"Best Science-Fiction Novel Ever Written (Round 4)" Topic

The only one that didn't have a movie or a TV series is The Mote in God's Eye. It should get some bonus points for that fact alone.

Wait for Bill's "best SF novel without a movie/TV show" poll, jefritrout. Though if Bill calls for separate nominations, I'll chuck in "Oath of Fealty" and "Lucifer's Hammer" as well.

As for this one, my prediction of a final five all of which have associated special effects-heavy movies still seems to be on track, but it won't be official until Parzival tells me again how insulting it was of me to point it out.

I vote solely based on the novels. It's irrelevant to me whether they were filmed/staged/animated/graphic-novelized/audiotaped/converted to Morse code/digitized/folk-balladized/finger-painted to music/whatever.

The films/series are so often lousy anyway.

My picks (in order):

Dune (films are bad(Lynch) to acceptable(recent))

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (which has the only film I really care for— Disney— but I loved the book long before ever seeing the Disney feature)

Nineteen Eighty-Four— (Have never seen either film adaptation, and do not wish to.)

Starship Troopers— (LOVE the book. HATE the film. HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE!!!)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy— ( Book is hilarious. Film is mediocre at best. As for the BBC TV series, I've never made it past the, err, "heroes" being picked up by the Heart of Gold. The book remains better.)

Starship Troopers— (LOVE the book. HATE the film. HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE!!!)

Me too

x42

And Robert, as the prime example of what I have been saying you are engaging in an unproven assumption not supported by any actual evidence. In fact, I have offered circumstantial evidence to refute your assertion, the evidence being:

1.) TMP is a site largely used by grognards. Grognards *never* like anything new-fangled. We will always "harumph" and complain about "the book was better."

2.) Correlation: TMP is populated largely by people over 50. We like old books. In most cases, we read these books largely before *any* movie was made (Dune, Starship Troopers, THHGTG), or in some cases the movies were made before we were old enough to see them, and remained out of our view until the broad use of VHS systems made movie rentals a possibility. (Basically any movie made up until the 1980s.)

3.) TMP is populated by readers, not watchers. Most of our games are based on historical periods or events, rarely or even never filmed, for which books and articles are the *only* source of information, and we buy those books in droves. If we see a film about areas of interest, we spend most of the time enumerating all the things the film-makers got wrong, down to the color of a cuff on a military uniform. When it comes to SF, this doesn't vanish. Back in the day I whined about the lack of actual ornithopters in the ‘80s Dune film— and I was a teenager when that travesty hit the screens. And don't get us started about the total lack of powered armor suits in the abysmal ST movie!

4.) Books become movies because the books are popular and the producers think they can make money off the fans of the book as well as the general population enticed by certain actors and the promise of block-buster action. Bestsellers become movies. Beloved classics become movies. The movies don't make the books sell or be read as much as the books already read make the movies sell. There's some back and forth there, but the book generally is popular long before anyone considers a film of it.

And thus, while yes, the ones that had movies made may be the top 5, on this site the movie probably has little to do with the selection.

Vote early, vote often!
Down with Dune!

I vote solely based on the novels. It's irrelevant to me whether they were filmed/staged/animated/graphic-novelized/audiotaped/converted to Morse code/digitized/folk-balladized/finger-painted to music/whatever.

Not even an Appalachian murder ballad?
Although, the closest to an Appalachian sci-fi novel I can think of is Joyleg. The Lord Kalvan books are relatively close.

Parzival, you DO realize that your every numbered point is your own unproven assumption, don't you?

Though we all seem to be in agreement about Starship Troopers book & film.

OFM. I'm on "vacation" and so far from my shelves. But take a look at Lewis Padget. Not an Appalachian SF novel, but a connected series of Appalachian SF short stories. Nudge me around the 13th, when I return from exile.

a.) I haven't voted for Starship Troopers in any round. It's a decent enough book, I read it once and enjoyed it. For my tastes it doesn't have any criterion for getting my 'best' vote. We've had much better literary works that have already lost out in earlier rounds.

b.) I've watched the movie several times, so on that basis would have to say I enjoy it more than the book.

=^,^=

John, the Hunger Games is good for Appalachian and [not-murder] ballads.

Probably counts as more Fantasy than Sci-Fi, but the collected stories of Silver John the Balladeer by Manly Wade Wellman would lend themselves to a ballad-filled series:
link

His last novel, The Beyonders, is Sci-Fi and Appalachian, I'm sure ballad(s) could be worked in for the film.

Robert: Yep. But mine are provable— I think there's some demographics info available somewhere on TMP (probably a poll… which kinda blows its value a bit )

"But mine are provable."

No, they're not. Or at least you haven't proven them: you've only asserted them. Item 4 is particularly wishful thinking. Note for instance that 2001 the book came out after 2001 the movie, or consider the relative sales of Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land. But Stranger had no explosions and would have required no "gosh wow" special effects. (For my money it was also a much worse book, but that's harder to establish objectively.)

I thought Heinlein reached his peak with "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Nominated and rejected. Oh well. I'm right, you're wrong. 😄
Also "Glory Road", but that's clearly Fantasy, so it doesn't belong in this Poll. It's very thoughtful. Read it. I love it. "Who shaves the barber?" 🙄🤔

"Stranger in a Strange Land" is just … strange. "Grok, Mister Heinlein"! 🙄
Later were… not as good. 🤷
The thing is that Heinlein loved to experiment with politics. "Starship Troopers" isn't Fascist in any way, shape or form. Unless you're pig ignorant.
Why do most of his novels differ so sharply in politics? 🙄🤔

Interesting thread – and John is spot on – "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" was Heinlein's peak

Arguably peak, at least. Certainly the last Heinlein fiction on my shelves--and I do NOT keep a copy of "Stranger." I'd say top three Heinlein were "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" "Starship Troopers" and the "Future History" taken as a body, from "Lifeline" through "Methuselah's Children" with "Orphans of the Sky" as a sort of epilogue.

Could I forgive 'Troopers fascism (oink) if it was well written?

I'll never know.

Rote reproduction of military story tropes (it's basically Iwo Jima in space), and the laughable enlistment of Rico's Dad…it's terrible.

But – what do I know?

Well, quite a lot. I know a good Appalachian murder ballad when I hear it….

The Starship Troopers novel is not fascistic at all. It's got nothing to do with fascism in any form. It's a novel about a young man's growth as a volunteer enlisted man, in a futuristic setting with futuristic (and still not replicated) arms and armor.

Fascism is actually a rather loose term. In most cases it involves a militaristic centralized government and economic system where economic policy is subject to direct government control by bureaucrats under a single-party government. It purports to be capitalistic, but it's actually socialistic in function— all economic activity subject to direct government control. And of course, active violent government suppression of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. In reality, real fascism is just dictatorship without any recourse by the people to alter things.

This is NOT present in Starship Troopers. While yes, the voting franchise is restricted to people who have served publicly in some form (not just militarily; the book is quite clear on this), the franchise is not granted until those people have left public service, so they cannot vote to benefit themselves while in public service. And thus, the power of the government cannot be enacted by the government bureaucrats themselves. That's not fascism; it's a form of republican democracy, with the franchise not universally present, but obtainable by anyone based solely on their own choices. You want to have a say in how society functions and what laws are enacted, choose to serve society— but you won't get the say until that service is done. That's not fascism by any stretch.
Are there flaws in this system? Yes— and the book actually (and subtly) depicts those flaws. But we only see the military side of this, as the book isn't about the political system in place— that's just some window dressing and musing by Heinlein. The society of this future Earth (which still feels very ‘50s American) is just to raise the question about public duty, and is really only present in the initial conversations between the protagonist and his former military high school teacher. After that, the book is all about war— first with a minor enemy, then in alliance with that enemy against an inhuman alien horde of semi-intelligent bugs. (I've seen it argued that Heinlein based the bugs on Mao's China and its North Korean puppet state, but that argument still doesn't make the book fascist.) The hero learns the importance of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. And that's the book.

Robert,

I said "provable." I wasn't claiming to offer the proof.

Unfortunately, there are age polls on TMP, but either the poll results have been lost or the search functions couldn't find them. (There was one in 2002, but that was 23 years ago. The discussion implies the bulk of the members at that time were in their thirties or older— meaning now these individuals are 50+))

A DuckDuckGo search on age range of TMP showed a site called "Similarweb" that stated TMP members were "mostly 65+" but that site itself required an account before viewing any data. Not touching that, thank you.

I recall a fairly recent (last few years) age poll?
Maybe Bill could weigh in?

On 3, it really goes without saying. Do you really think TMPers are illiterates or non-readers? (Kinda hard to play wargames without reading…)

On 4, I didn't say that *all* popular books are made into movies and TV shows. I just said that the books in question were popular (provable), and that's what caused them to be made into films (reasonable). Some popular works are frankly unfilmable (I don't know how you'd film Strange in a Strange Land, but I also wouldn't want to see it. I disliked that book when I started it, and gave up on it. I think Heinlein was starting to go a little off-kilter with that one.) But in most cases of SF, the book gains popularity and then Hollywood looks at it. (Or, in many cases, Hollywood believes that a given topic, theme or type of film will be popular, so they look for a work to adapt… or steal.)

Interestingly, none of Philip K. Dick's novels made the final votes, despite his works being made into very successful films and a TV series. So obviously, being filmed in and of itself is not a causal thing for this poll or the answers made.

The most common definition of "fascism" today is "Icky things that people I don't like do."

20th is using the new establishment definition of "fascist" Parz--much the same as the Communist use of "counter-revolutionary." It means anything unacceptable to them.

As for the "laughable" enlistment of people old enough to have children of military age--in wartime, no less--20th, when you're done with your study of Iwo Jima, you might want to read about states really up against it. A 30-year gap between youngest and oldest recruit isn't even uncommon. My father had men in his boot company 25 years older than he was, and he was on the winning side. And any old soldier has his stock of stories about running into people known from somewhere else.

TMP. Obviously not illiterate. And I'm not sure what constitutes a "non-reader." But my impression is that most of us spend more time watching fiction on TV than reading fiction, and have for decades. Apart from votes, watch the discussion on both SF Books and adventuring spacecraft. Generally, the discussion goes on as though there were no such thing as the printed word. So, as I said, I will not repeat the mistake in future poll suggestions. That too, I think, is "reasonable."