> The damage he caused was inseparable from his power. In general, Asimov chose targets who were unlikely to protest directly, such as fans and secretaries, and spared women whom he saw as professionally useful. There were exceptions—he chased the editor Cele Goldsmith around her desk—but he preferred to focus on women who were more vulnerable, which inevitably raises the issue of mentorship.

> Yet many of these encounters were clearly nonconsensual. When the author Frederik Pohl questioned his tendency to touch women “in a fairly fondling way,” Asimov replied, “It’s like the old saying. You get slapped a lot, but you get laid a lot, too.”

He's deliberately finding vulnerable women -- who may be forced to laugh off or allow his unwanted advances in order to keep their jobs (keep in mind the time period also -- women even having some of these jobs was something special in itself), and he's doing it to, ultimately, get sex.

That may not quite be the definition of rape, but it certainly isn't "a[n] unwelcome pinch on the butt."

Sounds to me like Asimov wasn't that far off from Weinstein -- keep in mind for every accusation of rape Weinstein is facing, there were dozens if not hundreds of women who claim lesser degrees of inappropriate actions. It's more likely that the women who would today, in the #metoo era, have reported legal sexual assault or rape, were silenced back then -- I can't imagine we will ever know though; maybe he stopped at just "pinches on the butt," but I doubt it.

How serious would we consider it, and how "traumatized" we would consider the person after the incident? (Some would call it "very serious". But then again there are people who suffer trauma over a wrong order at Starbucks).

At best most people would call it a tasteless antic or light bullying or crappy behavior (like farting in public)...

I would absolutely describe that as sexual assault; deliberately, just to emphasize that playful male aggression crosses lines that absolutely should not be crossed, including in the workplace. Touch my balls without my consent, and I won't care whether you're horsing around or making an awkward pass. It's assault, and it's sexual. It doesn't cheapen other kinds of sexual assault to draw clear boundaries.

[0] https://kotaku.com/top-riot-executive-suspended-without-pay-...

Next time you're at a conference, try pinching a woman's butt in the middle of a crowded room. Let me know how that works out for you.

Of course you can't really apply ceteris parabus to books, but normally you have to decide what you're going to read on limited information, two very different books might seem close enough given you know little about either. When you choose what to read you reduce all the context and comparison to a decision. "author was a creep" definitely makes me less likely to want to read his work, especially if they are still alive and could personally profit.

The choice should be for the best book. Not the nicest author.

In fact the "nicest author" would probably have the most boring work -- personal failings add spice to fiction writing (and poems, songs, etc).

I don't want to read scifi all the time. So when I do read a scifi book, I have tons of good ones to pick from.

I actually recently read Foundation by Asimov and I don't see what all the big deal is about. It presupposes faster than light travel but not the spread of ideas. Also his sexist attitudes are apparent. He basically states that the entire female population planet of the foundation planet isn't important.

That's probably the last Asimov work I will read in my lifetime, based purely on the quality of the work, and nothing to do with his character.

There are reviews, excepts, literary fame, word of mouth, tv adaptations, and several other things to get an idea about that. How moral the author was during their time on earth is hardly on my list of such things.

>I don't want to read scifi all the time. So when I do read a scifi book, I have tons of good ones to pick from.

Sure, but that's neither here nor there as to the point we're discussing. We'd have the same issue with any other genre (or even any other art rather than literature).

I don't have time to read all Sci fi books, nor do I have time to read all reviews. I have to make a decision on very limited information. That's why I said between two seemingly equal books, meaning equal reviews, prestige, whatever, if one author is a creep and the other isn't, I'll pick to read the book by the author who isn't a creep.

>Sure, but that's neither here nor there as to the point we're discussing. We'd have the same issue with any other genre (or even any other art rather than literature).

I'm not discussing the abstract concept of separating art from artist. I'm discussing how it applies to me. This topic has pretty extensive treatment in literary/critical theory.

The reason this is applicable to me is that I have a goal to consume all the best scifi, and I don't have enough time in my lifetime to consume all the best scifi. Therefore I can afford to be more picky. I personally choose to limit myself to the best of the best Sci fi that happens to not be written by creeps.

If someone told me the best scifi novel ever was written by Hitler, I would probably read it. But if someone told me Hitler wrote a pretty good scifi novel I would skip it until I read all the really good ones. And then maybe I'll switch to reading a really good book from another genre before reading a pretty good book by Hitler.

Also I find it much, much more important to apply this principle to authors who are still alive. I don't want to financially support authors who are creeps. If they are dead, then it just is really some completely arbitrary selection criteria that I choose to apply to limit the total number of works I could read from some super huge number I could never hope to consume in my lifetime to some slightly smaller super huge number I could never hope to consume in my lifetime.

Jesus, if we had omniscience into the personal lives of every person, and were to chose to disregard their works if they did things that are objectionable to the taboos of the day, we'd be naked, looking over our shoulders fearfully for leopards.

Also, do you by any chance listen to Led Zeppelin or some such band? Speaking of "groping girls", that is.

I personally would rather not glorify those people nor do I go out of my way to take in their art.

I don't feel like I'm missing much.

If I find out art I like was made by a bad person I don't clutch my pearls.