[fake-name]

You don't even need an AI.

This is such a core misunderstanding that Asimov seems to have, and it kind of kills his entire analysis for me.

The assumption is that only some small fraction of a fraction of the people who could be surveilled at any time are being surveilled.

The crux of the thing is that everyone COULD be under surveillance at any time, so in effect everyone must behave as if they are being observed because they do not know they are not.

[thombat]

Indeed, this is such a central point that it's made clear in the first chapter:

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

Remarkable that Asimov could overlook this.

[cornholio]

The review seems completely consumed by professional bitterness to the point where it becomes laughable. By the 1980s the methods of KGB, Stasi, Securitate etc. were well known in the west; how can he put this on paper and not realize he was being a complete fool:

> [the governmnet in 1984] has a system of volunteer spies in which children report on their parents, and neighbours on each other. This cannot possibly work well since eventually everyone reports everyone else and it all has to be abandoned.

In fact, the human powered system of total state surveillance worked remarkably well, it was one of the few things that did work in most communist countries - because it was paramount for state security and enormous resources were dedicated to it.

In every block of flats, every factory floor, every friend circle there was an informer who wrote down weekly reports about who is making political jokes, who is listening to Radio Free Europe, who is planning to flee abroad or has access to contraband meat and razor blades and so on. These informers were themselves controlled by blackmail and fear, were fanatical supporters or were simply doing the work in exchange for favors or goods. Any individual harboring intentions to overthrow the system was thus isolated, he knew that any such talk would quickly get him sidelined from his job, evicted from his flat, sometimes declared mentally unstable and committed, and finally, if nothing else worked, disappeared.

The entire review reads like a clumsy attempt to soil Orwell's legacy, that was already, by that time, shaping to be far more significant than Asimov's own.

[thombat]

The historian Hubertus Knabe made the horrifying observation of the film "The Lives of Others" that "There was a Schindler. There was no Wiesler", i.e. that in the whole history of the DDR they didn't in fact have a Stasi officer turning against the system from a crisis of conscience, as Wiesler does in the film. To prevent such long wolves they took the simple expedient of always having two officers performing the surveillance, so not just the target but also the Stasi men on the case were monitored.

Asimov is right to think that the costs were ruinous, as was the area of agricultural land sacrificed to the restricted zone near the border wall. But it was very much a price they were willing to pay.

[MomsAVoxell]

Fully agree with how it seems Asimov has misunderstood something, or perhaps been myopic about seeing the world of 1984 with commitment .. another thing that killed his analysis for me was that he didn’t seem to understand the immensely dire conditions of 1984, vis a vis low quality razors, etc., nor that the sociological aspects he implies as banal (implying orwells disregard for proles) were as a consequence of years of brutal war. Asimov didn’t seem to want to scratch deeper into 1984 - he was, I believe, more responding to the world of 1980, which was after all an entirely different yet strikingly similar world to the novel, kind of like political parties.

I have respect for both authors, but for sure I’d rather have a drink and share a sausage with Orwell at a party than wall-flower with the collective absorbing Asimovs rants didactic. Pretty sure the gin’d be cheap anyway.

[Twisell]

No it's a core misunderstanding of the commenters (and AI ads placement). The quote is biased because it miss the next part of Asimov's essay.

> Orwell was unable to conceive of computers or robots, or he would have placed everyone under non-human surveillance. Our own computers to some extent do this in the IRS, in credit files, and so on, but that does not take us towards 1984, except in fevered imaginations. Computers and tyranny do not necessarily go hand in hand. Tyrannies have worked very well without computers (consider the Nazis) and the most computerised nations in today's world are also the least tyrannical.

Ok for that last sentence guess we'll have to check if what was true in 1980 still is in 2020's.