How An Author’s Present Influences The Future in Their Sci-Fi

Sci-Fi or Science Fiction

is a genre of speculative fiction, which typically deals with imaginative and futuristic concepts such as advanced science and technology, space exploration, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life.

Wikipedia

Indeed, sci-fi is by far my favorite fiction genre. The “imaginative and futurist” facet is what makes this ilk so immersive and engaging. Yet, when I read some of these books, there are a few discords that do not sit well with me. Recently, I was reading Isaac Asimov’s Foundation, the first book in the Foundation series, and ended up contemplating two aspects that left me disconcerted.

Foundation is a composite novel of five interrelated plots occurring over a span of 200 years. It chronicles the gradual decline of a once all powerful Galactic Empire that ruled the entire Milky Way. The book highlights several “imaginative and futurist” technologies, including hyper-video, 3D newscasts, hyper-space intergalactic travel, and the widespread use of atomic energy to power everything from trinkets to gigantic factories. Most fascinating, perhaps, is “psychohistory,” a study of the reaction of human conglomerates when exposed to economic and social stimuli — using statistics, history, and sociology to predict how future human societies would evolve — a thread that binds all the story arcs in the book.

Yet two elements stand out due to their anachronic nature – an empire having dominion over the entire galaxy, and a conspicuous dearth of strong women characters.

In an era where technology is so advanced that people live under artificially controlled environments and travel across stars at speeds faster than light, it is perplexing, to say the least, to imagine empires, feudalism, vassals, rulers, and regents existing concomitantly. I would have envisioned a society that had advanced alongside the technology, perhaps into a modern, autonomous, fragmented, and commercial nation corporation, similar to Mr Lee’s Hong Kong or Narcolombia from Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash. This dichotomy between medieval society and futuristic technology left me baffled at times. For instance, whenever there was a mention of ship in the book, I would unwittingly think of naval vessels of the foregone British or the Spanish empires plying between their respective colonies for trade, only to realize after an instant that these are intergalactic spaceships!!

Yet, the aspect that troubled me the most was the apparent lack of any vital female characters in the story. The absence of any woman, lead character or otherwise, can be felt throughout the book until the end, where there are two minor characters — the wife of a ruler of one of those planets at the edge of the galaxy who seem to be the stereotypical housewife of the ’50s, nagging and belittling her husband and a young girl whose only act in the book is to be awed when offered a shiny, atomic powered necklace that glows. There is also a fleeting mention of “housewives rebellion,” which one of the male antagonists sarcastically quips would occur when “atomic knives and stoves” would go out of commission.

And it got me thinking.

From what I have read about Asimov so far, I don’t get any proof as to his being misogynistic. On the contrary, Asimov acknowledged his oversight and regretted his early portrayal of female characters. He eventually developed some capable woman characters — Susan Calvin, the chief robot psychologist from I, Robot, and a slew of robotics based short stories, being my favorite.

Both his societal depiction and female characterization appear to be rooted in the societal norms and expectations of the time when the book was written. The book was conceptualized and published in the 1940s and ’50s. These were the times when the British Empire, which a decade back was reigning over a quarter of the planet as an “empire on which the sun never sets,” was slowly disintegrating. Furthermore, Edward Gibbon’s “History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” written in the eighteenth century, is believed to be the inspiration for the narrative behind the collapsing Galatic empire.

Similarly, his stunted knowledge about women stems from the prevalent norms of that era. With limited career choices and the societal expectation that a woman is better served if she were a “good wife and homemaker,” women were often relegated to household duties and being dutiful spouses. At best, career women of the ’50s would be synonymous with secretaries, nannies, or matrons. Asimov or any other writers of that time didn’t see women in the same light as how we have come to view them today — an empowered lot who by every means are equal, if not better than men.

In the end, the society that you grew up watching and interacting with every day consciously or unconsciously shapes your views, even the futurist ones. Asimov simply “wrote what he knew.”

The Lost Art of Taking It Slow

I happened to stumble across a couple of articles that revealed some startling numbers.

The percentage of US adults diagnosed with clinical depression has shot up by over 10% points in less than ten years.

Over 700,000 people worldwide die of suicide every year, with depression being often stated as the underlying cause.

Alongside, I was reading “The Lost Art of Doing Nothing” by Dutch author Maartje Willems. It is a narrative on Niksen, a practice followed by the Dutch to “unwind.” Niksen, in the simplest sense, is “doing nothing.” As oft stated in the book, “The best thing about Niksen is the absence of a goal. It doesn’t serve a purpose, but it’s wonderful.”

And it got me thinking.

“You should work less.”

“You should take things slow. Savor the moment.”

These two statements might be anathema to today’s fast paced, relentless generation who wants it all at a back breaking pace. Undeniably, there are many who yearn for lightning fast, action packed days that empower them to scale greater heights. Besides, today, when technology is growing faster than ever, dishing out opportunities like never before, it is not uncommon to chance upon people who have embraced a rat race culture to succeed and make a name for themselves. Though it seems like everyone is an eager participant in the rat race, a deeper look reveals a different picture. Often, we discover that people are desperately emulating these perceived high achievers, not of their own volition, but frequently out of fear of being chastised or casted out as a pariah by their family, friends, and society.

For instance, in several households, it is a common practice to “motivate” kids to excel by constantly comparing them with other kids. The words, “Sharmaji’s son scored 99.9% in his exams, while you managed to garner a mere 99.7%. You should have worked harder” are commonplace. Though such unrealistic and incessant comparisons are supposed to inspire the kids to excel, in reality, they would only induce stress, anxiety, and a pervasive run-till-you-die-or-you-fail belief that perpetuates well into the kid’s adulthood.

While we live in a hyper competitive world where a person’s worth is determined by their material possessions and how far ahead they are in the race to illusionary success, it is easy to forget that life is a marathon and not a sprint. Running at Usain Bolt speed might put us ahead in the game for some fleeting moments, but to succeed in the long run, it is vital to take it slow, save energy, have fun, work at a sustainable pace, and yes, at times “do nothing” but recharge.

If we look back 30 years, we often see kids running around the neighborhood, playing, fighting, and just having fun. Weekends are synonymous with family time — a day when the entire family eats together, watches TV together, go out together — in short, have fun together. Besides the quality moments it offered, family time also allowed younger ones to discuss their fears, peeves, and worries and the older ones to assuage these consternations with their sage advice. Taking things slow on weekends also provided the much needed conversation space for the family to bond better.

Also, when technology was not ubiquitous, when no digital devices were connecting us to the world in an instant, our work would inevitably end before dusk. We had to wait for days to hear from someone instead of having to fret around our phones and laptops for that dreadful email that will command you to work ASAP. Things happened at a snail’s pace, which gave people time to indulge in hobbies, spend time with their loved ones, or just lounge in front of the television. Such acts, which seem dilly-dallying to today’s generation, on the contrary, serve as everyday convalescence from the day’s hard work. Consequently, people would be ready to take on the next day with vigor rather than the weariness that seems omnipresent in today’s workforce. And vividly, endured less stress, and anxiety, and hence less depressed.

So what is your lifestyle, and if given a choice, would you change it for the better?

Nature Vs Man

As I was writing an article on the current world leaders’ stance on climate change, I got to thinking what would happen if nature takes matter to its hand while all of us quibble on who should take responsibility for the climate damage, who should pay more, or even denying that climate change is real. The outcome is below –

In a realm where all things were in array

A starving man, his life swept away

Begged mother nature, heart forlorn

For food to fill his frame, to be reborn

Out of concern, she granted him her grace

With food to end his hunger’s embrace

Elated, he returned, with his kindred in tow

To feast on the bounty, that she bestowed

Heedless were his men, who ravaged her gifts

Her pleas of despair went through the rifts

Forests set ablaze, their smoke mourning shroud

Animals hunted, plants crushed and plowed.

Nature wept, imploring them to cease,

To repent and to grant her heart’s release

Man, lugubrious, promised to atone

With sapient leaders planning, greenness will once again be on throne.

Time passed, yet man’s monstrosity never cease, but grow

Mother Nature’s tears, an unending flow

She begged again, “My children, please, take heed

For in your wake, I wither like a weed.”

But man, defiant, chided her despair,

“You doubt your children’s love, our hearts laid bare,

We’d never harm you, Mother, hear our cry,

We’ll shield your grace, beneath your azure sky.”

At that, a tempest, fire, and brimstone roared,

Man’s arrogance, in an instant, deplored,

A flood engulfed his kin, his world undone,

He gazed at Nature, shadows blocking sun.

“You’d care for me,” she whispered through the gray,

“Your hubris blinds you, human, to this day,

Without your reign, the world would thrive and sing,

In nature’s arms, a greener, bluer spring.”

He learned too late, his pride had sealed their fate,

As Mother Nature mourned, her tears abate,

In her embrace, a world reborn and free,

No longer bound by man’s audacity.

Multiple Miracles in a Row… huh!

I was reading “How Google Works,” a quick and witty read on the driving principles and inner workings of one of the seminal internet companies of our times. The authors, Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg teach some valuable lessons on corporate management with several engaging anecdotes from the firm’s past.

Among many parables in the book that drove me to think, one stood out – Failing fast and slow. The authors bring out the dichotomy of trying something fast but giving it some time before calling quits. They expound on the importance of failing well – Don’t sit on something perpetually, trying to make it perfect, only to fail spectacularly. Instead, start something, anything quickly, and if it does not work, call it a day.

Yet, there is a catch – the timing of failure. How long should we wait before giving up? a few days, a few weeks, or perhaps a few months, or even a few years?

In my opinion, it depends on what that “it” is that we are trying to test or accomplish. If “it” is something that starts showing the results in a short while, perhaps giving it a few weeks or even a few months is a logical timeframe. On the contrary, there are some “its” that have a lengthier gestation period. In such cases, hastily pulling the plug before “it” even had time to breathe would be catastrophic.

I was on this trail of thoughts when I came across this axiom for unequivocally calling it quits.

It becomes clear that a given scientific approach won’t work or requires multiple miracles in a row, that particular effort should be shut down and the resources shifted to other approaches

“Special Forces” Innovation: How DARPA Attacks Problems by Regina E. Dugan
 and Kaigham J. Gabriel

Essentially, when achieving success goes out of our hands and requires celestial intervention, understand it is time to move on.

And now I had a new thought. This way of thinking might work for the daily trial-and-error that we run – should I continue this new diet regime? should we discontinue this product line?

But if our whole life is a big, bottomless pit of failures where nothing ever goes right, how do we call quits? Life might be miserable with no lighthouse in sight or foghorn to guide, yet we go on saying –

Multiple miracles in a row
With a lot of dead weights on the tow
Is it even possible I can’t discern
A few minutes of peace is all I yearn
Yet how difficult is that to earn

– Deepa (me and Myself)

Your Mind in A Younger Body?

Would you like it if your mind is taken out of your aging body and put into a young, healthy athlete?

I was reading Sally, a short story written by Isaac Asimov. Sally is an “automatobile,” Asimov’s word for today’s self-driving cars. Sally is retired and lives with similar aged automatobiles in a “farm,” purpose-built for retirement. Sally and other cars have a “positronic brain,” another of the fictional terms coined by Asimov. Having a positronic brain makes these cars sort of sentient.

An evil salesman comes to the farm seeking motors, which serve as brains of these cars. He intends to wire these motors to newer car models. When the owner of the farm refuses his proposition, the salesman asks an innocuous question – Would you not like it if your mind is taken out of your aging body and put into a young athlete?

This question made me ponder on how I would react if such a proposal is put forth in front of me…

My answer – NO

I believe mind is the soul of the body and that is where one’s conscience exists. Body is only a shell. Taking mind out of the body is neither doing any good to the body nor to the mind. The body is wasted and the mind is not better off either. It would still remember the pains, the disappointments, the dissatisfaction it faced when it was in the body of the aged person. Also, the innate characteristics of the mind would not change. The inferiority complex, fears, and other quirks remain the same irrespective of which body is hosting the mind.

So if I was asked, I would have categorically denied such an offer, just as Sally’s guardian did in the story.

Force Fitting Gen AI

Generative AI has been abuzz ever since OpenAI came out with ChatGPT. The craze is some much that every company, big or small, wants to somehow use it in their products, just for the kicks. The FOMO is so evident that several examples of companies using Gen AI seem force fitted and discordant. Lately, I came across at least two such use cases.
First, there is a Web3 or Distributed Ledger firm that came out with the ChatGPT plugin. The purpose — user could chat their way to get information on the balance in their wallet, buy coins, etc. — all of which could have been done by opening an app or a click of a button. If I log into my wallet app, I would expect to see my account balance on the screen without having to put extra effort to cajole a chatbot into giving me the data. All I need is the app to make a few API calls and retrieve the data from a database. The whole premise of this Gen AI use case sounded superfluous to me.
Another recent example that I came across was the announcement from a prominent cloud company that has an HR product in the market. They plan to integrate Gen AI with their job application system and use Gen AI to come up with job descriptions aligning with the role and the legal requirements of the country. On the surface, it sounds logical to use Gen AI. But there is a catch. First, there is no “describing” your requirement. No elaborate prompting and then fine tuning your prompts to eke out a plausible response from the bot. Instead, there is going to be a button, clicking on which, you will get a ready job description. Whether there would be a provision to refine the results, time will have to tell as it is not disclosed at the moment.
Now, the problem here is, this use case can be rendered without a Gen AI model. Imagine an HR screen to create a job opening. Typical fields I would have is a role, job code, job description, and location. In this case, I as an HR person would enter values for the role, job code, and location, leaving out the job description for the bot. The bot would be taking the inputs from the fields I entered and give me an apt job description. I could have a database where I store all the job codes, role titles, locations, and all the job descriptions used in the past for the role. If there are multiple job descriptions for the same role, I would write a round robin or a random number generator logic that recursively picks one of the options every time I click the button to generate a job description. I can still ensure the “generated” description would be relevant to the role and adheres to the legal requirements (as the past descriptions in my database would have aligned to the same regulations).
Both these scenarios where Generative AI feels redundant and excessive, are examples of how no one wants to miss the hype train, whether the destination is relevant to them or not.

Don Quixote – A Satire That Leaves You Chewing the Cud

As I soldiered on this tedious, oft-digressing, oft-drivel disquisition of a self-professed “knight-errant,” I all but threw this tome away. I failed to comprehend the aim of the book. Very often I found myself bemused as to who, if there is one, is the protagonist. Is it the quixotic (I later learned this word is derived from his antics), vacuous Don Quixote or the honest, guileless Sancho Panza, or the myriad characters — Cardenio, Lucinda, Ferdinand, Dorothea, the captain, Zoraida — whose stories get intertwined to the point of stubborn tangles with that of the titular character?
Until I came across a sentence that sheds light on the true purpose of this book and seems to be the author’s words in the mouth of a peripheral character of the book. Here is what a canon (a Christian priest) says of similar essays as this one – “And though it may be the chief objective of such books to amuse, I do not know how they can succeed, when they are so full of such monstrous nonsense.” And then it hit me. The author’s goal, all along, was to create a satire expressing his rage against the improbable, at-times-absurd chivalry stories that perhaps were prevalent in his days. If that indeed was his true aim, he has hit the bulls-eye.
Theatricality notwithstanding, Don Quixote’s character, his staunch belief in “knight-errantry,” and his devotion for books on chivalry are some things worth observing. Here is a poignant statement he makes in response to the aforementioned canon’s reproach for chivalry books – “Read these books and you will see they will banish any melancholy you may feel and raise your spirits should they be depressed.” “These books” could relate to anything in today’s world — binge-eating, binge-watching, doom-scrolling social media, echoing questionable opinions and beliefs, or even taking drugs — anything that makes our ever-present depressive thoughts go away and raises our numb spirits. Simulacrums of Don Quixote, who are obsessed with their beliefs, are omnipresent in our world, in ourselves — in ways that one might think as inspirational, while others perceive as delusional.
And this dichotomy is what this overwrought novel is all about.

Traversing the Maze of Organizational Hierarchy

A leitmotif in Henry Ford’s My Life and Work and Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg is their similar views on the perils of excessive organizational hierarchy — both of which resonated with my thinking.  

I was recently reading Henry Ford’s autobiography, where in the chapter “Machines and Men,” Ford touches up how “genius for organization” ruins it. He says usual way of finding a genius manner to bring a large group of people to work with each other involves establishing authority. It begins with drawing up a great big chart showing, similar to a family tree, how authority ramifies. Every berry on the tree is a (wo)man with a title and duties strictly limited to the boundaries of his berry.

If a super super super boss sitting pretty top in the aforementioned berry tree has to say something to a superintendent languishing at the bottom left corner of the berry chart, he surmises — by the time it passes by the super super boss, super boss, boss, heir to the boss, not-yet-boss, kind of boss, and many such boss sorts and reaches the requisite superintendent (remember that gal or girl supposed to be on the other end of the super super super boss’ note) — the talk itself would be history. 

The message’s return journey from this low hanging superintendent to the super super super boss is much more arduous. Every boss in between, real and imagined, strongly feels that it is their duty to add their share of criticisms, suggestions, and comments to the superintendent’s response. 

In my experience with a similar inept management, the buck — which could be this message or any decisions to be made — passes to and fro among these bosses who, under the pretext of adding value, are only satisfying their inflated and fragile egos. 

In the book “How Google Works,” the authors add another dimension – the traditional model of information flow Vs how it should be in the internet era. In the conventional world, they state, “information is hoarded as a means of control and power.” 

Imagine you are in a twenty story building, each floor occupied by bosses and workers based on their place in the organization hierarchy. The mid-level boss on the tenth floor is standing on the balcony enjoying the view when a few documents fall on their heads. They look up and see their boss on the eleventh floor has shouted something and thrown the files at them. They take these files and eagerly devour them, all the while copying [what they assume relevant] sections from the file and copying them on a new file.  

Now they get back outside and are delighted to see their ninth floor reportee enjoying a cup of coffee on their balcony. They repeat the shouting and throwing business, and the ninth floor boss repeats the parsing, shouting, and throwing ritual. The bits and pieces that reach the poor soul at the ground floor might have all but lost its essence. By now, the eleventh floor manager would have started another parsing and sharing match. Consequently, it takes longer and perhaps multiple back and forth conversations to understand what needs to be done, and at times, the actual work itself would have become obsolete. Imagine what would happen if this tapering trail of data sharing starts at level 20, where the super boss is. Will the information even reach the ground level worker? Now imagine if there were 100s or 1000s of floors in this organizational hierarchy! 

The authors reason that in the pre-internet ages, the cost of experimenting and making mistakes was too high for any company to give free reins with information to its employees. It was prudent that one person absorb all the data and make an informed decision. Hence, the data flow was constricted — the super super super boss has to know everything and decide everything, the super super boss below knows a little less but gets to decide nothing (or something), and so on. As a result, when the superintendent at the bottom of the hierarchy, who cannot make any decisions on their own as they are data constipated, passes on a message to the super super super boss, it becomes necessary for other bosses in between to chip in to add context, to clarify or correct some of the points. But, in the current era, when experimentation and failure costs are minuscule compared to the past, restricting the information flow would be counterproductive. It can slow down innovation and make the company lose its competitive edge, ultimately casting it into oblivion.   

Another problem I have seen — having too many managerial titles with no clearly defined and distinctive duties can lead to confusion among the people down in the hierarchy. Imagine there is a super boss hidden behind three separate bosses, but each boss is just a boss with a similar sounding and feeling role – if you had to get your super boss to approve your proposal for the task they have asked for, who would you approach? Jump over the heads of the three bosses and get directly to the super boss? After all, the super boss is the ultimate authority. Nah, you would be banished for insubordination, while your act might bruise and shatter the big, fragile egos of the three bosses. So, go to Boss No. 1, show them your proposal, listen to their value adds, update your bid, and approach your super boss under the auspices of Boss 1. Or go to Boss 1, show proposal, update proposal, and then march to Boss 2, show proposal, update proposal, and later go to Boss 3, show proposal, update proposal, and then… wait! should I now go back to Boss 1 and 2 or go to super boss or should I just go home because my head is spinning!  

Often, we end up going with the third option, where we evaluate every detail with several bosses, some even assumed ones, before our proposal reaches the decision maker’s table. Imagine, after all these hustles and haggles with other bosses, you find out that what your super boss wanted was entirely different! Oh, the irony! 

Imagine the loss of productive time — wasted on traversing meaningless hierarchies where there is no clear definition of who is who. And the horror of having to repeat the process because of the grand revelation that the boss’s ask was something else altogether. Sometimes, we are even stuck at an earlier step — in which order do I approach the three bosses, Boss 1, 2, and 3 or Boss 2, 3, and 1 or Boss 3, 1, 2… I will just go home!

Both books insist on having a nimble organization with fewer titles and, hence, less bureaucracy and even less red tape. I would also argue that with these titles, there should also be a clear definition of duties. Clearly setting out who’s who in the organizational hierarchy along with who’s what in the organization ladder is critical for the right paced growth of any team and, by extension, the organization.

A few lines came to my neo-poetic mind –

A leader, leader, do you call

Someone who has a position tall

Leadership is about action

And is not just a position

Inspire and not order

And turn into our strong supporter

Not a rapturous applause do they seek

Uplift everyone, both bold and meek

That’s the leader who I call

Not a person who has a position tall

– Deepa (Yours’ truly)

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Have you ever felt the need to eat food, need to work for money, need to talk to friends, need to be appreciated for the work you have done, need to eat, and so on the cycle continues.

Recently, I came across a theory, which opines that the above needs and more are not a vicious cycle but a hierarchy – steps that start with more cardinal needs, culminating in self-actualization.

I happened to read Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs that posits all humans have hierarchy of needs ranging from physiological to psychological wants. The most basic ones are need to eat, drink, and breathe. Maslow claims that only when these wants are met, the needs of human beings are elevated to the next level – those related to financial and health safety. The next stage involves social needs – the desire for love, acceptance, and belonging. Once we cross this level, we arrive at the esteem needs, where we supposedly crave for others appreciation and respect. Finally, we reach the self-actualization stage where others opinions matter less and we focus on reaching our full potential. There are other stages added later, but we will stick to these for now.

There are several detractors of this theory. For instance, there are some who believe needs do not follow a hierarchy. Meanwhile, some consider testing Maslow’s hypotheses is easier said than done. Also, people disagree with Maslow’s opinion that without fulfilling needs of a particular stage, it is impossible to move on to the next stage.

Anyway, after reading, I got to thinking about which stage I was in (definitely not in self-actualization, though want to move there). I realized that most of us are not specifically in one particular stage at a time, but in a combination of many. For instance, when we are kids, we are usually in stage 1, 3 and 4 – craving for junk food (food nevertheless 😉), acceptance from friends, and appreciation from parents and teachers. As we grow, we are simultaneously in all four stages – we worry about making ends meet, gaining financial stability, getting loving partners, and earning the respect of bosses and colleagues.

Where hierarchy plays a role, is in the order in which we satisfy these needs. Before now, I was usually caught up in trying to meet all the needs together or in no particular order and ended up frustrated. Now, I think if we go in the order of needs – physiological first and gradually moving to more psychological ones, what would happen? Filling your stomach with food and drink would give you strength to tackle other wants. Then, we can move to saving money or buying a good health insurance coverage. Now that we don’t have to worry about what you would eat or whether you will have enough money, we have the energy to take on next challenges – figuring out how to build long lasting relationships and earn respect. And finally, once we are saturated with enough food, money, and people, we reach a stage where we look forward to pursue our purpose.

I believe it is also difficult to move on from a stage without fulfilling all the needs. We will not think about chatting with friends when you are badly hungry. But, that should not mean we can’t aim for self-actualization when we don’t have people who care for us or appreciate us. However, understanding Maslow’s hierarchy of needs helps figure out where in life we are stuck and where we want to end up. We can then consciously sort out the problems instead of getting frustrated and figure out ways to move on in case there are still some things that would not work.

What do you think?

A Sense of Being Abandoned

Just as Abigail was getting ready to go to bed, she got a call from her uncle. Wondering why he would call her and why at that time of the night, she picked up. Though the call was not harbinger of doom, it left Abigail rattled nevertheless. Her uncle was rambling about how Abigail should relent to getting married to a guy who had rejected her years back and who, now, has come back, probably because he couldn’t find anyone else — all because Abigail is now 39 years old. “You will feel abandoned, once you are alone, which you are not realizing now,” he remarked.
Is that true? Does one feel abandoned, if they have to lead life alone? Maybe. But, how can someone, who rarely talks to Abigail know if Abigail hasn’t already gone through the abandonment issues that he is talking about? Here is why –

Abigail was born 39 years ago. For very long, she assumed she had or could have everything, she desired, like everyone else -- that she had the same tools, the same support system, and the same level ground, as her peers. Slowly, but surely, her fort of confidence and innocence came crumbling down. 
A father is a daughter's hero. But not for Abigail. The person who the world identifies as her father is anything but a supporting figure, her hero. He doesn't care an ounce about anyone but himself. He doesn't believe in saving a penny to help or support his family, let alone for his daughter's wedding. He thinks by half-heartedly providing the bare minimum necessity of the family until his daughter completes her education, his responsibilities are complete, and he has to contribute no more to the family. He assumes he is entitled to be a deadweight for his daughter to carry along with every other responsibility -- providing for the family, buying a house, everything. Here is the first instance of being abandoned that Abigail faced at the beginning of her life.
Next comes the mother. Though she is kind and considerate towards her daughter, Abigail's mother is not the constant support system that Abigail seeks. Abigail's mother believes her first priority is the outsiders -- relatives, people going on the streets, etc. -- and she forgets Abigail or Abigail becomes her last priority when she meets any of the above. Abigail has no emotional anchor in her mom as well. 
Abigail has no siblings. Consequently, she has no close ones at home. Case in point, Abigail has lived through abandonment issues even in the presence of people at home.
Now come the relatives. Or so called relatives. 99% of Abigail's relatives haven't checked whether Abigail is dead or alive in more than a year. They haven't cared much about Abigail, other than giving occasional "words of wisdom" on how she should compromise on everything in life, because her father is poor.
Finally, here are her "friends." Abigail has for a long time, sought out the love and care that she pined for, which she never got from her family, in friends. She was chasing them relentlessly, being subservient at times, only to be either discarded as trash or treated by them as a doormat. 

So, Abigail has always been abandoned, knowingly or unwittingly, by nearly everyone in her life. She feels invisible even in the presence of hundreds of people. When she is abandoned even when people are around, what difference would it make if she is left to her own means when there is no one in her life?