The Greatest Science-Fiction novel of all time?

[Christine Wheelwright]

Here we disagree. I would any collection of humans to be a kind of society. Therefore almost all of us are parts of many different societies. I would say that how our smaller societies are put together and how they go about their business is what begins to effect the larger parts of society.

This is really interesting (although I feel another admonishment for getting off topic might be on the way ). It is one of the questions I am asking in my latest work (temporary title 'Are there no Workhouses?'); if every individual is kind/considerate/charitable/cooperative does this somehow trickle up and cause the larger society (lets say a nation) to be benevolent, peaceful, even utopian? Is the whole the sum of its parts? In my novel I hope I demonstrate that it is not.

 

[tobl]

There has been plenty of talk of sending a manned mission to Mars in the next few years. It would take 18 months to get there , explore the place and 18 months back. This would require a rather big space ship that can carry significant supplies of food and water . Then, there is the danger of radiation and how to protect the crew on the way to and from Mars .

just take a hitchhike in the nearest UFO to make a stop there. What's the difficulty? if you're having dificulty in finding one just call the pentagon, the us navy or you know, just go to area 51. Just make sure to have your passport, all the shots and be prepared for some anal probing

 

[tobl]

I would say we are likely to send VR robotic interfaces to explore mars but the 10 minute radio delay makes that unviable for direct feedback. However, from the safety of a mars orbiter it could work. Feel you are there via sensory feedback without the radiation and lack of atmosphere consraints.
I have said before though, mars is tiny, not another earth. Venus is a better bet if we can remove much of its atmosphere.

Comparative size of Earth and Mars

View attachment 87367

so justo do a transfer of excess atmosfer of venus to mars?

 

[Extollager]

Good list. I would say scientific underpinnings might be required to make it a SF novel, but I don't think they necessarily have to be scientifically valid. For example, the fact that you cannot stitch parts of different people together to make a Frankenstein monster should not detract too much from the novel. I would add a sixth requirement; it has to be a good read (simple but important).

Christine, would you accept the idea that the "science" in a science fiction novel must be within the range of what was taken to be possible at the time it was written?

Thus Wells's Martians were, I suppose, not outside the realm of the science of the time when The War of the Worlds was written, and so it stands today as "science fiction" even though we now know its Martians could not exist. I suppose the stitched-together, electricity-animated thing of Mary Shelley's book was within the realm of possibility for the science of 1820, though I don't know for sure about that.

Anyone?

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

Christine, would you accept the idea that the "science" in a science fiction novel must be within the range of what was taken to be possible at the time it was written?

Thus Wells's Martians were, I suppose, not outside the realm of the science of the time when The War of the Worlds was written, and so it stands today as "science fiction" even though we now know its Martians could not exist. I suppose the stitched-together, electricity-animated thing of Mary Shelley's book was within the realm of possibility for the science of 1820, though I don't know for sure about that.

Anyone?

For it to be great? Probably it helps if the scientific premise is at least possible in the eyes of the reader. In the same way that an implausible behavior or unrealistic scenario can detract from any novel (not just SF).

 

[Extollager]

I should've said that I meant that the "science" in the story should be taken by readers as within the bounds of possibility given their sense of science. The audience would presumably include a fair number of people with some popular sense of science at least. Thus, for example, I would take it that anyone with a "popular sense of science" would recognize that Edgar Rice Burroughs's Barsoom is not a possible Mars. Most readers would not know, however, that the violent storm in Weir's The Martian wasn't really a scientific possibility when the book was published, let alone now, so The Martian could still be "great science fiction" if various criteria of greatness, such as are being discussed here, were met.

I'd say that a qualification for literary greatness, whether of sf or not, is that the writing invites and rewards thoughtful, alert reading. There are entertaining stories that don't reward alert reading (unless as reader amusement at the expense of the author or editor or something). (Connell's "Most Dangerous Game" is a good example of a story that offers escape but that falls apart on its own terms if you actually pay attention -- it's not sf, though.)

 

[Swank]

For me social significance is that the book has something to say to human society in general.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. While all literature reflects on the human condition because it is written by people for people, SF is absolutely unique in being able to pose an utterly unprecedented predicament and then explore it. Whether it is Blade Runner examining the morality of artificial intelligence or Dune exploring what happens if an actual ubermensh is created, SF isn't constrained to the human condition of today or yesterday. It doesn't have to be about people at all, but what happens to aliens or machines. It can be about the downsides to incredible inventions like Vernor Vinge's bobbles or what a real utopia looks like per Iain Banks. I think it would be terrible if the best SF story has to meet the criteria of some other sort of fiction in the "what's it about?" category. It should be about something so unlikely that it may never come to pass, but so fascinating because the author writes about it like it already has.


To me, the best SF novel stands on its own, both as a single work of fiction and without reference to its pedigree. I don't care if it is the first spaceship story - I would rather read the best spaceship story.

>>The best SF should be unique. Whether it is the world, the plot device or simply the viewpoint; I want to feel like I am in new territory.

>>It should be well written. That doesn't mean only one thing, but it may mean that what you're reading stands out line by line. That you come away from reading even a short passage and feel you have still communed with the heart of the book.

>>It should thrill. Not just be "pretty good", but engrossing, page turning and maybe even devastating in its climax. You should care, even though the events you just read about couldn't be more alien to your 21st century life.

>>It should speculate. Not just suggest a fantastic device, but see that through to all the different ways that thing the book pivots around can warp and adapt to create even more twists and turns in the plot. In A Fire Upon The Deep, Vinge doesn't just imagine a kind of auditory group intelligence, he spins out many different possibilities for how these beings could live and then change with technology. The best novel should have a good dose of this kind of clever extrapolation.


The best SF novel should leave you giddy, considering re-reading it immediately and definitely revisiting it throughout the years. No one novel is going to get universal agreement, but some novels at least live up to the call of fascinating speculation that keeps our attention on every page. That's where we'll find our finalists.

 

[Swank]

I should've said that I meant that the "science" in the story should be taken by readers as within the bounds of possibility given their sense of science.

I fear too many people think they know what the bounds of possibility are, and really aren't thinking very big. The whole FTL issue is one of them - science doesn't say there is no way to travel faster than light. Science says there is no way to accelerate through lightspeed, and that there are causality problems if you are going FTL. But the causality may have other cures.

It would be great if everyone lightened up about what they think they know and read fantastic works with less amateur skepticism. SF has delved into the impossible since the very beginning and we should embrace that.

 

[Dave Vicks]

OT:I like the TV show The EXPANSE. But where do they get the oxygen from?

 

[Dave]

But where do they get the oxygen from?

Mars has some Water. Martians could get Oxygen by electrolysis. using electric current passed through two electrodes, to split water into its constituent gases – Hydrogen and Oxygen. For the Belters it would be harder but water vapour has been detected on Ganymede. It is probable that Water is present everywhere, but it is a good question because it never appeared to be a problem in The Expanse. One common science fiction trope is that aliens invade Earth to steal our oceans. Hydrogen (in any concentration) is also relatively rare but would be needed for heat and power. Since Water gives us both Oxygen and Hydrogen, whether or not we can find it away from Earth is one of the big questions for interstellar travel. (Ramscoops could collect and compress Hydrogen as the ship travelled through space.)

 

[Danny McG]

*sighs and shakes head*
Look amigos, this has already been answered, it's the Mote

 

[Justin Swanton]

*sighs and shakes head*
Look amigos, this has already been answered, it's the Mote

Just what I was thinking.

 

[Parson]

This is really interesting (although I feel another admonishment for getting off topic might be on the way ). It is one of the questions I am asking in my latest work (temporary title 'Are there no Workhouses?'); if every individual is kind/considerate/charitable/cooperative does this somehow trickle up and cause the larger society (lets say a nation) to be benevolent, peaceful, even utopian? Is the whole the sum of its parts? In my novel I hope I demonstrate that it is not.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that whole can be greater than the sum of its parts, but the parts do help to set the direction and the intensity of what does result.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. While all literature reflects on the human condition because it is written by people for people, SF is absolutely unique in being able to pose an utterly unprecedented predicament and then explore it. Whether it is Blade Runner examining the morality of artificial intelligence or Dune exploring what happens if an actual ubermensh is created, SF isn't constrained to the human condition of today or yesterday. It doesn't have to be about people at all, but what happens to aliens or machines. It can be about the downsides to incredible inventions like Vernor Vinge's bobbles or what a real utopia looks like per Iain Banks. I think it would be terrible if the best SF story has to meet the criteria of some other sort of fiction in the "what's it about?" category. It should be about something so unlikely that it may never come to pass, but so fascinating because the author writes about it like it already has.

I don't necessarily mean that the societal comment or insight in a great SF book is overt or even necessarily intentional. What I mean is that for a story to be great there has to be a sense of greater meaning or application. Lets take the now oft mentioned Mote in God's Eye as an example. I would not be at all surprised that Pournelle and Niven wanted and expected to say something about over population. If so that would be a clear social agenda. But I would also argue that this story says something about the good of self-control and generalization which can be seen as social ideals, perhaps unintentionally, by the authors. For me, and I suspect for many others, this is part of what makes the book very good.

*Not the best. @Danny McG and @Justin Swanton
**I love "ubermensh" I hadn't heard that before but it's completely understandable!

 

[Justin Swanton]

Lets take the now oft mentioned Mote in God's Eye as an example. I would not be at all surprised that Pournelle and Niven wanted and expected to say something about over population. If so that would be a clear social agenda. But I would also argue that this story says something about the good of self-control and generalization which can be seen as social ideals, perhaps unintentionally, by the authors. For me, and I suspect for many others, this is part of what makes the book very good.

*Not the best. @Danny McG and @Justin Swanton

The Mote is popular I think because it portrays the ideal of the West: an image of the US as leader of humanity - including Russia (the Second Empire is the US). This leadership isn't dictatorial despite the government consisting of an aristocracy and emperor, but is relatively benign and something that decent and even independent-minded people are happy to belong to. It keeps the peace and respects the individual. What more could you want?

Does that make it great SF? IMHO it's a little shallow on the human condition since it is entirely built around the benevolence of a political system. It's a story for patriots, but life isn't all about patriotism.

 

[Swank]

The Mote is popular I think because it portrays the ideal of the West:

You think it is popular because of the background politics of the human crew, and not the spectacular tale of alien life and first contact?

 

[Justin Swanton]

You think it is popular because of the background politics of the human crew, and not the spectacular tale of alien life and first contact?

The aliens are good, true, as is the central plotline of humans needing to discover before it is too late that they breed uncontrollably. I was thinking of the human side of the book. The aliens are socialised in the way a beehive is. The individual means strictly nothing apart from the collectivity - notice how their art is all about the material good of their society, keeping things going. It could be a disguised image for Communism.

 

[Swank]

The aliens are good, true, as is the central plotline of humans needing to discover before it is too late that they breed uncontrollably. I was thinking of the human side of the book. The aliens are socialised in the way a beehive is. The individual means strictly nothing apart from the collectivity - notice how their art is all about the material good of their society, keeping things going. It could be a disguised image for Communism.

I really doubt your average SF reader is rewarded by political self affirmation to any extent. People like that book because it is refreshingly imaginative adventure, not because they seak out stories about aliens and spaceships for bias confirmation.

Is it possible that your analysis reflects more on your worldview than the mass of SF fandom's? I certainly didn't extract anything close to a feeling of my culture's supremacy in a story that uses a joint Soviet/US government as background or an alien society that is locked into ancient cycles of successfully rebuilding itself. I thought the humans were rather staid and the aliens fascinating yet tragic. Neither came close to advocating for the way I perceive Western culture or any other. Both were exotic and new - just the way SF ought to be.

 

[Pyan]

I know it can be difficult, especially when discussing a book like Mote, but please try to avoid bringing politics and social politics into the discussion.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I know it can be difficult, especially when discussing a book like Mote, but please try to avoid bringing politics and social politics into the discussion.

Fine. I find it interesting that so many here like the Mote, for reasons that have nothing to do with politics.

 

[Extollager]

It probably says more about me than about the book, but I read Mote in 2007 and yet it seems to have left almost no impression. It would never have occurred to me, personally, to nominate it as the greatest sf novel.

FWIW.