NationStates Jolt Archive

This discussion is about the Isaac Asimov novel Pebble in the Sky.

My question: Who is right, the Earthmen or the Outsiders?

By "who is right" I mean which of the two is justified in their intense hatred and bigotry. I know bigotry is never right, but it is sometimes justified (the two are not mutually exclusive). So, Earthmen or Outsiders?

Pebble in the Sky synopsis:

The future. The distant future. The future so distant that humanity has spread across the galaxy and it has been forgotten that Earth is the original human homeworld. In fact, Earth is a radioactive wasteland that can barely support a few million people (20 million to be exact) and is regarded as the bastard planet of the Galaxy.

Earth is run by the Society of the Ancients, a religous cult (No word besides 'cult' applies here) which believes that Earth is humanities homeworld (Which they are right about) and the rightful ruler of the Galaxy. Along with this comes the belief that Earthmen (even the women are regarded as Earthmen) are superior to the other people of the Galaxy and that it is their destiny to rule it all. Unfortunately, the rest of the Galaxy isn't that willing to be ruled by what is the futures equivelant of a third world country.

The Galactic Empire, a galaxy spanning nation which includes every planet in the known Universe (That'd be some 200 million planets totaling some quadrillion people), rules Earth and is stuck between a rock and a hard place (if that expression means what I think it does, nobody has ever actually explained it to me). Earth has rebelled three times in the past 200 years and has been squashed (horribly) each time. Each rebellion is followed by purges and killings and huge upsets. However, the GE is a generally benevolent nation (The word "Empire" gives it an unearned evil sound) and has as yet resisted from just blowing up the entire planet (which it could easily do and not miss it at all) and being rid of a constant nuiscance. Unfortunately, the people of Earth don't really see the benevolence (there isn't much, but there is some) and resent the Empire for their domination of what they believe to be the rightful King of the Universe.

So, the two sides hate each other. The Earthmen hate the Outsiders (their name for non-Earthers) for their domination and the Outsiders hate the Earthmen for their beliefs of superiority and obvious hatred/physical rebellion. Actually, only the Outsiders who actually know of Earth hate it (Let's face it, Earth is just so insignificant that it's not even that well known). This isn't like modern day racism and bigotry, where some people are racist and some some peoply aren't, this is Galaxy wide. Except for an extreme minority (Those being people who are knowledgeable of the others, Outsiders who know of Earths past and Earthmen who have been educated in the Galactic view) the hatred is universal.

Which side is justified in their hatred? The Earthmen have been subjugated and conquered, restricted from emigrating to other planets where there isn't radioactivity and prevented from transferring new topsoil from other planets to replace the toxic soil. Yet the Outsiders have put much effort into bringing Earth up to the standards of the rest of the Galaxy and have received nothing except blind hatred and violence in return. Complicated, isn't it?

I don't really know how to answer this question, but you have made me interested in checking out and/or purchasing this book. Thanks, and sorry I couldn't think of some witty comment (I suck at those). :)

The book is titled Pebble in the Sky, it's the third novel of the Empire Trilogy. The first two are The Stars, Like Dust and The Currents of Space.

For similar reading I would also recommend the Foundation Trilogy. Composed of Foundation, Foundation & Empire, and Second Foundation I believe it to quite possibly be the best series ever written (It was even given a special Hugo award for just that reason).

All by Isaac Asimov, one of the greatest writers of the 20'th century.

This whole 'Bigotry and Hatred' thing seems to be a recurring sci-fi theme. In Gundam SEED, Coordinators (genetically-modified humans) and Naturals (non-modified) are basically stuck in a situtaion where they are both separately "right" and "wrong" concerning their situation.

Coordinators and Naturals, however, can live in peace together (as demonstrated by the neutral nation of Orb Union, and how the main character Kira/a Coordinator has a bunch of both Natural and Coordinator friends)

Yeah, there really isn't much 'live in peace together' in this novel. I think there's a total of five non-bigoted people in the entire novel.

Bel Arvardan (the main character). An Archeologist from Baronn, Sirius. Even though Sirius is pretty much the center for Anti-Earth sentiment he, being an archeologist and actualy aware of Earths role in humanities birth, works to fight the racism that he was brought up in (though he really does need to make a concious effort)

Pola Shekt. Bel Arvardans love interest, it's really Arvardans non-hatred that makes her non-bigoted (When she first meets him he doesn't say he's an Outsider and he treats her normally. When she finds out that he is an Outsider it kinda shakes up her views)

Dr. Shekt. Polas father (can't remember his first name) and Nuclear researcher. He's just to damn smart to be a racist. Oh, and he's quite preoccupied with his impending death (Due the incapability of Earth to support an increased population people are executed on their 60 birthday)

The Procurater of Earth (name again not coming to me). The Empires governmental leader on the planet. I think its his experience with both Outsiders and Earthmen, seeing how both sides have their morons and their geniuses, that gives him his enlightened view.

The Procurators wife (Once again, name is just gone from my mind). She is really a minor character, she's in one single chapter, but there you see her with an analytical and logical mind.

This discussion is about the Isaac Asimov novel Pebble in the Sky.

My question: Who is right, the Earthmen or the Outsiders?

By "who is right" I mean which of the two is justified in their intense hatred and bigotry. I know bigotry is never right, but it is sometimes justified (the two are not mutually exclusive). So, Earthmen or Outsiders?

Pebble in the Sky synopsis:

The future. The distant future. The future so distant that humanity has spread across the galaxy and it has been forgotten that Earth is the original human homeworld. In fact, Earth is a radioactive wasteland that can barely support a few million people (20 million to be exact) and is regarded as the bastard planet of the Galaxy.

Earth is run by the Society of the Ancients, a religous cult (No word besides 'cult' applies here) which believes that Earth is humanities homeworld (Which they are right about) and the rightful ruler of the Galaxy. Along with this comes the belief that Earthmen (even the women are regarded as Earthmen) are superior to the other people of the Galaxy and that it is their destiny to rule it all. Unfortunately, the rest of the Galaxy isn't that willing to be ruled by what is the futures equivelant of a third world country.

The Galactic Empire, a galaxy spanning nation which includes every planet in the known Universe (That'd be some 200 million planets totaling some quadrillion people), rules Earth and is stuck between a rock and a hard place (if that expression means what I think it does, nobody has ever actually explained it to me). Earth has rebelled three times in the past 200 years and has been squashed (horribly) each time. Each rebellion is followed by purges and killings and huge upsets. However, the GE is a generally benevolent nation (The word "Empire" gives it an unearned evil sound) and has as yet resisted from just blowing up the entire planet (which it could easily do and not miss it at all) and being rid of a constant nuiscance. Unfortunately, the people of Earth don't really see the benevolence (there isn't much, but there is some) and resent the Empire for their domination of what they believe to be the rightful King of the Universe.

So, the two sides hate each other. The Earthmen hate the Outsiders (their name for non-Earthers) for their domination and the Outsiders hate the Earthmen for their beliefs of superiority and obvious hatred/physical rebellion. Actually, only the Outsiders who actually know of Earth hate it (Let's face it, Earth is just so insignificant that it's not even that well known). This isn't like modern day racism and bigotry, where some people are racist and some some peoply aren't, this is Galaxy wide. Except for an extreme minority (Those being people who are knowledgeable of the others, Outsiders who know of Earths past and Earthmen who have been educated in the Galactic view) the hatred is universal.

Which side is justified in their hatred? The Earthmen have been subjugated and conquered, restricted from emigrating to other planets where there isn't radioactivity and prevented from transferring new topsoil from other planets to replace the toxic soil. Yet the Outsiders have put much effort into bringing Earth up to the standards of the rest of the Galaxy and have received nothing except blind hatred and violence in return. Complicated, isn't it?
Both sides are right.
The Earthmen are exactly what they claim to be.
The Outsiders are simply trying to maintain the staus quo without doing harm to anyone as long as no harm comes to them.
That is where the conflict comes in.
Both sides are right.
Since basically Humans have difficulting grasping two correct states from polar points of an arguement conflict ensues until one is forced to yield or destroyed.
The World of Men exists in shades of shifting grey.

LOL, Outsiders!

LOL, Goths!

Goths?

Somebody else has to have an opinion

wow, I think it's been at least 10 years since I've read any of those

I think the Earthmen are wrong for their idealogy

I think the Outsiders (I thought they were Spacers? it's been awhile lol) are wrong for the forced segregation. IIRC it was mainly due to prejudice as opposed to a real threat.

The Spacers I think you're referring to are the Spacers in the Robot Series (Also by Isaac Asimov)

The Outsiders are actually the Settlers.

I would be reluctant to say the words "Bigotry" and "Hatred". Those words have been used as accusations to squash the right of free speech for some people.

I haven't read this book but from your description, it doesn't sound at all like "bigotry" or "hatred". I've read most of Asimov's other fiction books though. If you want a book with more "bigotry", check out his Nemesis.

So....wait. Earthmen often murder, beat, and abuse Outsiders (when they can do so without other Outsiders learning of it and enacting reprisals) and Outsiders have committed Genocide numerous times, repression of technology, and don't even bother to hide their disdain (One character remarks, after he thinks he killed an Earthman, that he had also killed a fly earlier in the day so that made two) and you think there's no hatred?

You know, I expected a much bigger reaction. Finally a thread on racism where both sides are inexistant and therefor you can't offend anyone! How can this not appeal to the players of NS?

For the love of Mike!

Do you want Mike to go loveless?

Please, I really do want a response. I worked hard on the opening post, give me some feedback!

This is actually a fairly clear issue in which BOTH sides are at fault and neither is being right or reasonable. Kinda like some of the factual mess that we have going on today. If BOTH sides do not make some small compromises and concessions, there can be no just end to the conflict, only a bad and tragic one. There can be no justification of either side's position if BOTH do not cooperate to bring BOTH views into reason.

No, I think the Outsiders/Settlers are somewhat more in the wrong in this case. Restricting emigration of Earthmen to other planets where there isn't radioactivity always struck me as being needlessly punitive. In light of the nature of Earth's radioactivity as revealed in Robots And Empire, replacing topsoil on Earth was an expensive proposition, and would inevitably prove fruitless.

I think the Outsiders/Trantor ultimately did right by Earth, when they eventually terraformed Alpha and moved the remaining Terran population there. The Alphans seemed quite content with the hand dealt them.

Remember, this was written long before Robots & Empire. This was before Asimov had any plans of connecting the Robot, Foundation, and Empire novels. Back then he was even swearing that he'd never connect them (Personally, I think connecting the three series was one of his worst ideas).

Remember, this was written long before Robots & Empire. This was before Asimov had any plans of connecting the Robot, Foundation, and Empire novels. Back then he was even swearing that he'd never connect them (Personally, I think connecting the three series was one of his worst ideas).

I thought about it, but decided to play by the end product, not Pebble alone. I know, I know...

If only he could've tied things together better...particularly between the Empire and Foundation novels...

I'd heard a rumour that he was thinking of basing the events to unfold in the never-written Galaxia novel on some obscure short story he'd written much, much earlier on in his career, but the name of that story eludes me. Anyway, as far as I know he never even jotted down a word concerning the direction things would've taken post-Foundation.

BTW, I managed to get through one of the 'Second Foundaton Series' books, but only part of another. The revisionist nature of this trilogy pissed me off to no end, almost as much as the loss of tone. It just didn't SOUND (I'd make italics but for some reason, I can't do those while logged in as DT, sorry to shout) like Isaac. You know what I mean? The Caliban novels were terrific that way. Roger MacBride Allen managed to tell a story that doesn't revise established facts and did so while still retaining Asimov's style. Damned impressive, and a fine hard SF writer in his own right. Bear, Brin, the other guy - I felt like I was reading fan fiction at best.

Oogie Boogie!