Mark Clifton

Frank Riley

They'd Rather be Right

Kelsey Lynn

(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."

They'd Rather be Right

Reviews