Science Fiction Novel Poll - Group E

[lowky]

and isn't made up whole cloth.

others could argue...

http://paganpressbooks.com/SADOWNCK.HTM

They can argue but it doesn't mean they will convince me.  They are entitled to their interpretation, and if it helps them to grow psychologically, and deal with the issues they have because of their homosexuality, then by all means it's good for them to have such interpretation, but I still don't see Frankenstein as a gay love story.  Frankenstein to me is an ethics lesson.  That if you don't have some ethics in science bad things will happen, ie Just because you can do something, doesn't mean it is a good idea and that you should.

[Sgarre1]

Ah, okay, so it's not laughable or inarguable, you just don't agree with it.  Fair enough.

I don't either, I just don't consider it laughable or inarguable (and let it be noted, to those who didn't check it out, that in the link he does actually supply material from the text, including the earlier version, that he uses to support his reading) or dismissible (classing it as some therapeutic healing experiment, or whatever reductive frame you want to use - how dare he have a personal reason for looking at the text differently and admit to it upfront!).

In fact, I'm sure he'd agree that it's about ethics - of course FRANKENSTEIN is about science going too far, there's no denying it.  It's just that it can ALSO be about a lot of other interesting things.  Absolutes and interpretation don't mix (neither do absolutes and creativity).  Mary Shelly didn;t write in a vacuum and FRANKENSTEIN can't be read in a vacuum.  I don't get the feeling that he's saying it can ONLY be a gay love story, he's just saying it can also be read as a gay love story.  And he backs it up.

Now, how's about a little economic reading of the THE WIZARD OF OZ as critique/support of the gold standard (OZ = oz. = ounce) or a rip-roaring gender discussion on why the boy Tip reclaims his feminine body as Ozma in THE MARVELOUS LAND OF OZ?

[Swamp]

Now, how's about a little economic reading of the THE WIZARD OF OZ as critique/support of the gold standard (OZ = oz. = ounce) or a rip-roaring gender discussion on why the boy Tip reclaims his feminine body as Ozma in THE MARVELOUS LAND OF OZ?

Nope, sorry.  That book isn't in this list or this genre.    But I'm sure we can find something controversial in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  Let's see....  Why should Vogon poetry not be considered for examination as much as anyone else.  It's specist discrimination?  Even Bdoomed can't argue that.

[Scattercat]

Man, there are absolute oceans of messed up in the Oz books.  You don't even want to touch those with a ten-foot cattle prod.  Stay away and stay sane.

---

Also, seconding lowky that while one CAN read Frankenstein that way, coming to the conclusion that that's the ONLY or the BEST (or even a sensible) way to read it is more than a bit off.  I was actually shouted down when I suggested that maybe Frankenstein might maybe have something to do with science.

It's sort of like those readings of Hamlet where he's in love with Claudius.  Yes, you CAN look at it that way, if you squint, but it's far from the simplest and most expedient reading.  (Hamlet's got plenty to be messed up about without being a closeted gay man, honestly.)  It can make for an interesting reinterpretation, but you have to be aware that you're reinterpreting.

[Bdoomed]

Why should Vogon poetry not be considered for examination as much as anyone else.  It's specist discrimination?  Even Bdoomed can't argue that.

Vogon poetry has not been considered for examination not from specist discrimination, but because of the simple fact that those who venture to study it are subsequently found dead in a pile of their own intestines.  The study has been discarded, tho to this day some still attempt new methods to examine it.

[Ocicat]

And God Emperor of Dune is now the only book in this week's poll to get no love whatsoever.

For what it's worth, I actually think it's a rather good book, and has echos of Dune's greatness.  But only echos.  But the plotline is very unique, and really moved the universe forward.  A lot forward! 

Still, Dune stands much better on it's own than as part of a series.  The world would be better off if there had only been the one book, but I think economic realities forced Herbert's hand.  His works set in other universes just didn't sell nearly so well, despite being (IHMO) superior to his Dune universe sequels.  Must have frustrated the man.

[kibitzer]

His works set in other universes just didn't sell nearly so well, despite being (IHMO) superior to his Dune universe sequels.  Must have frustrated the man.

He has other works??

(says he, thus proving Ocicat's assertion)

[stePH]

I have The Dosido Experiment on my shelf; it's among the books I inherited from my father.  I haven't read it, but the title suggests it's about square-dancing. 

[Ocicat]

That's The Dosadi Experiment, which is an excellent book.  Or at least I remember it as such, haven't actually read it since high school - which was a long way away from where I'm standing now.

[lowky]

I have The Dosido Experiment on my shelf; it's among the books I inherited from my father.  I haven't read it, but the title suggests it's about square-dancing. 

That is quite the impressive collection of books you have inherited.  Would love to see someone reissue the brittanica series.  Who would do it now though?  I don't think time life is even doing books anymore.

[stePH]

That is quite the impressive collection of books you have inherited. 

Want to see what it looks like? (click thumbnail for full pic)


That's two pictures spliced together; the shelf unit is six feet high and the two pictures both had the middle two shelves in them.

Here's all the pictures I've got of my bookshelves (some people on another forum I'm on were posting pictures of their libraries in a thread about bookshelves.)

[wakela]

Use of Weapons is by far Banks's best novel, but the competition is really tough this time.

I have to say I am finding myself less interested in these polls as time goes along, as it is very clear that a lot of great novels are losing out because they are not as well known. Which means two things:

A - The books that survive the rounds tend to be very famous, and I probably already have an opinion about them, so it's not that useful to me as a guide.
B - Among the books that have low scores that I have read, there are some I really love and others I can't stand. Therefore, I assume the same is true of the (many) books with low scores I haven't read. As a result, I can't use low scores as a guide for reading either.

So all that's left for me is the frustration of seeing the usual suspects (Orwell, Bradbury, Adams) beat out my favourites again and again. Not that the classic status of those authors isn't well earned, mind you - I have a huge amount of respect for most of the really big names on the list. But the thing about classics is that everyone already knows about them, and therefore the fact that they appear on lists is uninteresting.

Maybe, if I have time, and Ocicat's permission, I will try to run an ancilliary poll based on the books who get middle range scores in this poll. That might give rise to some interesting readings ideas...

This is an interesting point.  It's beyond the scope of the polling system, but if there were some way to rate how much one likes or dislikes a book, then by looking at books that got few votes but enthusiastic voters, you could use that as a basis for recommendations. 

[kibitzer]

I finished (re-?)reading Fahrenheit 451 over the weekend. I still don't like it. I think it's Bradbury's writing style that gets me. I get no sense the characters are real people, they seem very cardboard to me. And he often uses odd phraseology which I find very distracting.