Overrated Sci-Fi Novels...

[Stuart]

As for the most overrated Sci-Fi book I had to read: For Us, The Living. That has got to be the worst god damn book ever written, but it's praised by so many people I know as a masterpiece of original fiction. This guy falls off a cliff in his car, teleports into the future where you get lectured to every five pages. By the end of chapter one, he falls madly in love with someone he's never met before (not to mention this person takes him into her home and she doesn't even know him). The whole thing is absurd.

In fairness to Heinlein, "For Us, The Living" was never intended to be a novel but a political tract thinly disguised as a novel and intended to support his political campaign in California. Heinlein himself described it as being dreadful (which is why it was hidden for so long) and he states that he found the parts where he was writing the story much more enjoyable than the political propaganda bits. He therefore gave up on politics and concentrated on writing novels.

[Sidewinder]

'2001: A Space Odyssey' and its sequels. If you think 'Starship Troopers' was bad, wait till you have Arthur C. Clarke's views on an ideal society shoved down your throat like stale fruitcake. Seriously, why does Sir Arthur hate the human race so much that he keeps depicting us as an inferior race to be superseded by superior races, e.g., that we'll evolve into energy beings (as seen in the '2001' novel), be replaced by robots ('A Meeting with Medusa'), that we should let computers select our political leaders instead of voting these leaders into public office ('Imperial Earth')...

[Gil Hamilton]

'2001: A Space Odyssey' and its sequels. If you think 'Starship Troopers' was bad, wait till you have Arthur C. Clarke's views on an ideal society shoved down your throat like stale fruitcake. Seriously, why does Sir Arthur hate the human race so much that he keeps depicting us as an inferior race to be superseded by superior races, e.g., that we'll evolve into energy beings (as seen in the '2001' novel), be replaced by robots ('A Meeting with Medusa'), that we should let computers select our political leaders instead of voting these leaders into public office ('Imperial Earth')...

I'm not sure where you are getting that Dave Bowman being converted to an energy being was a judgement on mankind's inferiority. The monolith was saving him as a being in order to keep him around, just like it ended up doing with HAL.

[Murazor]

I'm not sure where you are getting that Dave Bowman being converted to an energy being was a judgement on mankind's inferiority. The monolith was saving him as a being in order to keep him around, just like it ended up doing with HAL.

I think that the criticism was aimed towards the sequels (particularly 3001) and other works of the author, such as the last novels of the Rama series, were there is a lot of "PETA talk" and serious criticism of humans as aggressive idiots meddling in Things That Man Was Not Meant To Know.

[Gullible Jones]

3001 sucked, yes. I forget whether or not it was cowritten.

The Rama sequels were cowritten with Gentry Lee - with Clarke providing most of the ideas and Lee doing most of the writing, as I recall. They don't even hold to the canon of Rendezvous with Rama, and generally piss all over what said book established.

(The Ramans with their trilateral symmetry don't exist? The unified Earth government from Rendezvous has disintegrated into a bunch of states? The Mercurian government doesn't even exist anymore? All because everyone decided to go on a shopping spree after Rama showed up? And the ships were all created by God? What the fuck?)

As for 2001, it's good IMO but it is indeed overrated - the claims that it is "the greatest work of speculative fiction of the [20th] century" and whatnot are absolutely daft.

[Darth Wong]

In fairness to Heinlein, "For Us, The Living" was never intended to be a novel but a political tract thinly disguised as a novel ...

Isn't this true of a lot of Heinlein's work? It certainly applies to Starship Troopers as well, and large parts of Stranger in a Strange Land.

[Kuja]

The Rama sequels were cowritten with Gentry Lee - with Clarke providing most of the ideas and Lee doing most of the writing, as I recall. They don't even hold to the canon of Rendezvous with Rama, and generally piss all over what said book established.

(The Ramans with their trilateral symmetry don't exist? The unified Earth government from Rendezvous has disintegrated into a bunch of states? The Mercurian government doesn't even exist anymore? All because everyone decided to go on a shopping spree after Rama showed up? And the ships were all created by God? What the fuck?)

I agree, Rama II was a godawful book that couldn't hope to touch the original. I finished it just for the sake of completion and then donated it to the local library.

[Junghalli]

'2001: A Space Odyssey' and its sequels. If you think 'Starship Troopers' was bad, wait till you have Arthur C. Clarke's views on an ideal society shoved down your throat like stale fruitcake.

What was so bad about the society in 3001? The only remotely preachy parts where the bits with that philosopher (whose perspective on religion most SDN denizes would probably applaud, incidentally), and the way some of the future people talk to Poole, which was actually sort of realistic. I mean, if somebody showed up in our time from 1007 AD, wouldn't we probably tend to get a bit preachy with him about how much the Middle Ages sucked sometimes?

e.g., that we'll evolve into energy beings (as seen in the '2001' novel)

Humanity never evolved into energy beings in the Space Odyssey series. David Bowman and HAL were converted into energy beings by the monoliths, and the monolith-builders supposedly turned themselves into similar beings at some point in the distant past, but nothing like that happened to humanity at large.

[Sidewinder]

'2001: A Space Odyssey' and its sequels. If you think 'Starship Troopers' was bad, wait till you have Arthur C. Clarke's views on an ideal society shoved down your throat like stale fruitcake.

What was so bad about the society in 3001? The only remotely preachy parts where the bits with that philosopher (whose perspective on religion most SDN denizes would probably applaud, incidentally), and the way some of the future people talk to Poole, which was actually sort of realistic. I mean, if somebody showed up in our time from 1007 AD, wouldn't we probably tend to get a bit preachy with him about how much the Middle Ages sucked sometimes?

The society was totally unrealistic in depicting the human race as somehow evolving beyond violence and aggression-- those two elements are vital to human SURVIVAL INSTINCTS, which means you can't make humans nonviolent and passive without lobotomizing them into feeble-minded idiots who can't or won't defend themselves from predators.

Then there's the ripoff of 'Jurassic Park'-- see the appearance of a cloned Velociraptor on Earth when the thousand-year-old astronaut visits-- but with dinosaurs that are passive and more threatened by humans, especially careless children, than they are a threat to humans. Here's news for you, Sir Arthur: a Velociraptor is a PREDATOR. It will see a human being AS FOOD. The reason you should keep them away from children is not because the children, in their ignorance, might injure an expensive cloned animal, but because the cloned animal is a PREDATOR that will EAT the children. And what the hell is up with the idea that predators can be allowed to roam wild in the presence of humans, even nonviolent vegans who respect animal rights?

e.g., that we'll evolve into energy beings (as seen in the '2001' novel)

Humanity never evolved into energy beings in the Space Odyssey series. David Bowman and HAL were converted into energy beings by the monoliths, and the monolith-builders supposedly turned themselves into similar beings at some point in the distant past, but nothing like that happened to humanity at large.

Sorry about the mistake, I last read '2001' for a college course I took in 2000. My beef was with the sequels, specifically '3001', where the monolith-builders, after analyzing data they collected on us during the 20th century (they don't have FTL communications systems), decide that humans are too violent and destructive to leave alone, and Halman (HAL + Bowman) has to infect the monoliths with various computer viruses to prevent the monoliths from executing whatever command it is that's supposed to stop the human race from threatening others-- as if any other race would have a different history from humans, i.e., not have to struggle for survival against other animals during their evolution, making the capacity for violence and aggression vital to the character of that race.

[The Grim Squeaker]

'2001: A Space Odyssey' and its sequels. If you think 'Starship Troopers' was bad, wait till you have Arthur C. Clarke's views on an ideal society shoved down your throat like stale fruitcake.

What was so bad about the society in 3001? The only remotely preachy parts where the bits with that philosopher (whose perspective on religion most SDN denizes would probably applaud, incidentally), and the way some of the future people talk to Poole, which was actually sort of realistic. I mean, if somebody showed up in our time from 1007 AD, wouldn't we probably tend to get a bit preachy with him about how much the Middle Ages sucked sometimes?

The society was totally unrealistic in depicting the human race as somehow evolving beyond violence and aggression-- those two elements are vital to human SURVIVAL INSTINCTS, which means you can't make humans nonviolent and passive without lobotomizing them into feeble-minded idiots who can't or won't defend themselves from predators.

And what, pray tell are the natural predators that can seriously threaten a modern western citizen inside New York city today? Other aggressive, unsocial, huamns? (Criminals) you say?
I haven't read the books in years, but again, social engineering is possible, especially with an energy surplus (See The Culture) and no effective natural predators (No Aliens for example).

Then there's the ripoff of 'Jurassic Park'-- see the appearance of a cloned Velociraptor on Earth when the thousand-year-old astronaut visits-- but with dinosaurs that are passive and more threatened by humans, especially careless children, than they are a threat to humans. Here's news for you, Sir Arthur: a Velociraptor is a PREDATOR. It will see a human being AS FOOD. The reason you should keep them away from children is not because the children, in their ignorance, might injure an expensive cloned animal, but because the cloned animal is a PREDATOR that will EAT the children. And what the hell is up with the idea that predators can be allowed to roam wild in the presence of humans, even nonviolent vegans who respect animal rights?

Genetic engineering presumably, or maybe an adaption of the funky "Teaching" helmets. We can induce bliss and/or agresiveness via sticking a few electrodes ina chimps brain today, there's no reason to think that this isn't the case there (Well, that or the aforementioned GE).

e.g., that we'll evolve into energy beings (as seen in the '2001' novel)

Humanity never evolved into energy beings in the Space Odyssey series. David Bowman and HAL were converted into energy beings by the monoliths, and the monolith-builders supposedly turned themselves into similar beings at some point in the distant past, but nothing like that happened to humanity at large.

Sorry about the mistake, I last read '2001' for a college course I took in 2000. My beef was with the sequels, specifically '3001', where the monolith-builders, after analyzing data they collected on us during the 20th century (they don't have FTL communications systems), decide that humans are too violent and destructive to leave alone, and Halman (HAL + Bowman) has to infect the monoliths with various computer viruses to prevent the monoliths from executing whatever command it is that's supposed to stop the human race from threatening others-- as if any other race would have a different history from humans, i.e., not have to struggle for survival against other animals during their evolution, making the capacity for violence and aggression vital to the character of that race.

That'sa bold presumption.
What about a hive like species? Silicone based life? A hive mind? In addition, aggresiveness is a matter of degree, Ethnic cleansings, Genocides on a multi-year basis might be more than the average after all .

[Sidewinder]

That'sa bold presumption.
What about a hive like species? Silicone based life? A hive mind? In addition, aggresiveness is a matter of degree, Ethnic cleansings, Genocides on a multi-year basis might be more than the average after all :P.

Hive-like species, like ants, bees, termites, and wasps? Animals that swarm all over intruders in a desperate attempt to defend their colony? You need a better example than that.

As for silicon-based life... What are you talking about, sentient crystals that get their energy from solar radiation instead of food (as seen in an episode of TNG), or something like the mynock and the space slug in ESB? I still don't see such creatures putting "survival of the species" below "live in harmony with other species" in priority.

As for a hive mind, observe the behavior of ants, bees, termites, and wasps when you poke at their hives with a stick. A hive mind would likely react the same way to perceived threats, i.e., they'll have a capacity for violence and aggression because absense of such capacity will result in them becoming prey for other creatures, maybe predators that communicate via a hive mind to coordinate hunts.

[The Grim Squeaker]

That'sa bold presumption.
What about a hive like species? Silicone based life? A hive mind? In addition, aggresiveness is a matter of degree, Ethnic cleansings, Genocides on a multi-year basis might be more than the average after all .

Hive-like species, like ants, bees, termites, and wasps? Animals that swarm all over intruders in a desperate attempt to defend their colony? You need a better example than that.

Not really .
The difference between defense and aggression is immense. IT increases if the aggression is not for reasons of survival ("We need breathing room" sic). A Hive mind that only defends, or focuses on peaceful assimilation or neutralizing rather than genocide would be less morally questionable than most nation-states/empires throught human history (OR even gangs, corporations). To say the least.

As for silicon-based life... What are you talking about, sentient crystals that get their energy from solar radiation instead of food (as seen in an episode of TNG), or something like the mynock and the space slug in ESB? I still don't see such creatures putting "survival of the species" below "live in harmony with other species" in priority.

But they would give a higher value to the lives of other species (ALthough Of Course, they will place the highest value on their own survival as a species). I'm reminded of Clarke's example in "Childhoodfs End", where it's pointed out that humans routinely tourtur and slaughter animals by the millions without any real reason (Cosmetics testing, bullfighting, hunting for non population control reasons and the very dismantling of the ecosystem in the first place).

As for a hive mind, observe the behavior of ants, bees, termites, and wasps when you poke at their hives with a stick. A hive mind would likely react the same way to perceived threats, i.e., they'll have a capacity for violence and aggression because absense of such capacity will result in them becoming prey for other creatures, maybe predators that communicate via a hive mind to coordinate hunts.

One that would act like a pack of wolves? My analogy to animals being harmless to us with modern technology (Let alone future technology) still stands.

[Junghalli]

The society was totally unrealistic in depicting the human race as somehow evolving beyond violence and aggression

Perhaps, but it didn't really offend my suspension of disbelief that much. It basically amounted to something like B5 Earth with better tech and no external threats - maybe a bit more peaceful than might be realistic, but not some outrageous wank-utopia.

Then there's the ripoff of 'Jurassic Park'-- see the appearance of a cloned Velociraptor on Earth when the thousand-year-old astronaut visits-- but with dinosaurs that are passive and more threatened by humans, especially careless children, than they are a threat to humans. Here's news for you, Sir Arthur: a Velociraptor is a PREDATOR. It will see a human being AS FOOD.

It's fairly obvious that raptor was probably the product of some heavy genetic modification to knock the predator out of it. Dogs started out as wolves and they get along with humans pretty well, despite the fact they've been modified with methods vastly cruder than what 3001 Earth has available to it.

as if any other race would have a different history from humans, i.e., not have to struggle for survival against other animals during their evolution, making the capacity for violence and aggression vital to the character of that race.

Maybe they just decided the Europans would make a better species. Is it that hard to believe - they are aliens, who knows what traits they consider desirable in an intelligent species. Remember, that bit about the monoliths deciding man is too violent is just conjecture from a human character with no special insight into their motivations.

[Nyrath]

Seriously, why does Sir Arthur hate the human race so much that he keeps depicting us as an inferior race to be superseded by superior races, e.g., that we'll evolve into energy beings (as seen in the '2001' novel)...

I think you are thinking about SPOILER:
Sir Arthur's novel CHILDHOOD'S END.

[Kuja]

Seriously, why does Sir Arthur hate the human race so much that he keeps depicting us as an inferior race to be superseded by superior races, e.g., that we'll evolve into energy beings (as seen in the '2001' novel)...

I think you are thinking about SPOILER:
Sir Arthur's novel CHILDHOOD'S END.

I don't think that's quite fair to the novel. Humanity in Childhood's End turned out to be a superior race, but in a way not predicted by the first half of the book.

For being written in 1953 I thought it was pretty damned creative. Humanity wasn't an inferior race - just a young one.

[Androsphinx]

Also Clarke wrote the first half as a short story/novella, with a twist ending, and added the second half later.

[Manus Celer Dei]

Sorry about the mistake, I last read '2001' for a college course I took in 2000. My beef was with the sequels, specifically '3001', where the monolith-builders, after analyzing data they collected on us during the 20th century (they don't have FTL communications systems), decide that humans are too violent and destructive to leave alone, and Halman (HAL + Bowman) has to infect the monoliths with various computer viruses to prevent the monoliths from executing whatever command it is that's supposed to stop the human race from threatening others--

You're quite wrong on that. Halman and Poole were panicing and trying to destroy the monolith because at some very close point it would receive a a message from it's owners in response to the one it sent them in 2001, and they were afraid that it might be a command to wipe out humanity. The epilogue of the book contains the actual message that was sent, which was pretty much "Eh, we're not sure yet. Wait and see, they'll probably turn out alright."

[Stuart]

Isn't this true of a lot of Heinlein's work? It certainly applies to Starship Troopers as well, and large parts of Stranger in a Strange Land.

I think there's a difference in that "For Us The Living" was overtly intended by Heinlein as a "this is the way I think it should be" story. It is a political manifesto witha very thin disguise. It fits Heinlein's personal beliefs and lifestyle at the time (he was - and remained - an enthusiastic nudist, had an open marriage with Leslyn Heinlein etc etc etc.)

I think Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land are different in that they're "what if" novels. What if a society was organized this way? What would be the consequences for that society, how would it think and function? How would people in it think and react? How cana society like this be made to work? I don't think either is a "this is how it should be" novel simply because they are so drastically opposed in basic philosophy. If we take the whole corpus of Heinlein's work, he does that with almost every possible variation on societal organization, from the highly authoritarian Starship Troopers to the anarchistic Boondock of his last few novels. Each of them is a series of questions which boil down to "If this is the situation, what are its consequences?" I suspect Starship Troopers was the first time he tried that approach and he overdid the explanation bit and underdid the "consequences" section. It could have done with being a much longer book so that the guts of that question get explored in more detail.

He did it much better in "the Moon is a Harsh Mistress"; how does an anarchistic society fight a war? (the answer is not very well of course )

[SylasGaunt]

That'sa bold presumption.
What about a hive like species? Silicone based life? A hive mind? In addition, aggresiveness is a matter of degree, Ethnic cleansings, Genocides on a multi-year basis might be more than the average after all

You do remember that ants go to war with other ant nests on occasion right?

Also I seem to recall things like hornet nests attacking and slaughtering bee hives.

[NecronLord]

Also I seem to recall things like hornet nests attacking and slaughtering bee hives.

IIRC, that's because humans introduced a bee type that couldn't stick it to Japan. The hornets can kill thousands of (high honey producing) european bees, but the bees that evolved with them have a defene mechanism. They all grab the hornet, and vibrate until the heat of their bodies cooks it.

[The Grim Squeaker]

That'sa bold presumption.
What about a hive like species? Silicone based life? A hive mind? In addition, aggresiveness is a matter of degree, Ethnic cleansings, Genocides on a multi-year basis might be more than the average after all

You do remember that ants go to war with other ant nests on occasion right?

Yup, as do termites, and Ants go to war with Termites as well, and some species evolve specifically to be parasites (not just symbiotes) of others.
It doesn't change my point about degrees/levels of things, we don't have any evidence that the Monolith makers take violence as an "all or nothing" issue, but rather a degree of scale (Since a totally non violent species is all but impossible, unless it were genetically engineered to do so after they achieved control over their natural environment).

Also I seem to recall things like hornet nests attacking and slaughtering bee hives.

Hornet's are nasty (Predator) buggers, what can I say . (My example was not meant to claim that all insects are a benevolent hive mind, or that wasps are an example).

[Murazor]

I agree, Rama II was a godawful book that couldn't hope to touch the original. I finished it just for the sake of completion and then donated it to the local library.

Personally, I liked Rama II just fine. Not great like the first book, but good enough (even if the total collapse of the outer world colonies for no good reason at all feels stupid and the visions were just plain weird). It is in the next book were things go bad and, from what I've heard, the last one that I haven't read is the worst in the series.

[Kuja]

I agree, Rama II was a godawful book that couldn't hope to touch the original. I finished it just for the sake of completion and then donated it to the local library.

Personally, I liked Rama II just fine. Not great like the first book, but good enough (even if the total collapse of the outer world colonies for no good reason at all feels stupid and the visions were just plain weird). It is in the next book were things go bad and, from what I've heard, the last one that I haven't read is the worst in the series.

Really? I didn't find much at all to like about Rama II. It commits crimes all up and down the spectrum, from bad pacing and soap opera to shafting virtually the entire background of the original book. Seriously: the UN in space is gone, the Space Catholics are gone, and apparently someone forgot that a big honking meteor slammed into Italy.

[Murazor]

Really? I didn't find much at all to like about Rama II. It commits crimes all up and down the spectrum, from bad pacing and soap opera to shafting virtually the entire background of the original book. Seriously: the UN in space is gone, the Space Catholics are gone, and apparently someone forgot that a big honking meteor slammed into Italy.

It is something that I've come to accept when dealing with the works of Clarke. He is a fairly good author for individual novels, but he is utterly terrible when it comes to series cohesion.

Still, if I managed to ignore the monolith moving from Iapetus to Jovian orbit in the Space Odyssey series, my suspension of disbelief can stretch enough to accommodate Rama II. With Garden of Rama, however, it is considerably harder to do and what I have heard about Rama revealed sounds outright painful.

[Adrian Laguna]

It is something that I've come to accept when dealing with the works of Clarke. He is a fairly good author for individual novels, but he is utterly terrible when it comes to series cohesion.

Still, if I managed to ignore the monolith moving from Iapetus to Jovian orbit in the Space Odyssey series, my suspension of disbelief can stretch enough to accommodate Rama II. With Garden of Rama, however, it is considerably harder to do and what I have heard about Rama revealed sounds outright painful.

I'm pretty sure it's been accepted that every single one of the Space Odyssey books occurs in a parallel universe, such that the events are similar but not equal.