The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

We've had a firm rule against rereading group reads, but screwed up this month & allowed Lucifer's Hammer to win the poll before realizing we'd already read it back in 2014.

Should we allow this reread either as a one time thing &/or should we allow rereads for books that we read more than 6 years ago?

We've only read about 100 books as a group out of the entire genre, but some of the early topics are pretty thin. As Ed pointed out, Lucifer's Hammer was one of 4 books read back then. Also, the group had just started, so there weren't many of us which means most of us didn't participate back then. Another point to consider is that folks don't seem to go back & add comments to old topics when they read the book.

What do you think? All the old topics are still available through the home page, but you have to click the "More discussions" link at the bottom right & then scroll back down to see the Group Read folders for previous years. Not intuitive & a PITA. (I'd prefer to display all folders all the time, but GR won't let us.)

Also, should we read the runner up The Ship Who Sang? It only got 8 votes to the 11 that Lucifer's Hammer got, but it isn't a reread.

Well I find it pretty easy to see what 'we' have read when you click on 'bookshelf' and then choose the period. You are right that people don't go back. But I still think this is the way to do it. Meanwhile I'm just going to read the hammer of course, because in 2014 I was not part of the group.
Should we read runners up? Why not. But there is a risk the discussion participants end up divided and so we have even smaller groups.

Leo, you're saying you're for not rereading then? I'm not quite clear on what you meant.

The bookshelf is helpful, but the books aren't linked to a discussion thread there, often they're not even linked to a folder. If it does show as read, you can go to the "What's this folder for?" topic for the period & find the book along with a link to the discussion thread. I'm not sure how many know or do that, though.

I voted for Lucifer's Hammer but won't be getting the book from the library for a long time for two reasons. The first being that the libraries are only starting to reopen for curbside, the other being that I am #6 of 6 for the holds and the library only has two copies.

Regarding rereads: there should be a specific time period before the group rereads a book, a certain number of years-it could be 6 or it could be more.

Would it be worthwhile making a mini-poll regarding the July books?

I'm sorry for not being clear. I'm not for re-reading indeed, because I think it would be best to join an older discussion when you want to read a book that has been discussed before. Would be a waste to miss the discussion already held here. But it would not be that big a problem if we take a couple of years between them as Rosemarie suggests. Maybe 5 years.
Must have been lucky then when I tried a few books on the bookshelf, I found the discussions right away.

I'm in favor of re-reads and using the existing threads to discuss them

Same as Oleksandr. And I think that 5-6 years seems a nice number to wait before re-reading something, so, yeah, something like that is fine.

I'm fine with re-reading after 5 years if the voters choose to do so. I will probably usually vote for something that hasn't already been read, but the voters can decidel.

For Lucifer's Hammer, it is not really a problem for me at all. The group "read" 4 books in August 2014. This was one of them, but few people read or commented on it, so it hardly counts. Having an official group read of 4 books in one month is not really a good idea for this group at the current size. (Buddy reads are different. If anyone wants to start one of those at any time it is fine.)

Thanks for clarifying, Leo.

I often reread books after 5 or 6 years since the details fade, but this group is supposed to be exploring the genre & 100 books barely scratches the surface. Still, in some periods, especially early on, there isn't that large a choice & some books really stand out, so I'm on the fence. If we do it, I'd rather go for the 6 years between reads, though.

Lautaro wrote: "Same as Oleksandr. And I think that 5-6 years seems a nice number to wait before re-reading something, so, yeah, something like that is fine."

That's my RO-thumb also. Less for shorts. Might shorten as my memory continues to get worse? 🥺

Well, time to find out I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Jim wrote: "Also, should we read the runner up The Ship Who Sang? It only got 8 votes to the 11 that Lucifer's Hammer got, but it isn't a reread."

I may add it to my reading schedule, but I have to remind that Hammer is a quite large novel, 630 pages, over 24 hours of audio

Personally I would love some re-reads, since I joined this group not that long ago. But I also understand people wanting to read books that are new to them.

How about you keep the current rule against re-reads and every other month (or once per quarter or some such) there is a second book of the month which is a re-read? Then we would have a poll explicitly dedicated to re-reading books and the usual book of the month wouldn't be disturbed. Some groups I am a member of handle it that way and it seems to work fine.

Peter wrote: "Lautaro wrote: "Same as Oleksandr. And I think that 5-6 years seems a nice number to wait before re-reading something, so, yeah, something like that is fine."

That's my RO-thumb also. Less for sho..."

I know what you mean. I'm 73 and I find that in rare exceptions I don't remember much about books I've read or movies I watched many years in the past. I generally don't like to re-read books because there is a lot of stuff still out there that I haven't read. But I make an exception for some of my favorite authors who I had previously only read a small portion of their work over the years. In this situation I pick an author and read everything they wrote in chronological order to see how their ideas developed over time. I did this with Isaac Asimov, Clifford Simak and Theodore Sturgeon. I finished Asimov, I almost finished Sturgeon, I am up to 1972 for Simak and I just started with Philip K. Dick. Now that I m retired I have much more time to read than I did in the past.

The main reason I log all my books on this site is that I have often found myself reading some book and halfway through realizing that I read it before 10 years ago. I know I've read many books by PKD, for example, but sometimes forget which ones.

I joined in early 2016 and started adding my books and stories then. I also added a view that i had read in the past off the top of my head. At this point I have 2455 novels, novellas and short stories on my various list. So I have a good record of what I have read for the last 4 years but earlier than that mean relying on my 73 year old memory!!

I have developed a system and several shelves to keep things straight once I entered the reading challenge last year and this year. My shelves are "read" (book length), read-short-story, and did-not finish. I only use "date read" for book length entries so that short stories and other stuff doesn't inflate my total. The entries before 2019 are mostly just lumped together under "read".

One worry I have is that folks that did read a book will vote for it thinking that they'll be able to contribute without rereading it & then won't.

I'm like Ed about logging my books to help my memory. I often wind up finding an interesting book at the library, then reading my own review before remembering it especially if I only rated it as 2 or 3 stars. I've read too many such books over the years. Lately, I've cut way back on fiction because too much of it is the same or else too far out there. I'm finding nonfiction more entertaining & usually just as strange.

I'm with Leo. Why re-read a book when you can join the discussion? Topics don't close, do they?

Regarding Lucifer's Hammer, I found the book dated and improbable ten years ago when I read read the first half and gave up on it for its sheer stupidity. A fifth grade science education is sufficient to disprove the likelihood of every occurrence in the book. The drama is just as bad; it's about a Leisure Suit Larry asteroid discoverer who bumbles around while people do things to try to survive that make no sense at all to anyone who ever gave a serious thought to how one might survive when there is no civilization any more. The main point of the novel was to show how Studly got his love life back on track. There's no way I'd revisit that turkey. Once was too often.

In case there is still a question, my vote on re-reading is no.

Kyk wrote: "I'm with Leo. Why re-read a book when you can join the discussion? Topics don't close, do they?"

Organized re-read tend to bring more discussion. For many readers, after reading a particular book they don't go searching whether a group read it to comment. So, yes, the old thread is used but more people are aware of it and there is something like a discussion

Oleksandr wrote: "Organized re-read tend to bring more discussion."

In the U.S. we call that "churn." Number 3 in this definition is the closest: https://www.urbandictionary.com/defin....

I guess I just believe there's enough worthwhile things to read out there that we don't need to churn. If you believe there's only been a hundred (maybe two hundred) truly worthwhile science fiction books ever written, I can see why you'd vote to repeat.

In answer to Jim's concern I'm happy to allay it by chiming in on Lucifer's Hammer without rereading it.

Kyk wrote: "If you believe there's only been a hundred (maybe two hundred) truly worthwhile science fiction books ever written, I can see why you'd vote to repeat."

There are 7, maybe 9 books worthy of reading, but to find which they are, you need to read 7-9 thousand.... :)

Repeating mean that the group have read the story, but with fluid membership it can be that 90% of currently active members haven't read it, so organizing them to get a discussion seems the way to go. I myself in this group for like 3 years and of course I hasn't participated in monthly reads 4 or 5 years ago

Oleksandr wrote: "There are 7, maybe 9 books worthy of reading, but to find which they are, you need to read 7-9 thousand.... :)..."

Where did you come up with those numbers? Odd & interesting, but I think I could come up with 10 times that many for most periods or as many for each theme (time travel, AI, etc).

Everyone should keep in mind that buddy reads are permitted, even encouraged. If you want to reread something, post about it in the old topic or send me a PM & I'll try to help you organize it, if you'd like. For instance, I don't mind including a few lines about buddy reads in the monthly broadcast.

Jim wrote: "Where did you come up with those numbers? Odd & interesting, but I think I could come up with 10 times that many for most periods or as many for each theme (time travel, AI, etc)."

This as a slightly changed quote from one of the famous XX century writers, his answer to "please list ten books everyone has to read?" or something similar. I agree that there are more worthy books, the idea is that you cannot actually see worthiness if you have nothing to compare to.

Instead of believing there are 7-9 science fiction books worth reading, I know there are more like 70,000 or 90,000, many of which have been forgotten or never read by anyone with a GoodReads account. The reason I know there are more than 7-9 is because I've already exceeded that number in my reading. This year.

I have a proposal. Other groups solve the re-read problem by devoting a category for just that purpose. They actually hold polls on "reread the shelf" books. That works for me because I can just ignore everything written in that area. It works for those with limited imaginations and tastes who like to churn. They happily reread the same books over and over and discuss them endlessly. Thus Dune, Ender's Game, Hyperion, Foundation, Children of Time, and Lucifer's Hammer will no doubt get bi-annual readings at minimum, but only churners need pay attention. The only problem with the proposal is who will moderate that section? Did I hear Oleksandr volunteer? You might make this a quarterly (every three-month) rather than monthly thang, but that's probably underestimating how much churners love to churn and monthly might be just right.

Ed wrote: "The main reason I log all my books on this site is that I have often found myself reading some book and halfway through realizing that I read it before 10 years ago. I know I've read many books by ..."

Me too! Many years ago, I started keeping book notes in hardbound journals, the ones I used to use for class notes even longer ago -- since the notes I would jot down on a legal pad (or whatever) would invariably be gone when I went to look.

Anyway, I still have 5 or 6 to these, and have started to digitize notes a time or 4. WAY too much work!

But yes. Even MORE annoying to buy a 2nd copy, of a book I've already read!

Kyk wrote: "Instead of believing there are 7-9 science fiction books worth reading"

It was more like - what 10 books you'll take on an uninhabited island (the correct answer - ones that will help you survive, not fiction), for there are great books and good books.

I actually doubt that " Dune, Ender's Game, Hyperion, Foundation, Children of Time, and Lucifer's Hammer will no doubt get bi-annual readings at minimum", say Lucifer's Hammer won after how many years? 6? and once again why is it churn if I've never read the book? For me it is just like a discussion of a book that never has been a group read.

Mods, I sense the return of Dan the Man :D

Peter, I have bought books I already own before. It's frustrating, because sometimes it isn't my fault. One book had the British title, the other the American.
But I do admit I don't know all the books I own, except those I have already read.

Kyk wrote: "Instead of believing there are 7-9 science fiction books worth reading, I know there are more like 70,000 or 90,000, many of which have been forgotten or never read by anyone with a GoodReads accou..."

Wow. 70 or 90K worthwhile SF books? I wonder if I've read anything like that number? Doubt it. The best-read SF reader I know (online) is James Davis Nicoll, now a columnist @tor.com:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_N...
I doubt even he's read 80,000 -- bit maybe. I could ask....

Anyone want to take a WAG at how many SF books they've read? I have 1162 SF books listed here at GR right now, with these caveats: some are TBR, & a fair number are shorts. So: maybe 2,000 actual SF books in my life so far?? 10,000 stories??

I make no claims to having read 70-90K SF books. I am doing something anyone who knows anything about science calls extrapolation. That means if fifty percent of SF books I have read are worthwhile, and there are an estimated 400K SF books that have been written over the past century or two (in English alone), I easily arrive at more than twice my aforementioned figure. I halve that number not only to be conservative, but I figure many of the books I read were recommended to me by word of mouth, skewing the results by maybe 50%. That makes for 100K worthwhile books, or 70-90K if you want to be even more conservative.

Wow! I guess that means you didn't like Lucifer's Hammer. I read the book about 40 years ago but the only thing I remember about it was that I enjoyed it very much. I am re-reading now as part of a this BOTM discussion and I'm about half way through. I forgot it was for July and I started early. I am still enjoying it very much. It's the 45th book I'm reading for 2020 and looks like it will probably be in the top 5.

I am consider myself an educated layman when it comes to science and nothing I've read so far has jumped out at me as being as being highly unlikely scientifically. I'm sure that 43 years later someone in one of the earth sciences branches could probably pick some holes in the specific descriptions but for the casual reader like me the catastrophic events feel very real. I also think the book is written well with an interesting interweaving of stories of various types of people impacted. I was 30 years old when this book was written and I can easily place myself back in the that time period and it's social and political attitudes as I read it now.

As far as re-reading it as a BOTM selection my vote would also be no as a general policy going forward. But in this case it was read 6 years ago by a small number of Goodreads members so I don't see a major problem to re-read it now.

Jim wrote: "We've had a firm rule against rereading group reads, but screwed up this month & allowed Lucifer's Hammer to win the poll before realizing we'd already read it back in 2014.

Should w..."

I've tried looking for the discussion group from 2014 for Lucifer's Hammer but I haven't been able to find it.

There was only a tiny bit of discussion of it here:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

The group was doing 4 books that month. Dhalgren got the most group activity that month. I was not a member then.

I think for Lucifer's Hammer, the moderators' decision is: Oops, we made a mistake to allow the nomination, but we are going ahead with it.

Oleksandr wrote: "Kyk wrote: "If you believe there's only been a hundred (maybe two hundred) truly worthwhile science fiction books ever written, I can see why you'd vote to repeat."

There are 7, maybe 9 books wort..."

Kyk wrote: "I'm with Leo. Why re-read a book when you can join the discussion? Topics don't close, do they?

Only 7 or 9 SF books worth reading? I just looked at "my books" and found 27 I gave 5 stars and 66 that I gave 4 stars too in the 4 years I have been a member. I am sure I could triple that number if I was able to include all the SF novels I read in the 60 years before. I would consider them all worthy of reading.

Oleksandr wrote: "This as a slightly changed quote from one of the famous XX century writers, his answer to "please list ten books everyone has to read?" or something similar...."

Ah! That makes sense. I'd be hard pressed to whittle down my reading to a list like that. I agree, I had to read a lot of crap over a half century to appreciate what was worthwhile. I find that the best books appealed to me at both ends. Fahrenheit 451 is one such.

Again, 7 to 9 book was a conversion of the quote, the meaning is not in exact number but in the fact that you have to read much more to find out books you love and they are subset of total reads

Kyk wrote: "I have a proposal. Other groups solve the re-read problem by devoting a category for just that purpose. They actually hold polls on "reread the shelf" books. ... The only problem with the proposal is who will moderate that section?..."

I'm not volunteering for the duty nor do I particularly like the idea. We have several means in place for those who want to reread or add to the conversation.

1) Post in the old BoTM topic. Those are easily found by simply going to the period in which the book was read & looking in the "What's This Folder For?" topic. One of the early msgs in the topic has a link to the topic.

2) Post in the "What are you reading now?" topic of the period in which the book was published. There is one for each of the 6 reading periods & they're all close to the top since we use them regularly.

3) Misc topics: We have topics on authors & groups of authors plus a whole folder devoted to themes. Any of those could be appropriate.

Ed wrote: "I think for Lucifer's Hammer, the moderators' decision is: Oops, we made a mistake to allow the nomination, but we are going ahead with it."

I think that would be for the best, too. Too many books, too little time.

Again: Everyone should keep in mind that buddy reads are permitted, even encouraged. If you want to reread something, post about it in the old topic or send me a PM & I'll try to help you organize it, if you'd like. For instance, I don't mind including a few lines about buddy reads in the monthly broadcast.

Ed wrote: "There was only a tiny bit of discussion of it here:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

The group was doing 4 books that month. Dhalgren got the most group activity that month. I was not..."

Thanks. Not much discussion of Lucifer's Hammer in 2014 and no sense adding to it..

Peter wrote: "Kyk wrote: "Instead of believing there are 7-9 science fiction books worth reading, I know there are more like 70,000 or 90,000, many of which have been forgotten or never read by anyone with a Goo..."

Unfortunately I don't separate my book shelves between genres. Also before 2019 I didn't separate short stories from novels. I have 2455 listings from April 2016. I would guess that 800 - 900 are SF novels. So over my lifetime (born 1947) I am probably around the 2000 mark also.

Kyk wrote: "I make no claims to having read 70-90K SF books. ..... there are an estimated 400K SF books that have been written over the past century or two (in English alone),"

Wow. 400,000 SF books written! Where did you see this number quoted, DY recall?

Jim wrote: "Wow! I guess that means you didn't like Lucifer's Hammer. I read the book about 40 years ago but the only thing I remember about it was that I enjoyed it very much. I am re-reading now ....
I am consider myself an educated layman when it comes to science and nothing I've read so far has jumped out at me as being as being highly unlikely scientifically. I'm sure that 43 years later someone in one of the earth sciences branches could probably pick some holes in the specific descriptions but for the casual reader like me the catastrophic events feel very real.

I read LH long, long ago but remember it pretty well. We actually know quite a bit more now about what would happen if another "dino-killer" came our way. Nothing good! I think N&P did makes theirs a more-survivable event, which was smart. So, speaking as a geologist with an interest & some knowledge of the topic, I think they did a reasonable job of it.

And it would be a *really good* idea to invest more research $$$ into early detection & prevention of such. Shoemaker, before his untimely death, gave an excellent talk to the AZ Geol Soc about the time of the comet sucked into Jupiter. He thought that spraying steam from a spacecraft into the path of the impactor, to slow it down, might work. Very bright man. Killed in a car wreck in Australia, on his way to a newly-discovered crater. RIP ♰

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_S...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_...
"Gene" to his friends. The lecture I mentioned was one of the best I heard in my career. I wish I'd gotten to know him better.

Peter wrote: "Kyk wrote: "I make no claims to having read 70-90K SF books. ..... there are an estimated 400K SF books that have been written over the past century or two (in English alone),"

Wow. 400,000 SF boo..."

I wagged it. But an approximate figure for the total number of SF books written should not be that hard to extrapolate if one gives the matter a little thought.

The Internet Speculative Fiction Database lists 67 authors having their birthdays today. There are 365.25 days in a year. That makes for about 24,472 authors total. Figure they each write an average of 16 eligible works for us to consider. (Some have written over 100; others have written as few as five to ten, so 16 seems a reasonable approximate average.) This brings us to 391,548 works, which I round to 400,000.

Hey! I'm pretty proud of my WAG now. It looks to be sustained by the data pretty well.

It was a long time ago when I tried to read Lucifer's Hammer but gave it up in disgust. I can't remember the plot points in significant enough detail at this point to indicate the authors' naive science oversights, sexually immature perspectives, and childish social assumptions any more. But I figured I could find an article written by someone else that did easily enough. I'd just link to that.

I appear to be mistaken. People who I thought would know better writing for organizations like nature.com and space.nss.org rave about how realistic and serious an attempt to depict events as they might actually happen the book was. I really, really dislike this book and don't want to reread it to try to demonstrate its flaws point by point. I doubt anyone truly wants me to either. So, I'll concede and keep my distinctly in the minority viewpoint, now recognizing that it is, to myself.

Peter wrote: "Jim wrote: "Wow! I guess that means you didn't like Lucifer's Hammer. I read the book about 40 years ago but the only thing I remember about it was that I enjoyed it very much. I am re-reading now ..."

I think they missed an opportunity to make a great mini-series from this book. I think that it could have been done right after Hale-Bopp in 1997 which would have generated interest and when they would have been able to do some good special effects.

Peter wrote: "Jim wrote: "Wow! I guess that means you didn't like Lucifer's Hammer. I read the book about 40 years ago but the only thing I remember about it was that I enjoyed it very much. I am re-reading now ..."

I just thought more about my previous recommendation about the Lucifer's hammer miniseries. Maybe it would work better after Shoemaker–Levy 9 hit Jupiter in 1994 although the money for special effects might not have been as good.

I think the earlier one would have been better. Going up against Armageddon (1998) would have been tough with its cast.

Oleksandr wrote: "I'm in favor of re-reads and using the existing threads to discuss them"

Agreed

Jim wrote: "I think the earlier one would have been better. Going up against Armageddon (1998) would have been tough with its cast."
Yea, I think that the visual of Shoemaker–Levy 9 hitting Jupiter would have been a good set-up for the mini-series if they didn't wait to long. Unfortunately I don't think the cable companies were doing much with programming original shows 1995 and I don't think it could have been done very well by network TV.