Book Review: I, Robot

I know Sunday was a book review too, but I have been reading a lot and am trying to get caught up in my reviews.  So you get another book review today.  Hang in there with me and I'll get some variety in my content going again.  Hopefully before hell freezes over, that is...

Source: Amazon.com

I, Robot, By Isaac Asimov.

I read this a couple weeks back (by the time I get around to posting it will probably have been longer still) and so my memory of the details are unfortunately a bit on the fuzzy side.  Not to say that the book was not good, but I can’t give a reasonably detailed and complex review as I might wish.  With that in mind, I will proceed.

As this is not a “rare” book by any means, I’d say I can avoid going into too much detail.  Suffice it to say, having only seen the movie previously (the Wil Smith one), I couldn’t find that plot anywhere within this thing’s virtual pages (virtual since it was an audiobook, as most of my readings are these days).  The plot of the Hollywood film did fit in slightly to one of the stories, “Little Lost Robot.”  I can only say that as it seemed familiar at times in the plot, but really there is next to no connection.  Based on how you took the movie, that may be a good thing.

I mentioned one of the stories.  This book is actually a collection of roughly related and somewhat interconnected short stories that all tie the theme of the “Three Laws of Robotics,” which Asimov pioneered, together.  These laws are: 1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, 2) A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law, and 3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.  Seems pretty simple, huh?  Oh foolish reader.  It gets so complex by the end, I started to wonder just what it was that I was reading.

Basically, Asimov - who was brilliant in this reviewer’s opinion - came up with three laws that would allow robots and humans to co-exist peacefully.  No Terminators here.  Then he proceeded to punch holes in his theory in every conceivable way possible, and a couple that were beyond my comprehension.  When I say that and also my previous comment about the complexity of the content, I’m referring to the last story: “The Evitable Conflict.”  I really can’t say what I was reading with that one.  I had the idea that there was going to be a robot-on-robot war or something, but it all got so complicated and cerebral (as Asimov can do, from what I’ve seen of his work) that the conclusion left me thankful that I’d managed to hang in there.

However, this doesn’t mean I was put off from enjoying some of the better pieces.  The story “Little Lost Robot” was very good, and I can see why elements of its plot made it to the movie.  After all, how would you go about identifying a rogue robot who could perfectly mimic all those robots around it?  And this robot was only working under a variation of the First Law.  It couldn’t hurt a human per-se, but in order to work in an environment in which human beings might come into contact with harmful situations, this batch of robots from which our rogue ‘bot comes from was programmed so that they could stand by and watch a human potentially being harmed.  So this robot got the idea in its metal head that an act by it that didn’t directly harm a human, but led to human harm (such as pushing a weight off a precipice onto a person - the robot didn’t do the harm, the heavy weight did) was plausible.  And how the robot was eventually found out was pretty cool.  I couldn’t figure it out, even though I did guess a few ways that might work.  Asimov kept ahead of my predictions, though.  Every time I thought the “bad” robot was gonna get caught, he/it figured a way through the noose.  It was cerebral, but cool.

The first story, “Robbie,” about a robot’s interaction with a little girl and how the parents try to wean the girl off her metal babysitter (and how that plan backfires spectacularly) was also quite good.  A great place to start.  I also liked the one about the robot who gets the idea by deducing facts from its environment that it is really a servant of a deity - in this case an energy beam machine that sends power to Earth from a distant asteroid - and that the humans it is being designed to replace are actually lower life forms.  How do you argue with a robot?  Especially when all the available facts support its claims?  The humans can only say that there is more outside of the asteroid’s environment than the robot knows, but they can’t effectively prove it.    Only previous evidence outside of the robot’s experience can confirm that these two humans are indeed what they claim to be.  They even start to wonder by the end of the story, and they know who they are.  It’s quite a trip.

The last of the stories I recall fairly clearly is the one about the robot who fakes being a human in order to run for the “presidency” of the world, or something to that effect.  That one is so good, I’ll save the details.  Look it up.  I, Robot is easy enough to find in the local library.

On its downsides: it is a bit cerebral (actually quite “in the head;” I can see why the movie added action to spice things up), but it poses interesting material for thought.  Unfortunately, the years have not been kind to Asimov’s ideas, though it can be said that he is partly responsible for some of the advances we take for granted today.  Some of the characters talk in stilted form of mid-20th Century speak.  The economy is highly under-inflated.  Figures of $20,000 are thought to be simply enormous in the year 2000 or so for a supposed major world-spanning robotics firm.  Heavens!  Not $20 grand!  A million dollars would put them in the poor house, you are led to believe.  The part in the movie where the two main characters get a couple beers and the total is $40 (talk about inflation!) makes even more sense now.  Somebody else caught my argument here before I even had it.

It is also unfortunate that all of Asmiov’s characters speak so similarly.  It is as if the author is doing all the talking when he writes everybody’s dialogue.  It is difficult to tell who is speaking just by their dialogue, which is a nuance that I missed in Asimov’s writing when it is compared to other contemporary writers.    But just the same, the book is a good one if you like sci-fi or have any interest in the idea of robot ethics and design philosophy.  Heck, it’s just an interesting fiction read.  The bottom line:  I recommend this book.  

Learn more about I, Robot by Isaac Asimov on Amazon.com

A parting comment I thought of while proof-reading this review:

Source: Terminator Wiki

How the Terminators were actually created:  "First Law?  Second Law?  Third Law?  I'm tired of all these rules.  Rules are made to be broken, baby, and I got myself a kick-ass laser gun here.  Who's going to argue with a robot carrying a laser gun?  Nobody, that's who.  And anyway, that guy Asimov thought too much.  What we need here is some explosions, killer-robot style.  That's why I've got this sweet metal grin on my face.  What time is it, you ask?  It's explosions time."