That's actually a fairly decent top five.

The One True b!X | November 15, 07:08 CET

Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke wrote 2001 together. Why don't people know that? The film isn't based on the book. In fact, the book was even released AFTER the film.

Also, yay Serenity!

Racoon Boy | November 15, 07:16 CET

Well, technically the underlying premise is based upon Clarke's story The Sentinel, so the article is right from that perspective, when it says "based on a story by Arthur C. Clarke".

The One True b!X | November 15, 07:21 CET

Love Blade Runner, read Do Androids around 30 years ago and was horrified when I heard it was being made into a movie. More fool me.

I think 2001 is hideously overrated. Saw it in its first run and was hopelessly confused and bored, nothing in the intervening decades has changed that. There are some magnificen moments, to be sure, but it just doesn't hang together.

I think Serenity is a monumental achievement, as I said here several years ago.

Not a big Matrix fan, but do like Forbidden Planet a ton.

Chris inVirginia | November 15, 07:30 CET

When I was around 5 years old, there was a re-release of 2001. My family went. As the story was told to me, for the entire two hours plus of the movie I sat with eyes wide and mouth agape, never taking my eyes off the screen.

Afterwards, my Dad would occasionally lift me aloft in our living room, me curled up in our bean bag chair, while he boomed out Also sprach Zarathustra.

The movie is single-handedly responsible for me wanting, at the age when everyone's asking what you want to be when you grow up and everybody is saying policeman or fireman, to be an outer space moving van driver, helping families move into outer space.

The long-winded explanation for why I don't find 2001 overrated. Heh.

The One True b!X | November 15, 07:41 CET

read Do Androids around 30 years ago and was horrified when I heard it was being made into a movie.

While I'm always disappointed with the lack of love shown Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? I love both, but prefer the book to the movie. It's especially grating when none on this list, except maybe Foundation, would make my top ten of sci-fi novels. To be honest, I'd never even heard of Hyperion. I may be getting badly out of date with my novel-reading.

[ edited by dreamlogic on 2008-11-15 07:56 ]

[ edited by dreamlogic on 2008-11-15 07:56 ]

dreamlogic | November 15, 07:55 CET

For once, a good poll.

Madhatter | November 15, 07:56 CET

Hyperion is almost 20 years old but it's not your normal SF series. I lost interest halfway through the second novel.

I far prefer Ender's Game but I know a lot of people can't separate the author from the man. And I would include Le Guin's Hainish series even though it's considered more young adult. Those were the books that really taught me what relativity and genetic mutation were all about.

I like action and adventure so my personal favorite movie is Aliens and of course Serenity is in my top five. I also include Invaders from Mars, not the Karen Black dreck but the 1950's Cold War dreck. That's a nostalgia pick, though.

cabri | November 15, 08:47 CET

I know a lot of people can't separate the author from the man.

I disliked Ender's Game before I knew anything about the author.

The Hainish novels aren't young adult, though the first three might be considered the work of a very young LeGuin, before she hit her stride. Remember, the most famous are The Left Hand of Darkness and The Dispossessed.

dreamlogic | November 15, 09:02 CET

You two so crack me up! Showing cabri by a nose...

Madhatter | November 15, 09:48 CET

*shrug* I always think of the Hainish novels as being just the first three because I had a bookclub edition that was called that.

cabri | November 15, 09:54 CET

To this day I can't understand people saying "Starship Troopers" was "so bad it was amazing". Is there like a third layer to it that i've missed or is it actually meant to be exactly what it looks like i.e. a hilariously over-the-top piss-take of the "ubermensch" school of military sci-fi ? What's not to like ?

Can't really fault the film selections, my top 5 would probably look fairly similar (if I could ever pick a top 5) but the books are a bit more hit and miss. I liked "Ender's Game" but think "Speaker for the Dead" is a better book, never read "Hyperion" though i've heard good things, love "Snowcrash" but top 5 ever ? Maybe not. You can tell it's a Brit magazine right enough, I doubt you'd see "Hitchhiker's Guide" in whatever the US equivalent to 'New Scientist' is.

Personally i'd have "The Forever War" in there (that taught me what relativity is all about from a human perspective) and probably "The Stars My Destination". Maybe the Mars books, they were great when I read them, dunno how they'd stand up to re-reading. Then it'd get hard ;).

(and seems like it's getting harder to avoid 'Dune', might finally have to get around to reading it)

Saje | November 15, 11:06 CET

*shrugs too* Yeah, all those categories by rules are so arbitrary, like the one where young adult stories have young adult protagonists - fascist. Fight the power.

dreamlogic | November 15, 11:07 CET

Please excuse the second in-a-row post of mine, if it comes out that way, because I didn't see Saje's.

I doubt you'd see "Hitchhiker's Guide" in whatever the US equivalent to 'New Scientist' is.

I wouldn't put it in a "top" list on sci-fi novels, but it was a world-wide smash. I don't think it would be underrated in the U.S. equivalent of New Scientist, if there was one (there's not).

I also like the hilarious Verhoven's Starship Troopers, though I wouldn't put it in a "top" list either, for the same reason - the genre is more humor/satire than sci-fi.

dreamlogic | November 15, 12:02 CET

Good to see some "Contact" love for a change. A good top five, if that's possible.

Book-wise, I'd have to go with Hyperion, a far better "monumental achievement, first-in-a-monumental series" pick than Dune, IMO. Not easy going, but riveting,(I love that built-in dichotomy) and as chock full of classical cultural references and metaphors as anything I've ever read. Dan Simmons does not have a normal brain, he's a brilliant writer and most likely, a mad genius.

Shey | November 15, 12:29 CET

I don't think it would be underrated in the U.S. equivalent of New Scientist, if there was one (there's not).

Sure, maybe not underrated but third ? I'd be surprised.

Saje | November 15, 12:35 CET

Ah, yes bix, they did use Clarke's "The Sentinel" as a sort of starting point for the film, but I wouldn't really go as far as to say that it's based on it.

I really don't think that 2001 is overrated at all. I only saw it for the first time earlier this year, and I was completely blown away. It is certainly the greatest film I've ever seen, and I think it's a shame that so many people my age haven't seen or heard of it.

Racoon Boy | November 15, 14:41 CET

A few years back, I played around with my VCR and watched 2001, editing out all the non-plot scenes by fast-forwarding. If you do that, it's about 45 minutes long. Now, I'm not saying it's a bad film; It's actually one of my all-timers. But it's also more... Visual than most sound films had ever been to that point. This is probably a good thing.

I enjoyed both of the lists, and added a book or two to my list of SciFi that I need to read. -And "yay" to the guy that added the Bible to the list. The template for all SciFi and Fantasy that has been written since....

TDBrown | November 15, 14:57 CET

Blade Runner may indeed be the greatest sci-fi movie of all time, but I think 2001 deserves its own first-place standing on a list. So I'll put it at #1 on the list of "Movies I Actually Fell Asleep During Due to Boredom, Even Though I Had Wanted to See Them Because I Was Promised Awesomeness." It narrowly beat out Star Wars Episode II.

If I were picking, my list might look like this:
(1) Blade Runner
(2) Solaris (American version, though Russian is a classic too)
(3) Serenity
(4) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(5) Colossus: The Forbin Project

Three honorable mentions go to Metropolis (which would be on the list if we had its complete form, I think), The Matrix, and Dark City. Five honorable honorable mentions to The Terminator (though not T2), the first two Alien movies, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Donnie Darko. And just because I have to mention it...the Quatermass X-Periment. (And anyone who says that the Terminators and Aliens are horror movies, or thrillers, or whatever they're calling them in Blockbuster these days, must explain to me why movies that feature cyborgs and creatures from beyond the stars aren't classified as science fiction. Nyah.)

As for the books list, it's pretty good, but there's just so much you can't include in a top 5. The Foundation series is better than Dune, as far as I'm concerned. Hitchhiker's deserves to be there, though perhaps not at #3. Ender's Game, though a legitimate classic, may not even be the best book from the series -- I prefer Ender's Shadow and Speaker for the Dead, in that order. Also, where is Neuromancer? Where is Starship Troopers? Where is Stranger in a Strange Land? Where is Canticle for Leibowitz? I could keep going, but there's only so much I can write down.

Also, I think suggesting the Bible for a list of "best science fiction books" is pretty offensive.

BAFfler | November 16, 04:04 CET

If scripture can't be judged by its literary value, how can it be considered impugnable? I think they should all be judged by all of our values, especially the ones with critical thinking. This would present little challenge to the wisdom traditions of any of the great faiths, since they're not much vulnerable to reason as we have it now, nor do they care to challenge it. It's always the crooks and toughs who want to make a problem.

Aside from that, I'm totally with you on most of your movie choices.

dreamlogic | November 16, 08:37 CET

As far as world-building goes, I have to nominate Frank Herbert's Dune, in every permutation I've seen so far. Loved the original books (and the House trilogy was pretty decent), love the original movie. And SciFi's two mini-series were amazingly good, although I did wish that they'd kept the original Jessica :S

Too bad they were too chicken to tackle God Emperor...

UnderTheDark | November 16, 09:25 CET

Wait, woah, hold on a minute there, dreamlogic. I never said the Bible couldn't be judged as a work of literature! It, and works of similar religious standing, contain some of the most important and most widely-known stories in this our modern world. Whether you receive the stories within religious works as epic or mythic in nature, they can have a profound impact on the way we read stories and view the world--even for nonbelievers. And religious works have certainly had an impact on the literary community, which is one way the literary value of a work can be judged.

What I said was, I think nominating it for a list of "best science-fiction books" is offensive. There are hundreds of millions of people around the world who believe, not just in the religious truth of the Bible, but in its relative (or, in the case of some people, absolute) historical accuracy. Why would it be a life-changing matter to any modern humans, except to historians judging the Bible's real-world impact, what Jesus said and did...if they didn't believe that he was the son of God, and could and did really do the things the Bible imputes to him? Do you not see why, to many Christians, it might be considered offensive to take a book they consider factual and nominate it for a place on a list of great fictional works?

BAFfler | November 16, 18:18 CET

I can see why it might be offensive to some, I just don't see that as a reason not to publish an entry (for a contest in a science magazine) that the judges found amusing - it's hardly hate speech and if it's actually news to any Christian that some people (especially those likely to make up the readership of said science magazine) consider their holy book to be largely made up then they should probably get out more.

That said, I agree it shouldn't be anywhere near a list of the best science-fiction since quite a lot of it is filler about who's related to whom and the world building lacks the sort of detail that would give it the ring of truth.

Saje | November 16, 19:19 CET

BAFfler, I've read the Bible, and as I read it (no scholar, so I surely could be wrong) it only claims to be the direct word of God in a few places, mostly early on in the old part. God spoke directly to Adam and Eve, Cain, Noah, Abraham and Moses, all briefly. I may be forgetting some other cases. From then on it was just prophets and priests. My point is that from a standpoint inside the universe of the Bible (and no, I don't think that's the same as the one I live in), most of it is stories told by people, and thus quite on level with other stories told by other people.

Do you actually know of a good reason why people would think the Bible is fact?

dreamlogic | November 16, 19:53 CET

Saje: Never said it was hate speech. Just that it could very well be offensive to Christians. And your reasons for agreeing wouldn't be a great deal less so. And dreamlogic: everything you've said is well beside the point. I never used the phrase "direct word of God," or anything like it (although I have met some people who would make that claim); I said some people believe the book possesses "relative (or...absolute) historical accuracy." As in, the ancient kingdoms talked about in the book really did exist, the miracles were real events, Jesus really did cast out demons and cure leprosy with the power of God, and really was resurrected after three days of death. If you can't see why it might be offensive to Christians to juxtapose their holy book withThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, then I really don't know what else to say.

Riddle me this, though, and see if you can't agree with this much at least: assuming for the sake of this conversation that the Bible is fiction, where are the things that would qualify it as science fiction? You could certainly classify it as mythology, and as Orson Scott Card once pointed out in a book on how to write SF&F, many people who don't believe in its truth (either literal or religious) might well be tempted to call it fantasy. But where's the science? Surely you can agree that at least from this perspective, the nomination is simply misguided, even if you (and I'm speaking only to dreamlogic here, not Saje) refuse for some reason to take what I think is a fairly common-sense position -- that nominating the scripture of any religion to any sort of best-fiction list is just offensive.

[ETA: I take the position that the best definition of "mythology" is "religion you don't believe in," and make no distinction on my bookshelves between the two. My copies of the Bible and the Koran are sitting right next to Bulfinch's Mythology and Kalakaua's collection of Hawaiian cultural myths, respectively. In taking the stand I have here, I do not consider my own religious beliefs, or lack thereof, to be germane to the discussion. I would have considered it offensive no matter which scripture was on the block. I should have mentioned this above, to dispel the impression I believe I have left -- that I am arguing from a Christian religious standpoint, or in fact, from any religious standpoint at all.]

[ edited by BAFfler on 2008-11-16 21:39 ]

BAFfler | November 16, 21:25 CET

Also, I realized I left New Zealand's classic The Quiet Earth off the list of my best sci-fi films of all time. This slight is truly unforgivable, as it would easily have made my top five (its unforgettable final scene alone would have put it there). Forgive me, Bruno Lawrence. And then there's the British film Village of the Damned, which is nearly as brilliant. Sigh. My memory must be going in my advanced youthful age.

BAFfler | November 16, 21:38 CET

I've said around here before that I was never much of a science fiction fan. My tastes were always more supernatural or fantasy based films, books and television series. Because of that I've actually seen very few of the movies mentioned.

Of the sci-fi movies that I have seen I'd have to include Serenity and Stargate as two of my favourites, as well as the Matrix trilogy. Probably my all time favourite science fiction movie has to be The Fifth Element though. I must have watched it a couple of dozen times now. Absolutely love that film.

As for Star Wars, never really liked them. I do enjoy the majority of the Trek movies though.

The Highlander | November 16, 22:18 CET

Wait a minute, the Matrix trilogy ? *notes date Highlander went banoonoos* ;-)

Saje: Never said it was hate speech. Just that it could very well be offensive to Christians. And your reasons for agreeing wouldn't be a great deal less so.

Yeah, I understand that. I guess i'm pretty much saying i'm OK with people being offended sometimes, it's part of being free and far from the end of the world (personally I find a great deal of what some Christians claim the Bible says to be deeply offensive, doesn't mean they shouldn't say it if it's what they believe, so long as it meets the legal requirements of avoiding hate speech etc.). And just to repeat, if there's a Christian on Earth that genuinely doesn't realise some people believe the Bible is fiction then IMO the fault is with them (or their upbringing), not with (in this instance) 'New Scientist'.

Fair point though, it doesn't really fit the category science-fiction as most people think of it. SF&F maybe but in general I agree with you BaFfler, it's closer to mythology (IMO).

Saje | November 16, 23:22 CET

You're certainly right in that it predates sci-fi, as well as the other literary genres. Yet it's held to be contemporary in its relevance, so it must stand beside them.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. "

That is about the beginning of the world. It's what occupied the place we hold for science before there was science, and for many people still does. So now you have another good point, if I understand you, that this is not meant to be fiction, but the ancient equivalent of science. But almost all stories (except the really ironic post-modern ones), claim to be the truth as they are told. Scientific theories are basically science fiction until they're proven. I think you're trying for an exceptionalism that isn't earned.

BTW, I have no problem with people making fun of Taoist scriptures. There's a lot of ground for jokes there, including that Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are probably both fictional. In fact, I think we lonely Western converts to Taoism would welcome any sort of attention, but we're just too obscure.

And you still haven't answered my question.

dreamlogic | November 17, 05:42 CET

Scientific theories are basically science fiction until they're proven.

But surely fiction is about being knowingly untrue in the factual sense ? And neither the Bible nor scientific theories are seen in that way by their proponents (though scientific theories come with the built-in caveat that they might be untrue and are almost certainly incomplete). Though I guess sci-fi falls somewhere in between since some of it has a knowingly predictive quality (i.e. fiction that may become fact).

I think there's an element of truth to the "Bible as science" idea too, people made predictions and watched to see if they came true or not and then altered their behaviours accordingly so as not to make God angry. Because they didn't approach it with any rigour and didn't have a lot of the tools that came along later (e.g. mathematical analysis) their predictive success was quite hit and miss but it still seems like they were trying to work out the "rules of reality" as they saw it (in fact, the shaky causal connection between "bad behaviour" and "bad things happening" might even have helped embed the idea of faith in the first place - just cos it's not always true doesn't mean it's not true, just that we don't fully understand the situation. Maybe the idea of punishment after death arose there too, a kind of "Don't worry, they'll get their come-uppance" salve).

Saje | November 17, 13:03 CET

"Yet it's held to be contemporary in its relevance, so it must stand beside them."

Part of the reason religious works are considered "relevant," as you put it, is because their adherents believe they offer revealed truth about things that are not provable even in theory, i.e., the nature of God and the pathway to enlightenment/salvation. There is a very real distinction between these stories and others for that very reason.

"So now you have another good point, if I understand you, that this is not meant to be fiction..."

Good. Yes. We're getting somewhere.

"...but the ancient equivalent of science."

Ah. Not quite. It's meant to be considerably more than that.

"But almost all stories (except the really ironic post-modern ones), claim to be the truth as they are told."

You're equivocating. There is a difference between the "truth" religious texts claim to offer and the "truth" offered by all other literature. The former claim to be chronicles of stories that really happened, in (more or less) the way they are set down. They are meant to explain and reveal the divine. We don't read literature of any other category for that reason, even assuming those works cover the same ground; at most, we read them for interesting speculations on those issues. The "exceptionalism" you say is unearned finds its basis right here.

"Scientific theories are basically science fiction until they're proven."

I see. And how does one prove a theory? There's a hot debate going on in the field of philosophy of science, one which shows no signs of slowing down, about what it means to prove a theory, and if we can ever do so. (Remember, Newtonian physics was thought to be "proven" for several hundred years, until Einstein came along.) Regardless, however, here is a marked difference between science and religion. Some people concede that science might be capable of being proven true. No one makes the same claim about religion; either you believe it to be true, or you don't.

So to sum up: religion not science because it can't be proven; religion not fiction because it claims to contain truth. Certainly not science-fiction, then, and definitely distinct from other categories of literature.

"And you still haven't answered my question."

Because, as I said in another post, it is beside the point. My point is that naming religious books to lists of best fiction is offensive, because (1) they claim to be, not fiction, but fact, and (2) some people still believe that some of them contain real truth. I fail to see which of these assertions is disputable. To challenge me, you must either prove (1) that religious works do not claim to be fact, or (2) that no one believes in any truth contained in a religious text. You have always been in for an uphill climb, which is why I'm surprised you're still at it.

Your question was: "Do you actually know of a good reason why people would think the Bible is fact?" Do you see why answering this question, one way or another, is unimportant to my claim? People do think that. It's indisputable. Walk into a church and conduct a sample. I imagine what you'll find is a whole group of people who say that while some parts of the Bible are clearly metaphorical, the people and events it talks about were mostly real, and in any event, it does indeed contain the message of God. (Unless you pick a church that has a literalist bent, in which case you may find yourself faced with people who believe, much after the fashion of Wm. Jennings Bryan, that the Earth was created in six twenty-four hour days.) Why would I answer your question, when I suspect that doing so would only shift the debate onto a different topic that has nothing to do with my original point, and when in any case I clearly don't need to in order to support my initial point?!

"But surely fiction is about being knowingly untrue in the factual sense?"

As usual, Saje is eloquent and brief. And right. (Well, that's not always usual... :::grin:::)

BAFfler | November 17, 15:01 CET

(Well, that's not always usual... :::grin:::)

True dat ;).

Saje | November 17, 16:04 CET

You have always been in for an uphill climb, which is why I'm surprised you're still at it.

Really? You must not have caught Saje's and my discussion on Taoism, and related topics.

I have been in churches many times, BAFfler. As I implied if not said, I was raised Christian, though not very energetically. Anyway, I know enough to know how much faith is really to be found there.

You've got some real game at the sport of sophistry, I'll give you that. I'm not going to leave it at letting you tell me that I have to prove the unprovable. Instead, I'll respond with an attack.

Some Taoists that I've encountered online call Bible-worshiping Christians idolaters. I've never repeated this charge myself before, but it does make sense in concert with my experience. I don't think that these are Chinese Taoists saying this, but rather Western converts like myself, given their facility with monotheistic concepts and their vehemence. The argument is two-fold. The first part is basic monotheism. To raise any part of creation above all others is to worship it, and worship is only to be given to God, never an object. The second part is more Taoist, and I have less hope of explaining it to you. There are not many value judgments assigned to above and below - both are temporary, as are the identities of particular things. But the naming of them is eternal, and once they are what they are they are not respected by being called by another name. Making an idol of the Bible strips it of its book-ness - borrowing a Buddhist term, it's such-ness.

I agree with monotheists about idolatry. It's bad.

dreamlogic | November 17, 16:17 CET