sexist attitudes are apparent. He basically states that the entire female population planet of the foundation planet isn't important. That's probably the last Asimov work I will read in my lifetime, based purely on the quality of the work, and nothing to do with his character.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >How can you know which book is best until you read both? There are reviews, excepts, literary fame, word of mouth, tv adaptations, and several other things to get an idea about that. How moral the author was during their time on earth is hardly on my list of such things. >I don't want to read scifi all the time. So when I do read a scifi book, I have tons of good ones to pick from. Sure, but that's neither here nor there as to the point we're discussing. We'd have the same issue with any other genre (or even any other art rather than literature).
        ses1984 7y ago
        >There are reviews, excepts, literary fame, word of mouth, tv adaptations, and several other things to get an idea about that. How moral the author was during their time on earth is hardly on my list of such things. I don't have time to read all Sci fi books, nor do I have time to read all reviews. I have to make a decision on very limited information. That's why I said between two seemingly equal books, meaning equal reviews, prestige, whatever, if one author is a creep and the other isn't, I'll pick to read the book by the author who isn't a creep. >Sure, but that's neither here nor there as to the point we're discussing. We'd have the same issue with any other genre (or even any other art rather than literature). I'm not discussing the abstract concept of separating art from artist. I'm discussing how it applies to me. This topic has pretty extensive treatment in literary/critical theory. The reason this is applicable to me is that I have a goal to consume all the best scifi, and I don't have enough time in my lifetime to consume all the best scifi. Therefore I can afford to be more picky. I personally choose to limit myself to the best of the best Sci fi that happens to not be written by creeps. If someone told me the best scifi novel ever was written by Hitler, I would probably read it. But if someone told me Hitler wrote a pretty good scifi novel I would skip it until I read all the really good ones. And then maybe I'll switch to reading a really good book from another genre before reading a pretty good book by Hitler. Also I find it much, much more important to apply this principle to authors who are still alive. I don't want to financially support authors who are creeps. If they are dead, then it just is really some completely arbitrary selection criteria that I choose to apply to limit the total number of works I could read from some super huge number I could never hope to consume in my lifetime to some slightly smaller super huge number I could never hope to consume in my lifetime.
rbanffy 7y ago
Behavior like 2 is an important reason we have so few women writing works fundamental in shaping science fiction into what we know it as today. When we tolerate sexual harassment we demean women and make the community not welcoming to them. The article explores that.
- classicsnoot 7y ago
  I struggle to see the logic behind your assertion. If the capacity for involvement of female creators/contributors is limited by the likelihood of possible sexual harassment, then how do you account for female involvement/contribution in microblogging (specifically Instagram), discos & clubs, and large scale social events. These three types of thing all have the very rich potential for sexual harassment opportunities, yet it would appear a lot of women flock to them all the same. I would argue that the motivation to be involved is the largest factor in involvement, by any party, and consequences are secondary, if even considered, depending on potential status gain. The relevance to the issue at hand is that science fiction is already a subgenre (though it is on the rise) that has a rather narrow range of fan base with an even more narrow range of potential authors. There are so few people writing good science fiction; I honestly wonder how much the carnal predilections of a now dead but no less prolific author is moving the needle. If you could magically make science fiction authorship on par with being a YouTube personality in terms of perceived status, an army of Weinsteins and Dworkins couldn't keep little girls and boys out of crafting stories.
9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
I think we cheapen the word "sexual assault" when we use it like this. Asimov was not Harvey Weinstein, and a unwelcome pinch on the butt is not rape.
- ComputerGuru 7y ago
  What about fondling of breasts against their owner’s will?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Would we call fondling male breasts (a "nipple twister" the internet informs me is called) or a slap on their ass (butt slapping, common sometimes after a sport game) against their owner’s will, a sexual assault (much less rape)? What if it had been performed by a stronger man to another weaker man, but in some casual setting? How serious would we consider it, and how "traumatized" we would consider the person after the incident? (Some would call it "very serious". But then again there are people who suffer trauma over a wrong order at Starbucks). At best most people would call it a tasteless antic or light bullying or crappy behavior (like farting in public)...
    - fatbird 7y ago
      A better example is "tapping": a quick backhand to a male's crotch, trying to hit the testicles hard enough to hurt but not hard enough to incapacitate. Riot Games' COO, Scott Gelb, got two months of unpaid leave after he "repeatedly touched subordinates’ balls or butt or farted in their faces" [0]. I would absolutely describe that as sexual assault; deliberately, just to emphasize that playful male aggression crosses lines that absolutely should not be crossed, including in the workplace. Touch my balls without my consent, and I won't care whether you're horsing around or making an awkward pass. It's assault, and it's sexual. It doesn't cheapen other kinds of sexual assault to draw clear boundaries. [0] https://kotaku.com/top-riot-executive-suspended-without-pay-following-inve-1831084598 https://kotaku.com/top-riot-executive-suspended-without-pay-...
- kangnkodos 7y ago

by afro88 7y ago

coldtea 7y ago

>But the way people see the first point will be through the lens of the second. Only certain people, who think themselves as saints and that others should be too, and judge creators by their failings. Most people care just for the work -- the fact they actually matters to them in 2020 and that they get to read --, and they could not give less ducks who some creator was and what they did in their personal lives.

DagAgren 7y ago
Not "most people". But people without a functioning moral compass, sure. That is not something to be proud of, though.
ses1984 7y ago
There is only a limited amount of time available to me. I can only consume so much media. If I have a choice between two books, one written by someone with a tainted legacy and one written by someone without a tainted legacy, I'm going to pick the book with a nice author. Of course you can't really apply ceteris parabus to books, but normally you have to decide what you're going to read on limited information, two very different books might seem close enough given you know little about either. When you choose what to read you reduce all the context and comparison to a decision. "author was a creep" definitely makes me less likely to want to read his work, especially if they are still alive and could personally profit.
- thrower123 7y ago
  Which one is good though? Saints rarely make anything that is above mediocre quality. It's sad, but it is empirically true. Jesus, if we had omniscience into the personal lives of every person, and were to chose to disregard their works if they did things that are objectionable to the taboos of the day, we'd be naked, looking over our shoulders fearfully for leopards.
  - ses1984 7y ago
    There are more people in the world than just saints and creeps. There are also a ton of normal people who didn't grope hundreds or thousands of girls.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      Normal people rarely make good art. Even Bach, once considered a good family guy, was a heavy drinker and has knifed a few people in his time. Also, do you by any chance listen to Led Zeppelin or some such band? Speaking of "groping girls", that is.
      - ses1984 7y ago
        I never said bad people never made good art. I personally would rather not glorify those people nor do I go out of my way to take in their art. I don't feel like I'm missing much. If I find out art I like was made by a bad person I don't clutch my pearls.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >There is only a limited amount of time available to me. I can only consume so much media. If I have a choice between two books, one written by someone with a tainted legacy and one written by someone without a tainted legacy, I'm going to pick the book with a nice author. The choice should be for the best book. Not the nicest author. In fact the "nicest author" would probably have the most boring work -- personal failings add spice to fiction writing (and poems, songs, etc).
  - ses1984 7y ago
    How can you know which book is best until you read both? I don't want to read scifi all the time. So when I do read a scifi book, I have tons of good ones to pick from. I actually recently read Foundation by Asimov and I don't see what all the big deal is about. It presupposes faster than light travel but not the spread of ideas. Also his sexist attitudes are apparent. He basically states that the entire female population planet of the foundation planet isn't important. That's probably the last Asimov work I will read in my lifetime, based purely on the quality of the work, and nothing to do with his character.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >How can you know which book is best until you read both? There are reviews, excepts, literary fame, word of mouth, tv adaptations, and several other things to get an idea about that. How moral the author was during their time on earth is hardly on my list of such things. >I don't want to read scifi all the time. So when I do read a scifi book, I have tons of good ones to pick from. Sure, but that's neither here nor there as to the point we're discussing. We'd have the same issue with any other genre (or even any other art rather than literature).
      - ses1984 7y ago
        >There are reviews, excepts, literary fame, word of mouth, tv adaptations, and several other things to get an idea about that. How moral the author was during their time on earth is hardly on my list of such things. I don't have time to read all Sci fi books, nor do I have time to read all reviews. I have to make a decision on very limited information. That's why I said between two seemingly equal books, meaning equal reviews, prestige, whatever, if one author is a creep and the other isn't, I'll pick to read the book by the author who isn't a creep. >Sure, but that's neither here nor there as to the point we're discussing. We'd have the same issue with any other genre (or even any other art rather than literature). I'm not discussing the abstract concept of separating art from artist. I'm discussing how it applies to me. This topic has pretty extensive treatment in literary/critical theory. The reason this is applicable to me is that I have a goal to consume all the best scifi, and I don't have enough time in my lifetime to consume all the best scifi. Therefore I can afford to be more picky. I personally choose to limit myself to the best of the best Sci fi that happens to not be written by creeps. If someone told me the best scifi novel ever was written by Hitler, I would probably read it. But if someone told me Hitler wrote a pretty good scifi novel I would skip it until I read all the really good ones. And then maybe I'll switch to reading a really good book from another genre before reading a pretty good book by Hitler. Also I find it much, much more important to apply this principle to authors who are still alive. I don't want to financially support authors who are creeps. If they are dead, then it just is really some completely arbitrary selection criteria that I choose to apply to limit the total number of works I could read from some super huge number I could never hope to consume in my lifetime to some slightly smaller super huge number I could never hope to consume in my lifetime.

rbanffy 7y ago

Behavior like 2 is an important reason we have so few women writing works fundamental in shaping science fiction into what we know it as today. When we tolerate sexual harassment we demean women and make the community not welcoming to them. The article explores that.

classicsnoot 7y ago
I struggle to see the logic behind your assertion. If the capacity for involvement of female creators/contributors is limited by the likelihood of possible sexual harassment, then how do you account for female involvement/contribution in microblogging (specifically Instagram), discos & clubs, and large scale social events. These three types of thing all have the very rich potential for sexual harassment opportunities, yet it would appear a lot of women flock to them all the same. I would argue that the motivation to be involved is the largest factor in involvement, by any party, and consequences are secondary, if even considered, depending on potential status gain. The relevance to the issue at hand is that science fiction is already a subgenre (though it is on the rise) that has a rather narrow range of fan base with an even more narrow range of potential authors. There are so few people writing good science fiction; I honestly wonder how much the carnal predilections of a now dead but no less prolific author is moving the needle. If you could magically make science fiction authorship on par with being a YouTube personality in terms of perceived status, an army of Weinsteins and Dworkins couldn't keep little girls and boys out of crafting stories.

9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago

I think we cheapen the word "sexual assault" when we use it like this. Asimov was not Harvey Weinstein, and a unwelcome pinch on the butt is not rape.

ComputerGuru 7y ago
What about fondling of breasts against their owner’s will?
- coldtea 7y ago
  Would we call fondling male breasts (a "nipple twister" the internet informs me is called) or a slap on their ass (butt slapping, common sometimes after a sport game) against their owner’s will, a sexual assault (much less rape)? What if it had been performed by a stronger man to another weaker man, but in some casual setting? How serious would we consider it, and how "traumatized" we would consider the person after the incident? (Some would call it "very serious". But then again there are people who suffer trauma over a wrong order at Starbucks). At best most people would call it a tasteless antic or light bullying or crappy behavior (like farting in public)...
  - fatbird 7y ago
    A better example is "tapping": a quick backhand to a male's crotch, trying to hit the testicles hard enough to hurt but not hard enough to incapacitate. Riot Games' COO, Scott Gelb, got two months of unpaid leave after he "repeatedly touched subordinates’ balls or butt or farted in their faces" [0]. I would absolutely describe that as sexual assault; deliberately, just to emphasize that playful male aggression crosses lines that absolutely should not be crossed, including in the workplace. Touch my balls without my consent, and I won't care whether you're horsing around or making an awkward pass. It's assault, and it's sexual. It doesn't cheapen other kinds of sexual assault to draw clear boundaries. [0] https://kotaku.com/top-riot-executive-suspended-without-pay-following-inve-1831084598 https://kotaku.com/top-riot-executive-suspended-without-pay-...
kangnkodos 7y ago