Pity. The carefully worded think piece was lost to the aether mid-sentence when the battery died.😥 What I had been thinking about was how some books acquire accolade over the years, perhaps accumulating it like too many layers of rust. There are some books that are quite deserving, because of what they said in their time, and the effect they've had on the genre and so many other pieces that follow them. Although I see all the problems I saw with Asimov's writing the first time I tried to read him, and more now, I have also been able to notice how many pieces of later science fiction are in dialogue with his vision of a galactic empire. It is the jumping-off point for George Lucas's empire (although most of the best of that concept is still in his head) it is likewise in dialogue with the empire in Dune. By extension it is probably in dialogue with a number of galactic empires that I haven't read because they are far too derivative. And probably a few that are in between. Although in the late 18th and early 19th century it might have been good form to have theories and information exposited in long alternating monologues between two characters, pretending it is a conversation- even by 1930s and 1940s standards it was clunky. But can you really blame Asimov at the time? I mean, I can't in good conscience recommend Foundation or Caves as good literature, on the other hand it would be outright dereliction to not mention them when discussing the history of the genre. There is still such a haze of anti-intellectualism surrounding the genre unfairly, that people within the genre feel they need to secure an intellectual high ground by presenting things academically. And I think these recommendations just accumulate over the years as Asimov has been in print for so long he's just got these recommendations stacked up higher than other people could compete with. His oeuvre was never intended to be a weight-bearing structure. Maybe his, but certainly not Heinlein. . .
i agree with what you said about three body problem.. the sequels got worse, but the SF ideas compelled me forward almost begrudgingly.. i mean i never read a book with such a furrow in my brow before. i was angry upon finishing the last book.. i really can't overstate how much i hate the main female protagonist.. its like the laws of the universe bend around her to ensure her survival, which is ironic i know... the SF ideas are great.. top tier.. but everything else is just frustrating and the characters are barely sketches.
I hope your arm is healed soon. I've always enjoy your videos since finding your channel. I have read science fiction and fantasy and later some horror all my life. I started with H G Wells when I was just learning to read and struggled with them but still enjoyed The Time Machine and War of the Worlds back in grade 3, read my first horrow novel "The Rats" by Herbert then too, later read 20,000 Leagues under the sea (librarian told me that I was too young to read that - was in grade 5). I think part of the problem of a book/author is considered "overhyped" comes from when the books were written. I bring up HG Wells as it is written very differently than books written today and some concepts and jargon can take a bit of effort to overcome. I do find Foundation by Asimov is a bit overhyped (really only liked the Mule) but very much enjoy his Robot series and the book The Complete Robot that contains the short stories. I am a fan of Dan Simmons, Alistair Reynolds, PKD, EE (Doc) Smith (some of his early stuff is hard to get through) to name a few. Also enjoyed The Expanse and The war against the Chtorr (though it has never been finished). As I grow older I seem to lean towards the harder SF. The one series that I find was overly hyped was Red Rising. I did get through 1-4. He can write action scenes but there seems to be little imagination. Andy Wier is over rated. Dark Matter by Blake Crouch started off ok but then became a mess - so much hype on that book and such a disappointment I doubt I'll read anything by him. Area X: The southern breach by Jeff VanderMeer just never really went anywhere (DNF part way through book 2). Roadside Picnic was a miss for me. And I have been trying to get into the Ian Banks Culture series (only finished 2 of the books of that series) but haven't found them to live up to the reviews. Peter F Hamilton's Reality Disfunction series was good except he wrote himself into a corner and his other series I've found to be overly long - also seemed to be a rip of Hyperion. I agree with you that many of the "chunky" books could do with some editing and some massive cuts.
I feel kind of badly about Dune. For all of my formative years it was . . . kind of obscure. It was known, stayed in print, had a following, but boots on the ground, talking to the average science fiction reader, Dune was considered both A step above, and a step beyond. Back in those days there were complaints that it didn't have enough action, that it was all talking (take THAT Asimov fans!) that it was too long, that it was too hard, it was too weird or too far out. I feel like it's only been in the past 10 or 15 years that dudebros keep telling each other the Dune is the greatest book of all time, and slapping each other on their backs because as dude Bros they read about dudebros while they talk to each other about crypto spice and ruling the universe as a dude bro. Nyiiiice. That is totally not Frank Herbert's fault. I mean none of these guys is running around saying: "Dude, "The White Plage" was EPIC! Yo, "The Lazarus Effect " altered my perception of reality!
Well, as the media- and co nsequently hype- has become bigger and more all-encompassing, it may feel like 'Dune' was "obscure" but the reality is that it was such a bestseller and so well known in the 60s and 70s that the UK edition had no blurb- the publishers were so confident it would sell anyway. It may feel like it's only come to the situation you descrie recently, but ask yourself this: how many more 1960s SF novels were about to be filmed by the late 70s? As you say though, not Frank's fault.
@outlawbookselleroriginal Very elegantly put. I appreciate your kindness to me, but it is *possible* I was surrounded by dullard's and chuckleheads. I do remember that when each new Dune book came out, it always had space at the local Waldenbooks shop window, and it would have its own table (or space on a table.) So I appreciate you being gentle with me. A gentleman, . . . and a scholar!! Still, I think post-internet it has suffered from an echo chamber that many things have, including a strange urge to intellectual materialism, with people who "cut to the chase" on every topic-always wanting to start with "the best" in whatever field they are delving. I see it a lot on booktube when people are making lists of where to start - why would you want to start with the "best" of any author leaving you only to read lesser works as you grow more familiar with them? Isn't what makes a particular work, a masterpiece: Witnessing the refinement of skill and technique that leads up to a piece? I mean, just consider Asimov recommendations: "Start with this one, it is the best, now you have a hundred lesser works to read after." WTF? I know that you know. I believe you wrote a book about recommendations!
What a thought provoking video. My tuppence worth: a) Iain M Banks is vastly overrrated. I find the books I have waded through formulaic and the characters shallow and often interchangeable but b) Iain Banks (his more literary nom de plume) has written really good SF which seem to have been overrlooked 'Walking on Glass', 'The Bridge' , 'Transition' etc etc. Whereas I find all Iain M Banks books much the same under the surface, all Iain Banks books to me are high quality and very different. c) Frankenstein. I read this again last year and it didn't live up to my memory of reading it a s a teenager. Mary Shelley was 19 when she started this I think and boy does it show. BUT, it suddenly struck me that the villain of the book is really (obvious to everyone but me it seems!) Frankenstein who is a dysfunctional father to the monster ignoring him, not even giving him a name and not educating him at all. The monster's delinquincy thus is to be expected. At the time I believe Mary's father was not talking to her at all. What a way to get back at Dad! Full marks to her for that. Her post apocalyptic book, The Last Man I found well worth a read. d) Foundation. I loved this when I read it as a young teenager. I tried to read it again last year and failed. It is so badly written ...endless dull dialogue...which seems to have been the style in the early fifties because Heinlein does some of that too I seem to recall. e) But badly or atrociously written books do seem popular..I concur in finding The Three Body Problem and The Martian both unreadable for that reason. f) I am conforming to the general view here again but Peter F Hamilton! I've read a couple of these bloatworks but life's just too short! g) Against the grain, I read Dune again and I still think its good. I do like the writing style, which some don't and the ideas. The later books not so much.
Speaking of liking books that no one talks about, I just posted my review of K.W. Jeter’s cyberpunk trilogy on my Speculative Reader channel, having been inspired by you, sir, to read Dr. Adder.
Congratulations. Jeter remains unsung and criminaly out of print: even at the time he was too abrasive for most, but that discomfort he invokes is for me the essence of truly great SF. Try Lewis Shiner's 'Frontera' next if you can find it.
Steve, great video! After hearing *so many* recommendations, it's refreshing to hear a lot of people in the peanut gallery agreeing about The Emperor's New clothes. "But again, it's that old thing of expectation.... Isn't it?" Well that's really at the center of the term overrated isn't it? I feel like that's the way it's more commonly used. I feel like fewer people are willing to make declarations about actual quality, or be able to agree on a set of literary and cultural metrics upon which to judge the objective quality of anyone's effort. But we can all (usually) agree that we've heard far more about something than it deserves. After all: expectation effects setting which effects experience. How could any book, beer, or baked good live up to this level of expectation that is created? I think I would have been okay with the three-body problem (for all its flaws) if multiple recommendations had been more like: "this has some very interesting ideas and it gets better as it goes long" as opposed to: 1st book- wins all the awards; it is a new masterpiece!; and the new home of Science Fiction super thought is China!; and each successive book goes even farther, and is even better!!! I mean, hyperbole you could choke on. . . (And this from a fellow who knows he can be somewhat hyperbolic, and represents a choking hazard himself sometimes. . . )
I struggled with Neuromancer and it was a DNF for me. I found it chaotic, lacking clarity in the narrative. However, I'm prepared to reconsider because so many knowledgeable and discerning readers (such as yourself) recommend it. Maybe I missed something on first attempt. I'm going to give it another go.
You must. Two points worth remembering: cognitive dissonance is a mark of sophisticated SF- it's set in the future, a future that would be strange for anyone dropped into it. Gibson doesn't infodump much, another mark of sophisticated writing. Most of the time, the characters don't know what's going on- only Wintermute does.
A brilliant novel is "Light" by M. John Harrison. He's a writer with impeccable skills and had the intriguing idea (i.e. novum) of using the microscopic quantum world on a macroscopic galaxy spanning setting. Unbelievable, that a writer with such prowess is hardly mentioned at all.
There is an interview with M John here on the channel and he is mentioned here regularly, so check out my backlist. I've known Mike personally since 1989.
I think that the question of the "most overrated" sf writers is ambiguous, because one wants to ask "by whom?". By the general culture? by the media? by sf critics? by readers of sf,?by sf "fans"? by those with a long history of reading sf (and thus of a certain age)? Very often when people talk about sf, they talk about their own personal history of reading science fiction, when it began, what they've read, what they think is important or "overrated" based on their own voyage through sf and also through the various critiques and comments that one runs in to as one goes along. This is why that I think that paradoxically sf, which is supposed to be future-oriented, is more about "anamnesis", going back over the past, as a lever into the future. People obsess about the definition of sf, and turn to its history to come up with a response (if not an answer). They discover that ideas that they discover and like have been put forward before, and that much of sf is in a very large part in dialogue with what went before. So if we have been a reader of sf for a decade or more (I'm a little older than you, 70) we have a double or triple vision of the highly rated works, a 3D grid: historically important or original, key work in my own personal reading journey, something I could pick up now and enjoy on contemporary terms. This grid adds depth and nuance to our evaluations. Much of your channel is, and rightly so, composed of anamnesis in this sense. A surprising fact about most sf up to now is that most of the story takes place in the head, rather than in external action, and this is true not just of DUNE, but even of Asimov and Heinlein. Asimov's FOUNDATION while painfully outdated in many ways is far superior to THE MARTIAN in its approach to problem-solving (each stage solves a seemingly insoluble problem and then engenders a new such problem, etc.) and captures the speculative element of science, thus differentiating from the "engineering" approach of THE MARTIAN. This action-in-the-head quality is what makes sf virtually unfilmable. A case in point is DUNE, where most of the "action" is plans within plans, people spotting subtle signs and decoding them without showing anything. Villeneuve's two films, which I liked, are inevitably dumbings down as they must translate the cerebral into the behavioural. To show the worry or epugnance of Jessica, a Bene Gesserit capable of controlling her body down to the micro-muscular, neuronal, and even molecular level, he has to show her panicking overtly or vomiting at drinkng a corpse's extracted water, the exact opposite of her character's defining traits. So DUNE the novel towers above its adaptations and is a fine exemplar of SF. Thanks for being as ever thought-provoking, that's what SF is all about too.
Pretty funny. When I saw the title, I immediately thought "Heinlein". And that was the first name you mentioned. I have tried to read 4 of his "most loved" novels (Starship Troopers, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Stranger in a Strange Land, Job) and couldn't make it through any of them. Just something about the prose / style. It's very possible that he may have written something that I will absolutely love, but at this point in my life (I'm 55), I am not quick to pick up anything else of his. There are just too many other authors, and too little time to get to them.
You could have chosen so many of his earlier books (Especially the so-called 'juveniles') or collections of his often brilliant short stories and been a big fan. I think I have all Heinlein's fiction but have not read Job or even Starship... , or many of his later books but they are on my shelves waiting.
Heinlein was the first SF writer I read, as a teen, and I became obsessed with the genre.. He was a pioneer of what are now called 'Young Adult' novels, which barely existed at the time. Even for adult readers, these early novels are vivid, brisk, & short. Anyone who reads the later books should seek out the ORIGINAL editions. After his death, his widow insisted on putting back all the stuff his publishers had insisted on removing because they are too long. He's actually best as a short story writer, notably his time-paradox tales.
I am going to admit this, I have tried Dune at least three times and each time I ditched it. I don't know if it is the writing or the fact I have seen the original film like four times sat through the mini series and the remake but I just fine it kind of flat, I didn't feel anything for any of the characters and at times I felt like it is all bit silly.
I very much agree with most of this. I'd never read a Heinlein until fairly recently when I grabbed The Puppet Masters from the shelf of my local used book store. Frankly it was dreadful and I stopped after 50 pages. There are too many great works to be read; no time to waste on garbage. 3-bod-prob is also dire. Enuff said on that one; you nailed it. I also have a low regard for Dune, so count me in on that too. Never read a Scalzi, so can't comment on his work. Regarding Asimov, I enjoyed I Robot but that's the only work of his that I've experienced. He seemed competent as a writer, with an interesting tale to tell.
I don't have enough SF culture to express a relevant opinion in this matter. Starship Troopers left me cold and I read nothing else from Heinlein because of it. Ender's Game is some of the same. I can't remember anything from it. Neuromancer is great and I believe seminal but I don't know what Mona Lisa Overdrive is. I read and I read and I don't get what is about. Burning Chrome... 🤥 Even New Rose Hotel which made a great film with Christopher Walken and Willem Dafoe is a lot of tedious rambling. Now, the inclusion of Dune in these charts leaves me a little perplexed. Overrated? Maybe, I don't know. But it's a great book. Uneven series, but The God Emperor touched on the greatness of the first novel. Anything else from Herbert, I don't think so. I tried Lazarus Effect and did nothing for me. I tried Foundation because of Dune and... IT'S NOT DUNE. Yes, Caves of Steel. Now, we have to understand that the so called hype through the media is just marketing and advertisement done by entities which are in the same media conglomerate as the publishing house. I just read Song of Kali because you mentioned it and is good with a little flimsy ending. I don't think it's horror though. I see it more as a portrayal of Indian society. It's a social novel.
I made this point before on a channel I can't remember if it was yours so apologies if I repeat myself but speaking of James Joyce... James Blish brings 'Finnegans Wake' into Star Trek you know. In Blish’s Star Trek novel 'Spock Must Die!' the USS Enterprise is driven into a corner by the Klingons who can intercept any communication with Starfleet Command. Lt Uhura proposes a solution: ‘There's an alternative, Captain, though it's risky; we can translate the clear into Eurish’. ‘What's that? I never heard of it’. ‘It's the synthetic language James Joyce invented for his last novel, over two hundred years ago. It contains forty or fifty other languages, including slang in all of them. Nobody but an Earthman could possibly make sense of it, and there are only a few hundred of them who are fluent in it. There's the risk; it may take Starfleet Command some time to run down an expert in it -- if they even recognize it for what it is’. Being a communications officer, Kirk realized anew, involved a good many fields of knowledge besides sub-space radio. ‘Can it handle scientific terms?’ ‘Indeed it can. You know the elementary particle called the quark; well, that's a Eurish word. Joyce himself predicted nuclear fission in the novel I mentioned. I can't quote it precisely, but roughly it goes, 'The abniliilisation of the etym expolodotonates through Parsuralia with an ivanmorinthorrorumble fragoromboassity amidwhiches general uttermosts confussion are perceivable moletons skaping with mulicules.' There's more, but I can't recall it -- it has been a long time since I last read the book’. ‘That's more than enough’, Kirk said hastily. ‘Go ahead - just as long as you're sure you can read the answer’. ‘Nobody's ever dead sure of what Eurish means’, Uhura said. ‘But I can probably read more of it than the Klingons could. To them, it'll be pure gibberish’. And they won't be alone, Kirk thought. - James Blish, 'Spock Must Die!', 1970. I am doing a PhD on the Wake at the moment and I brought that into my draft and my supervisor thought that was a bit dangerous bringing Star Trek into a PhD thesis and so, though I am so disappointed, I have cut it out. And anyway I am absolutely certain that someone at some time will have done a PhD on Star Trek. I am still tempted though to bring my favourite SF authors into it. Brian Aldiss, 'Barefoot in the Head', 1969, now if Joyce had written SF that is what it would have been like!
That was a lot of fun. My take is many of the books I once adored and loved in my teens I can no longer relate to anymore. For context, I’m Australian, was born in 1954 and fell in love with science fiction when I was 11 in 1966. My first was Tunnel in the Sky by Robert A Heinlein. Over the next couple of years I devoured Heinlein’s early works and his Juvenile novels in the Gollancz print. I also devoured Andre Norton, Ray Bradbury, Issac Asimov and Arthur C Clark. Now I cannot stand them and have no interest in reading them. Heinlein’s later works I From the mid 70s onwards Heinlein’s novels are bloated and in serious need of a decent editor. Also, they seem to have been written by Uncle Ernie from The Who’s Tommy. Asimov should have retired after The Gods Themselves. I don’t know if his desire to complete and integrate the Robot and Foundation series was due to hubris, greed or desire to please fans but I wish someone had told him NO. Same with Clarke and his novels past Rendezvous with Rama and The Fountains of Paradise. Don’t get me wrong the Asimov’s later Robot and Foundation novels are OK as are Clarke’s novels from Rendevouz with Rama (not the sequels) and The Fountains of Paradise are also OK. But … they didn’t deserve the awards they received and were eclipsed in quality, style and technique by the novels written by new wave authors during the 70s.
Australian science fiction is largely quarantined. Can you recommend any seminal, pivotal, or really entertaining Australian SF authors or works to look out for?
@@outlawbookselleroriginal 0h Steve! Thank you so much! I wasn't trying to make you write - I thought the Australian fella I replied to would answer! I know about Terry, and I forgot about Greg. Thank you. 😅❤️
I missed the poll but I would agree for most of these authors. I do intend to re-read "Foundation" to see what I feel decades later. I've only read "Redshirts" by Scalzi which didn't impress me. I've never liked Heinlein, though Iiked "The Puppet Masters". Every translation is a traitor, as my lecturers used to tell me. I liked the start of "Three Body Problem" but got a bit bored later on. Having said that, I really loved The Dark Forest." Go figure! I'm really sorry that people like Disch, Malzberg, Cowper et al don't get get more recognition.
Hmmm. I think this is a question of disagreeing with a certain amount of consensus. I wonder which book or author would have the most consensus hence being the least overrated. Perhaps ‘Frankenstein’ and H. G. Wells.
The thing with SF is that its very nature suggests questioning of consensus and overthrowing it- overturning one paradgim and replacing it with another: it's an evolutionary and revolutionary genre, both in its essential being and in its status as a genre. The inability of SF to create a fresh novum or nine for itself since the early 1990s explains much of my dissatisfaction with the genre after its period of incredibly fast evolution- from 1940 to 1990. So much SF now does not challenge consensus and is niether evolutionary or revolutionary- this is the problem of the Postmodern condition. While some much-lauded works are supported by consensus, making us consider who or what comprises the consensus and if its paradigm needs overturning, some are landmarks in creating a new paradigm- I'd say that while 'Foundation' was a landmark for Genre SF's coming of age within the pulp tradition, it wasn't new for literature as a whole. Conversely, 'Neuromancer' both challenged Genre consensus and was a new thing in literature per se, despite precursors that weren't quite as Novum-making. For me, it's sometimes as simple as many of the famous books being mentioned here not impressing me as Writing- that's my starting point for a work being overrated.
I’ve loved Dune since I was a kid, but really, it should get buried for a few hundred years. Reprinted endlessly, to the exclusion of all other Herbert (and all other SF almost). And when it comes to Stranger In a Strange Land, I always just saw it as a late-middle age author writing to get himself some counterculture beatnik slatch...
The Sparrow annoys me so much that I’m completely put off reading any books that involve missionaries in space (correctly or not) such as Blish and The Book of Strange New Things. It’s such an awful book in so many ways, but ultimately the writing is just so poor that it’s reason enough to avoid before you even get to the problem of the terrible science and cringey self-insertion by the author.
Thank goodness I will never have to bother to try to pronounce anything Welsh properly again - as I am not Welsh 😛 I think that a bigger problem than the 'tyranny of the popular' is 'genre myopia'. Not that I am accusing anyone in particular of that - but it is a regular occurence. I think that reading extensively outside of the genre probably affects one's opinion on which sci-fi novels are good or not.
Interesting video. I've had a problem of late where I go into some of these highly (over) rated books with massive expectations, and end up not enjoying them because they just fail to reach those heights. I've often have to take a deep breath and almost try to forget they are so over hyped. Two books I consider most overrated would have to be Roadside Picnic and Solaris. Both bored me to death. I also think there's a right time and place for certain books. If I'm tired and stressed due to the day job I'll sometimes need an Andy Weir or Scalzi.
One minute into the video and I'm going to say YES. Some books and authors are always talked about. No one wants to try something new anymore. Risk aversion is making the entertainment bland and miserable and that is why I avoid it, because the same tales are spun over and over again, using the same yarn.
Love ya, man! You always add to my appreciation for great SF! AND you added a fantastic line to my day, "I'm not Chinese, I'm Welsh!" Robert H was hit or miss for me. The first I ever read by him was the short "The Roads Must Roll," which I thought was a very good combination of many of the attributes I appreciate in SF: interesting tech concepts, a strong individualist philosophical punch, and a gripping plot. You bring up so many other facets of the other writers that also are valuable. Thanks for the incredibly valuable insights!
Thought-provoking video. Thanks for not only sharing your opinion but being a conduit to share those of others. Despite my internet sleuthing I’m still obsessing about the mystery of one of the books behind you. Who is the author of the author of the “Wild Thing” book?
Great video! Sf reply The first book that popped into my mind reading the title of your video was Enders Game. Won all the awards. It actually turned me off to SF reading for some years. Not bad, very very average. There are plenty of average Hugo winners.
Very interesting. Have read most of Asimov, Herbert and Heinlein novels. Unlike the first two, I can't recall reading a Heinlein I didn't like. Not read Scalzi yet, but might do this year. Have overlooked the Three Body Problem books for some reason, and definitely not sold on them from this!
One of the books for me that waa over-hyped, was The Passenger by Cormack McCarthy, it was billed as something like an Opus for the other and I could not gel with it at all , I didn't even attempt to read Stella Maris , as I found the premise just so depressing
Having said that about "This Immortal", I think it's a much better novel than "Dune". They shared the Hugo for the best SF novel of the year, but Zelazny's novel is more compact and structured. Roger Zelazny is a much better writer than Frank Herbert.
I read Banks’s work when it first came out and loved them. But I recently reread Player of Games and it wasn’t as good, so I suspect Banks is a bit overrated now.
I wasn't into Stranger In A Strange land, as it just wasn't what I was after in a SF novel. I've got Starship Trooper's on my shelf, I do hope I enjoy that one. I read Neuromancer thirty years ago and found it quite heavy going at the time, although I did feel like a cool kat reading it at Technical College during the breaks. I've nearly finished Fairyland by Paul J. McAuley which I'm quite enjoying and find it the better book. Dune was fine but I don't get the obsession people have for it.
Missed the question somehow so didn't offer my choice. Neal Stephenson's Snowcrash I found completely unreadable. Managed about 3 chapters, if that. Neal Asher's Gridlinked came well recommended and seemed a poor relation to a number of other comparable works.
When I started reading SF back in the mid 1960s the obvious choices at the time were Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. Herbert came later, was hyped up a lot, and Dune seemed to blow A, H, and C out of the water. Then came the sequels. Read them all, but it was only when I read PKD that I became hooked on SF. Now I just cannot reread Heinlein, Asimov, the usual suspects. They're just boring.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Dune, The Left Hand of Darkness, Rendezvous with Rama, Lord of Light. Good,but not brilliant for my taste. 5 most overrated SF books(unfortunately underrated much more). Thank you Steve for Your fantastic program!
Currently reading Brian Aldiss' Frankenstein Unbound which I am enjoying more than Mary Shelley's Frankenstein by miles. I will take your points to heart though, Stephen and look for that particular early copy of the book. Incidentally, I am not saying it is not an important book, just that it is overrated. Why I don't like it... I have a couple of general, and several very specific reasons and a couple of them may well have to do with the editions I have read (I have read it several times, it is like a scab one can't stop scratching even though you know you are making it worse) I think the prose is florid and the main character whiny. This is fair, as the author was a teenager when she wrote it and on it's own is not enough to make me dislike a book but it counts against it and I have other issues: One big issue is very much to do with the hype, so relevant to this video. Everyone lauding it as the 'first SF' and the grandfather/grandmother/whatever of science fiction. There is virtually NO science in it and whenever I make that point people keep mentioning things that happened in THE MOVIES to prove it is an SF book and that has been aggravating me for years. Science Fiction would be the reanimation of the dead, bodies being stitched together from parts of corpses, reanimated with lightning? All of that which is undoubtable horror and would be really innovative SF the author glosses over entirely. The whole process, all that construction is described as 'many years work' and the reanimation as 'I beheld the accomplishment of my toils'. That's it, no description. Repeating 'Galvanic action' a few dozen times, because she read about it in an article is not enough and the contexts in which she uses the phrase suggests to me that she did not understand it. But to even get to that unexciting, underwhelming climax you need to drearily toil through four chapters of maudlin, wordy prose largely unrelated to the subject you thought you were going to be reading about...... and I will stop now because I could go on a great length. Sorry to rant, but you did ask. I hope your arm heals well and fully, it must be very frustrating.
When I read 'Frankenstein' for the first time, it was rarely discussed as SF except in critical works and of course there was no internet then. Aldiss, of course, was the populariser of the idea of it as the 1st SF novel- and his insights are why '..Unbound' is so great (it's been a fave of mine si ce my teens). Watch my video 'Mary Shelley Was Never Cancelled: Frankenstein, Romanticism and Cyberpunk'. It's context and place in Cultural history that makes the novel so key.
The first name that comes to mind when asked, "who is the most overrated Science Fiction author?', is Arthur C. Clarke. Have never read anything written by this dude I liked.
I know that Heinlein gets a tough break, especially among contemporary SF readers. But I just love Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and Time Enough For Love so much.
I like a lot of the works of his that I have read. That said Stranger in a strange land is a tough read. I am bit more of fan of his later works were he became a bit of a dirty old man.
I only made it through the first four volumes of Dune. The first book has some interesting touches and there's actually some inchoate elements containing the seeds of a potentially great novel. But it's just so heavily weighed down with less than compelling political intrigue and muddle-headed philosophy/theology that permeate the book that are impossible to simply overlook. I know that Herbert fans say that if you delve deeper into the mythology it greatly enriches the experience, but honestly this fictional world just didn't grab me strongly enough especially when that's time I could be spending, say, reading more history books about the actual world we live in. Also the unconventional narrative style and pace doesn't work for me. There may have been some avant-garde or modernist intention behind it, but to me it just came across as frustrating and confusing.
I know I've commented a lot, and a couple others have joined me in being long-winded. I think this just means we've missed you, and we're happy to have a new video. Thank you my friend.
"Three Body Problem" - badly translated. That's why I wasn't interested in it when the hype reached me. The German version was plain boring, but I figured that there might be more English speaking translators and this version was better indeed. I agree that TBP has some brilliant ideas in it which work well as a premise. Unfortunately, the other two parts were not that readable although there is a stunning idea in it. Kudos for this well informed video.
Listen to an interview with Ken Liu on this topic. He was a native Chinese speaker, and moved to the States when he was 11 and at an age where he was really interested in the idioms and slang of Chinese speech and how they were constructed. After he emigrated he stayed in touch with a number of friends back in China, and continued to stay abreast of the language. When he was first approached to translate Cixin Liu they had already attempted to translate it to English, & felt it wasn't successful. ( Perhaps just individual stories?) He said that so much of Cixin's work was idiomatic and built upon imagery that it would not translate, and a lot of more modern slang that translators we're not aware of, we're too formalized to see & that all the translations he saw were missing the meanings, so he had to rewrite and strive to get the concepts and metaphors back in. Honestly, when you listen to the interview you have complete faith in 1) Cixin Liu's ability to be misunderstood, 2) and Ken Liu's ability to see multiple possibilities. His translation may not be perfect, but it is clearly head and tails above everything else they were getting. If he does say so himself. 😉
Every Heinlein book I've ever read was amazing, so at this point in my sci Fi journey I could not disagree more with that choice... (I've only read 6-7 but those were good enough to safely keep him off such a list IMO)
I've tried to read Dune but just found the prose dry and tedious, but I do credit it because I wanted to find something with the same philosophical themes but better written (IMO) which led me to Neverness by David Zindell which I enjoyed immensely.
Try Silverberg's works that focus on redemption, transcendence and transformation- I cover them on this channel- they will get you to those themes. Fact is, ALL great SF is philosophical.
Dahlgren lurked in my mind for decades after reading it in the late 70's. I tried to reread last year and barely got started before I had to put it down.
I have a hard time judging science fiction because time changes things. I read Edgar rice Burroughs when I was a kid and loved it. I can get through 5 pages now
Critical consensus means absolutely nothing in this day and age of awards being absolutely biased. Hugo awards for example mean next to nothing anymore IMO, over the last decade. I don't even care anymore after reading a couple god awful winners during recent times. Again this is just my opinion hope no one takes it personally.
Hoo boy, I do have some opinions on overrated authors that let's just say would be of interest to the (unexpected branch of) the spanish Inquisition. Chief among them, not SF, but Stephen King. Oh man, I just do not think he is a good writer. He was produced some good works, but 95% of his bibliography ranges from mediocre to utter trash... (And Koontz i think is even worse. downright unbearable.) But in terms of Science Fiction, yes Dune is grossly overrated, an I say that as a massive fan. It's good, it is not the second coming of the proverbial messiah. And I think Asimov is also overrated, not because he is bad, but his popularity and the hype surrounding him is completely out of proportion. On the topic of Andy Weir, I cannot say if he is overrated or not, the man has produced like 3 novels, 1 of which is widely panned. I think the Martian is overrated, despite me liking it a lot. OTOH Project Hail Mary I enjoyed very much, despite its flaws. It hit the sweetspot of mostly believable or existing science, with a touch of the fantastic, great characters, and optimistic viewpoint, which I think is not common enough in SF. Yes, bleak dystopian worlds are the bread and butter of any artform that wants to critique the world, past present and future. But there is room for more upbeat works I think. If done well, because otherwise they are grating and insufferable. He does handwave some things, but I think we can forgive some amount of artistic license. I think where he is hit or miss is the way he writes, and the kind of humourous lighthearted prose he uses. Personally I think his next work is going to be a make or break one for him, because both the Martan and PHM have exactly the same style, and if he does write another book in that exact same style, I think it is going to start feeling old. So I an very curious where he will go next. I also think another sacred cow of SF is vastly overrated, not in regards to his impact and influence, but his actual artistic value. And I know that as soon as I say his name even you Steve will sharpen pitchforks and fix bayonets, especially considering he was at the top of your top SF books.Yes I am talking about George Orwell. I cannot stand the guy. I don't know, I find a reeking reactionary conservatism lurking beneath his socialist facade. So yes, my issue with him is not on his prose skills or anything like that. I just can't seem to get on with the guy. Granted, I have not read any of his works in more than 20 years but I can't push myself to do it. Here's a funny story about William Gibson. 30 something years ago I tried reading his Sprawl trilogy, but then of course access to books in english was very limited, as it was the pre internet era. So I tried reading the Greek translations floating around at the time. Gah, could not do it. It was grating and annoying and felt like very bad prose. So for the longest time I was torn within, since I love cyberpunk as a whole, no doubt about that. But was Gibson bad, or was he not for me? Thankfuly when I picked reading literature up again a couple of years back I was determined to try and read Neuromancer, this time the original text. And of course, I loved it! it was an easy 5/5 for me, it hit on all cylinders. So I can strike him finally from my list of overrated authors and add him to my list of perfectly rated ones, haha. PS: Oh, forgot to add, I absolutely hate Heinlein, can't stand the guy, even if he invented power armour! I find him way overrated, especially in the company of authors he is usually mentioned alongside!
You have to remember that Orwell was, after all, a product of lower middle class upbringing, so he sometimes comes across as conservative with a small C. Also, he was an outsider, a critic of fashionable champagne Socialists who slavishly admired Stalin. But sometimes we just don't dig writers, no matter what others say....
It's amazing that no one appears to have singled out an Arthur C. Clarke book for shaming here. To my mind he was a marginally worse writer than Asimov, which makes him the number one worst SF writer certainly among the big three. An interesting video, Steve.
Dune, Foundation, Three Bodies - yes, yes & yes. Overblown & overrated. Enders Game - pre-Harry Potter for sci-fi. Hyperion? Anyone who thinks this is overrated - don't ever speak to me again. :D
If Trumpo could read, I think he'd like Heinlen l. But: bronze goes to the publisher and editor(s) of The 3BP; silver goes to the translator (bruv and fellow non- native English speaker); gold to the writer. Showing that AI is far more advanced in China than anyone would dare to believe - although its understanding of anything human is at the Very Hungry Caterpillar (no offence, great book for hangovers) level of breadth and insight.
IMO: Overrated SF Authors: 5. Robert Silverberg, 4. Douglas Adams, 3.Harland Ellison, 2. A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller Jr. 1. Frank Herbert Most Underrated SF Authors: 5. Zenna Henderson, 4. John Brunner, 3.C.J. Cherryh, 2.Steven Brust 1. Janet Kagan, The MUST READ if you're claiming to be an SF fan: 15. H.G.Wells, 14. Jules Verne, 13. Frederick Pohl, 12. Jack Williamson, 11. Walt & Leigh Richmond, 10. Andre Norton, 9. Arthur C. Clark, 8. John Campbell, 7. Clifford D. Simak, 6. Gordon Dickson, 5. Edward E. "Doc" Smith, 4. Isaac Asimov, 3. Kieth Laumer 2. Roger Zelazny, 1. Robert Heinlein.
Sorry Steve I never ment to send anything was just reading the comments must have hit emoji and sent without me realising Doh!!! Enjoyed the video though !
That doesn't hold water because of its scientific base- it resembles a dynastic fantasy, as I say in the video, but the Butlerian Jihad allowed Herbert to dispense with the IT-based tech one would expect in such a story, which is quite clever.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Thank you for answering my post. The technology and the science in Dune is rather a sideshow whereas the prophecy and the sword fights are tell tale for fantasy. Maybe my verdict is too harsh but I never understood what the science in Dune was. The fiction was much more evident.
Great video! Sf reply The first book that popped into my mind reading the title of your video was Enders Game. Won all the awards. It actually turned me off to SF reading for some years. Not bad, very very average. There are plenty of average Hugo winners.
True. It's only a popularity poll after all and as SF should be strange and groundbreaking, it nonetheless has plenty of readers who want comfort and familiarity. It totally lost any credibility when Rowling won it....
I would defend A Canticle for Leibowitz. The third part was incredibly impactful for me and will not be easily forgotten.
Agreed. I read Canticle several times. A work of immense importance.
Pity. The carefully worded think piece was lost to the aether mid-sentence when the battery died.😥
What I had been thinking about was how some books acquire accolade over the years, perhaps accumulating it like too many layers of rust.
There are some books that are quite deserving, because of what they said in their time, and the effect they've had on the genre and so many other pieces that follow them.
Although I see all the problems I saw with Asimov's writing the first time I tried to read him, and more now, I have also been able to notice how many pieces of later science fiction are in dialogue with his vision of a galactic empire. It is the jumping-off point for George Lucas's empire (although most of the best of that concept is still in his head) it is likewise in dialogue with the empire in Dune. By extension it is probably in dialogue with a number of galactic empires that I haven't read because they are far too derivative. And probably a few that are in between.
Although in the late 18th and early 19th century it might have been good form to have theories and information exposited in long alternating monologues between two characters, pretending it is a conversation- even by 1930s and 1940s standards it was clunky. But can you really blame Asimov at the time? I mean, I can't in good conscience recommend Foundation or Caves as good literature, on the other hand it would be outright dereliction to not mention them when discussing the history of the genre.
There is still such a haze of anti-intellectualism surrounding the genre unfairly, that people within the genre feel they need to secure an intellectual high ground by presenting things academically.
And I think these recommendations just accumulate over the years as Asimov has been in print for so long he's just got these recommendations stacked up higher than other people could compete with.
His oeuvre was never intended to be a weight-bearing structure. Maybe his, but certainly not Heinlein. . .
i agree with what you said about three body problem.. the sequels got worse, but the SF ideas compelled me forward almost begrudgingly.. i mean i never read a book with such a furrow in my brow before. i was angry upon finishing the last book.. i really can't overstate how much i hate the main female protagonist.. its like the laws of the universe bend around her to ensure her survival, which is ironic i know... the SF ideas are great.. top tier.. but everything else is just frustrating and the characters are barely sketches.
...and therein lies the three book problem- padding and poor writing, as you say.
"Do we hear about the same books over and over?"
YES!
I hope your arm is healed soon. I've always enjoy your videos since finding your channel.
I have read science fiction and fantasy and later some horror all my life. I started with H G Wells when I was just learning to read and struggled with them but still enjoyed The Time Machine and War of the Worlds back in grade 3, read my first horrow novel "The Rats" by Herbert then too, later read 20,000 Leagues under the sea (librarian told me that I was too young to read that - was in grade 5).
I think part of the problem of a book/author is considered "overhyped" comes from when the books were written. I bring up HG Wells as it is written very differently than books written today and some concepts and jargon can take a bit of effort to overcome.
I do find Foundation by Asimov is a bit overhyped (really only liked the Mule) but very much enjoy his Robot series and the book The Complete Robot that contains the short stories.
I am a fan of Dan Simmons, Alistair Reynolds, PKD, EE (Doc) Smith (some of his early stuff is hard to get through) to name a few. Also enjoyed The Expanse and The war against the Chtorr (though it has never been finished). As I grow older I seem to lean towards the harder SF.
The one series that I find was overly hyped was Red Rising. I did get through 1-4. He can write action scenes but there seems to be little imagination.
Andy Wier is over rated. Dark Matter by Blake Crouch started off ok but then became a mess - so much hype on that book and such a disappointment I doubt I'll read anything by him. Area X: The southern breach by Jeff VanderMeer just never really went anywhere (DNF part way through book 2). Roadside Picnic was a miss for me. And I have been trying to get into the Ian Banks Culture series (only finished 2 of the books of that series) but haven't found them to live up to the reviews. Peter F Hamilton's Reality Disfunction series was good except he wrote himself into a corner and his other series I've found to be overly long - also seemed to be a rip of Hyperion.
I agree with you that many of the "chunky" books could do with some editing and some massive cuts.
I feel kind of badly about Dune. For all of my formative years it was . . . kind of obscure. It was known, stayed in print, had a following, but boots on the ground, talking to the average science fiction reader, Dune was considered both A step above, and a step beyond.
Back in those days there were complaints that it didn't have enough action, that it was all talking (take THAT Asimov fans!) that it was too long, that it was too hard, it was too weird or too far out.
I feel like it's only been in the past 10 or 15 years that dudebros keep telling each other the Dune is the greatest book of all time, and slapping each other on their backs because as dude Bros they read about dudebros while they talk to each other about crypto spice and ruling the universe as a dude bro.
Nyiiiice.
That is totally not Frank Herbert's fault.
I mean none of these guys is running around saying: "Dude, "The White Plage" was EPIC! Yo,
"The Lazarus Effect " altered my perception of reality!
Well, as the media- and co nsequently hype- has become bigger and more all-encompassing, it may feel like 'Dune' was "obscure" but the reality is that it was such a bestseller and so well known in the 60s and 70s that the UK edition had no blurb- the publishers were so confident it would sell anyway. It may feel like it's only come to the situation you descrie recently, but ask yourself this: how many more 1960s SF novels were about to be filmed by the late 70s? As you say though, not Frank's fault.
@outlawbookselleroriginal Very elegantly put. I appreciate your kindness to me, but it is *possible* I was surrounded by dullard's and chuckleheads.
I do remember that when each new Dune book came out, it always had space at the local Waldenbooks shop window, and it would have its own table (or space on a table.) So I appreciate you being gentle with me.
A gentleman, . . . and a scholar!!
Still, I think post-internet it has suffered from an echo chamber that many things have, including a strange urge to intellectual materialism, with people who "cut to the chase" on every topic-always wanting to start with "the best" in whatever field they are delving. I see it a lot on booktube when people are making lists of where to start - why would you want to start with the "best" of any author leaving you only to read lesser works as you grow more familiar with them? Isn't what makes a particular work, a masterpiece: Witnessing the refinement of skill and technique that leads up to a piece? I mean, just consider Asimov recommendations: "Start with this one, it is the best, now you have a hundred lesser works to read after." WTF?
I know that you know. I believe you wrote a book about recommendations!
What a thought provoking video. My tuppence worth:
a) Iain M Banks is vastly overrrated. I find the books I have waded through formulaic and the characters shallow and often interchangeable but
b) Iain Banks (his more literary nom de plume) has written really good SF which seem to have been overrlooked 'Walking on Glass', 'The Bridge' , 'Transition' etc etc. Whereas I find all Iain M Banks books much the same under the surface, all Iain Banks books to me are high quality and very different.
c) Frankenstein. I read this again last year and it didn't live up to my memory of reading it a s a teenager. Mary Shelley was 19 when she started this I think and boy does it show. BUT, it suddenly struck me that the villain of the book is really (obvious to everyone but me it seems!) Frankenstein who is a dysfunctional father to the monster ignoring him, not even giving him a name and not educating him at all. The monster's delinquincy thus is to be expected. At the time I believe Mary's father was not talking to her at all. What a way to get back at Dad! Full marks to her for that. Her post apocalyptic book, The Last Man I found well worth a read.
d) Foundation. I loved this when I read it as a young teenager. I tried to read it again last year and failed. It is so badly written ...endless dull dialogue...which seems to have been the style in the early fifties because Heinlein does some of that too I seem to recall.
e) But badly or atrociously written books do seem popular..I concur in finding The Three Body Problem and The Martian both unreadable for that reason.
f) I am conforming to the general view here again but Peter F Hamilton! I've read a couple of these bloatworks but life's just too short!
g) Against the grain, I read Dune again and I still think its good. I do like the writing style, which some don't and the ideas. The later books not so much.
Speaking of liking books that no one talks about, I just posted my review of K.W. Jeter’s cyberpunk trilogy on my Speculative Reader channel, having been inspired by you, sir, to read Dr. Adder.
Congratulations. Jeter remains unsung and criminaly out of print: even at the time he was too abrasive for most, but that discomfort he invokes is for me the essence of truly great SF. Try Lewis Shiner's 'Frontera' next if you can find it.
Steve, great video!
After hearing *so many* recommendations, it's refreshing to hear a lot of people in the peanut gallery agreeing about The Emperor's New clothes.
"But again, it's that old thing of expectation.... Isn't it?"
Well that's really at the center of the term overrated isn't it? I feel like that's the way it's more commonly used. I feel like fewer people are willing to make declarations about actual quality, or be able to agree on a set of literary and cultural metrics upon which to judge the objective quality of anyone's effort. But we can all (usually) agree that we've heard far more about something than it deserves.
After all: expectation effects setting which effects experience. How could any book, beer, or baked good live up to this level of expectation that is created? I think I would have been okay with the three-body problem (for all its flaws) if multiple recommendations had been more like: "this has some very interesting ideas and it gets better as it goes long" as opposed to: 1st book- wins all the awards; it is a new masterpiece!; and the new home of Science Fiction super thought is China!; and each successive book goes even farther, and is even better!!!
I mean, hyperbole you could choke on. . . (And this from a fellow who knows he can be somewhat hyperbolic, and represents a choking hazard himself sometimes. . . )
I struggled with Neuromancer and it was a DNF for me. I found it chaotic, lacking clarity in the narrative. However, I'm prepared to reconsider because so many knowledgeable and discerning readers (such as yourself) recommend it. Maybe I missed something on first attempt. I'm going to give it another go.
You must. Two points worth remembering: cognitive dissonance is a mark of sophisticated SF- it's set in the future, a future that would be strange for anyone dropped into it. Gibson doesn't infodump much, another mark of sophisticated writing. Most of the time, the characters don't know what's going on- only Wintermute does.
A brilliant novel is "Light" by M. John Harrison. He's a writer with impeccable skills and had the intriguing idea (i.e. novum) of using the microscopic quantum world on a macroscopic galaxy spanning setting. Unbelievable, that a writer with such prowess is hardly mentioned at all.
There is an interview with M John here on the channel and he is mentioned here regularly, so check out my backlist. I've known Mike personally since 1989.
I think that the question of the "most overrated" sf writers is ambiguous, because one wants to ask "by whom?". By the general culture? by the media? by sf critics? by readers of sf,?by sf "fans"? by those with a long history of reading sf (and thus of a certain age)? Very often when people talk about sf, they talk about their own personal history of reading science fiction, when it began, what they've read, what they think is important or "overrated" based on their own voyage through sf and also through the various critiques and comments that one runs in to as one goes along. This is why that I think that paradoxically sf, which is supposed to be future-oriented, is more about "anamnesis", going back over the past, as a lever into the future. People obsess about the definition of sf, and turn to its history to come up with a response (if not an answer). They discover that ideas that they discover and like have been put forward before, and that much of sf is in a very large part in dialogue with what went before. So if we have been a reader of sf for a decade or more (I'm a little older than you, 70) we have a double or triple vision of the highly rated works, a 3D grid: historically important or original, key work in my own personal reading journey, something I could pick up now and enjoy on contemporary terms. This grid adds depth and nuance to our evaluations. Much of your channel is, and rightly so, composed of anamnesis in this sense. A surprising fact about most sf up to now is that most of the story takes place in the head, rather than in external action, and this is true not just of DUNE, but even of Asimov and Heinlein. Asimov's FOUNDATION while painfully outdated in many ways is far superior to THE MARTIAN in its approach to problem-solving (each stage solves a seemingly insoluble problem and then engenders a new such problem, etc.) and captures the speculative element of science, thus differentiating from the "engineering" approach of THE MARTIAN. This action-in-the-head quality is what makes sf virtually unfilmable. A case in point is DUNE, where most of the "action" is plans within plans, people spotting subtle signs and decoding them without showing anything. Villeneuve's two films, which I liked, are inevitably dumbings down as they must translate the cerebral into the behavioural. To show the worry or epugnance of Jessica, a Bene Gesserit capable of controlling her body down to the micro-muscular, neuronal, and even molecular level, he has to show her panicking overtly or vomiting at drinkng a corpse's extracted water, the exact opposite of her character's defining traits. So DUNE the novel towers above its adaptations and is a fine exemplar of SF. Thanks for being as ever thought-provoking, that's what SF is all about too.
I agree on all your points, especially the 'interior' issues re film adaptation.
Pretty funny. When I saw the title, I immediately thought "Heinlein". And that was the first name you mentioned. I have tried to read 4 of his "most loved" novels (Starship Troopers, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Stranger in a Strange Land, Job) and couldn't make it through any of them. Just something about the prose / style. It's very possible that he may have written something that I will absolutely love, but at this point in my life (I'm 55), I am not quick to pick up anything else of his. There are just too many other authors, and too little time to get to them.
You could have chosen so many of his earlier books (Especially the so-called 'juveniles')
or collections of his often brilliant short stories and been a big fan.
I think I have all Heinlein's fiction but have not read Job or even Starship... , or many of his later books
but they are on my shelves waiting.
Heinlein was the first SF writer I read, as a teen, and I became obsessed with the genre.. He was a pioneer of what are now called 'Young Adult' novels, which barely existed at the time. Even for adult readers, these early novels are vivid, brisk, & short. Anyone who reads the later books should seek out the ORIGINAL editions. After his death, his widow insisted on putting back all the stuff his publishers had insisted on removing because they are too long. He's actually best as a short story writer, notably his time-paradox tales.
I am going to admit this, I have tried Dune at least three times and each time I ditched it. I don't know if it is the writing or the fact I have seen the original film like four times sat through the mini series and the remake but I just fine it kind of flat, I didn't feel anything for any of the characters and at times I felt like it is all bit silly.
I very much agree with most of this. I'd never read a Heinlein until fairly recently when I grabbed The Puppet Masters from the shelf of my local used book store. Frankly it was dreadful and I stopped after 50 pages. There are too many great works to be read; no time to waste on garbage. 3-bod-prob is also dire. Enuff said on that one; you nailed it. I also have a low regard for Dune, so count me in on that too. Never read a Scalzi, so can't comment on his work. Regarding Asimov, I enjoyed I Robot but that's the only work of his that I've experienced. He seemed competent as a writer, with an interesting tale to tell.
I don't have enough SF culture to express a relevant opinion in this matter. Starship Troopers left me cold and I read nothing else from Heinlein because of it. Ender's Game is some of the same. I can't remember anything from it. Neuromancer is great and I believe seminal but I don't know what Mona Lisa Overdrive is. I read and I read and I don't get what is about. Burning Chrome... 🤥 Even New Rose Hotel which made a great film with Christopher Walken and Willem Dafoe is a lot of tedious rambling.
Now, the inclusion of Dune in these charts leaves me a little perplexed. Overrated? Maybe, I don't know. But it's a great book. Uneven series, but The God Emperor touched on the greatness of the first novel. Anything else from Herbert, I don't think so. I tried Lazarus Effect and did nothing for me.
I tried Foundation because of Dune and... IT'S NOT DUNE. Yes, Caves of Steel.
Now, we have to understand that the so called hype through the media is just marketing and advertisement done by entities which are in the same media conglomerate as the publishing house.
I just read Song of Kali because you mentioned it and is good with a little flimsy ending. I don't think it's horror though. I see it more as a portrayal of Indian society. It's a social novel.
Thx Stephen.
All the best with your wrist and well being.
A bit of Harry Harrison or Sheckley always cheers me up.
I made this point before on a channel I can't remember if it was yours so apologies if I repeat myself but speaking of James Joyce... James Blish brings 'Finnegans Wake' into Star Trek you know.
In Blish’s Star Trek novel 'Spock Must Die!' the USS Enterprise is driven into a corner by the Klingons who can intercept any communication with Starfleet Command. Lt Uhura proposes a solution:
‘There's an alternative, Captain, though it's risky; we can translate the clear into Eurish’.
‘What's that? I never heard of it’.
‘It's the synthetic language James Joyce invented for his last novel, over two hundred years ago. It contains forty or fifty other languages, including slang in all of them. Nobody but an Earthman could possibly make sense of it, and there are only a few hundred of them who are fluent in it. There's the risk; it may take Starfleet Command some time to run down an expert in it -- if they even recognize it for what it is’.
Being a communications officer, Kirk realized anew, involved a good many fields of knowledge besides sub-space radio.
‘Can it handle scientific terms?’
‘Indeed it can. You know the elementary particle called the quark; well, that's a Eurish word. Joyce himself predicted nuclear fission in the novel I mentioned. I can't quote it precisely, but roughly it goes, 'The abniliilisation of the etym expolodotonates through Parsuralia with an ivanmorinthorrorumble fragoromboassity amidwhiches general uttermosts confussion are perceivable moletons skaping with mulicules.' There's more, but I can't recall it -- it has been a long time since I last read the book’.
‘That's more than enough’, Kirk said hastily. ‘Go ahead - just as long as you're sure you can read the answer’.
‘Nobody's ever dead sure of what Eurish means’, Uhura said. ‘But I can probably read more of it than the Klingons could. To them, it'll be pure gibberish’.
And they won't be alone, Kirk thought.
- James Blish, 'Spock Must Die!', 1970.
I am doing a PhD on the Wake at the moment and I brought that into my draft and my supervisor thought that was a bit dangerous bringing Star Trek into a PhD thesis and so, though I am so disappointed, I have cut it out.
And anyway I am absolutely certain that someone at some time will have done a PhD on Star Trek.
I am still tempted though to bring my favourite SF authors into it. Brian Aldiss, 'Barefoot in the Head', 1969, now if Joyce had written SF that is what it would have been like!
Uhura spontaneously quoting Joyce off the top of her head is the most dope thing I've heard in a long time!
That was a lot of fun. My take is many of the books I once adored and loved in my teens I can no longer relate to anymore. For context, I’m Australian, was born in 1954 and fell in love with science fiction when I was 11 in 1966. My first was Tunnel in the Sky by Robert A Heinlein. Over the next couple of years I devoured Heinlein’s early works and his Juvenile novels in the Gollancz print. I also devoured Andre Norton, Ray Bradbury, Issac Asimov and Arthur C Clark. Now I cannot stand them and have no interest in reading them. Heinlein’s later works I
From the mid 70s onwards Heinlein’s novels are bloated and in serious need of a decent editor. Also, they seem to have been written by Uncle Ernie from The Who’s Tommy. Asimov should have retired after The Gods Themselves. I don’t know if his desire to complete and integrate the Robot and Foundation series was due to hubris, greed or desire to please fans but I wish someone had told him NO. Same with Clarke and his novels past Rendezvous with Rama and The Fountains of Paradise. Don’t get me wrong the Asimov’s later Robot and Foundation novels are OK as are Clarke’s novels from Rendevouz with Rama (not the sequels) and The Fountains of Paradise are also OK. But … they didn’t deserve the awards they received and were eclipsed in quality, style and technique by the novels written by new wave authors during the 70s.
Yep, the New Wave did for all of the old guys in a literary sense, but tragically the old guys still dominate sales wise due to long reputations....
Australian science fiction is largely quarantined. Can you recommend any seminal, pivotal, or really entertaining Australian SF authors or works to look out for?
@ Terry Dowling, Damien Broderick, Greg Egan.....
@@outlawbookselleroriginal 0h Steve! Thank you so much! I wasn't trying to make you write - I thought the Australian fella I replied to would answer!
I know about Terry, and I forgot about Greg.
Thank you. 😅❤️
I missed the poll but I would agree for most of these authors. I do intend to re-read "Foundation" to see what I feel decades later. I've only read "Redshirts" by Scalzi which didn't impress me. I've never liked Heinlein, though Iiked "The Puppet Masters". Every translation is a traitor, as my lecturers used to tell me. I liked the start of "Three Body Problem" but got a bit bored later on. Having said that, I really loved The Dark Forest." Go figure! I'm really sorry that people like Disch, Malzberg, Cowper et al don't get get more recognition.
Hmmm. I think this is a question of disagreeing with a certain amount of consensus. I wonder which book or author would have the most consensus hence being the least overrated. Perhaps ‘Frankenstein’ and H. G. Wells.
The thing with SF is that its very nature suggests questioning of consensus and overthrowing it- overturning one paradgim and replacing it with another: it's an evolutionary and revolutionary genre, both in its essential being and in its status as a genre. The inability of SF to create a fresh novum or nine for itself since the early 1990s explains much of my dissatisfaction with the genre after its period of incredibly fast evolution- from 1940 to 1990. So much SF now does not challenge consensus and is niether evolutionary or revolutionary- this is the problem of the Postmodern condition. While some much-lauded works are supported by consensus, making us consider who or what comprises the consensus and if its paradigm needs overturning, some are landmarks in creating a new paradigm- I'd say that while 'Foundation' was a landmark for Genre SF's coming of age within the pulp tradition, it wasn't new for literature as a whole. Conversely, 'Neuromancer' both challenged Genre consensus and was a new thing in literature per se, despite precursors that weren't quite as Novum-making. For me, it's sometimes as simple as many of the famous books being mentioned here not impressing me as Writing- that's my starting point for a work being overrated.
@ Makes me wonder if a genre can play itself out. I’d like to think there are new frontiers unimagined that will speak to the human condition.
I’ve loved Dune since I was a kid, but really, it should get buried for a few hundred years. Reprinted endlessly, to the exclusion of all other Herbert (and all other SF almost). And when it comes to Stranger In a Strange Land, I always just saw it as a late-middle age author writing to get himself some counterculture beatnik slatch...
The Sparrow annoys me so much that I’m completely put off reading any books that involve missionaries in space (correctly or not) such as Blish and The Book of Strange New Things. It’s such an awful book in so many ways, but ultimately the writing is just so poor that it’s reason enough to avoid before you even get to the problem of the terrible science and cringey self-insertion by the author.
Thank goodness I will never have to bother to try to pronounce anything Welsh properly again - as I am not Welsh 😛
I think that a bigger problem than the 'tyranny of the popular' is 'genre myopia'. Not that I am accusing anyone in particular of that - but it is a regular occurence. I think that reading extensively outside of the genre probably affects one's opinion on which sci-fi novels are good or not.
Agreed. I have heard so many people praise SF novels that are so bad by any objective standard it kills me...
Interesting video. I've had a problem of late where I go into some of these highly (over) rated books with massive expectations, and end up not enjoying them because they just fail to reach those heights. I've often have to take a deep breath and almost try to forget they are so over hyped. Two books I consider most overrated would have to be Roadside Picnic and Solaris. Both bored me to death. I also think there's a right time and place for certain books. If I'm tired and stressed due to the day job I'll sometimes need an Andy Weir or Scalzi.
No thoughts here, just wanted to share my appreciation for you! Keep up the great, informative work!
One minute into the video and I'm going to say YES. Some books and authors are always talked about.
No one wants to try something new anymore.
Risk aversion is making the entertainment bland and miserable and that is why I avoid it, because the same tales are spun over and over again, using the same yarn.
Love ya, man! You always add to my appreciation for great SF! AND you added a fantastic line to my day, "I'm not Chinese, I'm Welsh!" Robert H was hit or miss for me. The first I ever read by him was the short "The Roads Must Roll," which I thought was a very good combination of many of the attributes I appreciate in SF: interesting tech concepts, a strong individualist philosophical punch, and a gripping plot. You bring up so many other facets of the other writers that also are valuable. Thanks for the incredibly valuable insights!
Out of pure luck Orphans Of The Sky was my first Heinlein read and I agree, it was a blast. Loved it.
Thought-provoking video.
Thanks for not only sharing your opinion but being a conduit to share those of others.
Despite my internet sleuthing I’m still obsessing about the mystery of one of the books behind you. Who is the author of the author of the “Wild Thing” book?
Sue Prideaux - a title search on amazon should have brought it up instantly.
Great video! Sf reply
The first book that popped into my mind reading the title of your video was Enders Game. Won all the awards. It actually turned me off to SF reading for some years. Not bad, very very average. There are plenty of average Hugo winners.
Very interesting.
Have read most of Asimov, Herbert and Heinlein novels. Unlike the first two, I can't recall reading a Heinlein I didn't like. Not read Scalzi yet, but might do this year. Have overlooked the Three Body Problem books for some reason, and definitely not sold on them from this!
One of the books for me that waa over-hyped, was The Passenger by Cormack McCarthy, it was billed as something like an Opus for the other and I could not gel with it at all , I didn't even attempt to read Stella Maris , as I found the premise just so depressing
Another overrated author is Andy Weir surely ?
Watch the video all the way through, he is covered.
Having said that about "This Immortal", I think it's a much better novel than "Dune". They shared the Hugo for the best SF novel of the year, but Zelazny's novel is more compact and structured. Roger Zelazny is a much better writer than Frank Herbert.
Totally. I feel that both Silverberg and Zelazny tackled some similar areas to Herbert, but with far more eloquence, grace and sophistication.
I read Banks’s work when it first came out and loved them. But I recently reread Player of Games and it wasn’t as good, so I suspect Banks is a bit overrated now.
I wasn't into Stranger In A Strange land, as it just wasn't what I was after in a SF novel. I've got Starship Trooper's on my shelf, I do hope I enjoy that one. I read Neuromancer thirty years ago and found it quite heavy going at the time, although I did feel like a cool kat reading it at Technical College during the breaks. I've nearly finished Fairyland by Paul J. McAuley which I'm quite enjoying and find it the better book. Dune was fine but I don't get the obsession people have for it.
Missed the question somehow so didn't offer my choice. Neal Stephenson's Snowcrash I found completely unreadable. Managed about 3 chapters, if that. Neal Asher's Gridlinked came well recommended and seemed a poor relation to a number of other comparable works.
When I started reading SF back in the mid 1960s the obvious choices at the time were Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. Herbert came later, was hyped up a lot, and Dune seemed to blow A, H, and C out of the water. Then came the sequels. Read them all, but it was only when I read PKD that I became hooked on SF. Now I just cannot reread Heinlein, Asimov, the usual suspects. They're just boring.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Dune, The Left Hand of Darkness, Rendezvous with Rama, Lord of Light. Good,but not brilliant for my taste. 5 most overrated SF books(unfortunately underrated much more). Thank you Steve for Your fantastic program!
Agree with Dune and Lord of Light (Fantasy?) but LHOD was an unexpected and pleasant surprise for me.
As Steve said my high expectations often let me down.
LHOD is one I loved.
I really liked Neuromancer and Hyperion. Those are two hyped books that I felt met the hype.
Enders Game is very overhyped to me.
Currently reading Brian Aldiss' Frankenstein Unbound which I am enjoying more than Mary Shelley's Frankenstein by miles. I will take your points to heart though, Stephen and look for that particular early copy of the book. Incidentally, I am not saying it is not an important book, just that it is overrated.
Why I don't like it... I have a couple of general, and several very specific reasons and a couple of them may well have to do with the editions I have read (I have read it several times, it is like a scab one can't stop scratching even though you know you are making it worse) I think the prose is florid and the main character whiny. This is fair, as the author was a teenager when she wrote it and on it's own is not enough to make me dislike a book but it counts against it and I have other issues:
One big issue is very much to do with the hype, so relevant to this video. Everyone lauding it as the 'first SF' and the grandfather/grandmother/whatever of science fiction. There is virtually NO science in it and whenever I make that point people keep mentioning things that happened in THE MOVIES to prove it is an SF book and that has been aggravating me for years.
Science Fiction would be the reanimation of the dead, bodies being stitched together from parts of corpses, reanimated with lightning? All of that which is undoubtable horror and would be really innovative SF the author glosses over entirely. The whole process, all that construction is described as 'many years work' and the reanimation as 'I beheld the accomplishment of my toils'. That's it, no description. Repeating 'Galvanic action' a few dozen times, because she read about it in an article is not enough and the contexts in which she uses the phrase suggests to me that she did not understand it.
But to even get to that unexciting, underwhelming climax you need to drearily toil through four chapters of maudlin, wordy prose largely unrelated to the subject you thought you were going to be reading about...... and I will stop now because I could go on a great length.
Sorry to rant, but you did ask. I hope your arm heals well and fully, it must be very frustrating.
When I read 'Frankenstein' for the first time, it was rarely discussed as SF except in critical works and of course there was no internet then. Aldiss, of course, was the populariser of the idea of it as the 1st SF novel- and his insights are why '..Unbound' is so great (it's been a fave of mine si ce my teens). Watch my video 'Mary Shelley Was Never Cancelled: Frankenstein, Romanticism and Cyberpunk'. It's context and place in Cultural history that makes the novel so key.
The first name that comes to mind when asked, "who is the most overrated Science Fiction author?', is Arthur C. Clarke. Have never read anything written by this dude I liked.
I was surprised Clark's name didn't come up much in my poll- I agree with you. I collect him, but find him simply unreadable much of the time.
I know that Heinlein gets a tough break, especially among contemporary SF readers. But I just love Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and Time Enough For Love so much.
I like a lot of the works of his that I have read. That said Stranger in a strange land is a tough read. I am bit more of fan of his later works were he became a bit of a dirty old man.
Has anyone ever asked Peter Hamilton if a novel can be chunky?
I only made it through the first four volumes of Dune. The first book has some interesting touches and there's actually some inchoate elements containing the seeds of a potentially great novel. But it's just so heavily weighed down with less than compelling political intrigue and muddle-headed philosophy/theology that permeate the book that are impossible to simply overlook. I know that Herbert fans say that if you delve deeper into the mythology it greatly enriches the experience, but honestly this fictional world just didn't grab me strongly enough especially when that's time I could be spending, say, reading more history books about the actual world we live in. Also the unconventional narrative style and pace doesn't work for me. There may have been some avant-garde or modernist intention behind it, but to me it just came across as frustrating and confusing.
As I always say, most series are created primarily for commercial reasons, not artistic ones.
I know I've commented a lot, and a couple others have joined me in being long-winded. I think this just means we've missed you, and we're happy to have a new video.
Thank you my friend.
"Three Body Problem" - badly translated. That's why I wasn't interested in it when the hype reached me. The German version was plain boring, but I figured that there might be more English speaking translators and this version was better indeed. I agree that TBP has some brilliant ideas in it which work well as a premise. Unfortunately, the other two parts were not that readable although there is a stunning idea in it.
Kudos for this well informed video.
The English translation was amazing. I haven’t read the sequels yet, but it’s one of my very favorites
Listen to an interview with Ken Liu on this topic. He was a native Chinese speaker, and moved to the States when he was 11 and at an age where he was really interested in the idioms and slang of Chinese speech and how they were constructed. After he emigrated he stayed in touch with a number of friends back in China, and continued to stay abreast of the language. When he was first approached to translate Cixin Liu they had already attempted to translate it to English, & felt it wasn't successful. ( Perhaps just individual stories?)
He said that so much of Cixin's work was idiomatic and built upon imagery that it would not translate, and a lot of more modern slang that translators we're not aware of, we're too formalized to see & that all the translations he saw were missing the meanings, so he had to rewrite and strive to get the concepts and metaphors back in. Honestly, when you listen to the interview you have complete faith in
1) Cixin Liu's ability to be misunderstood,
2) and Ken Liu's ability to see multiple possibilities. His translation may not be perfect, but it is clearly head and tails above everything else they were getting.
If he does say so himself. 😉
......John Scalzi is great. Starter Villain was my book of the year; I am however a cat lover.
Every Heinlein book I've ever read was amazing, so at this point in my sci Fi journey I could not disagree more with that choice... (I've only read 6-7 but those were good enough to safely keep him off such a list IMO)
I've tried to read Dune but just found the prose dry and tedious, but I do credit it because I wanted to find something with the same philosophical themes but better written (IMO) which led me to Neverness by David Zindell which I enjoyed immensely.
Try Silverberg's works that focus on redemption, transcendence and transformation- I cover them on this channel- they will get you to those themes. Fact is, ALL great SF is philosophical.
Dahlgren lurked in my mind for decades after reading it in the late 70's. I tried to reread last year and barely got started before I had to put it down.
This does happen....
Wonderful video! Thanks for giving me a more realistic expectation for those books!
Thanks Steve, for this illuminating video! Feel better soon.
Good to see you back in the saddle and at full strength again friend!
Full strength? Hardly, my friend...almost 3 weeks in the cast to come yet.... but thanks!
I have a hard time judging science fiction because time changes things. I read Edgar rice Burroughs when I was a kid and loved it. I can get through 5 pages now
Critical consensus means absolutely nothing in this day and age of awards being absolutely biased. Hugo awards for example mean next to nothing anymore IMO, over the last decade. I don't even care anymore after reading a couple god awful winners during recent times. Again this is just my opinion hope no one takes it personally.
The Three Body Problem was almost unreadable. It was choppy and had no character development. The worst book of 2024 for me.
Another great video. I hope you make a full recovery soon.
Hoo boy, I do have some opinions on overrated authors that let's just say would be of interest to the (unexpected branch of) the spanish Inquisition. Chief among them, not SF, but Stephen King. Oh man, I just do not think he is a good writer. He was produced some good works, but 95% of his bibliography ranges from mediocre to utter trash... (And Koontz i think is even worse. downright unbearable.)
But in terms of Science Fiction, yes Dune is grossly overrated, an I say that as a massive fan. It's good, it is not the second coming of the proverbial messiah. And I think Asimov is also overrated, not because he is bad, but his popularity and the hype surrounding him is completely out of proportion.
On the topic of Andy Weir, I cannot say if he is overrated or not, the man has produced like 3 novels, 1 of which is widely panned. I think the Martian is overrated, despite me liking it a lot. OTOH Project Hail Mary I enjoyed very much, despite its flaws. It hit the sweetspot of mostly believable or existing science, with a touch of the fantastic, great characters, and optimistic viewpoint, which I think is not common enough in SF. Yes, bleak dystopian worlds are the bread and butter of any artform that wants to critique the world, past present and future. But there is room for more upbeat works I think. If done well, because otherwise they are grating and insufferable. He does handwave some things, but I think we can forgive some amount of artistic license. I think where he is hit or miss is the way he writes, and the kind of humourous lighthearted prose he uses. Personally I think his next work is going to be a make or break one for him, because both the Martan and PHM have exactly the same style, and if he does write another book in that exact same style, I think it is going to start feeling old. So I an very curious where he will go next.
I also think another sacred cow of SF is vastly overrated, not in regards to his impact and influence, but his actual artistic value. And I know that as soon as I say his name even you Steve will sharpen pitchforks and fix bayonets, especially considering he was at the top of your top SF books.Yes I am talking about George Orwell. I cannot stand the guy. I don't know, I find a reeking reactionary conservatism lurking beneath his socialist facade. So yes, my issue with him is not on his prose skills or anything like that. I just can't seem to get on with the guy. Granted, I have not read any of his works in more than 20 years but I can't push myself to do it.
Here's a funny story about William Gibson. 30 something years ago I tried reading his Sprawl trilogy, but then of course access to books in english was very limited, as it was the pre internet era. So I tried reading the Greek translations floating around at the time. Gah, could not do it. It was grating and annoying and felt like very bad prose. So for the longest time I was torn within, since I love cyberpunk as a whole, no doubt about that. But was Gibson bad, or was he not for me? Thankfuly when I picked reading literature up again a couple of years back I was determined to try and read Neuromancer, this time the original text. And of course, I loved it! it was an easy 5/5 for me, it hit on all cylinders. So I can strike him finally from my list of overrated authors and add him to my list of perfectly rated ones, haha.
PS: Oh, forgot to add, I absolutely hate Heinlein, can't stand the guy, even if he invented power armour! I find him way overrated, especially in the company of authors he is usually mentioned alongside!
You have to remember that Orwell was, after all, a product of lower middle class upbringing, so he sometimes comes across as conservative with a small C. Also, he was an outsider, a critic of fashionable champagne Socialists who slavishly admired Stalin. But sometimes we just don't dig writers, no matter what others say....
I love it when you rip into overrated books. Keep up the great work!
HG Wells and Jules Verne beat out any American SF writer.
It's amazing that no one appears to have singled out an Arthur C. Clarke book for shaming here. To my mind he was a marginally worse writer than Asimov, which makes him the number one worst SF writer certainly among the big three.
An interesting video, Steve.
Yes, he hardly came up, which surprised me, but a few other people have commented above on him. You know my views...
I have to disagree with you on John Scalzi.
Dune, Foundation, Three Bodies - yes, yes & yes. Overblown & overrated.
Enders Game - pre-Harry Potter for sci-fi.
Hyperion? Anyone who thinks this is overrated - don't ever speak to me again. :D
Gibson is the most overrated. Neuromancer is his one hit wonder.
Count Zero is a better book.
But once he gets away from the spawl trilogy his writing suffers
I think the most overrated author is Arthur C Clarke. I just think he's a boring writer with no style. I find him unreadable.
I was surprised Clark's name didn't come up much in my poll- I agree with you. I collect him, but find him simply unreadable much of the time.
If Trumpo could read, I think he'd like Heinlen l. But: bronze goes to the publisher and editor(s) of The 3BP; silver goes to the translator (bruv and fellow non- native English speaker); gold to the writer. Showing that AI is far more advanced in China than anyone would dare to believe - although its understanding of anything human is at the Very Hungry Caterpillar (no offence, great book for hangovers) level of breadth and insight.
IMO: Overrated SF Authors: 5. Robert Silverberg, 4. Douglas Adams, 3.Harland Ellison, 2. A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller Jr. 1. Frank Herbert
Most Underrated SF Authors: 5. Zenna Henderson, 4. John Brunner, 3.C.J. Cherryh, 2.Steven Brust 1. Janet Kagan,
The MUST READ if you're claiming to be an SF fan: 15. H.G.Wells, 14. Jules Verne, 13. Frederick Pohl, 12. Jack Williamson, 11. Walt & Leigh Richmond, 10. Andre Norton, 9. Arthur C. Clark, 8. John Campbell, 7. Clifford D. Simak, 6. Gordon Dickson, 5. Edward E. "Doc" Smith, 4. Isaac Asimov, 3. Kieth Laumer 2. Roger Zelazny, 1. Robert Heinlein.
I don't think many will be with you on Walt & Leigh, but good to see an unconventional mention....
😢😮
You'll have to verbalise, old chum, I simply NEVER get emojis....
Sorry Steve I never ment to send anything was just reading the comments must have hit emoji and sent without me realising Doh!!! Enjoyed the video though !
Concerning "Dune". I don't regard Dune as SF either. It is rather a fantasy story that happens to end up on a distant planet.
That doesn't hold water because of its scientific base- it resembles a dynastic fantasy, as I say in the video, but the Butlerian Jihad allowed Herbert to dispense with the IT-based tech one would expect in such a story, which is quite clever.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Thank you for answering my post.
The technology and the science in Dune is rather a sideshow whereas the prophecy and the sword fights are tell tale for fantasy. Maybe my verdict is too harsh but I never understood what the science in Dune was. The fiction was much more evident.
@ ...hence my comment in the video that it reads like a Dynastic Fantasy.
Strange that no one mentioned A fire Upon the Deep, the king of overrated books.
Totally agree. If this list were 'Mine' as it were, Vinge would be very high up.
Great video! Sf reply
The first book that popped into my mind reading the title of your video was Enders Game. Won all the awards. It actually turned me off to SF reading for some years. Not bad, very very average. There are plenty of average Hugo winners.
True. It's only a popularity poll after all and as SF should be strange and groundbreaking, it nonetheless has plenty of readers who want comfort and familiarity. It totally lost any credibility when Rowling won it....