Books Loved by Critics Hated By You

Not wanting to derail the thread too much, but can I ask what people mean by "libertarian SF"? Is this "Davy Crockett good, taxation, laws, NHS bad" or does it have a more complex meaning than that?

Science fiction reflecting the values and/or utopian principles of political libertarianism. Often written by individuals consciously promoting libertarianism through SF, but also including books (like Leviathan Wakes) that don't, but nevertheless present a world definable by libertarian values. An example would be Empire Builders by

See: wikipedia entry or the Libertarian Futurist Society (which gives an award every year for the book that best reflects libertarian values).

The issue I had with Leviathan Wakes is that it reproduced the tropes of libertarian SF (government bad/freedom good, Earth bad/belt good, etc.) without much else.
 
Not wanting to derail the thread too much, but can I ask what people mean by "libertarian SF"? Is this "Davy Crockett good, taxation, laws, NHS bad" or does it have a more complex meaning than that?

Science Fiction is accused of being the literature of Ideas. Different people pick the ideas they want out of it however. As far as I can tell the central sci-fi book for Libertarian rationalization is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein.

My take on this is that you must look at technology for an explanation for the economic changes of the last 500 years. Then consider who had the technology. What would have happened if Native American had been technologically advance when Europeans showed up? Imagine Christopher Columbus sailing up to the shores of America and standing on the beach are Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse with AK-47s.

But technology is continuing to change the economy and decisions must be made about what to do with it. I would point out that you hardly ever hear Libertarians talk about Planned Obsolescence. So if you are interested in economic philosophy in relation to science fiction you should read some Mack Reynolds and not just look for Libertarian SF.

Subversive (1962) by Mack Reynolds
http://www.digilibraries.com/ebook/115574/Subversive/

http://sfgospel.typepad.com/sf_gospel/2008/08/mack-reynolds-on-africa-islam-utopia-and-progress.html

Cost of Living (1952) by Robert Sheckley
https://senjibqa.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/cost-of-living/

The Cosmic Computer (1958) by H. Beam Piper
http://librivox.org/the-cosmic-computer-by-h-beam-piper/
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20727

Personally I think Heinlein was too complicated to be a Libertarian and they are cherry picking his works. Heinlein was definitely into self reliant individualism but not as much into egotism as Libertarians seem to be. I would suggest Citizen of the Galaxy. I can't recall Libertarians mentioning that one.

psik
 
Last edited:
Personally I think Heinlein was too complicated to be a Libertarian and they are cherry picking his works. Heinlein was definitely into self reliant individualism but not as much into egotism as Libertarians seem to be. I would suggest Citizen of the Galaxy. I can't recall Libertarians mentioning that one.

psik

Heinlein had some libertarian tendencies, but you're right that he wasn't necessarily quite libertarian himself (some early stuff, like Starship Troopers, is undoubtedly statist). But Stranger in a Strange Land, for example, is claimed as libertarian SF by libertarians who read SF, in the sense that they see the book reflecting libertarian values and ideals.

Interestingly, here's a list of libertarian SF compiled by io9, apparently with the input of actual libertarians. At least one of the choices is odd--LeGuin's The Dispossessed, which is anarcho-syndicalist rather than libertarian. Anarcho-syndicalism is, in a sense, the "libertarianism of the left," in that it starts from a similar set of critiques of state power. But the solutions forwarded are as opposed to those forwarded by libertarianism as is possible from an anti-statist perspective.

I think you can also identify another strain of libertarian SF that is deliberately and ideologically libertarian. Authors like Larry Niven, Ben Bova, David Brin, etc. It's these authors who took the Heinleinian soup and crafted tropes out of it, e.g. "freedom-loving 'Belters vs. authoritarian Earthers." This is the kind of thing I noted that LW reproduced (without necessarily sharing the political ideology of the forebears).
 
Prador Moon by Asher. Dauntless by Campbell. Childhood's End (novel) by Clarke. Game of Thrones by Martin.
 
I literally threw Leviathan Wakes down in disgust today. Pointless drivel with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. What happened on page 300 was just one pandering trope too far for me. These guys write with no style or originality at all. Utter crap.

I'm torn though, normally I would take books I don't want to the charity shop, but I don't want to inflict this bile on some unsuspecting reader. I don't normally agree with such tactics, but burning may be the only option. ;)
 
I couldn't get more than halfway through The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms by N K Jemisin. Saw a review for her second book on Amazon that I thought summed up my problem with the first book really well: "it reads like the product of a writing workshop."

Maybe someday I'll give her another shot, but that first book really put me off.
 
[...]The Natural by Saul Bellow. Not bad, but not as powerful as I'd have guessed from what I've read about it. Can't say that I've enjoyed what little I've read by Bellow, the other thing being the short novel Seize the Day which was a very long short novel. (See also, William Styron's The Long March, which seemed like a long, long, long slog.)[...]

Randy M.

Brain cramp on my part. The Natural was by Bernard Malamud, not Saul Bellow. There seems to be something about that generation of American writers -- including Phillip Roth -- that just doesn't appeal to me, though I should read more of John Updike since "A&P" and The Witches of Eastwick were enjoyable.

Randy M.
 
I literally threw Leviathan Wakes down in disgust today. Pointless drivel with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. What happened on page 300 was just one pandering trope too far for me. These guys write with no style or originality at all. Utter crap.

Not that I want to wish ill on a new author, but I'm glad to hear a few people mention this one here since I read about 20 pages and dropped it for other things. Good to know I didn't miss much.
 
Brain cramp on my part. The Natural was by Bernard Malamud, not Saul Bellow. There seems to be something about that generation of American writers -- including Phillip Roth -- that just doesn't appeal to me, though I should read more of John Updike since "A&P" and The Witches of Eastwick were enjoyable.

Randy M.
Yeah, I'm unsure how I feel about Bellow too I guess. I found "Some Die of Hearthbreak" to be almost impenetrable. I just couldn't read it. Maybe in a different mood. On the other hand, I loved - LOVED, I tell you - "Henderson the Rain King", and "Seize the Day". I've also read "Herzog" and "The Victim", neither of which I can remember a blamed thing about. A bit hit and miss for me, clearly.

Updike I've enjoyed a good deal - esp. the Rabbit books and his recent novel "terrorist".

Roth I've not read much of, but I did enjoy "The Plot Against America" and I've been meaning to read more.

These guys are all very worthy though. A bit like Richard Ford, too. I find his stuff a bit dense and worthy as well.
 
Not that I want to wish ill on a new author, but I'm glad to hear a few people mention this one here since I read about 20 pages and dropped it for other things. Good to know I didn't miss much.

I wish I'd followed your example. You were very right to quit so early. I kept going on because I was hoping it would get better.
 
I've been reading Leviathan Wakes. So far I'm underwhelmed.

Its a slow start, but ultimately very fulfilling, I was quite impressed, especially with the space opera / detective novel crossover, all while staying true to Hard Sci-fi genre. I would read it again, and likely will.

I could never read any of the Potter books, even though I enjoyed some of the films.
Another series I could not finish: Twilight, although hardly SF, many would classify it fantasy.
 
Toby in a word I think, yes. The Wikipedia entry on Libertarian SF seems reasonable. But it has Neal Stephenson's The System of the World as an example, which I never got when I read the Baroque Cycle. Perhaps as a British reader I just didn't pick up on it?


The Baroque Cycle
as an example of libertarian SF? That just sounds silly. More like speculative historical fiction. Nothing Ayn Rand about it.
 


The Baroque Cycle
as an example of libertarian SF? That just sounds silly. More like speculative historical fiction. Nothing Ayn Rand about it.

Exactly what I thought. But then I took the definition of Libertarian SF from Wikipedia and found that there. There might be a reason for it or it might be a mistake or...who knows.
 
Exactly what I thought. But then I took the definition of Libertarian SF from Wikipedia and found that there. There might be a reason for it or it might be a mistake or...who knows.
Any old idiot can edit Wikipedia (I have done a lot of editing in the past. Non-SF stuff) When it comes to popular and controversial branches of moral or political philosophy, particularly those involving Ayn Rand enthusiasts, edit wars can happen. The Wikipedia page is short, and the edit history demonstrates that it is somewhat neglected. If you open the "Talk" tab, the amount of discussion is also limited, which is an indicator that this page is obscure from a contributors point of view, which is frequently an indicator of low quality.

A better discussion of libertarian SF is found here:
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/libertarian_sf
 
Holy cow, yes, this. My brother loves this novel, as does a buddy of mine but I do not get it. I like the opening (apparently once published independently as Pafko at the Wall) at the baseball game but it goes absolutely nowhere after that and kind of serves as my closing argument against a whole strain of meandering Frustrated White Male novels that seem unduly praised (Delillo, Updike, Irving, Franzen, Roth). I've long felt like the feminist movement produced a literati last-gasp backlash that glorified a bunch of mediocre novels that boiled down to middle aged men feeling like they weren't getting the kind of tail they felt they deserved.
I am glad to find that someone agrees with me about Underworld. I have not felt any urge to go after more DeLillo.
I have really enjoyed some Irving (The World According to Garp, Cider House Rules) probably because they are easy to read, and quite provocative. I thought Updike's Couples was really interesting, and someday when I spot the Rabbit novels in the Salvation Army store, I will pick them up. I will keep an open mind about Franzen, Roth, Bellow et al, who are on my should give it a go list, as are Joyce, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Soyinka, Achebe etc. I do have a fondness for Peter Carey.
 
Not that I want to wish ill on a new author, but I'm glad to hear a few people mention this one here since I read about 20 pages and dropped it for other things. Good to know I didn't miss much.

The author is actually two people collaborating and they are not exactly new. One is Daniel Abraham, a well-known fantasy author and the other is Ty Franck who I had not heard of but is a science fiction author and assistant of GRRM. They write alternate chapters and use the pen name of James Corey. I would not have known that but I watched an interview. Very interesting people to listen to. I have yet to read these but I picked up the first three for next to nothing used.
 


The Baroque Cycle
as an example of libertarian SF? That just sounds silly. More like speculative historical fiction. Nothing Ayn Rand about it.

Ive been tempted to read this one.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top