"Best Science-Fiction Novel Ever Written (Round 2A)" Topic
18 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Return to the Best Science-Fiction Novel Ever Written (Round 2A) Poll
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article How to store and transport an army of giant apes?
Featured Workbench Article Basing an inexpensive tree with a toy wheel and some clay.
Current Poll
|
 20thmaine  | 13 Sep 2025 4:06 a.m. PST |
Can someone explain about 20000 leagues? As I said last time, every time I have tried to read anything by Verne I have given up (which is very rare for me!) because it was so dull. So what am I missing? Is there a particularly good translation I should try? I'm hoping people aren't just voting for the films. |
 John the OFM | 13 Sep 2025 4:55 a.m. PST |
Folks are voting for the movie. 🤷 Once again, I am NOT voting for Dune. Why? I think it's not a very good sci-fi novel. In fact, the dumbness and silliness of the movie may have contributed to my dislike of the book. |
| robert piepenbrink | 13 Sep 2025 7:27 a.m. PST |
With OFM on this one. Final round is all movies all the way, and probably weighted for special effects within that. I look forward to Bill's "best SF novel not made into a movie" not because the ones made into movies were inherently worse, but because it's the only way to get the movie version(s) out of the conversation. But trust me, OFM, Dune was a poorly thought out book on a multitude of levels long before it was a movie. You don't need to have seen one of the movies to detest the book. |
| noggin2nog | 13 Sep 2025 8:08 a.m. PST |
Loved Dune, Dune Messiah and Children of Dune, couldn't stand God Emperor, so gave up there. Film versions are poor – average. |
 Parzival | 13 Sep 2025 8:54 a.m. PST |
It's pure nonsense to assert that everyone who is voting for a given novel are actually voting for the film based on the novel. In fact, it's insulting, and utterly lacking in any actual evidence. The real underlying reason for saying so is that *you* "don't get" or "don't like" the novel for your own particular reasons, but can't stand the idea that other people don't agree with you or your reasons, especially if the other people constitute a majority of opinion. *You* do not set the standard of what is appreciated by others. Why could I not suggest that people who don't vote for any given novel are really just people who only saw a film, and assume that film correctly presented the story, characters, themes, and philosophies of that novel? How is that assertion any less valid than the opposite? For the record, I am voting based on actually having read and appreciated the novel, in most cases on multiple readings. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea— have read multiple times in different translations. Excellent book, and stunningly prophetic in its presentation of a submarine vessel's potential and application for both science and military usage. Frankly, I think most people who declare it "dull" can't break away from their modern position of submarines being common, well known, and almost mundane to read the book in the context of a world where submarines were largely hypothetical, or extremely crude and clumsy with little practical use. But the novel also deals with themes of personal revenge, and politically-based violence, even quite bluntly terrorism, based on a single individual's interpretation of "justice" and an assumption that he is "allowed" to act with violence because he is "right." Yeah, that's no longer an important concept to examine. Dune— an incredible work of imagination, not merely in its story and characters, but in the presentation of a futuristic culture which is not Utopian at all, but rather oppressive, feudal, and even barbaric. And that's the "Good Guys." Humanity has reached the stars, and humanity sucks. But within it a young man strives to fight with yet also use a "destiny" declared for him by others for the betterment of a world, while still struggling with his own bloody impulses for revenge, justifiable though these may be. In the end, has he really made the galaxy better— or has he just supplanted one destructive, oppressive and corrupt empire with another? And of course there are elements of and questions about ecology and the destruction the desire for any given commodity can wreak upon the world and people themselves. Ender's Game— Perhaps the serialized novella is better than the novel, but it's a powerful tale with no easy answers. Is our hero justified in his ruthless, cold violence against bullies in his life? Is that same cold ruthlessness desirable and truly good when turned against a dangerous external, alien foe? Is victory in that fight enough to justify genocide? And what about the human soul, dragged into a life of violence by the plotting of others? The book raises these questions, but leaves it up to the reader to decide. While often sold as a children's book, I assert that it is not such a thing at all. (And the movie was stale and sterile— a video game rather than the exploration of philosophy the novel itself is.) A Canticle for Leibowitz— never filmed, and possibly never filmable. An examination of human faith, acknowledging that sometimes that faith may be flawed (or even arguably false) in its origins or elements, and yet it has power to endure, grow, and preserve the best in what makes us human, even as we repeat self-destructive cycles of violence and tyranny. The Door Into Summer— Is the past changeable? Or is the real power in changing who we are now, to make our past better by turning it towards a better future? It's not quite the philosophical head-scratcher of the others, but it's the first novel I recall actually showing how the "grandfather paradox" isn't a paradox at all, and the "time travel" can be a matter of perspective. These are my votes. And movies had nothing to do with any of them. |
| robert piepenbrink | 13 Sep 2025 10:09 a.m. PST |
Fair enough, Parzival. Actually, I also found Dune incredible, and "Ender's Game" a better short story than a novel. But all speculation on motivation behind a vote is just that, whether done by me or by the Gallup organization. Is it always insulting? Please note you'll be in an excellent position to roast me if either The Door into Summer or A Canticle for Leibowitz--both of which I also voted for--wins. But if the final five are as the voting so far would indicate--all movies, and special effects-heavy movies at that--you can say my case is unproven, but circumstantial evidence will strongly support it. I was trained as a historian and as an order of battle analyst. For absolute certainty, go to a chemist or an engineer, but neither does matters of taste or opinion. |
| John the OFM | 13 Sep 2025 10:48 a.m. PST |
It's pure nonsense to assert that everyone who is voting for a given novel are actually voting for the film based on the novel. In fact, it's insulting, and utterly lacking in any actual evidence. Straw man argument. Who's saying "everyone"? Presidents can win elections without "everyone" voting for them. (Damn. It's downright scary how AI predicted every word after I typed "Presidents") In fact, most win with far less. Go back to early 19th C with many parties, and John Quincy Adams winning with ~35%. A sizeable number voting for the movie/novel can put them over the top. I voted for Canticle for Leibowitz, and I'm unaware of any movies. I liked the novel of Ender's Game but never read the novella and never saw the movie. I read Dune back in the day, based on peer pressure. I disliked it. I read it so I could have something to argue about. I never bothered with the prequels or sequels. Enough was enough. The Lynch movie was dumber than the book. I'm cheering for The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. And it won't be because Linda Ronstadt sang a lovely song. I doubt it will ever get a movie. However, I'm betting that the finalists will be majority with movies. No, not "everyone" will vote because of the movie, but enough will. |
| Green Pelican | 13 Sep 2025 11:30 a.m. PST |
20th Maine, if you want a good translation of Verne's novels, try the Wesleyan University Press. Their versions are for adults ( as opposed to sci-fi-kiddy-lit), and done by better translators. IDK if they've done ‘20,000 Leagues' yet, but their ‘The Five Hundred Millions of the Begum' is excellent. |
| Parzival | 13 Sep 2025 11:33 a.m. PST |
But the existence of a movie is actually a sign of broad popularity of the novel. Obscure books do get films, but it's rare, and blockbuster money typically only goes into already proven sources for adaptation. So it's false to assert that anything is popular because of a film, if it can be established that it was already popular as a novel. And that's especially true of people here on TMP, who strike me as largely avid readers. As I've said before, this is not a video-game site. TMPers are largely middle-aged or older, and where they like movies based on novels, they are more likely than not to have already read the novel in question.
Can I prove that? No. But the demographics highly suggest it, as do the various threads and discussions which arise— even this poll itself, which contains some fairly obscure works as far as the general population goes. If this were a site attracting your average Gen Z/ Gen Y sort, I would agree. But it's not. We're Baby Boom and Gen X, to a great degree. We *are* the Book Generation. And Presidential politics "got nuthin' to do with it." Complete non sequitur. So it's impossible to say whether anybody's vote is based on other sources than the novel itself, unless they so state. So get over yourselves. You have absolutely *no* idea why the votes are going as they are. Stop yelling at the kids, and go play with them in the yard instead. |
 Editor in Chief Bill   | 13 Sep 2025 12:50 p.m. PST |
I liked the first four Dune novels, then they lost me. That was long before any movies. I agree that movies are most often made from popular books. That's common sense. |
| 20thmaine | 13 Sep 2025 1:14 p.m. PST |
@Green Pelican – thanks for the recommendation, I'll look into it! I'm well aware that a good translation makes or breaks a book, so I may have just picked up rather stilted literal translations rather than ones that better convey what it would be like to read in the original French. |
| robert piepenbrink | 13 Sep 2025 2:45 p.m. PST |
"But the existence of a movie is actually a sign of broad popularity of the novel." Broadly true, but not always. Note that 2001 is a novelization. The movie predates the book, and Clarke's draft was altered to agree with the rushes. And the people responsible for "Starship Troopers" insist they had the basic plot before having heard of the book and then bought the rights. Both are doing quite well in the poll. But by no means all popular SF novels are movie fodder. They sort for the ones which will have "awesome" special effects and "action sequences." (I don't think you'll ever see the likes of 2001 again: not enough explosions. I bet "Outland" gets streamed more.) For "a" movie, you'd be quite right about motivation. When the top--I think it was seven in the first round--all have an associated movie, I stop believing in coincidence. And as for Boomers being the "book generation" I stopped believing that when--no, actually I never did believe that, but it was fairly obviously not true back when politicians could still say 'Great Society" with a straight face. And it's painfully obvious as regards TMP through polls and discussions. All you mean is that our successors are even worse on average. ["But when DID the public read more, Robert?" Hard to be sure, but everything I can find points to a peak at some point between 1890 and 1950 for the Anglosphere. Word rates for magazines peak 1890-1910, more or less. Public schools are up and running with the children of turn of the century immigrants fully literate in English, the price of paper has dropped with wood pulp, and the price of printing with rotary presses. Radio and "talkies" hit in the late 1920's and television around 20 years later. Not many surveys of reading in this period, but some of the results are eye-popping.] |
| robert piepenbrink | 13 Sep 2025 2:45 p.m. PST |
"But the existence of a movie is actually a sign of broad popularity of the novel." Broadly true, but not always. Note that 2001 is a novelization. The movie predates the book, and Clarke's draft was altered to agree with the rushes. And the people responsible for "Starship Troopers" insist they had the basic plot before having heard of the book and then bought the rights. Both are doing quite well in the poll. But by no means all popular SF novels are movie fodder. They sort for the ones which will have "awesome" special effects and "action sequences." (I don't think you'll ever see the likes of 2001 again: not enough explosions. I bet "Outland" gets streamed more.) For "a" movie, you'd be quite right about motivation. When the top--I think it was seven in the first round--all have an associated movie, I stop believing in coincidence. And as for Boomers being the "book generation" I stopped believing that when--no, actually I never did believe that, but it was fairly obviously not true back when politicians could still say 'Great Society" with a straight face. And it's painfully obvious as regards TMP through polls and discussions. All you mean is that our successors are even worse on average. ["But when DID the public read more, Robert?" Hard to be sure, but everything I can find points to a peak at some point between 1890 and 1950 for the Anglosphere. Word rates for magazines peak 1890-1910, more or less. Public schools are up and running with the children of turn of the century immigrants fully literate in English, the price of paper has dropped with wood pulp, and the price of printing with rotary presses. Radio and "talkies" hit in the late 1920's and television around 20 years later. Not many surveys of reading in this period, but some of the results are eye-popping.] |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 13 Sep 2025 4:03 p.m. PST |
Note that 2001 is a novelization. The movie predates the book, and Clarke's draft was altered to agree with the rushes. But Clarke was co-author of the screenplay. I don't think that counts as a 'novellization'. |
| robert piepenbrink | 13 Sep 2025 4:35 p.m. PST |
I'm sure Clarke would agree with you, Bill. But he also said he had to rewrite parts of his manuscript when he saw Kubrick's rushes--meaning they were made without or contrary to his input. The movie was released in April 1968, the book in June of that year. If you know a better word for a book written to correspond with a movie, published after the movie and with a first cover, as I recall, which was a frame from the movie, I'd be interested. But the publication dates alone certainly take 2001 off Parzival's (unspecified) list of movies made because of the popularity of the novel, which was my initial point. If anything, it was the other way around: without the movie there might have been no novel, or the novel might have sold no more than, say, "Sands of Mars." |
 Old Contemptible | 13 Sep 2025 11:03 p.m. PST |
In addition to Clark's excellent "2001 a Space Odyssey" he also wrote the follow on works, "2010 Odyssey Two", "2069 Odyssey Three" and "3001: The Final Odyssey" All great reads and yes the two movies were very good. The last two books also deserve a movie. |
| John the OFM | 13 Sep 2025 11:10 p.m. PST |
I don't think too many hippies got glassy eyed stoned from reading Clarke's novel or novelization or whatever of 2001.
I thought he was a rather plodding writer. So I didn't vote for 2001.
Never attempted to read 20,000, so didn't vote for it. But, as RP predicts, the finalists will definitely have a strong backing from those who liked the namesake movie. I |
| robert piepenbrink | 14 Sep 2025 7:01 a.m. PST |
Not sure about the hippies, OFM. Certainly my eyes tend to glaze over when I read Clarke. But you know, I just picked up a cheap copy of Sands of Mars for a re-read. It's been about 50 years. At his best, Clarke put the science in science fiction. I'd say he struggled with plot and characterization, but I don't think it was so much trying and failing as not being what interested him. I still think of Tales from the White Hart as optimum Clarke. It's a short story collection, and each short story imagines a different scientific advance and its consequences. That's sufficient plot for a short story, and personalities would only have gotten in the way. There are perfectly good SF authors who won't do well on the poll because novels weren't their best work. It would be even worse if we were polling for best fantasy novel. |
|
