IvanOpinion
asked:
For those who have read this, did you think there was much point in creating the alternative 1982?
To answer questions about
Machines like Me,
please sign up.
IvanOpinion
If you haven't yet read the book the following comments might seem like spoilers, but they aren't. My point is that the changes in 1982 serve no real purpose in the book, so knowing about them won't spoil your enjoyment of the book.
My own view is that although it made me smile to think of a world where Lennon was not killed, so the Beatles got back together, I'm not sure if there was much point beyond this.
Clearly it was crucial to the book for it to be set in a reality where technology is a little ahead of ours - at least the many technology advances required to enable making a convincing artificial human. But this technology is probably still 20-50 years away from our 2019, so it seemed implausible that this could have happened in 1982, even if Turing had not died in the 50s and even if he made a number of breakthroughs in science.
It was kind of fun to 'meet' this Turing, but I'm not sure it served any purpose other than being wish fulfilment.
Most of the other changes were just one-line throwaways: JFK survived, Carter beat Reagan, etc. The only changes that were more than just 'set dressing' were Falklands/Thatcher/Tony Benn, but again there didn't seem to be much point. Yes, some of these changes seemed to create a world closer to our 2019, but so what? The parallels with, say, Iraq/May/Corbin/Brexit were not really developed to say anything particularly profound about those things.
Nothing wrong with some fun "what if" alternatives, but I got the impression that the book was striving to be a bit deeper than that. I don't think it achieved this.
My own view is that although it made me smile to think of a world where Lennon was not killed, so the Beatles got back together, I'm not sure if there was much point beyond this.
Clearly it was crucial to the book for it to be set in a reality where technology is a little ahead of ours - at least the many technology advances required to enable making a convincing artificial human. But this technology is probably still 20-50 years away from our 2019, so it seemed implausible that this could have happened in 1982, even if Turing had not died in the 50s and even if he made a number of breakthroughs in science.
It was kind of fun to 'meet' this Turing, but I'm not sure it served any purpose other than being wish fulfilment.
Most of the other changes were just one-line throwaways: JFK survived, Carter beat Reagan, etc. The only changes that were more than just 'set dressing' were Falklands/Thatcher/Tony Benn, but again there didn't seem to be much point. Yes, some of these changes seemed to create a world closer to our 2019, but so what? The parallels with, say, Iraq/May/Corbin/Brexit were not really developed to say anything particularly profound about those things.
Nothing wrong with some fun "what if" alternatives, but I got the impression that the book was striving to be a bit deeper than that. I don't think it achieved this.
Chris
I thought that it added to the sense of dislocation which ran through the book, creating real unease. The past is familiar but strange, like Adam who looks human but is strange and not quite human.
posthuman
Yes, because otherwise it would have to take place decades in the future, in a more fanciful imagined world. This is not simply the story of someone dealing with ownership of a sentient android, but the story of how the android and his owner make their way in the contradictory tapestry of humanity. The specificity of this historical setting helps the reader to suspend disbelief.
Cavak
You can gain some insight to McEwan's creative choices in this interview: https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/20...
As for what I personally think, I pretty much agree that the novel is wish fulfillment in certain respects. Yet it's more along the lines of an old-school Star Trek episode for me: playful imagination and current social commentary rolled into one.
Plus, McEwan's choice to rewrite something that has already passed over something currently in progress (Brexit) prevents Machines Like Me from being overly dated. Unlike the woefully spiteful remarks towards the "unknown" Soviet Union in the introduction for Hammer's Slammers.
The alternate setting keeps it grounded enough to not detract from the main points and parallels he hopes to highlight. It's a society that is already somewhat familiar to us. I don't think a far-flung future (even one like Star Trek) would've been as effective for that concept.
As for what I personally think, I pretty much agree that the novel is wish fulfillment in certain respects. Yet it's more along the lines of an old-school Star Trek episode for me: playful imagination and current social commentary rolled into one.
Plus, McEwan's choice to rewrite something that has already passed over something currently in progress (Brexit) prevents Machines Like Me from being overly dated. Unlike the woefully spiteful remarks towards the "unknown" Soviet Union in the introduction for Hammer's Slammers.
The alternate setting keeps it grounded enough to not detract from the main points and parallels he hopes to highlight. It's a society that is already somewhat familiar to us. I don't think a far-flung future (even one like Star Trek) would've been as effective for that concept.
Paul
Using a fictitious scenario for 1982 avoids the need to answer the question when this kind of technology might be available in reality. You could argue that rather than being a distraction, using a fictitious scenario avoids distraction by avoiding this question.
Artificial intelligence beating Go champions may give the impression that it is far advanced, but on the scale of things as set in the book, that's a misconception. AI can do very interesting things, and its impact is not to be underestimated, but that doesn't mean that we are anywhere near general artificial intelligence. I work in the field, and I feel that for today's technology, "artificial intelligence" is misleading. It's not that it's not "intelligence", but people get the wrong idea. I prefer to call it "machine learning".
Artificial intelligence beating Go champions may give the impression that it is far advanced, but on the scale of things as set in the book, that's a misconception. AI can do very interesting things, and its impact is not to be underestimated, but that doesn't mean that we are anywhere near general artificial intelligence. I work in the field, and I feel that for today's technology, "artificial intelligence" is misleading. It's not that it's not "intelligence", but people get the wrong idea. I prefer to call it "machine learning".
Guy Taylor
I think it does serve a purpose. The alternate 80's scenario provides a fantasy backdrop to the alternate technology. By creating this soup of speculation, the reader is not distracted by thoughts of how to apply the AI tech to the current world. It's not the current world, but a fantasy world.
Paul Gormley
No point whatsoever. The background events had little bearing on the lives of the main characters, apart from a demo making Charlie a few hours late for an appointment. Changing the outcome of historical events made little sense either. Padding.
Felipe Ferreira
The point is to avoid the need to create a futuristic version of our world, which was totally not the point of the novel. All he needed was a simple background to plug his story in.
So he had no choice but to create an alternate version of the past
So he had no choice but to create an alternate version of the past
Paula
A very short answer--not much point at all. It distracted from the main story and was rather irritating at times.
Holger Welles
To your headlining question I intended to answer yes, but after reading your whole paragraph I agree with you. Most of it was not really developed and it endangered a bit the seriousness of the moral questions in the novel (to some readers it felt gimmicky).
James Mackay
This answer contains spoilers…
(view spoiler)
Sheila
I enjoyed reading McEwan in such imaginative mode. It was his usual writing style, but a different theme for him. The 'alternative 1982' setting provided a framework for the story that made the reader think this really could happen in the lives of real people rather than it being a 'sci fi' story that we accept as sheer fantasy,
Jules
Not for me. I would not have minded if McEwan had made the 1980s context stronger. Personally, I didn't like it that he messed around with historical fact. Up to him but I didn't really understand the 80s context and the fact messing. It just seemed a bit pointless towards the whole message of the book.
Brunno Voronkoff
[no spoilers in my comment] I'm almost ending it and, to be honest, I think there was absolutely no point in creating the alternative 1982. Plus, the whole political background was also dispensable, because, for me, it didn't connect to the story. This is my first book by Ian McEwan, and I believe I have probably started with the wrong foot. Still, I would give him another chance only because of his writing style that is actually quite elegant. And I also enjoyed the film "Atonement" very much, so the book must be astonishing. All in all, I believe he's a better writer than what I saw in this book.
Roger Possner
I think point of asking the reader to navigate this world is making us question "progress". It has a satirical purpose. Artificial intelligence in his world has arrived with robots that are committing suicide and a Sir Alan Turing who says they are conscious beings who will have to decide what to do with we humans.
Andrew Gilpin
The point was that had Turing lived and made this fantastic technological break through then it would have had social and political implications. So, I rather liked the backdrop of an alternate political landscape. Sure some of it was questionable such as Hiroshima didn’t happen and Kennedy survived the assassination attempt (society wouldn’t have changed enough by 1963 for those events to be any different, arguably) but these were minor distractions and, as McEwan said, he was just being playful. An all round excellent novel!
Lauren
I don't think there was much point, however I did like that the story was taking place in an alternative past and not some fanciful future, it showed how one man could make a difference. Turing was woven into the story because in this alternate universe, (spoilers) he chose to take an unjust punishment as a prison sentence, paralleled to Miranda taking a somewhat less unjust punishment... As an American, I am sorely unversed on British parliamentary goings on so some elements of it made less of a difference for me. Ultimately, I think the setting of this story is not crucial to the plot, it's the characters' moral conflicts that matter.
Nancy
Don't think this is too much of a spoiler
I still have one chapter to go but to me it made sense. because Turing lived longer (is still alive), computer technology is far more advanced. And with those advances, there are other changes. The old butterfly effect
I still have one chapter to go but to me it made sense. because Turing lived longer (is still alive), computer technology is far more advanced. And with those advances, there are other changes. The old butterfly effect
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more