io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 5:09 AM
Mon Nov 23
10 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/15/09
11/15/09
Of course, considering that my other favorites are Stephen Baxter and Gregory Benford, perhaps my taste in authors is suspect. Nevertheless, I do hope you've found an author you enjoy as much as I enjoy R.A.H. #hugos
11/15/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
I wasn't aware of this one and jumped to Amazon and downloaded the Kindle version. #hugos
11/15/09
thanks! #hugos
11/14/09
11/14/09
Still, what he truly believed in were concepts that any society can always use more of - self reliance, resourcefulness, the golden rule, take care of your own behavior before you worry about what others do, enlightened self interest. His utopias are usually libertarian to the point of anarchy and his dystopias are repressive and controlling. Maybe even without knowing it, he was an early voice for civil rights and equality. What's not to like there? The first Heinlein I ever read was "Starship Troopers" which gets vilified as pro war but what I remember most was the concept that "everybody drops." It just embodied the themes of equality and efficiency that I like so much about his work. Especially the early stuff. #hugos
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
But no, I never understood the hubbub over his politics, either. It was like some people had formed their opinions about the work without actually reading the work. [Insert blog-commenting joke here.] #hugos
11/14/09
11/14/09
Mind you, from the reviews you gave the last two, I'm not sure you were recommending either. #hugos
11/14/09
11/01/09
From what I remember of the novel (probably not much, it's been maybe 30 years), it was basically a mindwipe. I'd certainly rather be me than immortal as someone else.
-Kle. #hugos
11/01/09
It's not exactly a mindwipe, but it's practically the same. I didn't have a lot of interest in the Bossy-fied characters as characters. #hugos
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
From that point on, we take great pains never to argue that a work's popularity has any brunt upon its quality. For example, instead of saying, "Ayn Rand is a genius of a novelist! She must be because so many people have read her novels!" we say, "Ayn Rand is a compelling novelist. That would seem to be the case because many people have succumbed to the urge to read her novels, and have even finished them despite the fact that they are a thousand pages long. Also, I personally think that she, like Dan Brown, succeeds in creating a sort of narrative tension that fills a reader with the desire to press on, even if upon closer scrutiny the subject matter makes very little sense."
We take great pains. But alas, it is all for naught, because this is the Internet and no matter how careful you are with your diction, in a few minutes someone is going to come along, read whatever they want into them, argue a point that you weren't even making in the first place, and hit "Submit" without a second thought.
11/02/09
I've worked with people like that in real life. They're a pain in the arse (oh, are they ever) but they certainly made me re-word my statements into models of specificity. #hugos
11/02/09
If you stop your novel for a 50 page radio monologue/diatribe, you are a crappy novelist. No matter how philosophically intriguing
your diatribe may be, that's still crappy, for a novel.
Ayn Rand's crappiness is similar to Dan Brown's, in fact, since both of their tomes contain a similar conspiratorial, this-is-how-the-world-REALLY-works... undertone of crap. Brown at least knows how to occasionally get the story to move along smartly, though, which Rand is not so good at.
So, does this "Forever Machine" have that "Atlas Shrugs" tendency to have everybody stop the plot to stand around and talk about The Big Idea for page after page?
11/02/09
That said, as much as I think there are objective-ish criteria by which one can judge a novel's quality (story structure, plot coherence, spelling), I've found after many years of giving the matter no small amount of thought that I'm uncomfortable with blanket statements like "If you _____, then you are a shitty novelist." The problems are manifold, but they mostly hinge on the fact that people have subjective and therefore different tastes. If I enjoy reading a 50-page radio diatribe, I mean, am I wrong? You can argue about the merits or lack thereof of the diatribe, and sure, maybe you'll even convince me; but at some point, we're still bound to hit a wall where you say, "Uck, this is bad, and here's why," and I say, "I kinda like it, and here's why," and it may be that the whys are exactly the same.
This persistent, almost desperate need to rank art is a symptom, I think McLuhan would say, of the West's typographical mind-set. It doesn't really bother me not to rank it or grade it or try to do more than say, "Here are my thoughts about it, and here are my plaudits and my criticisms and the reasons for them. If you disagree, I will not be upset." And I try to use as precise of language as possible, and stick to terms that are more objectively defensible -- i.e., compelling instead of, say, brilliant. Obviously, you can still argue that Ayn Rand isn't compelling, but it's tough to convincingly extend that argument beyond "She wasn't compelling to me, personally," because there seem to be many people who have found her enormous books worth starting and finishing.
So is she a shitty novelist? Maybe! Should Americans read her nonetheless, simply because of her influence on the culture? I kinda think so! What's the worst that could happen? They read a shitty book. At least they get to decide for themselves whether it's shitty. Should people read They'd Rather Be Right? Sure! At least it's a lot shorter than Atlas Shrugged. What if they think it's a shitty book too? I'm not losing any sleep over it. #hugos
11/03/09
I really like these reviews, though. If you read this, could you guys maybe put links to the previous for those of us who sometimes have trouble with the firehose that is io9 (and gawker media in general)? #hugos
11/03/09
11/03/09
Edit: I swear that sidebar was completely invisible to me before you pointed it out. I think it looks enough like an ad that my mental adblock zapped it.
11/03/09
11/03/09
It's an awesome feature, though. I'd love to see more filtering goodness, as there's a lot of gems in the gawker firehose I'm too lazy to look for.
Hmm, is there a Gawker API? #hugos
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
My conclusion? Clifton is a sadly forgotten figure and his work is smart and entertaining. I've read ATLAS SHRUGS and I prefer THEY'D RATHER BE RIGHT; it has the virtue of being better written, more forgiving of human nature, and shorter than Ms. Rand's giant turd of a book. My favorite Clifton book is WHEN THEY COME FROM SPACE.
In any case, some years ago I bought the paperback reissue of THEY'D RATHER BE RIGHT retitled THE FOREVER MACHINE. It's not the same version of the novel: it's expanded with the interpolation of additional material, at least some of which appeared in the book of Clifton's short stories that I have. I had just this week been thinking of picking up THE FOREVER MACHINE as my next book to read. Finding your review here cinches it.
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
Really, you're right, and I imagine that if pressed, the authors would admit that it would be at least fantastically difficult, and probably impossible, to sort out what was "pure fact," much less to program all of it into a computer. I think you just have to suspend your disbelief for the purposes of the thought experiment. #hugos
11/01/09
Speaking of showing and not telling, you do realize that this will be followed by a comment board, right? #hugos
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
It looks like you were tempted to go alittle "Jive Tarkin" there with the wikipedia comment. I'm looking forward to the next entry, when you review a book I've actually read. #hugos
11/01/09
Which is why, although I liked a lot of Asimov's stories, I couldn't read any of the "Foundation" books #hugos
11/01/09
@phoghat: Dude, that is MADNESS. #hugos
11/02/09
I think any fan of Aaron Sorkin's can attest to the truth of this... #hugos