The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

This month's nominations are for the period 1970-1979 and can be for a sci-fi novel or set of short stories. Nominations can be for any book that has not been previously read by the group, these can be found here. One nomination per person please.

Current Nominations
Mind of My Mind by Octavia E. Butler
The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov
Gateway by Frederik Pohl
A Dream of Wessex by Christopher Priest
Kindred by Octavia E. Butler
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
The Futurological Congress: From the Memoirs of Ijon Tichy by Stanisław Lem
334 by Thomas M. Disch

Certainly not a classic, but influential nonetheless, Cyborg by Martin Caidin is a fast, fun read & I'd like to nominate it, but it doesn't seem to have an ebook & is running $20 delivered for a used paperback. Drat. It was the inspiration for "The Six Million Dollar Man".

I'll nominate Restoree by Anne McCaffrey. She's best known for her The Ship Who Sang & Pern series, but I believe this was the first book I read by her. It's an SF-romance. I haven't read it in decades, but always remember it fondly.

I think the 1960s and 1970s were a golden age for sci fi. So many fine books came out that aspired to be good fiction, not only good science. To me there's a significant jump in quality compared to the 1950s and pre-1950s.

I'm nominating The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov. I haven't read it and it sounds intriguing. This book cleaned up the awards scene when it came out: Hugo Award for Best Novel (1973), Nebula Award for Best Novel (1972), Locus Award for Best Novel (1973), Ditmar Award for Best International Long Fiction (1973).

Am I the only person who hasn't read this book?? Maybe I shouldn't ask!

Love, "The Gods Themselves", though Fred Pohl's "Gateway", I think stands equally as one unique work form the seventies in style and content. I'm good with either.

By the way, "The Gods Themselves" is was absolutely a great novel. Interesting was that it beat out Clifford Simak's Hugo nominated novel but almost the same title, "A Choice of Gods", which I thought was as good an effort - thus it too would be a well worth consideration.

A future idea might be a rejudging, by the dedicated and wise Goodreads members, of Hugo year nominees. With hindsight, maybe the better novel might have attention aimed towards it. Just an idea.

I nominate A Dream of Wessex by Christopher Priest

Would like to nominate Kindred by Octavia E. Butler - first published June '79 (according to GR), so just nips in there.

CS wrote: "I think the 1960s and 1970s were a golden age for sci fi.... I'm nominating The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov. I haven't read it and it sounds intriguing...."

Agreed on both counts.

I suggest the following book, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", by Douglas Adams

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

Good One!
At least I believe it is, as I have not yet read it, but really want to.

I've read most of the nominations and i've read at least one book by all of the nominated authors. This has got to be a first :-)

I'm hesitating whether to nominate Roadside Picnic or to find something i've not read before.

I nominate The Futurological Congress By Stanislav Lem
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7...

Its current goodreads rating is over 4 stars. I gave it 4 stars. People tend to like the books I recommend.

Ronald wrote: "I nominate The Futurological Congress By Stanislav Lem

Its current goodreads rating is over 4 stars. I gave it 4 stars. People..."

I was really surprised this has such a high rating on good reads. I really liked it and gave it 4 stars but it's very surreal to say the least. Saying that I looked at the ratings for Philip K Dick books and it's similar if not slightly higher. It would certainly be an interesting book to discuss.

I've noticed this year that there are more nominations for the monthly group reads (a good thing) and that the voting can be very splintered (maybe not a good thing). The top vote getter can go as low as 21% of the vote. I was wondering if a run-off poll might be a good idea under some circumstances. Maybe a run-off poll of the top 3 nominations, if the top vote getter is less than 30%? Any other ideas?

I'm assuming that our hardworking moderators would be willing to do an extra poll. If not, I completely understand!

CS wrote: "I've noticed this year that there are more nominations for the monthly group reads (a good thing) and that the voting can be very splintered (maybe not a good thing). The top vote getter can go as ..."

Good points & ideas. One correction: "hardworking moderator" singular. Jo does it all. I'm just emergency backup.

CS wrote: "I've noticed this year that there are more nominations for the monthly group reads (a good thing) and that the voting can be very splintered (maybe not a good thing). The top vote getter can go as ..."

If people are interested in a runner's up poll no problem. This could be either from a specific month or we can take all the runner up books from several decades e.g. all those that had at least 3/4 votes in the 50's and 60's. Other suggestions welcome.

I'm just trying to think where best to fit it in, but I guess it depends if we do this as an additional book one month or just have the runner up poll winner as the monthly read.

Any ideas/preferences?...

I'd like to see a person allowed to nominate multiple books. From my experience, many books on the poll is a good thing. It leads to more voting. In the Literary Horror group I nominate around 5 books and I see no ill effects. At least no one in that group has reported ill effects.

Jo wrote: "If people are interested in a runner's up poll no problem..."

Actually, I meant a run-off poll, not a runner-up poll. For example, the poll for June 2016 featured 8 nominees, and the top vote-getter got 6 votes, or 21% of the vote. I had to ask myself, does this book really represent what the group as a whole wants to read? That percentage is very low.

Under my suggestion, the top three nominees for June 2016, Annihilation, Wool, and 2312, would be in a second poll, a run-off poll, and the top vote-getter would receive at least 34% of the vote. I believe then the monthly selection would be more indicative of the wishes of the group.

I haven't thought much about a runner-up poll as something to do once in a while. Like a consolation prize for losing nominations? What do other people think?

Ronald wrote: "I'd like to see a person allowed to nominate multiple books..."

With all due respect, this is exactly the kind of situation my suggestion was intended to avoid. The voting becomes very splintered, and a very small number of votes can determine the choice for the entire group. With so many nominees sometimes, I have questioned whether the monthly choice adequately reflects the choice of the entire group.

When I looked at the Literary Horror group for the past year, I don't think it compares that well with this group. The Literary Horror group arranges group reads irregularly. It's a smaller group than this one. Voting participation can be shockingly low. In the last group read, July 2016, only 4 votes (21%) determined the choice of the entire group.

I don't see any benefit in permitting unlimited nominations from one person each month. It's difficult enough to read about the different nominations we have now, and then vote. I think one nomination per person works well and is fair.

To get back to my original post, I am suggesting a second run-off poll (not runner-up poll) of the top 3 nominees in a month when the top vote-getter receives less than 30% of the vote. I am seeking a way to consolidate voting so that the group read is actually the choice of more people in the group. What is your opinion?

CS wrote: "Jo wrote: "If people are interested in a runner's up poll no problem..."

Actually, I meant a run-off poll, not a runner-up poll. For example, the poll for June 2016 featured 8 nominees, and the to..."


I'm OK with your suggestion.
One thing that I like is that suggestions always bring interesting books to my knowledge. Sometimes I hadn't heard about them before, like "Professor Dowell's Head", and end up by putting them on the list of the books I want to read later.

With all due respect, I see no problem with splintered voting.

The voting is open ballot, and a person can change their vote. If one's first preference is unlikely to win, he or she can readily change their vote to something else.

Also, I see that with more books on the ballot, there is more voting. I think more group activity is a good thing, no? Lets just do an experiment, allow one month to allow multiple nominations, and see how it goes? Isn't experimentation what science is all about?

Ronald wrote: "The voting is open ballot, and a person can change their vote. If one's first preference is unlikely to win, he or she can readily change their vote to something else."

Members will have to check the polls often and vote like they're playing the stock market. I don't think we should burden people with the need to check the polls, then change their votes multiple times.

One initial vote, then a run-off vote if necessary (top vote-getter receives less than 30% of the vote). That's all I'm putting before the group as a suggestion. My aim is greater consensus on the monthly group read.

Ronald wrote: "...with more books on the ballot, there is more voting. I think more group activity is a good thing, no?"

No. There is more voting, but it's more thinly spread around. People click on a choice, their choice is not the monthly read, and then where are they? Do they bother to read the monthly book? Or come to the discussion about it?

If people have a chance to vote in a run-off of 3 nominations, the odds are far better that the group will choose a book they want to read. Then maybe they will read the book and join in the discussion here.

I'm opposed to multiple nominations by one person. It's more choices for a monthly read, and frankly, I think we have enough nominations with the current rule. Why not wait until the time period (1950s, 1960s) rolls around again? We cycle through the decades. Also, why should one or more persons dominate the monthly nominations with many books? I think one nomination per person is fair.

I'm a member of quite a few groups with group reads, too many for me to read each one each time, so I'm not in favor of reading more than the 2 books we're already scheduled for.

We get our best discussions when more of us read a book & chime in, so I'm for anything that gets more people on board. I don't think more choices will help & I'm not terribly fond of run-off polls. I see weird results for that in another group that I'm in. A book will get first or second place in the first poll & then lose by a mile in a run-off. I really don't understand it.

Jo keeps a good list of previous nominations for some polls & we do cycle around the decades fairly quickly. What if we just keep all the old nominations for a decade & stick them in then we can each do 1 additional nomination on top of that? That should give us plenty of choices & allow previous nominations extra chances.

Jim wrote: "We get our best discussions when more of us read a book & chime in, so I'm for anything that gets more people on board."

I'm with you here.

Jim wrote: "I'm not terribly fond of run-off polls. I see weird results for that in another group that I'm in. A book will get first or second place in the first poll & then lose by a mile in a run-off. I really don't understand it."

It makes sense to me. Look at the June 2016 poll for an example. Annihilation was the top vote-getter with 6 votes (21%) of the vote. The 2nd and 3rd place finishers, Wool and 2312, together accounted for 9 votes. That's a total of 15 votes out of 28 total votes. What about the other 13 votes? They were split among 5 other nominations that lost.

In a run-off poll, those 13 extra votes would have to choose among Annihilation, Wool, and 2312. What if all 13 voted for Wool? Annihilation would lose by a mile. What if the 13 votes split 7 for Wool and 6 for 2312? Then Annihilation would still lose by a mile.

The point I'm trying to make, when the vote is splintered among numerous nominees, the top finisher might not be the most popular choice overall for the group. A run-off would help narrow choices and determine a more accurate consensus in the group.

Jim wrote: "Jo keeps a good list of previous nominations for some polls & we do cycle around the decades fairly quickly. What if we just keep all the old nominations for a decade & stick them in then we can each do 1 additional nomination on top of that?"

I can't quite picture this except as a very long list of nominations, i.e., the old nominations plus the new ones. A list of 25 nominees? (Help!) Then the vote would be very splintered. The winner might get 2 votes, and every other book might get one vote. That could be worse than what we have now. If I don't understand you correctly, pls clarify.

I'm actually not that keen to revive old nominations. People can always nominate them again when the decade rolls around in its turn. I'm more concerned about choosing a book among the current nominees that the largest number of people want to read (and hopefully participate here in discussion). I'm suggesting that a run-off poll might be good for that.

I also think 6 to 8 nominees in one month, as we have now, is plenty to choose from initially.

Goreti wrote: One thing that I like is that suggestions always bring interesting books to my knowledge. Sometimes I hadn't heard about them before, like "Professor Dowell's Head", and end up by putting them on the list of the books I want to read later.

I agree with Goreti here. Irrespective of which book actually wins the monthly poll, it doesn't exclude reading any of the other suggestions. Nor does it mean you have to read the poll winner if it doesn't appeal to you.

Jo has actually suggested what my other GR sci-fi group does with the monthly poll: two books - the winner and the first runner-up. This enables you to read one or the other or both - your choice. And because they are the top two nominations, they usually capture the voting majority. Seems to work well.

I don't think running a second poll of runners-up is a good idea simply because many of us read with other groups and all that polling and voting can start getting very complicated. Best keep the system simple.

An alternative thought: instead of changing anything about the poll/voting system, how about simply putting up a new discussion thread 'Failed Nominations for [month]', in which the books that didn't make the month's group read may still be read and discussed?

I understand where CS may be coming from; sometimes, the popular choice doesn't appeal, or you've read it too many times before. Or perhaps one of the other suggestions is just more compelling. Or perhaps you're reading the poll winner, but you fancy reading one of the other nominations as well - there are many reasons why a new monthly discussion thread could help appease any discontent with the nominated winner. My only concern would be whether it diluted discussion on the chosen group read itself. Conversely, perhaps it would increase discussion overall - who knows?

Facing this problem myself (at the time of writing) as September's group read is looking like Dune, which I don't feel like rereading just yet. Solaris, however, has been on my radar for some time, and I'm also enticed by The Einstein Intersection. So whatever the outcome of the poll, I'll be reading Lem and Delany come September.

I like both of Donna Rae's suggestions. I think they're simpler, and avoid the hassle of extra polling.

Donna Rae wrote: "Jo has actually suggested what my other GR sci-fi group does with the monthly poll: two books - the winner and the first runner-up. This enables you to read one or the other or both - your choice. And because they are the top two nominations, they usually capture the voting majority. "

I misunderstood Jo's post. This sounds like a good idea.

Donna Rae wrote: "...how about simply putting up a new discussion thread 'Failed Nominations for [month]', in which the books that didn't make the month's group read may still be read and discussed?"

I like this idea also. But how about calling it 'Side Reads' to avoid the connotation that it's the sore losers corner. :-)) :-)) It doesn't have to be a monthly thread. It can be ongoing for this forum and people can post on it anytime. Also, people can discuss other books that were not nominated, they're just reading these books on their own, and that could increase participation also.

Donna Rae wrote: "Facing this problem myself (at the time of writing) as September's group read is looking like Dune, which I don't feel like rereading just yet. "

I feel the same way about Dune, although that's not the principal reason I made my suggestion. For months now I've looked at low voting percentages for some monthly winners, and wondered how well they reflect what others in the group want to read.

What do other people think? especially Jo, who has to do all the hard work here. Jo, if this is too much for you, pls say so.

Sorry i'm a bit busy at the moment so I don't have time to reply properly at the moment. I really like the ideas of a side reads thread as I think this would help to increase discussion and this is a lot simpler for me rather than additional polling. I think if we wanted to move to additional polling we would have to
change the way nominations etc. are done as I think people voting twice in a month would not work without prompting.

I didn't intentionally suggest to have the winner and runner up as the group read. The issue with this is if you look at previous polls
you could potentially have at least 3-4 winning books in a given month due to the splintered voting. Is the preference to have two named group reads per month or would 1 book and having the sides reads thread suggested by Donna Rae be a better option?

Another thought is if the voting is close, those wanting to read the other book could just start a topic & discuss it as well.

As a start i've created a side reads thread here. I will update it each month with the non-winning nominations.

I'm still thinking about the other comments, sometimes it takes me a bit of time :-)

CS wrote: "I think the 1960s and 1970s were a golden age for sci fi. So many fine books came out that aspired to be good fiction, not only good science. To me there's a significant jump in quality compared to..."

I haven't! :) My library has the audiobook so its a maybe.

Jo wrote: "As a start i've created a side reads thread here. I will update it each month with the non-winning nominations.

I'm still thinking about the other comments, sometimes it takes me a bit of time :-)"


My classics group has 2 books a month. The 1st choice then the runner up. Then its a folder for each book and separate discussions ensue. A member usually volunteers to be the Discussion Leader. It seems to work for them.

I am going to nominated 334 by Thomas M. Disch

I rather like the idea of gathering up unread nominations from throughout the decades and having a vote on them. In might be a nice interlude before we then start the cycle again.

Just looking through the nominations and it looks like Restoree by Anne McCaffrey was actually published in 1967. I think the confusion might have arisen because the edition nominated was published in 1970.

Whoops, good catch, Joel. Probably close enough, though.

I've noticed that Amazon is sloppy about first publication/copyright dates. It gives the date of publication for that particular edition, but we need the date of first publication/copyright to place the book in a certain era. I double-check on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the web for first publication dates.

Good idea. I'm rarely that thorough unless something really seems off. A few years doesn't ring any alarm bells, though.

Goodreads gives the first-published date.

If you go on the page and check then in most cases goodreads has the first published date. However, if you're looking through a list, or have arranged the list in order of date published, it sometimes shows the editions published date rather than the original published date. In most cases, I already own the book I nominate, so I just check for the copyright date on the first few pages.

Those 'first published' dates can get really tricky sometimes. Pulled out a copy of Stanislaw Lem's The Star Diaries from the local library, a collection of short stories written as space voyages made by one Ijon Tichy. Lem wrote these, on and off, over the course of a number of years - from 1957 to 1971! Doesn't even fit into a neat decade - how inconsiderate of him!

Fully recommended, though.

Jim wrote: "Good idea. I'm rarely that thorough unless something really seems off. A few years doesn't ring any alarm bells, though."

Jim - do you want to make a different nomination? It would be a bit odd if Restoree is nominated and wins. We would have the group read for the 70's being from the 60's!

I'm going to add it to my to read list though as the only Anne McCaffrey books i've read all had dragons in and i'm not a great fan of dragons.

I guess I'll change to Mind of My Mind by Octavia E. Butler. I know there's been another nomination of her books, but this was the first I read by her, the first of the 'Pattern Master' series (I think), & one of my favorites. I didn't care for most of her later books.

Just had a thought in regards to the issue with the votes being so evenly spread. Could we potentially introduce the rule of not voting for your own nomination? Not having that as an option might encourage peeps to look more into the other options and prevent them from being easily dismissed.

It can't really be enforced and would probably have to run on an honour system, but it could be worth trying.

I'd be against that one.

Joel wrote: "Just had a thought in regards to the issue with the votes being so evenly spread. Could we potentially introduce the rule of not voting for your own nomination? Not having that as an option might e..."

I think if someone nominates a book it is because they want to read it; why else would you nominate it? However, I think you might be onto a partial solution to the problem, Joel, by taking a look at the nominating process. I feel Jo has gone a long way towards solving some discontent simply by opening up the side-reads thread (thanks, Jo!), which enables group members to discuss books that didn't top the monthly poll. I'm happy enough with just that, but if the splintered voting is still of some concern, then that might be the result of too many nominations occurring in relation to the number of group readers voting in any given month. In this instance, it might be worth considering shortening the nomination period to a designated week (between the same dates every month, so that everyone is aware of it). Perhaps that might help?

As I've already said, I'm happy enough with the voting system as it is - apart from one thing, though: not everyone who votes in these polls actually contributes to the group read discussions, yet discussion and comment is what a group read is all about! This is unfair on those who do their best to join in. So please everyone, if you vote, make at least one contribution to the threads...

Donna Rae wrote: "...but if the splintered voting is still of some concern..."

I'm willing to give the side reads thread a chance before making any modifications to nominations and voting. Shall we see how it goes for the next couple months?

Donna Rae wrote: "...not everyone who votes in these polls actually contributes to the group read discussions... So please everyone, if you vote, make at least one contribution to the threads...."

Agree.

CS wrote: "Donna Rae wrote: "...but if the splintered voting is still of some concern..."

I'm willing to give the side reads thread a chance before making any modifications to nominations and voting. Shall w..."

My sentiments, too. I think the side-reads thread will prove enough.

Donna Rae wrote: "My sentiments, too. I think the side-reads thread will prove enough...."

I think it's a good addition and thanks for the suggestion! I will mention the new thread in the monthly email to publicize it's existence.

As this is the nomination thread it will be locked at the end of the month. I want to centralise the discussion on the voting but unfortunately I am unable to move the posts related to voting etc. so i've created a new folder here. I've started to summarise the points but am not finished (although I may yet edit my post and copy everything). The new thread has a link back to here so you can always read what has been written in full.

The new thread is going to be for discussion about the group so new ideas, comments etc. so if you want to add anything else please do.