I enjoy the works of H.P. Lovecraft despite the man’s racism, I still love watching A Christmas Carol every year despite the fact that Charles Dickens was an utter dick to his wife, and I won’t stop enjoying Pulp Fiction because Harvey Weinstein was the executive producer. I don’t count myself as a fan of Asimov but the man was a giant in his field and influenced generations of fans and writers. The man’s been dead for almost thirty years now. It’s a little late to boycott his work.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter though, does it? It only matters that John Lennon was a wife beater to those around him, it doesn’t matter to me, the person who listens to his music. I never met him and don’t know any of the people involved. His art is his art.
Like I said, it gets more complicated with a living artist. I love Chinatown, but I don’t think I could bring myself to buy a ticket to a Polanski movie ever again.
I felt the same way about Mario Lanza. I grew up watching his movies - my mother would sometimes keep me home from school if a ML or Deanna Durbin or Margaret O’Brien movie was going to be on.So how disappointing it was to find out he was an utter pig to his female costars.
StG
The main reason people can’t live off their art is because no one thinks it’s worth anything. Asimov didn’t prevent other writers from getting published; anyone who works as a writer knows there’s always plenty of room for new talent. It’s not Asimov who stopped them from creating (after all, he started out with a day job for years and was working full time when he wrote the first Foundation trilogy). It’s that they didn’t have the talent or determination to come up with something people wanted to buy.
No artist’s success has ever prevented a talented newcomer from succeeding. Those who believe it are just looking for excuses.
If you honestly believe there would be a huge void in science fiction if Asimov had never lived, or that the worst thing he ever wrote and succeeded in getting published is better than the best thing an unpublished nobody has ever written, then I’m happy to inform you that not only do I have a bridge for sale, but a bridge built according to plans by Asimov, with his signature on the keystone.
I’m with Derleth on this; Asimov is too important as an SF writer to stop reading his fiction.
OTOH these revelations certainly change my opinion of the man. If there were a memoir or bio of him that I’d been planning to read, I would now be deciding not to bother. That was my reaction in the Al Franken case.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Seconded. I’m not reading just anything that comes along in sci-fi that gets lauded. It has to actually be good work (which will generally be apparent after a few pages). There is always room for good sci-fi books.
Loose talk in the classroom
To hurt they try and try
Strong words in the staffroom
The accusations fly
It’s no use
He sees her
He starts to shake he starts to cough
Just like the old man in
That famous book by Asimov.
I thought all this was common knowledge at least to those who care about science fiction. And I’m pretty sure I first heard about his treatment of women on this board. Is there some new information I missed?
I like to think that I totally separate the art from the artist. I don’t care if they are total jerks I’ll still enjoy the work. But there is a line. Polanski is on the other side of that line. So is Cosby. And of course Marion Zimmer Bradley.
His 100th birthday just passed, so I suspect that there are a lot of new articles about the guy floating around, both the good and bad aspects of them.
Any human being may be a great genius some areas of their life and a great idiot in other areas. That’s just the way it is.
If we are only going to read books or listen to music or admire art created by people who are saintly in their personal lives, we are not going to be reading many books, or listening to much music, or admiring much art. Many writers, artists, composers, and scientists have held weird and unacceptable beliefs, or have behaved despicably in their personal lives, but that doesn’t mean that their works don’t have value.
We need to separate the artist and their work… BUT it makes a difference whether the ‘problem area’ of an artist’s personal life is related to their work or not.
e.g. Wagner was a great anti-Semite - does that mean his music is bad? No. His antisemitism is unrelated to his music. I think even in Israel a majority of people accept that.
But when a novelist writes imaginatively about society and the human condition, then his personal biases about society and the human condition are relevant and cannot be separated from his work. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t read Asimov. It means that we need to know his personal failings and be aware of them when reading his books, because his personal views can and will manifest in his books.
Asimov likely didn’t prevent anyone from getting published, but I wonder how many women who had an interest in science fiction decided that this wasn’t their thing after having Asimov shove a hand up their skirt, to the loud approval of many of his contemporaries.
Why do you think that? I’m curious. I’ve known quite a few writers, and most of them have been reasonably personable. Are you thinking they write because they can’t relate to people? I think most writers write because they like to write, period.
Asimov’s robot stories had a tremendous impact. So did the Foundation stories.
Asimov himself never rejected anyone’s stories. He wrote about having stories rejected. If an unknown’s story was that good, it would be bought along with the Asimov story. Which, even if not great, might have been bought to sell magazines. Any problem with that?
If an Asimov story blocked some unsung genius from being in an issue of an sf magazine, then so did every other story in that issue.
Not a fan, and partly because I already knew about his lechery, so this isn’t really going to sour my relationship with his work any further than it already has.
Basically, nothing I read about any Golden Age authors would surprise me, and none of it is “important” enough for me not to stop reading it. I’m not going to host book burnings, but I’m not giving my daughters any GA books to read, either.
I’ll start them with Hal Clement and LeGuin, instead.
This is even less news than Weinstein? I enjoyed Asimov. I enjoyed quite a lot of the output of some seriously evil men. Churchill for instance.
I would argue that assaulting dozens, if not hundreds of people is not being an idiot, but rather evil.
Arisia, the earliest in the year of Boston’s science fiction conventions, is starting in just over a week. There’s a panel devoted to the Asimov Centenary. This item ought to come up in the course of that.
If it doesn’t, I can bring it up.
I read most of his novels in my youth. Still have some of his books, more for nostalgia than any intention of reading them again. Fun fact: His nephew and I were classmates in high school.
Knew nothing of this until this very thread. I’m disappointed though not sure if my enjoyment of his writing all those years ago is tarnished by this new (to me) information. I think compartmentalization is the correct way to approach these situations.
Well, take a magazine like, oh, say Asimov’s Science Fiction. Although they do take stories from slush, their Editor in Chief and at least one of their “repeat” authors have been very open about 1) a bias towards SFWA membership (okay…) and 2) a bias towards established names in the industry.
How do you take that to mean anything other than known authors can get published for lesser work than unknown authors? They’ve basically said as much.
Same with agents for longer works. They could take some unknown based off their one-page query, but they’d rather take someone who is established, has a following, and can count on their following to buy books which the agent can then get a commission on (although it helps if you have a really crazy backstory, like, if you’re a veteran sitting in federal prison because you went on to rob banks to feed your drug addiction, that’s brandable: an agent would eat that up. But just a regular veteran who wrote the same book? A hell no. But if you’re a known reported writing off stories other people have told you, well…)
Yes, new authors come up if they’re persistent enough. But your Asimov’s get to keep on getting middling works published and read as if it’s genius. And you know what? I’m fine with that. I mean, I get it. It’s not just luck, surely they’ve written quite a bit,of good stuff, and yes persistence and quality work will pay off in the end, but…
My tolerance for artistic industries that push brand over quality to any degree is very much limited when it turns out the man behind the brand is a SERIAL SEXUAL ASSAULTER. Because that’s what groping is: not harassment, assault.
I guarantee you, somewhere a tribute or callback to Asimov is being published in an extant sci-fi magazine. Somewhere, a work by Asimov is sitting on a book store shelf (probably your nearest Barnes & Noble). In fact, I’m pretty confident Asimov’s estate still has a literary agent representing his works. His works, rather than some newcomers.
There are a finite number and opportunities for publication. I wish we would stop giving them to the likes of Asimov. Let everyone else—everyone who isn’t a serial sexual assaulter—move up a rung and have their works reach a wider audience. I dare say the audience will find them just as good, perhaps even better, as what they replaced.