ŷ������

Great review Melki:))

You should try I, Slutbot.

Mathu wrote: "Great review Melki:))"

Thanks, Mathu.

So by this standard shouldn't nearly every bit of SF written in the 30s, 40s, 50s (and disturbingly many in the 60s and 70s) be similarly trashed for sexism? I happen to agree with your assessment. But who wasn't sexist back then? Larry Niven was overtly misogynist in the 70s, a good 40 years after Asimov's short stories in "I, Robot" were written.

I'm not sure what the answer is, beyond calling it out. But to rank it lower argues that the book doesn't matter much, when it probably matters more than most modern SF books. Asimov practically invented the genre as we now know it, and this was arguably his highest impact book.

I suppose it depends on whether you look at all art through modern eyes, or through the context of its time. I like to look at Monet from the 1860s viewpoint, not the 2017 viewpoint.

Wormboy2000 wrote: "So by this standard shouldn't nearly every bit of SF written in the 30s, 40s, 50s (and disturbingly many in the 60s and 70s) be similarly trashed for sexism? I happen to agree with your assessment...."

I honestly think the majority of the stories deserve three stars. (Three stars is NOT "trashing.") The sexism may have driven me nuts, but it really had nothing to do with my rating. I'm very glad you enjoyed the book, and I'd be interested in reading your review.

Asimov was a great writer; there's no doubt about it.

Asimov was not only sexist, he was also a sociopath! Trying to cover his disgustingly misogynist tracks he made Dr.Calvin the MAIN character of the book, just to try and confuse us! He also tried making men as(twice as) petty and weak as Dr.Calvin herself, but we know the truth, he only did it so he could mask his hatred for the fair sex. To completely muddle the tracks he let Susan come up with a solution and break every single case in which she was an active participant, while every man colleague of her is stumped trying to find a solution. To add insult to injury he forces Dr.Calvin to "mansplain" the solution to everyone else, using facts *gasp*, logic *eek* and reason *faint*.
The mere fact that his first Robot story was written when he was 19 and Dr.Susan Calvin started appearing in his third story, at the time of publishing of which Asimov admits to have never even been on a date, is a clear proof of his concealed hatred. Young adults and late teens are notoriously disdainful toward the opposite sex, a well-known fact! Not only Asimov managed to poison the society with his hidden misogynistic messages for decades, when he actually published a Robot story featuring a female robot (took him years, the creep!) who was the story's antagonist, the readers were shocked since his *quote* "respect and adoration for the fair sex" was widely known, oh the lies!!

In conclusion, I believe this book only deserves one star, a star that had we finally managed to construct a Time Machine and travel back in 50ies, we could shove down Asimov's women-hating throat.

OK, rant over...

I liked the book, four stars.

Not sure where you get the sexist angle. I have never seen Susan Calvin as anything but incredibly capable, putting all men around her in the shade.
Also, there are many more male descriptions in this book than you claim, including Lanning's eyebrows, Powell's mustache, Peter Boger's pudgy fingers and pale complexion,...there's only one character in the entire book that's described as attractive, and it's the scientist Susan Calvin has a crush on in Liar! By the way, Susan doesn't become petty and vindictive because here affections were spurned, it's because she was lied to...

In short, I think Asimov wrote Dr. Calvin as one of the most well rounded female characters ever, and it's really strange to see her cited as an example of sexism.

Sander wrote: "Not sure where you get the sexist angle. I have never seen Susan Calvin as anything but incredibly capable, putting all men around her in the shade.
Also, there are many more male descriptions in ..."

At a time when most science fiction writers included female characters as nothing more than bimbos needing to be rescued, Asimov should be commended for featuring a female scientist . . . but, I stand by my original opinion - AND, it is just an opinion. I assume I am allowed to have one.

Obviously we see things quite differently, but thanks for taking the time to comment.

Still, it beats Foundation, where half of humanity was simply... absent.

Get over yourself, this is a book about robots not women

Chadvonswan wrote: "Get over yourself, this is a book about robots not women"

Maybe you should take the time to READ THE BOOK, Lil Chad, before you go commenting on a complete stranger's review.

I am reading it, but really, what are you expecting from a scifi book published in 1950? Did women only recently start PMSing as you put it

Chadvonswan wrote: "I am reading it, but really, what are you expecting from a scifi book published in 1950? Did women only recently start PMSing as you put it"

Sorry - I have no interest in spending my evening arguing.

Hope you enjoy the book.

Sounds like you're just a liberal seeking controversy when there isn't any existent. Sexist! such a generic claim nowadays.

There are instances in many books written in the 50's where female characters were written poorly. I think you did a good review of the book, but I also think others would argue, that this is one of the examples of Asimov's work that included a pseudo-feminist hero. Susan Calvin was unique in Scifi literature in that she was the leader, the problem solver, the steady hand. She had some character vulnerabilities as the men did as well. I respect your opinion, but I really love the book and really enjoy the strong character Susan Calvin.

All the characters, male and female, are written poorly in this collection.

The book centers around a competent woman scientist who's capable of solving problems the men around her can't. The representation isn't flawless by contemporary standards, I'd hardly consider it "horrifically sexist." I think Asimov's real-world reputation with women is coloring your perception of his work.

Jon wrote: "The book centers around a competent woman scientist who's capable of solving problems the men around her can't. The representation isn't flawless by contemporary standards, I'd hardly consider it "..."

For a review that begins with Though I do love Asimov's writing, I find it surprising that I am so frequently called on to defend my opinions here. I honestly know nothing of, nor do I care about "Asimov's real-world reputation with women." I do know he had a wicked sense of humor that I admire, and I'm certainly open to reading much more of his work.

But, thanks for taking the time to explain to me how wrong I am.

Yes, very tired of these rants by all the “enlightened�� modern women. We can all find all the racist books ever written by slave owners, a type of person that has existed at least for rhetorical last 30,000 years in all races of the world. Guess what , in 200 years people will be ranting about your “sins�� you don’t even know about, but they will be looking through a different lens. It’s tiresome, just stop.