Status
Available
Call number
Publication
Hysparmerica
Description
A collection of all of Isaac Asimov's robot stories, including some which have never before appeared in book form.
User reviews
LibraryThing member elenchus
Pulled from the shelf almost at whim, in a moment I craved an indulgence read. It fit the bill. Many of the stories were familiar if only half-remembered, meeting my need for a sentimental re-acquaintance, but a good many I'd never read before. I've somehow been left with an idea of Asimov being
Not all these stories fit the same universe, though many do and this accounts for their later inclusion in his Foundation canon. His Three Laws of Robotics are frequently cited, unsurprisingly, though often to be teased out or twisted or put into some extreme situation to see if they'll crack. There are other commonalities between the tales: most posit a general suspicion of robots, centred on danger posed by them, and the stories often explore the ignorance and superstition behind this fear. (One explores the uncanny valley and design principles employed to avoid it.) In most stories, Asimov posits that robots cannot be used on Earth, but only off world, until that place (satellite, planet, space station) becomes sufficiently populated so as to be another Earth.
Also prevalent are dated perspectives, not only with the obvious technologies not anticipated (interface with AI via tickertape, analog not digital photographs) but more significantly with social mores. Susan Calvin addresses an adult robot as "boy", two hooligans essentially set out to lynch a robot. Which is to say, plus ça change ....
Children are often featured, highlighting relationships between human and robot which are based in something other than fear.
In affinithy with many Golden Age writers, Asimov writes about robots as a way of reflecting humanity, of writing about humans. It's not that he hasn't done the work to understand his robots, in fact there's quite a bit there (witness, that Calvin is a robopsychologist rather than AI logician or even investigative engineer). But Asimov doesn't focus on the robot so much as how people interact with (react to) the robot.
It seems Asimov added some connecting elements, or revised certain details of stories for better continuity. It is most suggestive in the Powell and Donovan stories. Unlike some omnibus editions, Asimov's robot stories make for a satisfying read overall, collected in this way.
Show More
quaint and juvenile, even for a genre writer: wooden characters, uncomplicated plots. There is something to that, but I was pleased that mostly it is a caricature of his work. His ideas and plots are quite good, often go somewhere unexpected, and there is an emotional depth to his situations and the interactions between characters, if not in his prose. A story involving autism is a conspicuous (and not saccharine) example.Not all these stories fit the same universe, though many do and this accounts for their later inclusion in his Foundation canon. His Three Laws of Robotics are frequently cited, unsurprisingly, though often to be teased out or twisted or put into some extreme situation to see if they'll crack. There are other commonalities between the tales: most posit a general suspicion of robots, centred on danger posed by them, and the stories often explore the ignorance and superstition behind this fear. (One explores the uncanny valley and design principles employed to avoid it.) In most stories, Asimov posits that robots cannot be used on Earth, but only off world, until that place (satellite, planet, space station) becomes sufficiently populated so as to be another Earth.
Also prevalent are dated perspectives, not only with the obvious technologies not anticipated (interface with AI via tickertape, analog not digital photographs) but more significantly with social mores. Susan Calvin addresses an adult robot as "boy", two hooligans essentially set out to lynch a robot. Which is to say, plus ça change ....
Children are often featured, highlighting relationships between human and robot which are based in something other than fear.
In affinithy with many Golden Age writers, Asimov writes about robots as a way of reflecting humanity, of writing about humans. It's not that he hasn't done the work to understand his robots, in fact there's quite a bit there (witness, that Calvin is a robopsychologist rather than AI logician or even investigative engineer). But Asimov doesn't focus on the robot so much as how people interact with (react to) the robot.
It seems Asimov added some connecting elements, or revised certain details of stories for better continuity. It is most suggestive in the Powell and Donovan stories. Unlike some omnibus editions, Asimov's robot stories make for a satisfying read overall, collected in this way.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mohi
Asimov's strength has always been his short stories, and this strength is best shown here, coupled with his interesting Laws of Robotics. Some would say many of the stories read like logic puzzles, but they are still a fun read.
LibraryThing member Razinha
I read "I, Robot" nearly 40 years ago and "The Rest of the Robots" a little later. Odd that I still have a memory of the order of the stories, which was changed for this collection. Dated (obviously) and surprising limited in vision, it's clear Asimov was writing to sell stories to the pulp mags,
Show More
so his tone reflected part Damon Runyon, part...I don't know who would be a contemporary author bent on attaching details relevant to the time but that would not stand the test of time (dollar figures, misogynistic attitudes). That's not to say I didn't enjoy the book, but I've always struggled with his robot stories since I outgrew my Lester del Rey days of pre- and early teens. I've never been able to read any of his robot novels, but I am determined this time, for they are in the Foundation story arc that I will read this year. Show Less
LibraryThing member WinterFox
I'll admit that I took a very long time before I first tried Asimov; even after being given a book of his, it took me eight years or so to read the thing. This one hasn't been waiting around quite that long, but much like the first one, the reading of it raises the question of why it took so long
This book is, as the title suggests, pretty much all of the Robot stories that Asimov wrote (minus a couple of later ones, it seems). Considering that this is the man that invented the word "robotics," and expounded on it to a great degree, it means there's a lot of stuff in here; it has a few other compilations of his Robot stories enclosed in it, for example. It's pretty well rounded, as well; there are a number of stories focusing on non-humanoid robots, on computers, and then with his signature characters, as well.
The writing style is quite unvarnished, and a bit uneven in places, especially in the stories that were chronologically the earliest. The character development is pretty limited, and he seems largely to be content to have his speakers be at turns upset and inspired. However, if you're willing to do without extensive descriptions, then you get a bunch of very interesting puzzles, laid out in a variety of ways. Really, there's a lot of logic. The author's unifying belief in how a robotic system to work really shines through in a collection of this magnitude, as well.
I very much enjoyed this, and while I don't really think I see more of Asimov's work in my immediate future, I may pick up more of it in the long term.
Show More
to get here.This book is, as the title suggests, pretty much all of the Robot stories that Asimov wrote (minus a couple of later ones, it seems). Considering that this is the man that invented the word "robotics," and expounded on it to a great degree, it means there's a lot of stuff in here; it has a few other compilations of his Robot stories enclosed in it, for example. It's pretty well rounded, as well; there are a number of stories focusing on non-humanoid robots, on computers, and then with his signature characters, as well.
The writing style is quite unvarnished, and a bit uneven in places, especially in the stories that were chronologically the earliest. The character development is pretty limited, and he seems largely to be content to have his speakers be at turns upset and inspired. However, if you're willing to do without extensive descriptions, then you get a bunch of very interesting puzzles, laid out in a variety of ways. Really, there's a lot of logic. The author's unifying belief in how a robotic system to work really shines through in a collection of this magnitude, as well.
I very much enjoyed this, and while I don't really think I see more of Asimov's work in my immediate future, I may pick up more of it in the long term.
Show Less
LibraryThing member RJoanna
One word: Asimov. And there's not much more do add.
LibraryThing member euang
The Master at Work: Isaac Asimov is the master of the short story, revealing a whole new world in a paragraph. His robot stories are brilliant feats of imagination, and his Laws of Robotics have had a profound influence on the real world of Artificial Intelligence research. Do read these - they are
Show More
wonderful. Show Less
LibraryThing member Karlstar
A collection of Asimov's robot stories, including Robbie and Bicentennial Man, the story that was (losely) the inspiration for the movie of the same name. Several of the stories were also the background for the I, Robot movie. An excellent collection of robot stories.
LibraryThing member hailelib
I actually read this collection of short stories over a period of about two months. While a few were vaguely familiar most were either new to me or read so long ago that I had no memory of them. A good collection of classic SF. The reading of this book was inspired by watching the movie 'I, Robot'.
LibraryThing member Ed_Gosney
I read this a long time ago, and I remember really enjoying many of the stories. By today's standards, these wouldn't be considered very sofisticated, but I read them in my late 30s and have an appreciation for the founding fathers of Science Fiction. I really liked the way he would have emotional
Show More
connections between some of the human characters and some of the robots. This contained The Bicentenial Man and the stories that inspired I Robot. From a movie perspective, I could enjoy them, but they couldn't really capture what Asimov did with his words. Show Less
LibraryThing member barpurple
Asimov's tales of robots of the future are both disarming and disturbing. There are moments that appear quaint to us; information being fed into computers via punched tapes and huge machines that have less power and fewer functions than a mobile phone. It's these instances that disarm a reader into
This total understanding of humanity ensures that Asimov's fiction will be readable for decades to come. These stories highlight the conflict that lies between our desire for advancement and our resistance to anything new. As humans we want to push the boundaries of technoloy, but we are reluctant to engage with anything that is different to what we are used to. In these short stories this reluctance finds expression in distrust of robots.
My favourite story in this collection is Robbie. Robbie is a companion robot to a little girl named Gloria. The bond between child and android is of that complete type that only realy exisits in childhood. The sort of bond that parents can't understand and worry might not be healthy. After much nagging Gloria's mother talks her husband into getting rid of Robbie. Gloria goes into a serious cycle of depression, which frustrated her mother who feels that her little girl should be glad the nasty robot is gone and should be making friends with normal children. On a trip to New York Gloria's father organises events so Gloria finds Robbie again. It's not quite the meeting he had planed as Gloria runs into danger and is saved by Robbie. After this there is no way that they can seperate their daughter from her robot pal, but the worry is still there. Is it safe, healthy or right for Gloria to be so emotional close to a robot?
Don't expect any answers from Asimov. His stories leave you wondering about the state of humanity. The Complete Robot is a great combination of science fiction and human fact and well worth reading.
Show More
to feeling a little smug about Asimov's limited view of technilogical potential. You're not allowed to remain secure in that smugness for all that long. The real power of these tales of subserviant robots is the sharp focus on human behavior and all too human flaws. This total understanding of humanity ensures that Asimov's fiction will be readable for decades to come. These stories highlight the conflict that lies between our desire for advancement and our resistance to anything new. As humans we want to push the boundaries of technoloy, but we are reluctant to engage with anything that is different to what we are used to. In these short stories this reluctance finds expression in distrust of robots.
My favourite story in this collection is Robbie. Robbie is a companion robot to a little girl named Gloria. The bond between child and android is of that complete type that only realy exisits in childhood. The sort of bond that parents can't understand and worry might not be healthy. After much nagging Gloria's mother talks her husband into getting rid of Robbie. Gloria goes into a serious cycle of depression, which frustrated her mother who feels that her little girl should be glad the nasty robot is gone and should be making friends with normal children. On a trip to New York Gloria's father organises events so Gloria finds Robbie again. It's not quite the meeting he had planed as Gloria runs into danger and is saved by Robbie. After this there is no way that they can seperate their daughter from her robot pal, but the worry is still there. Is it safe, healthy or right for Gloria to be so emotional close to a robot?
Don't expect any answers from Asimov. His stories leave you wondering about the state of humanity. The Complete Robot is a great combination of science fiction and human fact and well worth reading.
Show Less
LibraryThing member JohnFair
These tales document the complete range of Isaac Asimov's robot stories right from the start through to late 60s stories. Unlike most collections of this nature, this collection is arranged in style of story rather than purely chronological, so we get all the stories relating to Multivac, or Susan
The collection ends with a couple of novellas, one of which, 'The Bicentennial Man', became a full length novel and a film.
Show More
Calvin in their section. Each section gets a commentary from the Good Doctor indicting his thoughts on the ideas behind the stories.The collection ends with a couple of novellas, one of which, 'The Bicentennial Man', became a full length novel and a film.
Show Less
LibraryThing member IAmAndyPieters
Asimov has written a great number of short stories involving robots and thinking machines. This book features 30 of them. Some of them thought provoking, others funny, some romantic, some sad, and some mind boggling.
LibraryThing member JoBass
A collection of Isaac Asimov's short stories about Robots.
LibraryThing member scottcholstad
This is basically Asimov at his best. High quality work here. Recommended (as part of a series...).
LibraryThing member DanielSTJ
This was a solid set of stories by Asimov in the Robot universe. There were notable standouts, and some weren't that strong, but overall the collection is worth reading for those who are interested in science fiction and Asimov.
3.25 stars.
3.25 stars.
LibraryThing member antao
I genuinely think the critical opposition to SF is increasingly overstated; I'm not entirely sure what "being taken seriously" even means any more except in the nerd media sense of "nothing but glowing praise from serious critics". The greats of SF - the real greats, that is, the authors who have
I think the major complaint is that the very best of SF books never make the longlists/shortlists of mainstream literary awards. If these mainstream awards were marketed as best in the nebulous maybe-genre of literary fiction this wouldn't be a problem, but they're marketed as best in all fiction. If you have an award that markets itself as best in all fiction, yet continually overlooks talented writers in a certain field, then SF has a fair complaint of being stuck with an implied second-class citizenship status tag. Except that the ones who "endure" tend to be the ones with something to them often described in terms of having something "beyond" the SF exterior, and so on. You even use the term "serious critics" to apparently describe non-specifically-SF critics.
These books have "crossover appeal" or "something to say about people as well as technology". Not direct quotes but attitudes prevalent in those "serious critics"' positive reviews of SF. The problem isn't that there's exactly opposition - fantasy and SF series on TV and in the written word do still get critical praise - but there is differentiation. The SF aspects of the fiction are deemed the coating, and it's only when the SF work has some serious part to it as well that it becomes "good" or "taken seriously". There's something in the attitude there that says that SF is inherently juvenile or lesser to those great novels with something to say about the human spirit or society or whatever.
A SF novel that's a good novel shouldn't have to be a crossover novel - it should just be a good SF novel. There's still a stigma to the term science fiction that has more to do with stereotypes of the fans (and therefore writers) of those works, which are still pretty prevalent. It might not be restricted to the white male shut-in, but it's still often associated with a certain type of social ineptitude. Yeah, "mainstream" culture is happily incorporating "nerd" culture into its allusions and characters these days, but they're still a curiosity, a kind of benign freakshow. It might not be all that negative or persecuting, but it still refuses to see SF as something that can be thrilling and profound in its own right.
I don't think 'true' SF will ever win literary awards. In it's purest form it's a philosophical or intellectual genre that undertakes a fundamentally different job from 'literary' fiction. Literary fiction is descended from the novel, which stood in contrast to older forms of romance or satirical/philosophical prose in that it tried to capture the nature of human experience (albeit often with a moral or political purpose). SF's roots lie in an older satirical and philosophical approach, (and that's without considering romances, which are closer to genre fiction as a whole).
SF ideas are often used as metaphors in more novellistic approaches - that's a huge part of P K Dick's appeal as his use of androids and replicants and illusion expresses something complex about the human experience. These are mixed up with dystopic elements drawn from SF's satirical roots, but the reason for his strong critical reputation is that his works are essentially novelistic - they try and show us what it is to be alive and human (rather than tell us how we should be alive or human).
Contrast this with “The Complete Robot” (which I re-read recently after about thirty years away) which is very clearly a philosophical and Utopian work with little interest in cracking open the nature of human experience. It's not a matter of one being better than the other (although I personally think that the novelistic approach has a more enduring appeal) but that the goals of the two types of writing make them impossible to compare. To be honest, I don't think that SF fans and critics have a strong idea of what SF is really for. Even awards lists within the genre can be made of books with very different goals and approaches which makes choosing between them very difficult - it's the old business of do you prefer a book that does a simple thing well or one that doesn't quite pull off something very ambitious?
How to judge fiction? If we take literature seriously then we surely need to look at the best examples, and there are several mentioned in the article and the comments above (but nothing of Christopher Priest's "The Adjacent" - another outstanding author woefully ignored by the mainstream). However, SF fans can, in my opinion, often be their own (and even their beloved authors) worst enemies. Lots of indifferent or poor writers in SF and 'fantasy' are buttressed by undiscriminating fans prepared to buy any old crap that they churn out. Even worse, there often seems to be little or no interest in reading anything much outside the genre, with the result that fans frequently have naive and inflated opinions of the qualities of the stuff they read. I'm totally weary of excitable 'fan recommendations' taking me to books that are just shoddily written crap, and fed up of standards of evaluation that are so limited. This is partially true of any 'genre' fiction, but you rarely hear of other genre readers absolutely demanding that their chosen literature must be taken seriously by the mainstream.
Call me a snob if you wish, but just to repeat, we need to look at the best examples to judge literature, and apart from a handful of authors, much SF and 'fantasy' is really just awful.
I'm adding an additional note, because after some reflection, I think an example might clarify my criticism: take “The Complete Robot” as a prime example. I won’t even bother calling it a SF collection. Why the need to classify it at all as a SF? Why not just accord it the status of a favourite/excellent/great collection of short-stories? Place it in the company of some of the other fine collections of the last 200 years. See how it fares: does it get its ba...sorry, shins kicked? Does it stand proud? It’s a great collection even after 30 years. Period. There are reviewers who do this sort of thing with verve, intelligence, and fearlessness. The Australian writer and critic James Bradley is a wonderful example, who also, by the way, includes M. John Harrison’s “Empty Space” on his Best Books of 2012 list - note 'Best Books', not 'Best SF Books' or something of that ilk - and who also, interestingly, compares George R.R. Martin and Hilary Mantel. “The Complete Robot” will still be read when I’m not around any more. I wonder how many contemporary works (be it SF or not) will still be read 50 years from now.
SF = Speculative Fiction.
Book Review SF = Speculative Fiction
Show More
properly endured and those new authors who have something really interesting to say - do do well. But perhaps the reason there's little serious critical comment on SF is that there's not a lot to say about it? It's well supported in the popular media, and the amateur/blog scenes, so does it need to be included in the broadsheets or LRB too?I think the major complaint is that the very best of SF books never make the longlists/shortlists of mainstream literary awards. If these mainstream awards were marketed as best in the nebulous maybe-genre of literary fiction this wouldn't be a problem, but they're marketed as best in all fiction. If you have an award that markets itself as best in all fiction, yet continually overlooks talented writers in a certain field, then SF has a fair complaint of being stuck with an implied second-class citizenship status tag. Except that the ones who "endure" tend to be the ones with something to them often described in terms of having something "beyond" the SF exterior, and so on. You even use the term "serious critics" to apparently describe non-specifically-SF critics.
These books have "crossover appeal" or "something to say about people as well as technology". Not direct quotes but attitudes prevalent in those "serious critics"' positive reviews of SF. The problem isn't that there's exactly opposition - fantasy and SF series on TV and in the written word do still get critical praise - but there is differentiation. The SF aspects of the fiction are deemed the coating, and it's only when the SF work has some serious part to it as well that it becomes "good" or "taken seriously". There's something in the attitude there that says that SF is inherently juvenile or lesser to those great novels with something to say about the human spirit or society or whatever.
A SF novel that's a good novel shouldn't have to be a crossover novel - it should just be a good SF novel. There's still a stigma to the term science fiction that has more to do with stereotypes of the fans (and therefore writers) of those works, which are still pretty prevalent. It might not be restricted to the white male shut-in, but it's still often associated with a certain type of social ineptitude. Yeah, "mainstream" culture is happily incorporating "nerd" culture into its allusions and characters these days, but they're still a curiosity, a kind of benign freakshow. It might not be all that negative or persecuting, but it still refuses to see SF as something that can be thrilling and profound in its own right.
I don't think 'true' SF will ever win literary awards. In it's purest form it's a philosophical or intellectual genre that undertakes a fundamentally different job from 'literary' fiction. Literary fiction is descended from the novel, which stood in contrast to older forms of romance or satirical/philosophical prose in that it tried to capture the nature of human experience (albeit often with a moral or political purpose). SF's roots lie in an older satirical and philosophical approach, (and that's without considering romances, which are closer to genre fiction as a whole).
SF ideas are often used as metaphors in more novellistic approaches - that's a huge part of P K Dick's appeal as his use of androids and replicants and illusion expresses something complex about the human experience. These are mixed up with dystopic elements drawn from SF's satirical roots, but the reason for his strong critical reputation is that his works are essentially novelistic - they try and show us what it is to be alive and human (rather than tell us how we should be alive or human).
Contrast this with “The Complete Robot” (which I re-read recently after about thirty years away) which is very clearly a philosophical and Utopian work with little interest in cracking open the nature of human experience. It's not a matter of one being better than the other (although I personally think that the novelistic approach has a more enduring appeal) but that the goals of the two types of writing make them impossible to compare. To be honest, I don't think that SF fans and critics have a strong idea of what SF is really for. Even awards lists within the genre can be made of books with very different goals and approaches which makes choosing between them very difficult - it's the old business of do you prefer a book that does a simple thing well or one that doesn't quite pull off something very ambitious?
How to judge fiction? If we take literature seriously then we surely need to look at the best examples, and there are several mentioned in the article and the comments above (but nothing of Christopher Priest's "The Adjacent" - another outstanding author woefully ignored by the mainstream). However, SF fans can, in my opinion, often be their own (and even their beloved authors) worst enemies. Lots of indifferent or poor writers in SF and 'fantasy' are buttressed by undiscriminating fans prepared to buy any old crap that they churn out. Even worse, there often seems to be little or no interest in reading anything much outside the genre, with the result that fans frequently have naive and inflated opinions of the qualities of the stuff they read. I'm totally weary of excitable 'fan recommendations' taking me to books that are just shoddily written crap, and fed up of standards of evaluation that are so limited. This is partially true of any 'genre' fiction, but you rarely hear of other genre readers absolutely demanding that their chosen literature must be taken seriously by the mainstream.
Call me a snob if you wish, but just to repeat, we need to look at the best examples to judge literature, and apart from a handful of authors, much SF and 'fantasy' is really just awful.
I'm adding an additional note, because after some reflection, I think an example might clarify my criticism: take “The Complete Robot” as a prime example. I won’t even bother calling it a SF collection. Why the need to classify it at all as a SF? Why not just accord it the status of a favourite/excellent/great collection of short-stories? Place it in the company of some of the other fine collections of the last 200 years. See how it fares: does it get its ba...sorry, shins kicked? Does it stand proud? It’s a great collection even after 30 years. Period. There are reviewers who do this sort of thing with verve, intelligence, and fearlessness. The Australian writer and critic James Bradley is a wonderful example, who also, by the way, includes M. John Harrison’s “Empty Space” on his Best Books of 2012 list - note 'Best Books', not 'Best SF Books' or something of that ilk - and who also, interestingly, compares George R.R. Martin and Hilary Mantel. “The Complete Robot” will still be read when I’m not around any more. I wonder how many contemporary works (be it SF or not) will still be read 50 years from now.
SF = Speculative Fiction.
Book Review SF = Speculative Fiction
Show Less
LibraryThing member Daniel_M_Oz
The 1st in what can be seen as the "extended" 15 book Foundation Series. A complete collection of short stories on robots that sets the foundation (pun intended) for the Foundation Series. A seminal piece of sci-fi on robotics, giving birth to the the term "robots", covering their role in human
Show More
society and introducing the 3 Laws of Robotics to the sci-fi genre. Show Less
Subjects
Language
Original publication date
1982