i had to nap.
here's some rough notes about half-way through.
- playing with modern existence in terms of humans not going outside. if the first two robot novels were allegories about marxist theory, this one might be more of a commentary on modern existence.
- check laws of humanics in subtexts [in expanded robot]
- baley frequently presented as child-like, juvenilized by earth society, seeking to escape the womb
- asimov may have been coerced to return to writing fiction within the context of the blockbuster scifi films of the late 70s and early 80s, given that he was responsible for so many of the ideas underlying them. this text goes over a lot of previous ideas for that apparent reason.
- freudian undertones in the sex life. not really interested.
- the reflection on the sex life of aurorans seems to be a reflection of asimov's views on sexuality within the bourgeois elite in new york city, specifically, in the 70s. asimov seems to be suggesting that bourgeois american culture has overdone it on the sex, and reduced it to something meaningless and boring - so much so that the promise of unhindered sex with robots offers an escape from the ubiquitous mundanity of sex with people. i have to admit some sympathy with this perspective. it is the closest thing to a purpose in the text. again: the underlying society is broadly communist, but this is a pretty marxist critique of bourgeois sexuality.
- of the three planets - earth, solaria, aurora - i'd have to admit a strongest affinity with solaria. but, they all represent a potentially communist dystopia: the overcrowded kibbutz of earth, the alienation of solaria and the empty hedonism of aurora.
- asimov introduces a conflict between the pro-auroran globalists and the pan-humanity humanists, and you'd have to imagine that asimov (acting director of the humanist society) would be most sympathetic to humanists. it's a bit of a hint as to who represents his own views, in truth - something that might be different in 1980 than it was in 1955. asimov's subtle slights on baley may be another indication that he's changing hosts in the story, so to speak, and that he now looks down on baley, whereas he previously saw him as his own voice. asimov's globalists - a vanguard elite that puts itself first and looks down on the broader swath of humanity - is not all that different than the contemporary concept of "globalist", which comes from a strange merging of far-left and far-tight anti-elitism. asimov seems to want to present humanism as a truer from of egalitarianism, a less corrupt concept of liberalism and a more authentic left. fastolfe's "decency" is presented in this context of representing humanism. asimov and i may quibble over details as to what the anti-vanguard left ought to look like (he was a liberal, and i'm an anarchist), but we seem to agree on the need to present a counter-left as a movement against vanguardism. but, once again, this is about leftist infighting - it's not some broad ideological discourse. only the primitivist utopians on earth seem to offer any opposition to the spread of communism throughout the galaxy.
