They'd Rather Be Right

by Mark Clifton, Frank Riley

Bossy was right. Always. Invariably. She was limited only in that she had to have facts -- not assumptions -- with which to work. Given those facts, her conclusions and predictions were inevitably correct.

And that made Bossy a 'ticking bomb.'

Bossy had been designed as a servomechanism for guiding airplanes. But she became something much greater: a hypercomputer. Soon the men who worked with Bossy found themselves able to solve their problems, to erase their prejudices - in short, to think.

Did the world welcome Bossy with open arms and glad cries? No, because for four decades the world had been in the grip of opinion control, and Bossy represented a serious threat to that dominance. So Bossy had to go underground, and work in hiding. Which was why Joe Carter, the worlds only true telepath, and two brilliant Professors had to assume the role of Skid Row bums.

All this is only the beginning of one of the most thoughtfully written, and thought provoking, science fiction novels ever written. It shows convincingly and compellingly, what would happen if everyone in the world were given a single blunt command: Think or die.

Only a small handful of people are mature enough to realize that they don’t know all the answers. And it was only to this handful that Bossy offered the greatest gift of all: immortality.

But all people wanted immortality, wanted it with a fixed and burning desire. And gradually the tension increased, the mobs grew restless, the military became more demanding—and the 'bomb' ticked swiftly on.

And it was up to Joe Carter to stave off catastrophe.

THE FOREVER MACHINE is full of excitement, both physical and mental. It is full, too, of rich rewards for the reader who appreciates genuinely mature philosophy tinged with gentle irony. And among other things, it is that rare event: a science fiction novel based on a brand-new idea.
Cover art by Wallace Wood.

Genres: Science Fiction, Hugo Awards, Fiction, Classics, Speculative Fiction, Ebooks, Science Fiction Fantasy

173 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1954

About the author

Mark Irwin Clifton (1906 - Nov. 1963) was an American science fiction writer. Clifton began publishing in May of 1952 with the often anthologized story "What Have I Done?".

Most of his work fits into one of two series. The "Bossy" sequence was written alone, and in collaboration with both Alex Apostolides and Frank Riley. The "Ralph Kennedy" series, which is lighter in tone, was mostly written solo, including the novel "When They Come From Space", although there was one collaboration with Apostolides.

Clifton gained his greatest success with his novel They'd Rather Be Right (a.k.a. The Forever Machine), co-written with Riley, which was serialized in Astounding in 1954 and went on to win the Hugo Award, perhaps the most contentious novel ever to win the award.

Clifton is also known today for his short story "Star, Bright", his first of three appearances in Horace Gold's Galaxy (July 1952), about a super-intelligent toddler with psi abilities. From Clifton's correspondence we know that Gold "editorially savaged" the story, which appeared in severely truncated or altered form. The story has been compared favorably to Kuttner and Moore's "Mimsy Were the Borogoves", which was published in Astounding nine years earlier.

Clifton worked as a personnel manager during his life and interviewed close to 100,000 people. This experience formed much of Clifton's attitude about the delusions people entertain of themselves, but also the greatness of which they are capable.

Reviews

[Bradley · Rating 3 out of 5]

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!

[Joel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm glad I didn't read any reviews before reading the book. I'm completely baffled why this book is panned so heavily. I thoroughly enjoyed the book. Yes, there were some typos in the printing. Big deal. I thought the story was captivating and there was some interesting commentary on human psychology, especially toward the end.

Avoid the naysayers and give this book a try. I think the majority of the negative reviews are from people who have accepted the opinion that this is "the worst book to win a Hugo" as fact, without question. Sort of interesting for a book that talks so much about opinion control and the vain certainty of our beliefs.

[Cheryl · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sophomoric inconsistent philosophy that reminded of nothing more than Ayn Rand, with her arrogant supermen. Other reviewers, especially Nathaniel, say it better than I could, and in fact quote some of the same passages that I would. The take on the worthiness of scientists is especially inconsistent - what is going on that this had two authors? One for the sociology and one for the SF plot, and they had different opinions about science? I dunno.

Too bad. There is potential. In an age when too much SF was just short pulp, it tried to be more thoughtful.* And the characters, especially Carney (but not Jeff, unfortunately) are a little more complex & interesting than most pulp characters. And in fact fun is poked at a talented SF hack.

I do wonder if Rowling read it, as the scientists originally worked at Hoxworth University.

A "rigid intellectual honesty [is] that one faculty which makes the scientist different from any other calling."

"[N]o woman could fill all of a man's life... the woman who tries to monopolize both love and companionship usually winds up with neither."

I want to check what the contenders were for the Hugo that year. ... Ok found some. Looks like Mission of Gravity, which is still read, was that year. And what about The Caves of Steel. I Am Legend is definitely still admired, and timeless; when I read it a couple of years ago I had no idea it was so old.

*See this page: http://hilobrow.com/golden-age-sci-fi/ and note that Forever Machine is actually, I now admit, worse than much of its time.

[Jeraviz · Rating 2 out of 5]

Novela ganadora del segundo Premio Hugo de la historia y escrita a cuatro manos y publicada por capítulos en la mítica revista Astounding en los 50.

Y está muy anclada a su tiempo. Temas de telepatía, parapsicología y unos inicios de inteligencia artificial que a priori parecen interesantes y tiene un primer relato muy bueno, pero que luego se va dispersando en una trama que no me ha atraído nada: una máquina que rejuvenece la mente y el cuerpo muy ligada a la ciencia que defendía Hubbard (creador después de la cienciología).

Se deja leer y si tienen afán completista de leer todos los Hugo como en mi caso pues le puedes dar un intento.

[Kelsey · Rating 3 out of 5]

(2/63) In my Hugo Read-Through
        They’d Rather be Right (The Forever Machine) by Mark Clifton and Frank Riley, was originally serialized in Astounding Science fiction in 1954. It controversially received the second Hugo Award for a novel in 1955. Historically this book has been regarded as the “worst” Hugo Award winner ever and has been accused of plot holes, poor writing, and even has made some critics question the public who chose it for a win.
       I went into this book apprehensively, not looking forward to it and with my brain filled with all the negatives. I finished it utterly surprised and honestly confused to why it received such scathing reviews. This is not a bad book, it is not a bad concept, it is not poorly written. The only thing I can personally think of in regards to why so many hate it, is that it just isn’t exciting.
       While reading this book I often wondered if I'm not intelligent enough to see what's wrong with this book, I can't see all the glaring plot holes and awful contradictions and repetitions that other reviewers rant about. I read it from the beginning looking for these things and couldn't find them. The only thing I could find that might account for peoples distaste is that this reads like a Philosophy book. It argues the philosophical ideas of man being limited by itself, about being freed from those limitations, and whether being freed from those limitations and progressing is better than slow progression but having the freedom to essentially be convinced your right.
       The general plot to this story isn't an exciting one, but it's an interesting one that I feel is a very important concept in science fiction as well as in life. It revolved around the development of an intelligent computer (Bossy) who has only unbiased, provable facts as her basis. The main character Joe, argues that as a society we are unable to truly advance because everyone, whether they realize it or not, are hindered and limited by their own thoughts on how things are. Even scientists believe that what they believe is what is right. This concept is explained beautifully at one point when the author discusses the 5% that would be able to use Bossy, and how everyone in their own mind belongs in that 5%, the mechanic feels himself superior because he knows how an engine works and has difficulty comprehending how the man having his car fixed can't see what a simple fix it is, while the man who is getting his car fixed just discovered a link in art history between two cultures, and is frustrated that the mechanic wouldn't understand the significance, and in that moment, both believe that they are in the 5% and the other is not. Everyone see themselves as right and whether they realize it or not are somewhat closed to the idea of other potentials.

       Confusing? Like I said, it reads like a philosophy book. Bossy is able to release man from all these limitations, able to, on a cellular level, get your body functioning right and without any limitations, any restrictions, it argues that things like illness all come from the weights of life, and once freed of those our cells are able to work at their full potential, like changing the oil of a car. This leads to a sort of immortality; your cells are rejuvenated and able to work right, so aging is reversed and illness eliminated (however you have to undergo it again later in life as more weights and such pile back on). Many reviewers act as if this is some sudden magic thing the book does, and it's not, it's explained, and honestly with very little suspension of disbelief it's believable. You can already see arguments for the potential of this in people now. Look at a man who remains active in body and mind that looks 45-50 but is actually in his 70s, and look at a man who has allowed himself to vegetate and stagnate and appears 70 when he's only 50.

       All in all the book primarily focuses on these aspects of each of us, that make up who we are, these societal influences and moors, that come from education and upbringing and exist in us whether we know it or not, are limiting our progression as a species. Bossy can fix that, so what do we do with bossy? Who gets this computer that can give immortality and enlightenment to those who are completely willing to shed themselves of all the things they are convinced are right and true, and be willing to except that maybe they aren't right, and others might have right answers to.

       There is no murder mystery like its predecessor in the Hugos, there is no excitement or midnight chases, this is just a book about an idea, and a philosophical one at that, it just happens to have a sci fi wallpaper.

        Maybe that's what people don't like about it? It's not exciting; it's not the easiest to read. That brings into the question what is more important? Ideas or writing? Is it more important that a book is well written than what its subject matter is? This book is teeming with ideas, just maybe not presented in the best way, but should we write it off so severely for that. Does it really deserve that just because it wasn’t exciting? I’d ask anyone who approaches this book to just look at the concept it’s giving you, step back and really look at it.

       For me, I'll take a good story, and good ideas, over perfect writing any day. Maybe that's why I liked this book so much.
In Conclusion
This book is a very different style from the first Hugo winner. It’s a book the focuses on philosophy and ideas, and that is the plot. It’s not an exciting book by any means. But just because it’s style isn’t overly popular doesn’t mean we can disregard the importance of its message. I hope this is the worst Hugo, because that means I’m in for some great reading, because I honestly really liked this book.

" Man represents a mutation of life wherein the intellect will get its chance to prove survival worth. It hasn't done that yet, you understand. All sorts of life forms flourish grandly for a while and then die out. But universal time is a long time. Remember the giant reptiles flourished for forty million years. Man will have to better that record before he can truly say that intellect is superior to a massive bulk and a thick hide. against that forty million years, man has about seven thousand years of historical record. But man acts as if, and apparently really believes, he already has the answers, that there is nothing left for mankind to do for the next forty million years except imitate the man of today."

[Michael Finocchiaro · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oh, was this awful. What a hot mess of a novel. It is regularly (and quite justifiably) held up as the absolute worst Hugo Award winner. Ok, so you have this questioning of "idées reçus" and firmly held beliefs that you have to let go to be immortal (wait, what?) and this also changes your physically (really?) and the gullible public goes from condemnation to adulation like a pendulum (well, that is relatively realistic, admittedly). But, the characters were less than one-dimensional, and the narrative absolutely all over the place (did these guys even talk to each other when they wrote the book because the unevenness is just too much). There is also an Ayn Randian kind of atmosphere that felt suffocating, the old 10% of the people doing 90% of the work ethic is just bullocks.
You can skip this one and get those hours back in your life 'cos it ain't worth your time.

[Ira (SF Words of Wonder) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Check out my full, spoiler free, video review HERE. Not as bad as I thought it would be. Great ideas around the AI/programmed part of Bossy. Crazy Joey pre-sequel is really good too.

[Steven Huddleston · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book cleverly and compellingly explores the question of how our dogmatic, deeply-rooted beliefs may (indeed, do) prevent us from advancing, or even availing ourselves of advances and new knowledge that would significantly, even dramatically improve our situation (social/philosophical inertia). More directly, it explores the question of whether the actual truth is preferable or “healthier” than our perceived “truth”—in short, what we think the truth should be versus what it is—and the price we shall pay if we dare to live by our own standards rather than those of existence (the truth) itself.

That said, a number of readers have shown intense dissatisfaction with this book, perhaps due to their unfamiliarity with the psychoanalytical concept of Negative Therapeutic Reactions (NTRs), arguably first observed in “The Ego and the ID” by Sigmund Freud. This has been a topic of much interest and debate within the psychoanalytical community, most notably in recent times, which refuses to be dismissed and promises much insight into and understanding of the human condition.

I believe that the authors, perhaps unknowingly, attempted to bring this rather obscure, although widespread and damaging human condition to the awareness of the general public. I applaud their insight into the subject, whether intentional (researched) or not (intuitive), and their effort to explain it to the common man through this work of speculative fiction. If nothing else it will provoke profound thought and self-examination and promote stimulating debates, at least with those familiar with the subject of NTRs. Do not so readily dismiss this book!

This is speculative fiction at its finest, and perhaps a prophetic work as well. One of the earliest explorations I have found of one of the aspects of the philosophical Paradigm Shift that we now see relentlessly and rapidly approaching.

I personally recommend this book to anyone and everyone.

[Mark · Rating 1 out of 5]

Often derided as the worst book ever to win a Hugo, They'd Rather Be Right is a prime example of the disposable pulp fiction that flourished during Sci-Fi's "Golden Age." The novel's central character, Joe, is basically a benevolent version of The Mule from Asimov's Foundation and Empire, the most obvious regurgitation in a work defined by its tendency to retread ideas that even then were already thoroughly explored.

Clifton's interest in the then-promising science of psychology is as enthusiastic as Alfred Bester's, but less informed. It provides the basis of the book's plot, which centers around a machine that's able to scan and "correct" the prejudices and misconceptions hard-wired into the human brain, a process that yields both telepathic abilities and eternal youth. It's the sort of Utopian nonsense that science fiction quickly matured out of, and interesting solely as a peek into the fledgling genre.

[S. Naomi Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

Initially published between August and November 1954 as a four-part serial in Astounding Science Fiction magazine, They’d Rather Be Right explores the concept of a machine with the power to grant eternal youth and telepathic powers, but only to those subjects who are willing to let go of their ingrained prejudices and beliefs.

The novel itself is a sequel to the earlier stories Crazy Joey and Hide! Hide! Witch!, the first of which introduces the telepathic protagonist Joe “Joey” Carter as a young child just beginning to understand his psychic powers, while the second covers the initial creation of the cybernetic brain, “Bossy”, and the way her creation leads to an almost literal witch hunt.

Picking up more-or-less immediately after the second of these stories, the novel follows Joe Carter and the two professors most involved in Bossy’s creation as they attempt to rebuild the machine in secret. For the two professors, Bossy is a tool for optimising the way people think, though they’re unaware that Joey has other hopes for the machine’s powers.

When Bossy’s first test subject inadvertently finds herself in the public eye, Joe and his colleagues call upon the help of wealthy industrialist, Howard Kennedy, to bring the machine out of hiding and to get the public on their side before the government can confiscate it from them.

Exactly how this book managed to win the Hugo Award for Best Novel is something of a mystery. It is regularly described as the worst book to ever win the award, and there are a number of theories about how it got there in the first place, though nothing concrete. One suggestion is that it benefited from a block vote by Scientologists, a plausible explanation if you consider the way in which the narrative identifies psychology as a self-serving cult. Another block-voting theory suggests that fans of Astounding nominated it en masse as a kickback against the previous winner being from the pages of Galaxy, a publication they didn’t consider to be a true Sci-Fi magazine. However, the most likely explanation is that most of the voters cast their ballots for the book without reading it, relying on author Mark Clifton’s popularity as a short story writer to carry the result. Whatever the truth it’s plain to see that controversial outcomes have been a part of Hugo history for almost as long as the awards themselves.

In terms of the writing itself this is a fairly adequate novel. There’s nothing particularly outstanding about the narrative or the way in which the characters are presented, to the point that none of the protagonists really stand out as anything special. Likewise, the themes explored aren’t exactly groundbreaking, and there are a lot of loose ends by the close of the story that it simply feels unfinished.

It has to be said that there isn’t anything inherently bad about this book, but there really isn’t anything to commend it either. When you stack it up against the wide array of other books to win the Hugo over the years it definitely doesn’t stand up well. In fact, it’s hard to imagine a book like this even finding a publisher today. There’s a reason it’s barely been in print for the last sixty-five years.

At best, it scores two-and-a-half stars out of five, and if I’m being honest that’s a kindness. If you’re really determined to read every Hugo winning novel ever then go for it, but don’t expect anything too spectacular from this one.

[Ferret · Rating 3 out of 5]

By far not the best of the Hugos, but it's an engaging little story.

[Varlan Georgian · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't understand how this book win the "HUGO" award.

[Kamil Bryl · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5/5

Wiele ciekawych rozkmin na temat nauki, społeczeństwa, opozycji między naukowcem a prostym człowiekiem, krytyka biurokracji, ortodoksów w nauce, szczególnie w psychologii oraz krytyka wpływu aparatu władzy na kreowanie oraz walidację Jedynego Słusznego Sposobu Myślenia.

Co z tego, skoro podane to zostało w bardzo suchej formie, z dwoma na krzyż ciekawymi bohaterami, podczas gdy reszta jest tylko tłem dla rozważań na wyżej wymienione tematy.

[Alex Memus · Rating 2 out of 5]

Да нормальная оказалась книга, правда скучноватая. Клифтон любит составлять психологические портреты людей, но не очень любит копаться в их сознании. Он больше рекрутер чем психотерапевт.

Детали:
* Клифтон прикольно рассуждает про науку как новую религию и про монополизацию научных теорий. Это похоже на подход философа Фейерабенда.
* Про терапию автор точно подмечает, что пациенты становятся похожи на терапевта. И что людям нравится чувствовать себя правыми, они за это борются и сопротивляются изменениям.
* Еще Клифтон чётенько предсказывает вторую индустриальную революцию благодаря компьютерам. В романе есть интернет (сеть многих Босси). И люди прямо говорят, что читать с экрана быстрее, чем слушать голос (Алиса, прости).

Я прочитал эту книгу для обсуждения на подкасте про научную фантастику «Худо Не Было». Послушать можно тут: https://share.transistor.fm/s/6a808021

[prcardi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Storyline: 3/5
Characters: 2/5
Writing Style: 3/5
Resonance: 2/5

This winner of the second Hugo award for novels would later be scorned by critics as the worst book ever to win the Hugo. Who's right? The voters in 1955 or the later science fiction authors with their advantages of hindsight?

I, myself, reveled in the story's ambition. This is a tale of grand ideas, of the total social fact. Clifton and Riley were toying with and developing criticisms of the scientific enterprise before the more famous, contemporary philosophers like Kuhn and his Structure of Scientific Revolutions. in the philosophy of science. In addition, I was regularly grinning with satisfaction at the insights the two had into marketing, public opinion, and the academy. In both of these areas - science and society - the book was quality speculative fiction and social criticism.

Threaded throughout, however, were signs of what critics would later reproach. For as deep and incisive as were Clifton and Riley's criticisms of current scientific inquiry, so were they wildly and naively careless in their presentation of the solution. And its not that science finally caught up to them or that it is a period piece; the technological solution that makes this a work of science fiction was...well...insufficiently explained. Actually, that's not fair. It was far more than "insufficiently explained;" it was poorly thought through and inadequately defended as well. It was as if authors had spent their allotment of facts and philosophy and had nothing left to scatter through the rest of the novel. The satisfaction I took in their social criticism was similarly counterbalanced by the pedantry which took up about half the book. The delivery, throughout, infused the story with a sterility that dampened any enthusiasm one might feel toward the tale.

I can believe (without any actual research) that this was the best science fiction book in 1954. It is better than some of the books that have been given Retro Hugo awards and better than many nominees that would come in the next few years. It really sits nicely halfway between the E.E. Smith space operas in the 1950s and that slower speculative fiction of writers such as Clifford Simak in the 60s and 70s. The title is actually a great advertisement of its contents: "They'd Rather be Right" is wordy, awkward, unremarkable, and largely uninformative. But once you read the pages within, you realize that it is profound, tragic even, and a thought worth having encountered.

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked up this book, as it seems almost anyone who reads it these days does, simply because it has a reputation for being 'The Worst Book to ever win a Hugo Award." How can you resist a reputation like that? It took quite a bit of effort to track down a copy too, (+10 points to Sony's ebookstore for having a copy, -15 for charging 8 bucks for an out of print book in a format unreadable by half my devices) but once I secured one, I settled in for what I expected to be a laughable ride.

I spent the first half of the book bored. It's not a particularly exciting book. This wouldn't be so terrible if it weren't for the author's strange tendency to use exclamation points three times a page, regardless of need! It might simply be two scientists babbling at each other, but they're always doing it excitedly! You can tell, because of their punctuation!

The second half of the book is less boring, but it slowly devolves into garbage. Here we have plenty of pseudo-intellectual noodling, cynical babbling about how 'only the top 5% of humanity is worth saving,' and the all too common 'scientists never think about the morality of their actions.' Worst of all, and the objection that as far as I can tell is most often made about this novel, it has a shockingly empty, unresolved ending. 'We have an immortality machine!' goes the novel, 'Hooray!' Little further thought given to the topic.

It's thankfully rare that the Hugo award goes to a book that takes a dim view of science in general. After the first Hugo was won by Alfred Bester's Demolished Man, it seems that the award suffered a sort of sophomore jinx. Luckily, after 1955, the Hugos had nowhere to go but up.

[Myriad · Rating 1 out of 5]

The ideas in this book are challenging and interesting and provoke some interesting meditations on the human condition. However, the style of the book is exceptionally off-putting, so it takes a good deal of willpower to look past it and actually engage with those ideas.

Mostly this book feels like the self-important theorizing of a young white man who is overly impressed with his own philosophical genius. The sentences are too long and the language too clumsy. The main character, Joe, is a very intelligent 22-year-old white man who just happens to be the world’s only telepath, and the only person who sees the truth of what Bossy can do for the world, and manipulate everyone into moving to the Glorious Future. Honestly, given the fact that this book is all about the arrogance of humanity, about our tendency to cling to our assumptions and our preconceived notions of what’s right over what is real, the irony of Joe's character is astounding.

If you can get past the overwhelming WHITE MALE BRILLIANCE, there are some interesting ideas in the book. I don't agree with them all, but they were thought-provoking, which is what I expect from a Hugo-award-winner. I don't think it's as awful as it's reputed to be, but it definitely could be a lot better.

A longer review may be found here.

[Ryan M · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is terrible. I'm kind of rethinking the whole "read all the Hugo winners in a row" idea.

At first I thought it was just crudely-written and anti-intellectual, but later it turned openly hostile against specific scientific disciplines, to the point that it seemed like... Scientology? Kind of? Did this guy know L Ron Hubbard or something? Because a lot of the same bullshit is in there. This jarring intrusion of hypocritical nonsense (I cringed every single one of the 300+ times someone said "ivory tower") just made me more critical of the book in general. The characters were stereotypes. The plot petered out pretty badly. A huge build-up of self-importance led to a boring, foregone conclusion. All these world-shaking events took place, but nothing really *happened*.

Oh, and of course it's full of 50s sexist and racist garbage that was hard to excuse, even despite the time it was written, in light of how boring and pedantic it all was.

It's crap. Don't read it.

[Bruce · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm at a loss how this novel won the Hugo.

I'd like to believe it is an unfortunate victim of the ever improving standards against which Hugo candidates are measured, or that there was a dearth of competitive candidates in 1954-55. But then I recall that that was the same publication year as "I am Legend", "Brainwave" and all three novels of Tolkein's "The Lord of the Rings" saga.

They could have done better.

That said, it did win and warrants a (quick) read if only to serve as a cautionary lesson how not to develop your "big idea" into a novel.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book won the Hugo way back in '55.

I thought it was better than the GR rating would indicate. I like the concept of a semi-sentient machine that is essentially a fountain of youth but it has to be replicated to be useful to the people of the planet en masse.

So it was thought provoking in the end.

4 stars

[Luke Tisch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written in 1954. Love reading old sci-fi as I find it so interesting how the political environment of the time shapes which ideas that the author determines to be important enough to write about. Gives great insight into the American early Cold War psyche.

[Oleksandr Zholud · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the very first novel that won Hugo, which is the number one science fiction & fantasy award. There are a lot of comments here on Goodreads that this is bad novel and that it shouldn’t be in the list, etc. I disagree.
This is a classical example of the golden age SF, pulps that had not a lot of science in them but great imagination. It’ll tingle your nostalgia nerve if you are after such kind of book, but if you prefer more modern SF it may seem weak.
The story concerns Joe Carter, the first human telepath. He is alone in the world and his desire is to find someone, anyone with whom he can be equal and free. And if there are no natural partners, he builds one, Bossy, an AI. Bossy is smart tool, able to do great marvels and find answers to any correct question. Of course such an AI is desired by anyone.
The story is very uneven, great parts are intermingled with very dull ones, so that its mark fluctuates from 5 stars to 2 and back again. Science is a kind of naïve hand-waving but dialogues and insights about human nature are pure gold.

[Neus Gutiérrez · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sinceramente me esperaba mucho más.
Me ha parecido muy 'estadounidense' y el mundo de la telepatía y todo eso, está bien, pero no me ha interesado demasiado como lo abordan.

Cita preferida:
"La verdad asusta al ser humano. Este planta falsas ideas en los escombros de su mente para esconderse de la clara luz blanca que trae la verdad. Sus razonamientos derrotan la sabiduría de la verdad. En sus prejuicios y en sus ideas preconcebidas, el ser humano dicta, con antelación, la forma que ha de tener la verdad, y los vestidos que pueda llevar, y por eso no acostumbra reconocerla cuando la encuentra. Sus falsas ideas le alejan de ella.
»Y, pese a todo, el ser humano sigue anhelando y buscando la verdad.
»Esto es inherente a la naturaleza humana. Esto es inherente a la naturaleza de la inteligencia, en sí misma: intentar saber."

[Rachel (Kalanadi) · Rating 2 out of 5]

Superficially not as awful as I expected, but the poor execution of the ideas was disappointing when I really tried to figure out what it was saying. It was preachy and dogmatic and yet self-contradicting about a lot of big concepts.

[Steve Baskauf · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was the last remaining Hugo award-winning novel I had left to read and just getting the book was a challenge. I couldn't find in in any of the libraries to which I had access as either an audio book, ebook, or hard copy. So it was either pay $18 to buy a copy via Amazon, or use inter-library loan. I chose inter-library loan, which turned out to be the right decision. I guess there's a reason why libraries don't have it -- it's basically a pretty awful book.

My expectations were low, given that it was a book about artificial intelligence written in the 1957 (only a year after the term was coined). However, I was somewhat blown away by this passage on the third page of the book: "Someone had said then that this machine was more important than the atomic bomb had been forty years ago; that the implosion of its significance upon man's psyche might do what the atomic bombs could not do; that man has a way of surviving physical destruction, but there was a large question of whether he could survive self knowledge." With the recent hype and concern about ChatGPT and AI in general, I thought this book might be interestingly prescient about what's going on today.

Alas, the book did not live up to my hopes. It depends heavily on the fact that the main character is telepathic and there are frequently deus ex machina moments in the book where he eliminates problems by manipulating someone's mind. The other irritating characteristic that it shares with other books I deplored like Atlas Shrugged, Brave New World, and pretty much all of Heinlein's books is the blatantly transparent ax-grinding about some social or political philosophy. In this case, the bugaboo is the "opinion control" that the government engages in, resulting in an entirely non-thinking public. All but the main character are duped simpletons, with the possible exception of the noble capitalist industrialist who helps save the day. Of course all of the significant main characters (scientists, power brokers, etc.) are men except for one woman who was a former prostitute and slum lord. There was almost nothing interesting about the AI, which has the incredibly stupid name of "Bossy" (as in "Bossy the cow"), and which somehow is able to magically bestow immortality on people by performing psychotherapy on them via electrodes. (Not clear exactly how this rejuvenates cells that were worn out by the aging process.)

All in all, it is a really implausible story with annoying political overtones, masquerading as a science fiction book. It was only the second book to receive the Hugo Award for best novel, so maybe we can just assume that the World Science Fiction Society just didn't have enough practice yet in picking books.

[Itay · Rating 2 out of 5]

מכונת הנצח נחשב בקבוצות רבות בתור "הספר הגרוע ביותר שאי פעם זה בפרס ההוגו". הם טועים. יש ספרים הרבה הרבה הרבה יותר גרועים והרבה יותר עכשוויים שזכו בהוגו. זה אמנם לא הופך את הספר לטוב בפני עצמו, ואני אמנם לא ממליץ עליו, אבל הצלחתי לסיים לקרוא אותו - וזה הרבה יותר ממה שאני יכול להגיד על הספר של ג'ו וולטון. מכונת הנצח נכתב ב-1954 ולכן הוא שוביניסטי וגזעני. נשים מתוארות בו כרודפות בצע קלות דעות, והשחור היחידי מכונה במילה ההיא. אני מניח שזה גורם לחלק מהקוראים לשנוא את הספר. אני חושב שההתמקדות שלו בדמויות לא מעניינות הוא נקודת האכילס של מכונת הנצח.

בכללי, אפשר לחלק ספרי מד"ב לשניים - ספרים שמנסים להשתמש במדע ככל הניתן עד לנקודה שבה הם נאלצים לנופף בידיים, וספרים שזונחים מראש כל ניסיון לכתוב משהו מדעי ומתמקדים בממבו ג'מבו כדי להעביר את הנקודה שלהם. מארק קליפטון נכשל במדעים. הסיפור עוקב אחר ג'ו, הטלפת היחידי בעולם שבונה ביחד עם 2 פרופסורים שלו מכונת בינה מלאכותית שהיא סוג של אישה שיודעת הכל, ולכן קוראים לה "בוסי". חה! הממשלה הטוטליטרית רוצה להשתמש במכונה למטרותיה ולכן בעידודו של ג'ו הם גונבים אותה ומתחבאים באיזה גטו וטף. לג'ו יש מניע נסתר בלבנות את בוסי, הוא מאמין שהיא תוכל לגרום לכך שיהיו עוד בני אדם טלפתים ואז הוא לא יהיה לבד. בוסי, כך מסתבר, מסוגלת להעניק חיי נצח לאנשים. באמצעות חיבור אלקטרודות לגופם בוסי מהפנטת אותם ומתקנת את התאים שלהם כך שהם חוזרים להיות צעירים ובריאים ונפלאים, ואם הם נשים אז גם כוסיות על כי זה מה שחשוב. בכל אופן יש קאץ', בשביל שהמכונה תעבוד על הפציינט להסכים להיפטר מכל האמונות והעקרונות שלו אשר לא מגובות בעובדות מוצקות, כי מסתבר שזה "מכביד" על התאים שלו. אמרתי כבר שקליפטון נכשל במדעים.

לחיוב, הספר קצר. 2 כוכבים.

[Geoff · Rating 3 out of 5]

So this certainly isn't my choice for the worst Hugo winner. Its not exactly groundbreaking but it was entertaining. Its a product of the times but so are most of the Hugo winners from the 1950s.

I'd place it above the two Fritz Leiber winners and Neuromancer (three books I couldn't finish) in my personal ranking.

[Brian · Rating 1 out of 5]

Really just an alarmingly bad book.

[Lance Schonberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Apparently a sequel to two shorter works, “Crazy Joey” (written with Alex Apostolides) and “Hide! Hide! Witch!” (written solo), both published in Astounding in 1953. They’d Rather Be Right appeared in the same magazine as a serial in 1954. Both of these stories are alluded to in the early pages of They’d Rather Be Right, not by title but in general background information. We don’t actually get the content of either, but are left to assume what might have happened based on hints dropped in the text about events before the story began.

Really, the book has one main character with the rest in a supporting role. Joe is a(nother) telepath, but he’s alone, the only one of his kind, and with far more ability to read, and manipulate, minds than the ones we found The Demolished Man. He’s alone, and lonely, and is trying to push human evolution forward so he won’t be, though that’s not apparent right away.

The first two supporting characters we meet in the opening scene.

Billings appeared in at least one of the two previous stories (as did the other scientist on the run), as did Hoskins, and the two of them with Joe ran away from their academic institution (Billings & Hoskins are, or rather were, professors) with the incredible machine they built. A machine that can answer any question exactly and logically, so long as it has sufficient data to do so. The machine has been nicknamed Bossy. They ran because at least some elements of the government and military have some idea that it might be capable of being far more than just the super-autopilot that had been commissioned.

And it is. Aside from analyzing any problem or question it can be asked, Bossy can apparently do that in the brain of anyone hooked up to it, given the right starting conditions, and rebuild them from the ground up, returning them to a state of strong youth, which will last forever, and granting the telepathic abilities Joe already has. The starting conditions are important. You basically have to let go of your ability to be sure that you’re right about anything in favour of opening your mind to a universe of possibilities for any given thing.

Mabel and Carney we meet a little later. She’s the owner of a rundown apartment building where she rents to them at a good price and he runs a pawn shop for her and provides early needed supplies. They’re also the first two successful immortality experiments. She becomes the love of Joe’s life, and he becomes Joe’s best friend.

Kennedy is the last of the big players (well, if you don’t count the press agent he hires for Bossy, and I don’t really). He’s a multi-billionaire businessman who seems to have the only enlightened view regarding science and cooperation in the world at, or anywhere near, his level in society. Joe goes to him for protection, money, and time. He gets all three. Kennedy is the all-provider for Joe and crew from the time they meet until the book ends.

Overall, this is an angry story. It’s anti-academic establishment, anti-government, and more or less anti-society, at least the society that the authors saw growing from what they lived in at the time. Looking past that, it works on several interesting ideas, and throws a few more out there to get the reader thinking, but doesn’t offer much in terms of difficulty for the characters to overcome. Joe can control minds, so can get whatever he wants (good thing he’s got both morals and ethics), and Bossy will give the perfect answer to any problem, so long as she has enough data. The other characters are mostly brought along for the ride. And everything more or less goes off without a hitch.

One of those interesting ideas is predicting the internet, pretty cool for the early 1950s. Not as we understand it, of course, but wireless networking between all of the important “forever machines” will be necessary so they all learn everything each learns. And that’s thrown away as “an obvious solution”.

And, at one point, the authors make the rather tired argument (if perhaps not so tired at the time), that there is no conflict between science and faith, and takes a fairly rosy view of religion. I’m trying to decide if this was some kind of small, “see, we don’t hate everything” item thrown in to appease an editor, but it seemed out of place in context.

Overall rating: 2.5 stars. I didn’t quite like it, but there was a bit more to chew on than there might have been, the previously mentioned interesting ideas. But the story had no real conflict and lots of anger at society. Plus, the book ends with a moralizing speech. Yes, that speech makes several interesting points, and even a couple of potentially good ones, but it doesn’t change the fact that the author is directly preaching at his audience.

And honestly, the book ends just as the really interesting stuff, the potential societal fallout from Bossy’s introduction en masse, is about to begin.

[Jeff Stockett · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.