My Guide to Science Fiction and Fantasy

Note: This guide is currently partially incomplete. I will try to get around to expanding the summaries at some time in the near future (in particular in the Fantasy section). Not to mention that almost undoubtedly, there will have been one or two books I will have wholly forgotten, to my future disbelief.

---

This post is a summary of my recommendations regarding fiction; specifically, in the genres of science fiction and fantasy, which have proven to be the types that have typically attracted my interest, though not quite the only types. Certainly, I feel that I have read enough of a variety within these areas now, that I can produce something of a useful guide for anyone interested in finding the real gems of these forms of literature. It is important to realise that the summaries that I have provided are not meant to be synopses or reviews of the books, but rather brief overviews of my personal takes on them, as well as suggestions relating to why you might be interested in them.

So without further preamble, here is my guide. I’ve listed my current favourites (by that I mean both most enjoyable and having greatest creative and literary merit) at the top, with others in a fairly arbitrary order.

Science Fiction

• Dune and the Dune series by Frank Herbert
  In my opinion (and seemingly that of many others), perhaps the greatest science fiction novel ever written. The scope and storyline are truly unparalleled by anything else within the genre, and maybe anything else in the entire body of 20th century literature. In a certain respect, this work almost belongs within the fantasy genre because of its nature and some of the motifs – it’s much more of a superb story than superb speculative science, with a bit of philosophy thrown in. Of course, it still very much deserves the categorisation of sci-fi, mainly because of the interstellar travel (run by the monopolistic Spacing Guild) as well as the ecology/terraforming ideas that are involved. Overall, I might think that classifying it as a planetary romance does it maximum justice, though in all fairness there’s no real way to get a decent understanding of its unique style and grand themes without reading the work in its entirity. It is certainly not so-called “hard sci-fi”, but that’s not especially what I’m interested in to be honest, and no-one who has a proper interest in literature should care either. I don’t way to say too much more about this book, since I think everyone with an interest in sci-fi should read this once (and preferably reread it) from a fresh perspective and to experience its wonder for themself. Now if you make it through the original Dune novel (I’m not sure how you can finish it and be anything less than stunned), then I would without hesistance suggest that you also pick up the second and third of the series (Dune Messiah and Children of Dune), which are excellent reads in their own rights, if not actually masterpieces. After that, I’m afraid to say that the standard of writing and storyline declines to a certain degree (with a short resurgence in the latter half of Heretics of Dune). The rest of it does tend to get slightly crazy (not helped by Herbert’s unusual and sometimes slightly opaque writing style), and even verges on becoming somewhat raunchy at times. Still, they are by no means poor works, albeit ones that I would only recommend to serious fans of Frank Herbert. (More precisely, they are still works of high quality, but only to a much diminished subset of people.) So that I don’t end on a seemingly sour note, I shall repeat and reinforce my statement that the the original Dune, written in 1965, is a piece of literature that should not be missed by anyone with an interest in speculative fiction.
• Foundation series by Isaac Asimov
  The original Foundation is perhaps the first truly epic sci-fi ever created, and to some extent the precursor of Dune and ultimately inspirational to the Star Wars universe (arguably alongside Dune itself). Unlike Herbert’s series, however, this one peaks somewhere in the middle, with both the head and tail ends being only marginally diminished in standard. Although it may not contain a single book that is the equal of Dune, the series as a whole is probably unbeatable. Its pace and sheer scale rarely drops, and there’s always a sense of the unexpected (though a few can be predicted, Ibelieve it was intended very purposely). Again, similarly to Dune, this book is what it is because of its storyline, although there is undoubtedly a greater emphasis on the science, not surprisingly given that Asimov is in fact a scientist (chemist) by training. It contains some genuinitely interesting and imaginative scientific concepts (as well as a few strange and outdated ones, having been written in the 50s), both in terms of hard science (mainly physics and astronomy) and soft science (psychohistory being the main one). The latter is particularly intriguing, as it demonstrates (albeit in superficial detail) an entire new branch of science, which is in essence a blend of history, sociology, and psychology turned into a mathematical study of analysis and prediction of the macro-events of the human race. As a matter of fact, I do believe that Asimov is showing some foresight in this respect. Though the level to which he proposes the usage of his psychohistory may not be very realistic, the core idea gets me thinking seriously about the possibility of such a field opening up in the future. To summarise, he explores a number of both scientific an human themes with exceptional insight, yet some amount of subtlety too. So if you want something that is enormous in scope, besides superb entertainment (yes, these novels even include a bit of humour!), you assuredly cannot go wrong with this series.
• Space Odyssey series by Arthur C. Clarke
  2001: A Space Odyssey was one of the first proper science fiction novels I read (as a young teenager), and probably what really grabbed my fascination with the genre. As a novel written alongside a (faithful) film script, the storyline in fact ended up producing both a fantastic book and film, and counts for much of what made the Clarke the celebrity he was. Sadly, the great author passed away less than a year ago now, though he continued to write with much of his former skill well into the 21st century. Clarke’s works have always had the tendency to focus on space, the universe, and other intelligent species, and though they are perhaps not as grand in style as Dune or Foundation (he is clearly a realist opposed to the more romantic styles of the other two authors), they do have astoundingly good (hard) science, as well an undeniable element of suspense, which is present throughout almost all of his creations. The Space Odyssey series as a whole is one definitely worth reading to the end. If I remember rightly, only one of the four in the series (the others have the same names, replaced by the years 2010, 2061, and 3001) is a slight letdown, though the remainder (importantly, including the first and the last) are most enjoyable indeed. The first of the series I must however single out and include among my “big three” of sci-fi, the others being the original dune Dune and Foundation (despite a number of excellent sequels), as you might have suspected by now.
• Rendezvous with Rama and the Rama series by Arthur C. Clarke
  Belonging almost as much in mystery/thriller category as it does in science fiction, it is nevertheless an astonishing read. The highly unique view that this story offers in relating the first contact of humans with other intelligent life (of a much more advanced form in this case) may not be an especially grand one, but the imagination that went into this creation was surely immense. Being a mystery, I’m not going to comment any more about the book, even in vague terms. (Or maybe I’m just not too sure what to think of it as a whole.) Specifically, I would recommend that if your introduction to the works of Arthur C. Clarke is (or has already been) a pleasant one beginning with with 2001: A Space Odyssey, then this should definitely be next thing on your reading list. Most unfortunately however, akin to the Dune series, the quality of successive books  does deteriorate a certain amount. (I can confidently say that the second is worth a read, though, while the subsequent ones lose some, if not all, of their novelty.) If you need any more convincing, let me point out that Rendezvous with Rama won both of the highest commendations in science fiction, the Hugo Award and the Nebula Award, a feat that the original Dune similarly achieved.
• Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
  Who hasn’t heard of this work alongside The War of the Worlds as a prime example of classic science fiction? Again, not celebrated so much for its scientific content as the eloquent manner in which it conveys certain philosophical and speculative ideas. I won’t deny that this is a bit of a depressing read in some ways, but its philosophical and socilogical implications are beyond doubt not only captivating but also quite relevant to modern society. Perhaps I do have something of a penchant for philosophical prophecy in literature, but I don’t think anyone can finish this book not having had their own thoughts and outlook on life and society sincerely provoked, if not disturbed by this powerful portrayal of a dystopian world in the near future.
• Farennheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
  A curious title, let alone book, and perhaps science fiction is not the most obvious classification for this work, though I think in a sociological sense it is so speculative and strikingly relevant regarding our future that it should be deemed so. This book has many parallels with Brave New World, the evident ones being the examination of dystopian societies (albeit two different forms) and philosophical warnings with undeniable precautionary overtones. They are both surely championing the freedom of independent thought and behaviour over the horrors that extreme conformism might bring. And finally: a book about the destruction of books – is there not a wonderful irony (perhaps even mockery) in this predominant theme?

There are additionally a few books about which I have heard very positive reports but unfortunately haven’t gotten around to reading yet. I’ll update the summaries when I do get around to reading at least some of these books, which will most probably be some time over the coming summer break.

• Childhood’s End by Arthur C. Clarke
  [Summary to come.]
• The Robot series by Isaac Asimov
  [Summary to come.] For the time being, maybe pointing out that the film I, Robot was based on Asimov’s book of the same name will be enough to convince some to read it?

Fantasy

• The Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit, or There and Back Again by J.R.R. Tolkien
  How much do I need to say about this one? That it most likely surpasses all of the others in both of the categories I have listed here should say enough about my particularly high opinion of the works. (I am a self-confessed Tolkien fanatic, after all) In fact, if you need convincing to read this epic, then I would suggest that you stop reading this list now (not that I would have expected you to get this far anyway)! I’ve mainly just included this entry for completeness, not because it’s going to be of any supreme help to anyone. As a side note, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (commonly simply referred to as The Hobbit) should without doubt be read alongside the trilogy – whether before or after ought not make much of a difference to its impact, at least as I see it. Though I’m not sure to what extent this perception exists, I will nonetheless suggest that you dispell all notions of this being a story for chlidren – indeed it is no less suitable for adults than it is for a child, despite its comparative light-heartedness, which has possibly given it such a reputation. While I, as many others, read the novel first when I was quite young, it has not since lost its endearing quality to me, and see no reason why it should for anyone else.
• The Silmarillion by J.R.R. Tolkien
  The epic historical prequel to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, this may not be the easiest read when you first pick it up. (At least, it wasn’t for me, though perhaps that was because I was much younger at the time and the somewhat archaic language didn’t help – yet I can only say it adds to the character and feeling of the story nowadays.) Nonetheless, I would argue it is almost more magnificent than The Lord of the Rings in certain ways, being an true archetype of epic literature. (Though I haven’t read it myself, the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf may give some impression of its style; unsurprising, given that Tolkien was a professor who taught such works of literature.) To be honest, if you’re not immeresed in it by the half-way point, then put it down, but I suspect this will not be the case for any lover of The Lord of the Rings, and you will hopefully become immersed as I did by the histories.
• The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan
  This is a series that I’ve actually not managed to finish yet. (My excuse is that it’s composed of 12 books, each ranging from roughly 700 to 1000 pages. I’m never one to race through a book or series [at least not since I was younger], and in any case I’m at least getting some enjoyment out of the reading.) Influenced to large amounts by both Tolkien and Herbert’s works (and I didn’t even know this when I started reading it!), I believe this series will given time become as renowned as those two in its own right. This is the series to read if you’re looking for fantasy that is both entertaining and has great depth to its characters, something that arguably even the great Tolkien’s works were at times missing.
• Shannara series by Terry Brooks
  Shannara is Brook’s most well-known (and as of yet) unfinished series. With a total of 14 books (a set composed over individual stories and series in their own right), this beats even The Wheel of Time in that respect, though the fact that the various storylines are disparate to a large degree makes it significantly more manageable. Being epic high fantasy very much in the style of Tolkien (though not direct plagarism, as some critics were too keen to codemn The Sword of Shannara). In my opinion, this series needs to be read at least until the conclusion of the second book (The Elfstones of the Shannara), which is in my mind still the best fantasy work outside of Tolkien’s collection, since I initially read it seven years ago.
• The Word and the Void trilogy by Terry Brooks
  This is Brook’s lesser known series, though in fact considered by a sizable minority to be his best writing. With a dark, modern setting, this certainly isn’t his typical style (or at least the one by which he gained his reputation), though it is perhaps his most creative composition. It is additonally notable in representing his final break-away from the influence of Tolkien (not that I can deem this a wholly undersirable event), and really includes some very original content to its plot. Even if you were turned off by Shannara (or simply not particularly impressed), I would firstly respond in shock, but then suggest that this trilogy is worth a try regardless of your opinion.

Now, before some indignant Harry Potter fanboy comments on the absence of the series from my list (this is of course presuming I have any reading this post), I should stress that these are not books that have just slipped my mind. I’ve read them all (some more than once when I was a bit younger), and plainly, they are decent light entertainment, but nothing worth putting alongside the other greats, I’m afraid.

To end, I would only like to say that it would be very gratifying to hear whether anyone is making use of these recommendations. It would honestly be quite interesting just to gauge whether you as fellow fans of these genres concur with at least some of the views presented here, or conversely how you might view my summaries contrastingly. If not, I think I can still convince myself that I enjoyed writing this guide for its own sake!

Machine Consciousness

This post is the result of a discussion between David (a friend of mine and engineering student) and myself. It ought to be read alongside his post on the same topic, which takes a quite different perspective on many of the matters. As he states, it is quite unlikely that (even between us) we will cover all the points made by the both of us, though I will certainly make an effort to do so.

I now forget how the debate arose, but its main theme ended up as follows: Are modern computers conscious/self-conscious to any degree and what is it exactly that makes them so, or indeed differentiates them from humans in this respect? It began as a rather scientific/technological discussion but turned out to involve a good deal of metaphysics (in which neither of us can claim to be well versed, though we certainly learnt much in the process).

To start I should note that where David refers to intelligence, I more often that not mean consciousness. In my opinion, intelligence of certain kinds is something already possesed by computers to varying degrees; their ability to perform calculations and analysis of some forms of data far surpasses that of humans whereas they are not nearly so adept at holistic analysis or creative thinking for example.

Before I get to the core of the discussion, it is important to firstly (try to) define a few terms. There is no general consensus on the exact meaning of consciousness but the introduction of the Wikipedia article offers a good idea of what I refer to when using the word. Self-consciousness (or self-awareness more accurately) is a much easier to define concept, if still not a concrete one: if anything can actively identify itself in a mirror (whether it be a physical or conceptual one), then it can be deemed self-aware. Several animals other than humans have been labelled as such on the basis of this test, such as chimpanzees, dolphins, and elephants. Now the question is whether computers can currently demonstrate this. An example given by David was a computer recognising its existence within a network by pinging itself via a remote device (if I remember correctly). His argument is that if the computer receives a successful reply, then it can clearly determine that it exists (the remote device would act as the mirror in this example) and is therefore self-aware. I dispute this argument primarily by asking whether the computer actively/explicitly realises that it exists. Firstly consider that it would be easy enough to fool the computer into believing that it does not exist on the network by returning a fake reply (or none at all). Also, in effect the programmer is telling the computer that it exists if it receives a successful reply, which fails to meet my criteria for self-awareness. In a way, the programmer is imparting his own realisation of the computer’s existence into it. Humans on the other hand can actively come to the conclusion that they exist (even without sensory information). They need not be told that they exist, but rather only to think about it. The famous statement by Rene Descartes, “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”) can be seen as proof of this. The same argument applies to the mirror test for self awareness in animals, although the difference there is that observers have to make the decision (albeit with very high probability) that the animal has shown signs of self-awareness. David refuted this explanation, suggesting that a person raised without any contact with others would not have the ability to come to the conclusion of their own existence. However the situation in fact then becomes similar to that of other intelligent self-aware animals which have not been trained in any meaningful way. I do concede that it is theoretically impossible to be sure of self-awareness in anything other than yourself on the basis of “Cogito, ergo sum”, though the fact that humans and animals have not been explicitly/consciously programmed gives a good indication that self-awareness arose independently.

This whole argument leads onto the (wholly philosophical and non-empirical) issue of from where consciousness is derived. It is believed (or has at least been proposed) by some that all biological organisms have a certain level of consciousness (though not necessarily self-awareness). For example, the cells that compose an organism could be seen to have a certain level of conciousness (by the definition given earlier), while the whole organism could be seen to have a greater one. Similarly, the Gaia hypothesis (especially that presented by Isaac Asimov in his Foundation series) proposes that the Earth has a supreme level of consciousness, which is greater than the sum of its component consciousnesses (including humans and other organisms). It goes as far as to suggest innanimate matter has a minute amount of consciousness, though I suspect this was a unique idea for the sake of fiction. This theory can be summarised by the statement “the whole is greater that the sum of its parts”, which comes up in various places but I feel is perhaps most appropiate here. As I warned, the topic has now diverged completely from empirical science, since no-one currently knows a way to measure consciousness quantatively (or even define it in a concrete way). Continuing nonetheless; a computer may be said to derive its consciousness from either its programmers, internally, or from a combination of both. Humans may be considered to derive their consciousness internally (the neural networks of the brain are created from innanimite matter via biological growth and are developed with learning). Whether an entity derives its consciousness from a few other highly conscious entities (such as the prorgammers) or a multitude of entities with very low consciousnesses (such as cells and micro-organisms) could perhaps define what is to be considered independantly conscious (though there is clearly a grayscale here). We did not discuss this particular area too far as it was becoming horrifically abstract, though I think we both agreed that it was an interesting idea.

The final point made by David in his post is regarding the increase in the complexity (again another loosely defined concept) of an entity (system) in order to completely understand itself. His point is that the complexity will eventually converge to a finite value as a system grows indefinitely in order to understand itself. (See his post for a proper explanation.) A solely hypothetical question, but nonetheless intriguing. This view seems intuitively wrong to me, but specifically it would seem necessary that the system would have to recomprehend its entire self as it increases its complexity (and therefore level of consciousnes), since fully understanding the original system and the additional parts of it would not imply an understanding of the overall system (if you subscribe to the view that “the whole is greater that the sum of its parts”).

I don’t think I can comment very well on my general philosophical views as David has (though take what has been offered already). Looking briefly at some of the terminology however, I seem to largely subscribe to the philosophies of Holism and Emergentism, which appear to contradict with his views, as I might expect. (Why else would I be writing a post on the same topics?) Still, I subscribe very much to empiricism, with the small caveat that our knowledge of metaphysics is too small and basic to yet apply it to that too. (As a student of physics, I would be worried if I didn’t!)

Now that I’ve finally made this post (after much goading to fulfill my promise) and David has likewise made his own, I’m hoping that this debate is ended for the time being but that these posts stand well as records of our philosophical views.