io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 12:26 PM
Sun Nov 8
11 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.
11/01/09
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
11/01/09
I've read both They'd Rather Be Right and The Demolished Man, and feel that the latter is far more praiseworthy than you gave it credit for...
And They'd Rather Be Right was downright unreadable and didactic. #hugos
11/01/09
Whether the book deserves a Hugo, who knows, I'm not sitting on the panel and deciding which book gets nominated and which book wins, but all I can do is read the book, enjoy whatever in it I enjoy and that's it... see... public opinion is just that... are you part of a covert government office in charge of manipulating and controlling the public? :)
@Moff: I liked how you've added the comparison with Atlas Shrugged, I think, to me, Atlas was a bigger influence and had a clearer view on some philosophical points than They'd Rather... I don't know how much I "follow" Objectivism, but I prefer to take from a book I read, especially those with many philosophical points and ideologies, whatever I find interesting, not as a whole but as one point from the whole idea, whether the books are fiction, fantasy, scifi, or non fiction. Good article, thanks. #hugos
11/01/09
this sentence is troublesome. Everything in art criticism is opinion and synthesis, backed up by the fact of the artifact itself (text, painting, sculpture, etc). And though not individually quantifiable, opinion is broadly quantifiable. If 85% of all people arrive at the opinion that they dislike a book, for whatever reason they dislike it, that opinion can probably be seen as an actual, valid fact.
It's a problem in sci-fi criticism, and to a lesser extent in all modern criticism today that logical inference, synthesis of idea, the ability to look at art as a successful or an unsuccessful creation objectively in terms of CRAFT is being disregarded. If you spend your time analyzing works of literature for theme, characterization, use of language, philosophical subtlety, etc. well... craft becomes obvious. And even though nobody on earth can categorize what makes good writing exactly, people can know it.
The idea that OPINION is invalid while FACT is the only useful benchmark of things is... well, silly at best, artistically destructive at worst. But it happens a lot in sci-fi audiences because of the subtle, ironically anti-humanist bent of the sci-fi literature audience. For example, this paragraph in which I suggest that some books might ACTUALLY be superior to others will invariably strike somebody the wrong way. That somebody will probably have enjoyed reading Robert Heinlein. #hugos
11/01/09
Don't take me wrong, I did not invalidate HIS opinion, I was just stating it WAS an opinion and not fact... the point is to understand the distinction between the two... I have said that because he stated his opinionated literature analysis of They'd Rather as a fact "And They'd Rather Be Right was downright unreadable and didactic" - @OlavRokne
11/01/09
11/01/09
Artistic analysis, which is opinion, is founded in fact. In the fact of text. In the rules of making art, and ultimately in the factual artistic effect it has on the human mind. Though the whole synthesis that results is an opinion, it's still a valid scientific process. #hugos
11/01/09
11/01/09
(Might be that quality thing the Puffy Pink Pontiff talks about below.) #hugos
11/01/09
We'll see what they say in 3009 -- OH I GUESS YOU WON'T BE THERE. #hugos
10/29/09
I think the gist of the post was that I came out of Bester with about the same take: there's some great material here, but it also has a lot of strikes against it. Overall, there's just too much going on for the book to be accessible and there are some big problems with the characterization. I also said that I don't think the book's date was an excuse, because Asimov, Heinlein, and Bradbury were already doing some very rich characters and accessible-yet-thrilling plots by the '40s and early '50s.
Thanks, Moff!
10/29/09
For the record, for you and everyone else: As best I understand it, it's fine to link to your own site in the comments if the linked content is relevant to the post. Gawker Media rules prohibit advertising and spamming, but if you've written something somewhere else that contributes directly to the conversation, by all means, link to it the same as you would if someone else had written it.
(Keeping in mind that I am not the final arbiter of such things, and Annalee or Charlie Jane could amend, retract, or openly mock any of what I've just said.) #hugos
10/28/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
First off, story-telling in sf back then was meant to be direct and to the point. Novels were typically 80,000 words at most. The publishers would not accept any manuscript that was longer. (Same was true for other genres, although sf was allowed another 10,000 words because of the need for exposition.) The writers were trained from their practice writing shorts for the magazines.
Bester's forte in his two sf novels of the 50s was the anti-hero. Most writers didn't go in that direction, to say the least. As for the sexism, or the lack of detail in the female characterization, that is, alas, typical of the period, but more characterization of secondary characters would have derailed the narrative. Secondary characters, regardless of sex or species, were created with broad strokes. Get used to that as you read sf novels from the 50s.
Third, and this might be the most germane to the discussion. I know why the Hugos were invented.
I used to know this lady named Noreen Shaw. She's passed away now, and was the wife of significant but underrated sf editor Larry Shaw. Hers was a wonderfully cynical personality. It was in her apartment that the idea for a science fiction award was created. The reason? They wanted to have a banquet, and couldn't think of how they'd get enough people to pay five (or three) dollars for a lousy hotel dinner. Someone said, "I know! We'll give out an award!"
The next year there was no award (if memory serves) because the fan committee hadn't made it part of their plans, but the year after that, it was a standard component of any World-Con. The authors and the publishers liked it too, as it was a great marketing tool.
It has long been my opinion that the early Nebula and Hugo winners were, overall, of a higher quality, because the early voters were opinionated activists, whereas later on, beginning in the 70s, as the voting pool became larger for both awards, it became more of a popularity contest. Doesn't mean good stuff doesn't get nominated or wins, but the winner isn't as dependable, or is likely to have mass (as opposed to literary) appeal.
For a long time the Mark Clifton novel that beat out the Vonnegut novel was considered the lost Hugo winner because it was the only novel to have won and allowed to go out of print. Kelly Freas reprinted it in the line he edited in the 80s, and people still didn't care. I've never read it. #hugos
10/19/09
Sexism, length restrictions, and subpar secondary character development may be part and parcel of SF lit from the period (and of course, they generally are), and the reasons for them may well have been beyond the authors' control. But that just serves to explain why SF lit of the period wasn't taken seriously -- because those qualities (especially the second and third) didn't obtain in well-regarded mainstream lit (or weren't supposed to, anyway, although surely exceptions can always be found). Same goes for the structural issues I had problems with in TDM.
Anyway, I really appreciate the comment, especially the background info on the Hugo's origins. But you and a lot of commenters are attacking an argument I'm pretty sure I didn't make.
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/18/09
First is the idea of the "pepsi"- a jingle you repeat over and over in your head to jam attempts by telepaths to read your thoughts.
The second is the scene where Reich commits murder under darkness while everyone is playing tag in the nude. When the murder is discovered, the lights come up and the only one clothed is Reich.
I always thought of Ben Gazarra playing Reich. He would have been great. #hugos