News Foundation Adaptation Series Officially Ordered by Apple

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Reading the epub version now. It's actually a very good novel. I haven't got to the salacious bits although some reviewers reckon there is a satirical element to these. All the names from the authorised Foundation books have been changed but it's quite obvious what the mapping is. It seems the Gaia/Galaxia stuff must have happened in an alternate reality. I like the premise that the Second Foundationers' and the Mule's psychic abilities were technologically based. That was always my preferred interpretation of the original books in any case.

 

[JoeZhang]

I've now found quite a few reasonably priced copies in the US on eBay but the shipping costs are horrendous to the UK - £25 or more - and I'd probably get charged import duty on top of that. I'm not paying £30 to judge whether a book has a secret agenda that some might think condones paedophilia, but which nevertheless contains interesting insights about Psychohistory and cybernetically enhanced transhumans.

I'm actually not sure what it suggests - the books sets up a culture where having sex with children is perfectly normal - there is no denouncement to this or (and I carried on re-reading it) as far as I can detect any negative outcomes for any of the characters - indeed, one of the character who is a child sex worker talks about her experiences fondly.

As always - individual readers are left to draw their own conclusions and they will vary quite a bit.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I'm actually not sure what it suggests - the books sets up a culture where having sex with children is perfectly normal - there is no denouncement to this or (and I carried on re-reading it) as far as I can detect any negative outcomes for any of the characters - indeed, one of the character who is a child sex worker talks about her experiences fondly.

As always - individual readers are left to draw their own conclusions and they will vary quite a bit.

Yeah, it's unsettling and I'm not really seeing a satirical angle as some reviewers suggest. However, I'll reserve judgement until I've finished the book. If the intent is to discomfort the reader, it certainly achieves that.

 

[Christopher]

Well, this book is a riff on Foundation, and Foundation was a riff on The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It's not surprising that a work with those foundations would portray its empire as a decadent and exploitative society. Again, depiction does not equal condoning -- and works that respect their audiences don't have to come right out and say "This Is Bad" in some blatant lecture, since they expect their readers to think for themselves and be able to read implications.

Just in general, it is simplistic to assume that everything in fiction is a polemic or an expression of the author's own morals. Sometimes it's just worldbuilding and character building, depicting people and societies that are believably complex and flawed. A lot of fictional protagonists are deeply screwed-up people and the audience isn't supposed to like all their attributes and behaviors, but they aren't necessarily brought to account for their behaviors or taught any lessons, because that's not what the stories are about. Their flaws are just part of their texture. And the same can go for fictional societies.

 

[Maurice]

Also, it's worth keeping in mind that the older practice of looking at a young girl and considering her future sexual prospects as an adult was not pedophilia. It wasn't about wanting her at her current age, but about looking forward to when she'd be fully grown and eligible. After all, in those days, the cultural norm was to wait for sex until after marriage. So you could be in love with someone or engaged to them for years, but it would be taken for granted that sex wouldn't come into the picture until the right, culturally and legally approved time. So noticing a young girl's attractiveness or considering her prospects as a potential mate wasn't about exploiting her in the present, but about considering long-term options, making an investment that might take years to mature and pay off.

"future sexual prospects" is not "marriage prospects." If you mean the latter then don't write the former.

 

[Christopher]

"future sexual prospects" is not "marriage prospects." If you mean the latter then don't write the former.

As I said, the cultural expectation in those days was that sex would not occur until marriage, so they're the same thing.

 

[Maurice]

As I said, the cultural expectation in those days was that sex would not occur until marriage, so they're the same thing.

Tone. Deaf.

 

[Christopher]

Tone. Deaf.

That's unfair. I'm not denying that sexual abuses existed. I'm saying that a mistake to assume that opinions that would have been intended innocently at the time were equivalent to such abuses. We must be vigilant about abuses, but if we take it too far and are too quick to see false positives, it becomes mere paranoia and is counterproductive. Often what we perceive as wrong behavior in another is simply a misunderstanding of their intent, which is why the benefit of the doubt is essential.

The actual error in my comment, in any case, was that I thought we were talking about Asimov writing in the 1950s, when it turns out we were talking about Donald Kingsbury writing in 2001. So I was on the wrong track anyway.

 

[Skipper]

At this point I want to read this book too ... (Well I read it like 15 years ago and I remember almost nothing...)

 

[JoeZhang]

At this point I want to read this book too ... (Well I read it like 15 years ago and I remember almost nothing...)

It's an good book in the main full of interesting meaty ideas.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Wow. Welcome to 2020.

This reminds me of when Asimov wrote about a letter he got a letter from some old lady about The Robots of Dawn, complaining about him writing porn and using "that word." He never did figure out what "that word" was.

 

[Skipper]

Wow. Welcome to 2020.

This reminds me of when Asimov wrote about a letter he got a letter from some old lady about The Robots of Dawn, complaining about him writing porn and using "that word." He never did figure out what "that word" was.

There weren't a couple of quite graphic (for Asimov's standards) sex scenes in the book?

 

[Owain Taggart]

It's an good book in the main full of interesting meaty ideas.

Exactly. And I do think that the author's intent was to show different societal norms. I mean, sure, as people on Earth, we know it's wrong, but consider it from the perspective of it being a different planet in a different galaxy where they might not exactly view things the same way even though, to us, it might be abhorrent behavior, and they might not be as socially progressive. It's like how different countries and minority cultures have their own norms, and we might look at them and think they're not very... progressive, but in their own way, they do their own things, kind of like there are cannibals out there.

Another thing to consider is that maybe the intent was to show balance. In Asimov's books for instance, we heard constantly how Trantor was full of oppulence, that it was a rich planet, with big ideas. But what if it wasn't perfect? The intent might be that even with its big ideas, it's got parts that aren't so perfect, and that to me is a bit more realistic a depiction than is squeaky clean in its image. So then we've got a planet that hums at its own frequency, that might not be exactly in tune with ours, and our reaction along the way might be to recoil and say, 'yep, it's definitely an otherworldly planet'. And maybe it comes off as rather a bit much now. But it is rather a minor part of a book presenting big ideas.

 

[Skipper]

Exactly. And I do think that the author's intent was to show different societal norms. I mean, sure, as people on Earth, we know it's wrong, but consider it from the perspective of it being a different planet in a different galaxy where they might not exactly view things the same way even though, to us, it might be abhorrent behavior, and they might not be as socially progressive. It's like how different countries and minority cultures have their own norms, and we might look at them and think they're not very... progressive, but in their own way, they do their own things, kind of like there are cannibals out there.

The problem is showing barely pubescent kids having sex with muuuuuuuuuch older and being perfectly ok with it and happy can be... tricky? Now I believe there is a consensus in the Western culture that a 12 year old having sex with a 60 year old not only it's morally wrong, but can be incredibly damaging and traumatizing for the former. So, when the author shows us kids incredibly eager to do this, what he is implying? That we are wrong about underage sex and what we believe about it is akin to when we were sure that women are properties of men and shouldn't have the same rights?

 

[JD]

Yeah, when you are writing about stuff like that, even if the characters have no problem with it, as the author it a good idea to find a way to make it clear you do not condone it, so people don't misunderstand your stance. I haven't read the book, but from what the people who have read it have said, it sounds like the guy who wrote the book did not do that.

 

[Owain Taggart]

The problem is showing barely pubescent kids having sex with muuuuuuuuuch older and being perfectly ok with it and happy can be... tricky? Now I believe there is a consensus in the Western culture that a 12 year old having sex with a 60 year old not only it's morally wrong, but can be incredibly damaging and traumatizing for the former. So, when the author shows us kids incredibly eager to do this, what he is implying? That we are wrong about underage sex and what we believe about it is akin to when we were sure that women are properties of men and shouldn't have the same rights?

Well, when you put it that way, yeah, definitely. Definitely tricky.

haven't read the book, but from what the people who have read it have said, it sounds like the guy who wrote the book did not do that.

I do distinctly remember a remark in the book to the effect of needing and wanting to wait though. It's been a long time since I've read it, but I think the main character himself was quite uncomfortable with some aspects of their society. I think he's an offworlder viewing it through different eyes. I wouldn't be surprised if he's actually quite shocked and reluctant.

 

[Skipper]

Yeah, when you are writing about stuff like that, even if the characters have no problem with it, as the author it a good idea to find a way to make it clear you do not condone it, so people don't misunderstand your stance. I haven't read the book, but from what the people who have read it have said, it sounds like the guy who wrote the book did not do that.

I was thinking in these days about two movies, Gone With The Wind and 12 Years A Slave. Both depicted slavery, but the authors' stances on this subject were quite obvious (and quite divergent).

 

[Skipper]

(Just for comparison, the lowest age of consent in the Western World is usually 14. But I believe that very few people would think that a fourteen-year-old doing sex with a sixty-year-old would be perfectly ok, even if it was legal)

 

[JD]

I will admit, there are some age differences with that kind of thing that are pretty much OK, like if have you a 17 year and a 19 or 20 year, but a 14 year old and a 60 year old, is as far from OK as you can get.

 

[Christopher]

So, when the author shows us kids incredibly eager to do this, what he is implying? That we are wrong about underage sex and what we believe about it is akin to when we were sure that women are properties of men and shouldn't have the same rights?

It's facile to assume he's "implying" anything, except that that's how children in that society are raised to think. Showing how a different society views things doesn't equal endorsing it. As I already said, not all writing is polemic or advocacy. Stories that are nothing more than a writer's ideological manifesto are generally very bad stories. Building characters, building worlds, is about making them interesting and distinctive and nuanced and often deepy flawed. A story where every character agrees with the writer would be very dull indeed. And a story where the writer tells you what to think is usually worse than one where the writer presents an idea and lets you judge it for yourself.

If you study world history, you find a lot of ways that cultures differ from each other in their values and assumptions, often including beliefs we find reprehensible. But it can still be interesting to explore the differences between those cultures and their values, to view them from an objective distance without taking sides. Science fiction can do the same thing with fictional societies in the far future or on other worlds. It's not about picking a side or arguing that one viewpoint is more right than another; it's just about exploring differences. A lot of SF worldbuilding is about starting with a premise and extrapolating its likely consequences, for better or worse. A lot of SF cultures have qualities that are reprehensible to us but are still explored and developed without judgment in the same way a writer of historical fiction would depict the values of the Ancient Romans, say, with their blood sports and slavery and all their other values that are alien to us.