From the Bookshelf of The Great Hugo Read…

They'd Rather Be Right

Mark Clifton,

Frank Riley

Start date: February 1, 2013

Finish date: February 28, 2013

Discussion: They'd Rather Be Right

Discussion leader: D.L. Thurston

Why we're reading this: 1955 winner, awarded at Clevention, the 13th Worldcon and the second to present the Hugo Awards. Other wi…more
[close] 1955 winner, awarded at Clevention, the 13th Worldcon and the second to present the Hugo Awards. Other winners that year:

Novelette: The Darfsteller by Walter M Miller, Jr
Short Story: Allamagoosa by Eric Frank Russell
Pro Magazine: Astounding Science Fiction ed John W. Campbell, Jr
Pro Artist: Frank Kelly Freas
Fanzine: Fantasy Times

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

Showing 1 of 1 topics — 5 comments total

They'd Rather Be Right

The worst book to ever win a Hugo Award
By Brian · 5 posts · 26 views

last updated Feb 21, 2013 04:07AM

What Members Thought

Jul 28, 2014 Bradley rated it liked it

Shelves: satire, sci-fi, 2016-shelf

Oh goodness. This 1955 Hugo winner nearly broke the Hugos. It was actually downright bad in parts, a catastrophic mess in others, and the handwavium was practically everywhere you looked, even in basic logic and common knowledge. I almost gave the novel a one star for all the clichés and the grab-bag of old SF tropes mixed together to create... a single clever idea that was subsequently beat into a fleshy pulp.

Oh my.

So why am I giving this three stars? Because I realized something fairly late in Oh goodness. This 1955 Hugo winner nearly broke the Hugos. It was actually downright bad in parts, a catastrophic mess in others, and the handwavium was practically everywhere you looked, even in basic logic and common knowledge. I almost gave the novel a one star for all the clichés and the grab-bag of old SF tropes mixed together to create... a single clever idea that was subsequently beat into a fleshy pulp.

Oh my.

So why am I giving this three stars? Because I realized something fairly late into the novel that may or may not be actually there, but because I did see it, it managed to raise my enjoyment level by a crapload.

I discovered that I could read this novel as SATIRE. Is it true? Hell if I know. But between the doctorates of psychosomatic medicine, everyday Joe Psychic Supermen, UBERSUPER AIs that never have a speaking role despite being so brilliant even though they've discovered how to give 'dem normal folk immortality as well as MULTI-VARIABLE PHYSICS? OH MY GOD. That's AMAZING.

Ahem. Okay. Maybe I'm getting a tad carried away with my excitement. A little.

The characters were right out of 1930's stock scientist hero manuals, the old fat and stupid men and women who got to become supermen were a flipped sheet of paper, almost a perfect one-dimensional representation, and the way the novel flies through complicated ideas without stopping to smell the roses on any except one just made me wonder what the hell this novel was FOR.

Was it really about the admittedly cool premise behind the title? Well, we're meant to think so.

If you could have immortality, but the only way to have it is to be free of conviction, could you do it? If the knowledge of knowing you're right is the only reason you're growing old, fat, and stupid is the only reason you can't live young, happy, smart, and yes, full of fantastic psi powers, then could YOU give up your crappy worldview?

The answer, my dear satire readers, is NO. You probably couldn't. Very few people could, even if you put the UBER AMAZING AI in everyone's hands. See? The joke is on you!

This really could have been written much better. We probably didn't need more than 20% of the actual text to get this joke across nicely. I did have enough fun with it to give it pretty much a general passing grade, but seriously, so much of it was a slog. (That is, until I read it as a satire, and then it became my new The Complete Roderick).

Be forewarned! This is very much a 50's book with all that entails. I actually started groaning with the physical need for Asimov's early stilted dialogue and Heinlein's pedantic juveniles, and that's saying A LOT.

Whew! ...more

37 likes · Like · see review

Oct 13, 2010 Jeff Stockett rated it really liked it

Shelves: science-fiction, hugo-award-winning-novels

Considering that this book was written before my Dad was born, it's understandable that it's a little dated. Some of the "futuristic" technologies that are presented in this book include artificial intelligence, computers that understand speech, and a global network whereby computers can communicate with each other (what we would term the internet). The book makes a point to show how radical these ideas are by the surprised reactions of various characters when they encounter these technologies. Considering that this book was written before my Dad was born, it's understandable that it's a little dated. Some of the "futuristic" technologies that are presented in this book include artificial intelligence, computers that understand speech, and a global network whereby computers can communicate with each other (what we would term the internet). The book makes a point to show how radical these ideas are by the surprised reactions of various characters when they encounter these technologies. Props to the author for successfully predicting those things. But it still makes the story feel a little quaint.

Despite that, I still enjoyed it.

The technologies may be dated, but the central theme was timeless. Human beings are terribly ignorant, and to compound that problem, we're terribly prejudiced.

The protagonist, Joe, explains it very well: “Every man surrounds his mind with a framework of screen mesh composed of his prejudgments, preconceptions of what is acceptable to him. Everything he receives must filter through it.” In another passage: “A human being is seldom bothered with insufficient data; often the less he has the more willing he is to give a firm opinion; and man prefers some answer, even a wrong one, to the requirement that he dig deeper and find out the facts.”

The story continues to expound on this theme. One of my favorite passages is the one where the mechanic thinks to himself that only 5% of the population really understands the machinery that our civilization is built on, and they have to carry the weight of the other 95%. Then the art professor thinks to himself that only 5% of people truly understand culture, the other 95% are ignorant to the point of worthlessness. Then the business man ponders how 5% of people carry the economy and the other 95% are dead weight.

We all carry our prejudices into everything we do, see and even think. We always think that our way of seeing things is the only correct way.

A few reviewers have commented that the story is very heavy handed. I can see that point. It hammers the point home over and over in different ways. I thought the variations on the theme were interesting, but I could see how a person could get bored with it.

Ultimately, the story takes this theme to a whole new level. What if a machine could be built that would offer immortality, eternal youth, and infinite knowledge of the universe? The cost is simple. You have to give up your prejudices. You have to be completely open to truth.

How many people would be willing to pay the cost?

Would I be willing to pay the cost?

It's kind of a haunting question. That question alone makes this whole book a worthwhile read. It's easy to think that I'm the exception to the rule. That I'm open to truth, and have no prejudice. That's exactly the problem. We can't even see our filters through the filters we've setup. But at least now I'm thinking about it. ...more

2 likes · Like · see review