Isaac Asimov: The Foundations of Science Fiction (Revised Edition) (13 page)
Read Isaac Asimov: The Foundations of Science Fiction (Revised Edition) Online
Authors: James Gunn
BOOK: Isaac Asimov: The Foundations of Science Fiction (Revised Edition)
11.83Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
"Escape" involves computers rather than robots, but the problems are the same: in this case, how can a robot (computer) be forced to solve a problem if the solution might involve the death of a human being? Such a conflict with the First Law has, apparently, burned out the computer of a competitor, Consolidated Robots,
5
which approaches USR to hire its computer to solve a problem, probably concerning the development of an interstellar hyperatomic or space-warp drive. USR's computer, called "The Brain," incorporates USR's patented emotional brain paths and operates on a childlike, "idiot-savant" level. The ship that it builds turns out to "kill" the occupants (Donovan and Powell) but only temporarily while they are in the space-warp. The computer's emotional imbalance during the drive, however, turns The Brain into a practical joker.
5
which approaches USR to hire its computer to solve a problem, probably concerning the development of an interstellar hyperatomic or space-warp drive. USR's computer, called "The Brain," incorporates USR's patented emotional brain paths and operates on a childlike, "idiot-savant" level. The ship that it builds turns out to "kill" the occupants (Donovan and Powell) but only temporarily while they are in the space-warp. The computer's emotional imbalance during the drive, however, turns The Brain into a practical joker.
5. This is the only mention of competition in the robot business.
"Evidence" presents another problem in discrimination. In "Little Lost Robot" the question was how to detect the one in a group of identical robots that has been instructed in the strongest terms to get lost. In "Evidence" the question is how to tell a humanoid robot from a human when the individual in question stands on his rights as a presumptive human. Stephen Byerley, running for mayor, is accused by political opponents of being a robot. The evidence is presented: no one has seen Byerley sleep or eat. But this is not proof that he does not. He refuses to be searched or X-rayed and wears a device that protects him against X-rays attempted by subterfuge. He practices as a district attorney but does not actually condemn convicted criminals to death (which would violate the First Law). The Asimovian touch is contained in the fact that he is a good district attorney, a good man, and would make a good mayor. When asked if robots are so mentally different from men, Susan Calvin says, "Worlds different. Robots are essentially decent." At the climactic moment of the campaign, Byerley strikes a heckler, something a robot would be unable to do. But after the election, Susan Calvin notes that it would have been possible for him to strike a robot made up to look human.
"The Evitable Conflict," the final story in
I, Robot,
concludes the saga of the robots for their first decade at least by dealing with the question of robot superiority and the ambiguity in the First Law about what constitutes harm or good. The Machines, which have become too complex for humans to understand (here Asimov anticipated a number of contemporary computer scientists, as well as an aspect of Cyberpunk), have taken over the operation of the world's economy. For
the first time in human history the economy is running smoothly, except for a few small problems here and there. These problems, however, should not occur, and they worry Stephen Byerley, who has now become World Coordinator. He tells Susan Calvin about his investigation. One by one, he and Susan discard hypotheses that the machines are being given wrong data or that their instructions are being ignored. Wrong data or sabotage (by the anti-robot Society for Humanity) simply become part of the data for the next problem and are taken into account by the Machines. The small inefficiencies, they finally decide, have been caused by the Machines themselves as they shake loose those few persons who cling to the side of the boat for purposes the Machines consider harmful to humanity. The Machines are acting for the ultimate good of the human species, which only the Machines know or can know. Mankind has lost any voice in its own future, but then, if one considers the uncontrolled swings of the economy when it was in the hands of humans and the seemingly inevitable conflicts that accompanied them, humanity never had any control. For all time now, all conflicts are finally evitable. Only the Machines are inevitable.
I, Robot,
concludes the saga of the robots for their first decade at least by dealing with the question of robot superiority and the ambiguity in the First Law about what constitutes harm or good. The Machines, which have become too complex for humans to understand (here Asimov anticipated a number of contemporary computer scientists, as well as an aspect of Cyberpunk), have taken over the operation of the world's economy. For
the first time in human history the economy is running smoothly, except for a few small problems here and there. These problems, however, should not occur, and they worry Stephen Byerley, who has now become World Coordinator. He tells Susan Calvin about his investigation. One by one, he and Susan discard hypotheses that the machines are being given wrong data or that their instructions are being ignored. Wrong data or sabotage (by the anti-robot Society for Humanity) simply become part of the data for the next problem and are taken into account by the Machines. The small inefficiencies, they finally decide, have been caused by the Machines themselves as they shake loose those few persons who cling to the side of the boat for purposes the Machines consider harmful to humanity. The Machines are acting for the ultimate good of the human species, which only the Machines know or can know. Mankind has lost any voice in its own future, but then, if one considers the uncontrolled swings of the economy when it was in the hands of humans and the seemingly inevitable conflicts that accompanied them, humanity never had any control. For all time now, all conflicts are finally evitable. Only the Machines are inevitable.
One might contrast this attitude toward the omniscient and omnipotent machine with Jack Williamson's treatment of the same theme in "With Folded Hands," which appeared three years before "The Evitable Conflict" and may have been on Asimov's mind. Indeed, the title of Asimov's story might refer to Williamson's conclusion about his "humanoids," who do everything for humanity and leave mankind with nothing to do but sit with folded hands. "The Evitable Conflict" and ''With Folded Hands" exhibit two major differences, however: Asimov's Machines not only control human affairs better than humans but humanity never has been "free," and the Machines do not let humanity know it no longer is in control.
This account of the stories that make up
I, Robot
gives only a hint of the qualities that make the stories, and the book, persistently appealing. Except for "Liar!" and "Evidence," these are not stories in which character plays a significant part. Virtually all plot develops through conversation, with little if any action. Nor is there a great deal of local color or description of any kind. The dialogue is a function of the ideas, and the style is transparent.
I, Robot
gives only a hint of the qualities that make the stories, and the book, persistently appealing. Except for "Liar!" and "Evidence," these are not stories in which character plays a significant part. Virtually all plot develops through conversation, with little if any action. Nor is there a great deal of local color or description of any kind. The dialogue is a function of the ideas, and the style is transparent.
At times, as in the climactic moment in which Susan Calvin torments Herbie into insanity with a dilemma, Asimov's unadorned language rises to the demands placed upon it by the narrative. But mostly it lies
passively, unambiguously, and virtually invisibly between the reader and the story. While it seldom adds much to enjoyment of the story, it seldom detracts from it either unless the reader demands something that Asimov and the story are unprepared to give.
passively, unambiguously, and virtually invisibly between the reader and the story. While it seldom adds much to enjoyment of the story, it seldom detracts from it either unless the reader demands something that Asimov and the story are unprepared to give.
The robot stories and almost all Asimov fiction play themselves on a relatively bare stage. The reader perceives only those stage properties that are essential to the plot, and those only in general details. Mercury, the closest planet to the sun and the scene of "Runaround," could have called forth descriptions of the unique qualities of that unusual planet (and has in stories by other authors), but it is presented only in terms of heat and brightness: "The sunlight came down in a white-hot wash and played liquidly around them." The reader is denied even a description of the selenium pool, whatever that might be. Solar Station #5, in "Reason," exists only in terms such as "officer's room," "control room,'' and "engine room." So it is with the rest of the stories.
The characters in the robot stories fill the requirements for what they must do and little more. Gloria's attachment to Robbie and Robbie's faithful dedication to Gloria make them a pleasantly sentimental pair, but Gloria's parents are stock parents: the foolish but determined mother and the sympathetic but manipulable father. Unless readers pay close attention in the Powell and Donovan stories, they may find it difficult to remember that Powell is English and logical, Donovan is Irish and impulsive. The use of such pairs (as well as larger groupings of friends and colleagues) had become conventional in science fiction by then. Campbell had written a series of early stories about two cosmic explorers, Penton and Blake (as well as a series featuring three scientists, Arcot, Morey, and Wade), and was fond of suggesting his solutions to writers who wrote for him. Later Asimov used a pair almost identical to Powell and Donovan in his juveniles, Lucky Starr and Bigman.
The antagonists in the robot stories, where such exist, are seldom characterized at all. The employees of USR, however, begin to assume greater life: Robertson, Lanning, Bogert, and finally Susan Calvin herself. The closer the characters work with robots the more interesting characteristics they accumulate. Susan Calvin clearly became a favorite of Asimov's. "As time went on," he wrote in
The Rest of the Robots,
"I fell in love with Dr. Calvin." She is plain, stiff, forbidding, unemotional, logical "much more like the popular conception of a robot than any of my positronic creations," Asimov continued. She is a character much like Mr. Spock in
Star Trek,
who became, accidentally one would assume, the catalyst for the popularity of that series. The reader comes to love Susan Calvin too.
The Rest of the Robots,
"I fell in love with Dr. Calvin." She is plain, stiff, forbidding, unemotional, logical "much more like the popular conception of a robot than any of my positronic creations," Asimov continued. She is a character much like Mr. Spock in
Star Trek,
who became, accidentally one would assume, the catalyst for the popularity of that series. The reader comes to love Susan Calvin too.
It is the robots who display the "infinite variety" that Shakespeare praised in Cleopatra: Robbie with his more than doglike devotion; the drunken Speedy, caught between imperatives; the arrogant Cutie, blinded by the brilliance of his own logic; the puzzled Davie; the tender Herbie; the Machiavellian Nestor; the childlike Brain; the coolly competent Stephen Byerley; and, in a lesser way because they never appear directly, the omniscient Machines. They all have individualizing names (again, excluding the Machines); this strategy pays tribute to the human trait of naming vehicles and machines but adds to the humanization of the robots. They capture our interest more than the people as they should because it is they who exhibit the variations while the humans remain constant and predictable.
I, Robot,
though never in the first person, is always about robots, and the characters' reactions to the problems that the robots bring with them create the stories.
I, Robot,
though never in the first person, is always about robots, and the characters' reactions to the problems that the robots bring with them create the stories.
Asimov never identifies with his robots, however. He gives them self-awareness and human characteristics so that the characters (and the readers) can better deal with the problems they present. Readers read the robot stories incorrectly when they begin to care more about what happens to the robots than what happens to the people at least from Asimov's view. Asimov is a rational man, and rationally the robots are still machines: humans should no more become fixated on their endearing characteristics than they should fear their rebellion. All of this, including the lack of action and the conversational mode by which the stories proceed ("The Evitable Conflict" consists entirely of a conversation between Byerley and Susan Calvin), is less important than that each story exists as a puzzle to be solved. The delight of the reader is in the ingenuity with which Asimov's characters solve the puzzle. The robots exist to present the puzzle in their behavior; the characters exist to solve the puzzle.
This view of Asimov's fiction may explain much of his style. His dialogue, for instance, is a vehicle for describing and then analyzing the problem, and clarity is its most important attribute (robots may have problems understanding human statements, but other humans do not, unless information is deliberately withheld, as in "Risk," a story included in
The Rest of the Robots
). An emphasis on setting would imply a relevance of place to the outcome that would be misleading; a presentation of human variation would suggest that human differences are the main subject, instead of robot differences. In spite of the fact that "Liar!" and "Evidence" (the stories in which character plays a more important part) are clearly the most effective stories in the book, they
are equally clearly most effective because of the more-or-less accidental coming together of the Asimov method with a suitable subject. Susan Calvin's human reaction to Herbie's lies is the means by which the problem is solved and the question of Herbie disposed of. Stephen Byerley's ambiguous presence is the problem of robot superiority that must meet the test of human fear.
The Rest of the Robots
). An emphasis on setting would imply a relevance of place to the outcome that would be misleading; a presentation of human variation would suggest that human differences are the main subject, instead of robot differences. In spite of the fact that "Liar!" and "Evidence" (the stories in which character plays a more important part) are clearly the most effective stories in the book, they
are equally clearly most effective because of the more-or-less accidental coming together of the Asimov method with a suitable subject. Susan Calvin's human reaction to Herbie's lies is the means by which the problem is solved and the question of Herbie disposed of. Stephen Byerley's ambiguous presence is the problem of robot superiority that must meet the test of human fear.
The other stories are less successful as fiction because Asimov does not find a humanly involving method for expressing them. "Liar!" and "Evidence" would be unsuccessful as "robot stories" if it were not for the ingenuity of the solutions to the problems they present; the human problems solve the robot predicament. It is always so in the robot stories: Weston not only must get Robbie and Gloria back together again but must do so in a way that demonstrates Robbie's superiority as a nursemaid; Powell must get Speedy back but in a way exploiting the Three Laws. If readers do not involve themselves in solving the problems, they will miss the basic pleasure offered by the stories in
I, Robot.
I, Robot.
As in
The Foundation Trilogy,
Asimov discovered, or learned from Campbell, the method that best suited his rational temperament and that best developed the kind of ideas he wished to explore: the mystery. As a rational person in an irrational world, Asimov had a compulsion that fit perfectly with what Campbell thought science fiction ought to do: that is, to show rationality prevailing over fear, prejudice, sentimentality, short-sightedness, and all the other irrational forces in the world, including accident. Thus the mystery, the puzzle, the success of the logical, unemotional Susan Calvin over all the other less logical, more emotional characters in the stories. "Robbie" was less successful (and less acceptable to Campbell, perhaps) partly because it was not a puzzle, not a mystery. "Reason" was Campbell's kind of story, and Asimov's too, because it presented the puzzle of Cutie's obsession and how to solve it, and the ending was a neat twist that had not been foreseen. The puzzle and the ingenious solution were what sold Asimov's robot stories to Campbell and to his readers. But those were not the stories' only virtues. The concern with the Three Laws also had relevance to human behavior, sometimes stated, more often not. This does not mean simply the overt references to such matters as the Frankenstein complex: the fear of robots and the banning of their use on Earth has more fictional value than philosophic validity. Although clearly motivated by Asimov's dislike for the archetype of the prejudiced, emotion-driven, unthinking person, and enabling him to deal with contrasts in attitudes and behavior, the terrestrial antipathy toward the robots seems less convincing than desirable for reasons of plot. Robot computers are not
banned, nor are other non-humanoid robots. The banning of the robots and apprehension concerning them, however, provides many conflicts in a series that has little inevitable conflict built into it. Asimov is able to get around the bans when he desires, particularly in the robot stories published after 1950.
The Foundation Trilogy,
Asimov discovered, or learned from Campbell, the method that best suited his rational temperament and that best developed the kind of ideas he wished to explore: the mystery. As a rational person in an irrational world, Asimov had a compulsion that fit perfectly with what Campbell thought science fiction ought to do: that is, to show rationality prevailing over fear, prejudice, sentimentality, short-sightedness, and all the other irrational forces in the world, including accident. Thus the mystery, the puzzle, the success of the logical, unemotional Susan Calvin over all the other less logical, more emotional characters in the stories. "Robbie" was less successful (and less acceptable to Campbell, perhaps) partly because it was not a puzzle, not a mystery. "Reason" was Campbell's kind of story, and Asimov's too, because it presented the puzzle of Cutie's obsession and how to solve it, and the ending was a neat twist that had not been foreseen. The puzzle and the ingenious solution were what sold Asimov's robot stories to Campbell and to his readers. But those were not the stories' only virtues. The concern with the Three Laws also had relevance to human behavior, sometimes stated, more often not. This does not mean simply the overt references to such matters as the Frankenstein complex: the fear of robots and the banning of their use on Earth has more fictional value than philosophic validity. Although clearly motivated by Asimov's dislike for the archetype of the prejudiced, emotion-driven, unthinking person, and enabling him to deal with contrasts in attitudes and behavior, the terrestrial antipathy toward the robots seems less convincing than desirable for reasons of plot. Robot computers are not
banned, nor are other non-humanoid robots. The banning of the robots and apprehension concerning them, however, provides many conflicts in a series that has little inevitable conflict built into it. Asimov is able to get around the bans when he desires, particularly in the robot stories published after 1950.
Other books
Disney Christmas Storybook Collection by Various
The Fox in the Forest by Gregson, J. M.
The Betrayal of the Blood Lily by Lauren Willig
The Extraction List by Renee N. Meland
The Silky Seal Pup by Amelia Cobb
Watch What Burns by Kirsty-Anne Still
Helpless by Daniel Palmer
Board Stiff: A Dead-End Job Mystery by Viets, Elaine
Great Irish Short Stories by Unknown