Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How Could You Statistically Identify The Best Sci-Fi Books?
jimharris writes: Over at SF Signal I wrote a piece "How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction?" There are three databases that collect lists of popular science fiction books that try to statistically identify the best books of the genre, [offering] combined list that shows which books were cited the most. They use different sets of best-of lists, but their results are often similar. The final lists are, Classics of Science Fiction, Worlds Without End Top Listed, and Premiosylista Comparativas: Comparativas: Ciencia ficcion (Spain).
Interestingly, each list has a different book in its #1 position (though both "Dune" and "Frankenstein" make the top four on at least two of the three lists). But is this really a good methodology for determining the classic canon? What would be the best way to statistically identify the greatest sci-fi books? (And have you read any good science fiction novels lately?)
Interestingly, each list has a different book in its #1 position (though both "Dune" and "Frankenstein" make the top four on at least two of the three lists). But is this really a good methodology for determining the classic canon? What would be the best way to statistically identify the greatest sci-fi books? (And have you read any good science fiction novels lately?)
Duh!
You need to define best, greatest, and classic before you can go further in your quest.
Art/literature/music is subjective. You can't rank them, except personally. Next question.
Maybe something like a points race? Assign a point value for 1st thru 10th place, ask the Teeming Millions (sorry Cecil!) to make a list of their top 10 or top 20, perhaps out of a pre-defined list of 100 titles (made from the 3 lists/databases you mention), then calculate point totals for each title. This way in theory a title that consistently gets 2nd or 3rd place on a majority of lists is "better" than a title that has some 1st place mentions but doesn't even make it onto some peoples lists. See the "points race" system that NASCAR uses...
Of course, then you have the problem of identifying a top series - ie, it may have a stinker or two of a book, but on the whole the series itself is excellent...
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Let the machines pick what's "classic" and tell us what to read in all literary genres. Hell, let the bots pick the "best" TV shows, films, and chili recipes too, while we are at it.
On a more serious and less paranoid note, SF does encompass way too many sub-genres for any one such list of "best" to have any meaning for a critical mass of readers. One need only look at the Chicano-Lesbian-Telepaths versus Space Admiral Roger Ramjet struggles among the all-too-human Hugo choosers to see that it will -- and should! -- take more than deep data mining to determine what is "best."
Science fiction is by far my preferred genre, and I've read a lot. And I don't get the love for Dune. It is just mediocre, in my opinion - which will certainly be bashed, therefore I'm posting as AC - but I want to read your defense of Dune, just out of curiosity.
Many science fiction lists look at the distant past. I think some of the best science fiction in recent years have been written by women, as they explore issues that most men writers ignore. The Wess'har Wars series by Karen Traviss, The Entire and The Rose series by Kay Kenyon, and Jenny Casey trilogy by Elizabeth Bear are my favorites.
Google's Page Rank algorithm probably has as good a shot as anything else.
I can't even tell if my friend will like a book that I read for a certainty. Why would you think you could do so using statistics?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Do "works ignorance of whose details is most likely to produce a 'turn in your geek card' reaction" have a rankable metric?
The best way is to read them all yourself and make up your own mind.
Or have you lost the ability to do that?
I'm sorry, but Dune doesn't rate in the top 100 science fiction novels. It just does not belong. It's OK, but it's nothing really special.
Popularity vs Quality is a long-standing debate in the arts, and everyone should read what they like, but Dune has faded badly.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Your comment makes no sense. I started writing this post without visiting the link but stopped myself and your comment still was nonsense, like a bunch of English words randomly strung together.
I'll rephrase with less embedding.
Alice makes an inside joke alluding to a particular work of fiction. The joke goes over Bob's head because Bob has never read it. Alice notices this and tells Bob to turn in his geek card. With which works should one be familiar in order to get jokes that geeks are expected to get?
Star Wars
Best by what metric, criteria (or criterion)? I did a quick skim of the "classic" list and the newest was 1992 "Red Mars" (and another book). Why nothing newer? I also note that a lot if not most of these books are written as social commentary. Perhaps the list reflects back on the list maker?
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
A bit too subtle and clever for the Americans most probably, but you get that.
The Algebraist is also fantastic.
Looking at the "Classics of Science Fiction", I have to question how many of these books have been actually read.
Going through the first 100 list, I have read and attempted to read 90 of them (which is why I would put the challenge on the Subject line).
"Frankenstein", while undoubtedly having a huge impact on modern society is basically unreadable by modern readers - the copy I have has a forward by Stephen King saying it took him four attempts over decades to get through the book. The same comments for "The Lost World", "Gulliver's Travels" and "Brave New World".
I have never seen a copy of "R.U.R." (either as the original play, translated into English, or as a novelization), my copy of "Cities in Flight" is from 1966 and there are a number of books that are listed pre-1950 that I have heard about but never seen copies of. Now, as a counter-point, I just looked for many books I haven't seen on Amazon.com and did find them (the two cited in this paragraph are easily found and ordered) but I haven't seen them in new & used book stores even though I have looked for them.
So, to get this list, how many were actually read and how many were checked off because the reviewer/person being surveyed has actually read them? So, going back to the original question how can you statistically identify the best science fiction books if not all of the "classics" haven been read?
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Such gigantomania revenge-phanatisies as "Dune" - way overrated by a certain demographic of SF Fans - would totally scew the results.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
When I do I try to read the supposed good stuff - The Forever War, Canticle for Leibowitz, and suchlike. Somehow I became convinced that Stranger in a Strange Land was good sci fi. It wasn't. Not even close. It's simply a vehicle for Heinlein to preach.
Ask Slashdot: How Could You Statistically Identify The Best Flavor?
Sure, you'll get a result if you're successful... That doesn't mean you're going to like it.
Distribution: sales+ pirated copies + free copies.
Influence: how many times the name is mentioned in other works. Critique or reviews.
The Worlds without End appears to have been Slashdotted - update: contains about a dozen from the last 3 decades
and the Premios y Listas list names 22 titles from the 1950's and only 23 from the past 30 years
Has the genre run out of ideas, do people prefer the simple, "space opera" style of times past or is modern science just too abstract and mind-boggling to base entertaining stories on?
Whichever answer it is, the future of the future does not look very promising.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Depends entirely on the geeks.
Dr. Who, Star Drek, Star Wars, PKD, Heinlein, Clark, Ellison, Asimov, LOTR, Comic Books, Forbidden Planet, Godzilla, all have constituencies that would call them 'essential'.
Just reading all the PKD and Asimov would be a huge challenge. 'All the comic books' is a silly concept.
Go meta one. If you don't get the South Park SciFi refs, 'turn in your geek card'. If funnybot starting to exterminate was a surprise, you are no geek.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Couldn't you just count sales with giving some kind of weight preference to multiple edition selling numbers (as those would have people buying to replace and people buying because someone said to)?
Clearly I don't know statistics.
If a lot of people are wowed by product A and bored silly by product B, it is irrational to argue that the two can't be ranked as to which is the one most worth investing time in to read, given that we have a finite amount of time to spend doing so. Therefore to get people to vote for their 'favourite' seems a rational way forward, despite its subjective foundation.
Otherwise I know a wall with some paint drying that you can watch this evening...
If I were to define the best SciFi book, it would be the Analog magazine, at least when John Campbell was in charge. And since a lot of SciFi fans will doubtless be reading this, I'm going to take the opportunity to point out that Project Gutenberg (a project which has been active since the early days of the internet--in fact, the ArpaNet) has digitized a bunch of articles from Analog magazine, some dating back to the 1930s (but especially important for people like me, many from the 1960s). You can find these, along with articles from several other SciFi magazines, at http://www.freesfonline.de/Mag....
Ask Slashdot: How Could You Statistically Identify The Best Sci-Fi Books?
Read a lot of them and the one you like the best is the one you like the best.
Anything else is just time wasted that you could be spending on reading more sci-fi books. Or anything else you enjoy.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
My "best" is not the same as your "best".
And you never mentioned Futurama.
The Worlds Without End list is pretty terrible at the beginning (The Handmaiden's Tale, really? That theme was well-trodden in SF when Atwood wrote it. Hyperion and the Doomsday Book are odd choices as well). The Classics list is a better list, though it's quite influenced by the age of the work (not surprising for a 'Classics' list).
A better list, IMO, would break the genre up into periods and subgenres and assign key works from each; for instance there's no need for both "Left Hand of Darkness" and "The Dispossessed", and Neuromancer probably should be higher up as an early cyberpunk work. The emphasis on novels also handicaps the lists; Heinlein's Future History and Asimov's robot stories (collected in I, Robot, which was included) probably should be higher up.
I doubt you could make a good list purely statistically.
Considered it. But mostly math/science references, the rest are ST or just media.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
They're all gay, oppressed minority trannies - in space!
You could just as the sad or rabid puppies, statistically speaking. They are doing an awesome job.
You're right of course; personal preferences make the process problematic. OTOH my experience of using Hugo and Nebula award lists to choose what to read has almost always worked out well, so I suspect the best of the best has a wider appeal than just to its obvious target audience.
As far as Heinlein is concerned, 'Stranger in a Strange Land' and 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' are worth the effort. You either love or hate 'Time Enough for Love' - either it scratches where you itch or it doesn't...
Seriously. Why? So you can brag that your fav book is the best? Why not read reviews? Converse with other actual people?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Ratings and reviews of all sorts favor things with broad appeal, but those aren't necessarily the 'best'. I would love a rating method that points out the 'love it or hate it' place that has a bunch of 10/10 reviews but an average of 5/10 because half the people hate it. I may hate it too, but there's a chance I love it, and love it more than the 8/10 place that everyone really likes but no one says, oh wow, that changed my life.
With rating movies statistically there are a number of methods:
- Box office takings, such as Box Office Mojo
- DVD and Video sales
- Movie audience figures (when broadcast on television or similar)
- Industry awards, such as the Academy Awards or the Baftas
- Ratings from critics, such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic - Ratings from general users, such as IMDB
- and finally, "Best of" listings voted on by critics or interest groups.
I include the last not because it is really a very good statistical comparison as compared to any of the other methods, but because it is the only one analogous to the sorts of lists being considered in the Worlds Without End rankings.
To get a good statistical ranking for books or movies we need to get a comprehensive set of data that covers all (or most) of the entries, and which applies the same rankings to each. None of the rankings for Movies which I have listed really does that, but some do better than others in some ways at least. For example, ticket and unit sales cover all movies, though they have the problem that the number of people going to movies, and the price they pay per ticket, have increased over time so that the ranking metric isn't the same for all movies. It also has the disadvantage that ticket sales are not necessarily related to how good a movie is. Industry awards can probably be assumed to cover all movies released in a given year and therefore cover the whole population, but have the problem that the award givers may not cover all entries equally, and may be subject to bias. Critical judgement, whether from professional critics or members of the public, also have the problem of coverage - I personally cannot expect to be able to see every movie made, and the ones I do see will be affected by by things like advertising budgets which are not necessarily related to how good the movie actually is.
With books we do have some similar data sets. Figures for number of books printed, or sales on the likes of Amazon can be compiled, though these have the same problem of not being related to quality. I don't know of any compilation sites for professional book critics (anybody?), but there are sites such as Goodreads where members of the public can give their subjective rankings. Industry awards also exist, such as the Hugo or Nebula awards, but these have the disadvantage of being subject to politics (*cough* Puppies vs SJW anyone?). Finally, there are "Best of" lists, such as the ones cited by Worlds Without End.
Books have a problem compared to movies in that far more books get published than movies get made. While a good critic can expect to see all the movies that come out in a year (at least all those released theatrically), reading every book that is published is impossible. This eats into the quality of critical rankings out there, or even into Industry awards. Any "Best of the Year" list can't really hope to be definitive, because a book - especially a ground breaking, iconoclastic new classic - will take time to find a wide audience and be widely recognised.
For my money, I think the likes of Goodreads are probably the best bet as an objective, comprehensive and timely statistical source for
I am a Statistician. One false move and you are a Statistic
I think that the entire notion of creating a list using statistics about the number of people who read them, by ranking, etc. is an exercise in pointlessness. In the first case, you're duplicating the Amazon sales rank. In the second case, you're duplicating the Amazon review rank.
What would be far more interesting, IMO, would be to use machine learning to actually analyze the text of books within a genre, and then recommend other books based on which books a given individual likes and dislikes. And by feeding it a bunch of commonly read classics (Asimov, Clarke, Huxley, Wells, Bradbury, Orwell, Longyear, etc.), you could also establish a regular list of new books that ought to become classics (and, by extension, which new books ought to go in the trash bin).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Instead of asking what are the best works in all of sci fi, better to ask what are the best works of sci fi authors.
Heinlein: Starship Troopers, Moon is a Harsh Mistress (although for younger reader I would recommend The Rolling Stones or Orphans of the Sky)
Brin: Startide Rising, The Postman, Uplift Wars
Asimov: Foundation trilogy, I Robot
Cherryh: Cuckoo's Egg, Cyteen
Banks: Excession, Player of Games, Feersum Enjin
Niven/Pournelle: The Mote in God's Eye, Legacy of Heorot
It's still subjective, but you'll get a better list. If I am trying to find something new to read, I will look over the Hugo and Nebula nominees. Most of the time the same books will appear on both lists. I saw a couple of red flags on the sites listed in the summary. One had 'Consider Phlebas' as the only Banks book on the list. It's not a bad book, but I wouldn't say it was one of his best. Also, the same list had 'The Color of Magic' as the only Pratchett book. I definitely wouldn't recommend that as the first book to introduce someone to the Disk World series.
sf = philosophy of western world
fuzzy options.
(the impact of tech )
(on people)
( via a new mythology.)
art is what you *do* when the current load of rubbish isn't very satisfying.
ebooks. replacing texts with phones since google.
1) "Blindsight" by Peter Watts is the best Science Fiction book.
2) Popularity is not a measure of quality.
3) The actual best way is to build a true machine intelligence that reads every book after succeeding humanity.
... and the country one grew up in. Dr. Who for example was never aired in free TV in Germany, afiak. But ofc every German geek should know Raumpatrouille Orion.
As all my author friends say (we have a monthly party in Seattle), if Skinny Puppy likes it, don't read it.
There, problem solved.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Numerically invert the lists by subtracting a books place in each list from the number of books in each list that it's in (for example books 1 thru 5 would be 9, 8, 7, 6 & 5); now add together the inverse indexes of each book from all lists and sort by inverse index in reverse order. The highest inversely indexed book will now be first in the list. For example: Dune is #3 in the "classics" list, #4 in the "WWEnd Top Listed" list and #37 in the Premios y Listas. The inverse #'s would be 97, 96 & 63. Add those together for a total of 256. Frankenstein is 42, 3, & 1; inverse #'s 58,97, 99. Total: 254. Sorted by their inverse index # totals Dune would be #1 and Frankenstein #2.
First, based on some of the comments I see, a large percentage of slashdotters these days have no clue what sf&f actually is: 99.999% of it is *WRITTEN*, and has *NO* *RELATIONSHIP* to any movie, tv show, or video. None. In my personal library - I'm an average active fan - I have between 3,000 and 4,000 books... and *maybe* 20 or 30 0f them related to anything ever filmed.
Second, the whole concept of "what's your favorite book" is, IMO, asked by people who don't read. My "favorite"? In what subgenre? Cyperpunk? New Wave? Classic? Steampunk? Urban fantasy? Trad fantasy? Fantasy that plays off old myths, or totally made up worlds? Time travel? Space travel, or occurring on other worlds, with or without aliens.... I could keep going.
I can live with a list of books you ought to read (read Lotr, NOT THE FREAKIN" CRAP MOVIE), not Shanarra, or Ranger's Apprentice; read Asimov's robot stories, or early Heinlein, or Clarke. I can go on (I did make a list, long, long time ago, at the request of PSFS (Philly SF club).
"Among my favorites" I can deal with. FAVORITE, ahhh, no. Unless you can only hold one in your mind at a time....
mark
Actually you are mixing up nerds with geeks.
Or do nerds have a geek card, too?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Trolley problem definitive solution:
Jump in front of the train yourself.
You are welcome.
No comment on choosing the best books statistically.
However, I highly recommend Neil Stephenson's Seveneves
Imagine that humanity knew that Earth's surface would be made uninhabitable and had two years to prepare. How would we be able to ensure the survival of the species?
Peter F Hamilton does a more than passable rendition with his work. Highly recommended. Combines good stories with peeks on where technology could go.
https://xkcd.com/927/
A geek is a nerd who is proud.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
My god, that thread...you totally trolled half of Slashdot with that one.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Altered Carbon, Broken Angels, and Woken Furies by Richard K. Morgan
If you like detective read 1st.
If you like military sci-fi read 2nd one first. Great main character. Takeshi Kovacs
I've been trying to find some different stuff from the classics by looking at cheaper books from Amazon kindle which have some good reviews. It leads to something different than Asimov, Hebert, Stephenson, et al (which I enjoy) at least. Some I've liked are: The Phantom of the Earth - Raeden Zen Keystone - Luke Talbot Still Falling - Martin Wilsey. Of course, it all comes down to taste. There's also http://www.sfsignal.com/intera... for classics.
Be Excellent To Each Other
No, a geek is usually (somewhat) social (toward non geeks/non nerds), he has hobbies beyond computer and is good at those, like sailing, martial arts, basketball or math or physics or astronomy and has a girl friend. Or is a girl, but the same applies.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.