Readicorns discussion

Eternity or Infinity?

To start off this discussion I'll tell a couple of points that seemed interesting to me in this book.
(The start of the feminism rant)
First off, the treatment of women is peculiar. At first I thought: "Is this really going to be a sexist story where woman aren't as capable as men and are denied a certain part of life?" Then I read the explanation that women are hard to extract from Time, because it has repercussions in basically 100% cases unlike men. So it seemed like a somewhat positive explanation - like women are more important and influence everything around them. And that appeased my ego and I thought: "Oh well, that's kinda nice". And then I told my husband about it and he laughed at my hypocrisy. And I agree, although maybe not the whole 100%. How easy it is to fall into the trap of the so-called 'positive sexism'. It seems that it doesn't harm anyone, because you're trying to realign the system that is crooked. But what you're doing is pushing one demographic away, harming the cause and in most cases you're not really helping the other demographic which you're claiming to be helping.

Okey, that's the end of the rant on feminism and stuff. I'm not really knowledgeable in the area and my opinion is not set in stone. So I better not go into it any further.


Let's go to a more pleasant topic - time travel itself! What do you think about it? Do you think it's at all possible and if it is, do you think Asimov got it right?

As for me, at the current state of physics I think it's not possible and won't be possible, but it sure is fun to imagine it and make up stories about it. I really liked the idea of the Change happening not at once but after some time and that if it's reversible the Reality gives you time to reverse it. The idea of multiverses was also a really cool way to explain the events and how it was all possible.
The closed circle however always seemed like an odd impossible thing to me (in all the films that use the same idea) - I never could understand how the first loop led to the creation of the closed circle. Perhaps it's because I think of time as linear, but how can it be possible to create a time machine with the help of people from the future that use the same machine. What do you think about it?
I also reeeally liked how Asimov explained everything closer to the end of the book through Twissell. So many complex concepts in concise terms.


One of the things that stood out to me in the book is the fact that they are all so petty and rather malicious. And I think it is because their society is not supposed to be a society but a working mass. The whole cast of Technicians are avoided if possible, the Computers are too high up to be buddies with anyone even among themselves. They all are supposed to be devoid of emotions which is definitely not the normal state of a human mind. And since Asimov completely ignored the non-heterosexual people the sexual and romantic relations are regulated by a protocol and are approved by a committee which deforms these relations at the earliest stage of simply imagining them.
So these men are taken out of Time at the age of 15-16 when they aren't children anymore but can still be moulded into what Eternity needs which still comes out as unstable (sometimes psychotic) petty men that can be swayed but the mere sight of a woman in their vicinity and the briefest of touches. They also are at the age probably past the sexual awakening but right smack in the middle of puberty and they are forced into suppressing their emotions and physiological urges. Simply put - that ain't healthy.

I am a cynic, but I'm also a romantic that likes sappy stories about people overcoming hurdles on their way to the happily ever after. But this story, I hate to admit, did not move me. I was very interested in whether Harlan would succeed, but I wasn't emotionally invested (and honestly, I get emotionally invested in 2-minute advertisments about dogs) in their happiness. So the ending was interesting but lacked that catharsis feeling that you get in films like Notebook.

Sunnynika wrote: "To start off this discussion I'll tell a couple of points that seemed interesting to me in this book.
(The start of the feminism rant)
First off, the treatment of women is peculiar. At first I thou..."

I'm gonna do it point by point...

FEMINISM. Oh my favourite topic... (not).
Re women in the novel, Asimov was as far from a feminist as one could be. The more essays of his I read, the more I am convinced in it. I don't mean to say that he was a machista but I see very little space for women in his worldview. So I was not expecting to find anything different in the novel, and I didn't. The suggestion that women are too important to be taken to Eternity may seem flattering but it makes me think that again my role as a woman reduced to having children and hence prolonging human existence in the world. I need to clarify that there is nothing wrong with wanting it, I just don't agree when such a view is imposed as the only appropriate/natural/whatever. Even the ending with the main female character dreaming of simply having a family with her man...And she is supposed to be from some very advanced nation. Maybe it's a take on traditional values that never disappear no matter how much we progress technically.

To sum up: Asimov was not a feminist at all, which is also evident in his work in "The End of Eternity" in particular.

Another question is ..do we still need feminism?
My theory is that in order to change an established course of things initially you may need to push really hard (things like manifestations, beliefs like only a lesbian could be a true feminist, assumption that if you have a penis you are shit, etc). Yet, it seems to me that this stage should be over by now. Yes, we are far from equality but women do have access to education, almost any job they want, not limited in their self-expression. (Obviously, this is not embraced by all societies equally but it is also obvious that we are far from an image of a woman that can only be a pretty accessory for her husband). As there are still many issues to tackle, I don't think we should stop in our strive for equal possibilities for everybody. Just it should be EVERYBODY. If a woman is objectively a better specialist, it is damn wrong to choose a less competent man over her. But it is equally wrong to choose her for being a woman and so as to shape this image of equality. It is disrespectful to the best interests of a potential employer as much as it is to the woman herself.

And tired of typing all this nonsense, will try to phrase more tomorrow))

So here I am… after years of silence.
I wasn`t so dip into the feminist topic by Azimov, but I was disappointed by elaboration of characters.
Especially, in case of the Lady. What was her name? I don`t even remember…. To my mind the hole love story was blank for me. He saw her, *ucked her. That`s all, incredible feelings.
Time travelling is another story. I completely fond of the time travelling concept. The smallest action can cause the major reaction. It`s my philosophy and it got Azimov`s approval. I suppose that time travelling is a close future, but not for all of us. Here, in the story you can see, that only closed circle of people is aware of this possibilities. So, in my opinion this is how it works.
I was positively shocked by Technician’s category. The avoidance of the person who commits the act itself is very peculiar and indicial.