What to Make of Isaac Asimov, Sci-Fi Giant and Dirty Old Man?
lithub.com
lithub.com
Furthermore, how it's relevant in 2021? Asimov could have joined the Nazis and sacrifice orphans to satan and still be a Sci-Fi giant, which is based on his writings, not his behavior...
We could condemn the behavior or sympathize with those affected, but that's about it. He's also 30 years dead by this point, I think the statute of limitations has passed...
In a capitalist society it is easy to separate because you can choose to support the person, the product, or neither. In a communist system you have no choice, you must support the system, the people, and the product - which is inseparable from the government - or else. By "else" I mean imprisonment and death.
I would prefer to live under a capitalist system because then at least I have the option to choose to support the maker, the product, or neither.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to choose "neither". I expect some day I'll be forced to do so.
By your description, that will be a failure of capitalism.
When do you think it will happen?
When I can't charge my car because all the charging stations require an app that only works on Android and iOS?
When I can't easily get food because the restaurants switch to app-only sales, or smart phone payment?
When it's difficult to buy a good quality local map because everyone uses in-phone GPS?
When I need two-factor auth for a site that only supports a cell phone as the second auth?
The list gets longer and longer.
And every author of those biographies also has failings.
But your questions seem to suggest that these biographies aren't worthy for some reason?
I'm a big Heinlein fan. I find it useful to turn to some of the body of writings about Heinlein to understand why he wrote as he did. As just one example, I did not understand that the main character of "Tunnel in the Sky" was Black. This wasn't mentioned directly on the book, though it can be understood from cultural context that I, reading it 30 years after it was written, did not pick up.
Similarly, how do I interpret Heinlein's "Farnham's Freehold"? Stross's commentary (see his blog, but also summarized at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnham%27s_Freehold#Reception ) gave me some insight, or at least something to reflect upon.
While I read plenty of Asimov's work, I haven't since about 1993, and don't have the same curiosity about him. But surely there are others interested in Asimov the way I am about Heinlein.
Surely there are also people interested in the culture of SF fandom in the 20th century, including in some of the systemic biases against female fans.
I think it's also a useful case example of how someone can be a 'feminist, decrying “male chauvinism” and arguing that women should be given wider professional opportunities' while also being a "Dirty Old Man." It's also an example of how fame can empower a harasser.
This still happens, but someone 30 years dead can't harass you back on Twitter or threaten expensive defamation lawsuits.
Or, for something relevant in 2021, consider the forthcoming Foundation show, where "at least three women have been cast as characters who are male in the books". How do you have a serious discussion about that change without mentioning Asimov's decisions to choose primarily men in the first place?