Science Fiction Novel Poll - Group H

[Ocicat]

This is it!  The last of the group round.  After this, we'll have sixteen novels that will compete in one on one faceoffs.  Well, after this and at least two tiebreaker polls.  Because last week we got three tied entries: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Ender's Game, and The Time Machine.  So next week we'll have a poll to determine the final winner there.  And we'll have a runoff for second place from group C.  That's all assuming that this week doesn't have some sort of tie situation as well.

There is some great stuff saved for this last group though.  I mean, check those author names!  Asimov, Dick, Vonnegut, Wells, Clarke, Gibson, Lem, Vance!  We've got the masters here.  And several of them with their definitive works.

[kibitzer]

Mate, you really saved some big guns for last.

2001 is the first sci-fi I read that blew me away. I'd read (I guess) "lightweight" sci-fi before, but 2001 had an immediacy and reality that appealed tremendously. I mostly mean the description of the spaceship and HAL and the planning and plotting of Discovery's mission. It has stuck firmly in my head. I often tell people 2001 is the archetypal sci-fi novel. (Which I probably shouldn't say on this forum because it seems most of you have Master's degrees in SFF and/or horror :-)

I still get goosebumps when I think of the line, "And so, for the last time, David Bowman slept."

The Dying Earth series is fantastic. To me, these stories seem to just roll along, unfolding of their own accord, apparently without a particular plot or story or quest in mind. I'm not sure I can explain this properly but take 2001 as a contrasting example. Every scene is carefully crafted to move the story along a well-defined path to a particular CONCLUSION, whereas in, say, The Eyes Of The Overworld, Cugel encounters all manner of strange and crafty creatures, the only goal being to get back home. It's like the journey is only an excuse for a bunch of excursions into the fantastic and the bizarre. I love the unpredictable nature of that, and I love the people Vance comes up with. Tremendous fun.

I can hardly go past another Dick. And similarly, I can't pass up on War of the Worlds (and now I'll have Jeff Wayne's music stuck in my head all day... not a bad thing)

[lowky]

2001: A Space Odyssey - Arthur C. Clarke--I have watched the movie more than once but never read the book *ashamed*

Neuromancer - William Gibson--I bought it, I meant to read it, when I moved one time it was in a box of books, that was put in my garage until I got my bookcases put back together.  In the interim some animal I think a neighbors cat got in and pissed all over the box of books, 90% of them unsalvagable including Neuromancer.  Keep meaning to read it but never seem to get around to it.

Slaughterhouse Five - Kurt Vonnegut--started it, got interupted and never went back to it.  On my to read list

Solaris - Stanislaw Lem  saw the movies, the remake was horrible.

Tales of the Dying Earth - Jack Vance --Don't know this one, but sounds interesting

 Philip K. Dick--I just need to read more Dick period.

War of the Worlds - H.G. Wells--My vote for this week because it's the only one I have actually read. 

[kibitzer]

Solaris - Stanislaw Lem  saw the movies, the remake was horrible.

I disagree. The remake (Clooney, right?) focused on one particular aspect of the book -- mainly, I feel, because the book in its entirety is close to impossible to capture as a movie. (Never seen the Russian version, though) Solaris is the only Lem I've read. It was long and a little puzzling but ultimately rewarding -- huge in scope yet personalised to a few humans. Very hard to do well, and I think he does.

[stePH]

Solaris - Stanislaw Lem  saw the movies, the remake was horrible.

I disagree. The remake (Clooney, right?) focused on one particular aspect of the book -- mainly, I feel, because the book in its entirety is close to impossible to capture as a movie. (Never seen the Russian version, though) Solaris is the only Lem I've read. It was long and a little puzzling but ultimately rewarding -- huge in scope yet personalised to a few humans. Very hard to do well, and I think he does.

Solaris is one of the books I voted for here.  I haven't seen the Tartovsky film either, but I think Soderberg's is a second adaptation, not a remake of the first film.  And I liked it.

I've heard Tartovsky's film really drags for the first hour or so.

[Alasdair5000]

TOUGH group.  Went with War of the Worlds because it's a fascinating, ghastly, timeless, quintessentially English story that is at the same time massively versatile.

Also the album ROCKS.

[lowky]

TOUGH group.  Went with War of the Worlds because it's a fascinating, ghastly, timeless, quintessentially English story that is at the same time massively versatile.

Also the album ROCKS.

Not to mention turned into one of the best pranks ever (albeit somewhat unintentionally)

[kibitzer]

Also the album ROCKS.

Have you seen the recent DVD of the live performance? Awesome.

[Alasdair5000]

I actually caught the live show during the tour.  It was remarkable:)  The DUN DUN DUHHHHHHHH! at the start?  The bass was so heavy you felt it in your chest.

[wakela]

Solaris - Stanislaw Lem  saw the movies, the remake was horrible.

I disagree. The remake (Clooney, right?) focused on one particular aspect of the book -- mainly, I feel, because the book in its entirety is close to impossible to capture as a movie. (Never seen the Russian version, though) Solaris is the only Lem I've read. It was long and a little puzzling but ultimately rewarding -- huge in scope yet personalised to a few humans. Very hard to do well, and I think he does.

Solaris is one of the books I voted for here.  I haven't seen the Tartovsky film either, but I think Soderberg's is a second adaptation, not a remake of the first film.  And I liked it.

I've heard Tartovsky's film really drags for the first hour or so.

Christ, does it drag.  The remaining two or three hours aren't exactly Die Hard meets Aliens either.  Saw it for a class in college.

[Sgarre1]

That's Tarkovsky's thing, though.  STALKER is excellent, but don't watch it in a rush trying to get it back to the video store you rented it from (like I did the first time).  Tarkovsky takes time...

[Ocicat]

As I said, there are some great books in this group, but I personally think that Slaughterhouse Five should take the group, no contest.  It's a fantastic book - though arguably not a fantastic Science Fiction book, since the SF elements are fairly silly.  But those contrast with a chilling account of World War II, including a basically autobiographical account of being a prisoner of war in Dresden while it was being firebombed.  And the notion of someone being unstuck in time and bouncing through their lifespan is a powerful one.  A great examination on the subjects of time and free will.  And the writing itself - well, Vonnegut is one of America's best authors, and this is typically considered his best work.

Poo-tee-weet?

[Heradel]

[...]And the notion of someone being unstuck in time and bouncing through their lifespan is a powerful one.[...]

Also, an oft-stolen one.

[kibitzer]

As I said, there are some great books in this group, but I personally think that Slaughterhouse Five should take the group, no contest.

Gimme a chance! I'm reading Cat's Cradle at the moment.

[Heradel]

At some point I need to read Slaughterhouse Five. It's one of the ones that fell through my education (some of my high school classmates had to read it twice).

But 2001 is really one of the seminal works of SF in either of its two iterations. It has a lot to say about humans the species even before it goes on to examine our place in the universe, and what exactly sentience means. And the plot's pretty decent too. And Clarke kept it fairly hard SF.

[Ocicat]

Gimme a chance! I'm reading Cat's Cradle at the moment.

I personally like Cat's Cradle better - but if you like one you'll probably like the other.  And Slaughterhouse is I think more commonly thought of as Vonnegut's most important novel.

[Ocicat]

Okay, having talked about Slaughterhouse Five, I want to say a little about "The Man in the High Castle".  Namely, if you just read one PK Dick novel, I think it should be this one.  It's not as famous as Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, but I think it's better written.  In many ways it's not as outwardly weird as many of his other works, while examining most of the same themes.  On the surface it's a pretty simple alternate history story, where the Germans won WWII (hey, it wasn't so overdone back in 1962!) but there's more to it.  Layers of realities, truths and falsehoods that no one can distinguish between.  All that and a good, well grounded narrative of daily life in the occupied US.