The Distance Between Us

There are two ways I measure the distance between people.  The first way, physically, can be measured in inches, feet and miles.  The second way has no standard of measurement, but I like to use an analogy.  If two people are communing in perfect telepathy then they are zero distance apart mentally.  Obviously, we never get as close mentally as we can physically.

I bring up this topic because I’ve notice that the average distance between people as they get older appears to grow.  This isn’t always the case, because some spouses, lovers and friends get much closer as they age.  No, what I’m observing deals with the average relationship between people in general.

When we are little kids we’re very close to our parents and siblings, and then when we start daycare or school, we’re jammed together with gangs of kids own age, which continues through our early twenties when we get jobs and start hanging out with a more diverse age mix.  During the work years, we develop new social bonds at the job site that lasts until we retire, at which time we start over again bonding with other retirees.  Often as we get older, we stay at home more and that increases the distance between other people.

I’m only 57, so I can’t speak for the later decades of life, but I’ve notice a trend in my friends and acquaintances.  Everyone seems to have gotten selfish with their time, including me.  This is understandable, with work and the other demands on life, free time is precious, but it seems like people have gotten even more miserly with their extra time.

I think by my age, the fifties, people have learned exactly what they want to do and we just don’t want to waste time doing something we don’t like.  I see this more and more with friends around me, and by observing groups.

If you go to a rock concert, most of the people are young even though rock has been around since I was four.  People my age have pretty much given up on certain kinds of pursuits.  In fact, I don’t even like hanging out places that are filled with people in their 20s and 30s.  I often find myself at movies attended by folks mostly my own age, films young people would consider boring or depressing. 

You can see this trend in other social groups.  Just observe the mix of young and old.  Some events attract mostly young, some mostly old, and some a mix, but mostly you see a bulge of youth and a trailing off of older people.  Many social situations reflect the age mix found in the reality shows Survivor and The Amazing Race

In recent years I’m always the old guy of the group and it makes me feel like the old guys on Survivor.  And if you watch that show, there is a bias by the young players against the older players, which represents a kind of distance.  I’ve heard from other people my age that they feel getting old means moving away from the world of the young. 

But I also think as we get older we withdraw from each other.  Maybe it’s dwindling energy, so we start making conscious decisions we don’t want to waste any of our energy on minor friends.  But it’s more than that.  My wife and I spend an ever growing amount of time apart because we each focus on our favorite hobbies.  For example, my wife loves going out to trivia contents at restaurants, an activity that is dull to me because I can’t remember a damn thing anymore.  I like going to movies that bore her.  So we each have other friends for those preferred activities.

I used to have male friends that I’d go to the movies with.  When I was young this was because I wanted to see action films with lots of violence.  Now I don’t.  Some of my male friends have stopped going to the movies altogether, or others go to kinds of films I just don’t want to waste two hours of my life watching.

I know a number of women over fifty who are without husbands.  Many say they never want to remarry, but some are looking for boyfriends or new husbands.  I know one women who says she only has time for one romantic evening a week, and another who jokes she’s be willing to have one romantic night a quarter.  Other than that boyfriends would be too interfering with their lives.  Of course, I also know women looking for long term relationships with guys who they want to spend all their time with, but they have trouble finding such men.

It appears some of us aging people still want tight bonds and others want a new kind of freedom they didn’t have when they were younger.

All of this discussion so far has mostly dealt with the distance people have at the physical level.  Let’s go back and analyze the mental distance.  When we were little kids we played in gangs that were always touching, punching, pulling, tickling, grabbing, and so on.  And it felt like we were all alike in our play.  Getting older was like being separated from the Garden of Eden.  It became so easy to hurt one another mentally, so we sought out best friends for survival.  High school years for some people were the best times of their lives, but for others it was the worst, and in either case, those years seemed to affect us for the rest of our lives.

Then there are the years of searching for a mate.  Sex brings us as physically close as possible, and we all hope it bonds us mentally as well, but that’s open for question, because for the rest of our lives we wonder what our mates are really thinking.  The close mental distances we achieve are often illusionary and is the foundation of a lot of frustration that comes later in life.

What if we really could commune telepathically.  How many close friends would we find in our lifetime?  Any? Would our spouses grow to hate us for our thoughts they don’t like, or would telepathy create a deeper understanding?  Is there anyone that you’d open your mind to completely?  Is the emotional binding of zero mental distance possible?

I don’t think telepathy is possible, but brutal relentless honesty is, and we don’t have the stomach even for that kind of closeness.  Maybe we grow apart as we get older because we don’t like being that honest.  Could it be that young people are more emotional because of their closeness?

From casual observation on my part, it appears that a growing portion of the population spend much of their later years alone.  Even when we’re bunched together again in assisted living homes and nursing homes, like school and daycare, people often seem lonely.  Big families that stay together to the end are rare.  More people are entering their retirement years as singles rather than couples.  It looks like divorce and small family size will be hard on the baby boomer generation.

Even though I have a wife and many friends I feel like I’m spending ever more time alone.  And for the most part I like it that way.  I’m selfish with my time so I can pursue my hobbies, but I wouldn’t want to be completely alone.  I’m actually looking forward to living in a retirement community or assisted living, because more than ever I’m preferring the company of people my own age, and I wouldn’t mind being segregated from the young.  It’s funny, but in the 1960s we didn’t trust anyone over 30.  Now I have a hard time relating to people under 30, and I’d like them a whole lot better if they were older than 50.  If it much easier to identify with a 75-year-old than a 25-year-old.

And I think those tendencies relate to the mental distances we feel between other people.  It’s funny, but my biology whispers hints I should get zero distance physically with young females, but mentally I know that’s silly.  Even if I was a billionaire and a young women had a reason to overlook my homeliness and get physical, I’m not sure if it would be possible to get close mentally.  I don’t know if my problem with understanding the young is because my wife and I never had kids, or if that’s just part of the aging process.

I think as we get old we also still have some of the desires we had when we were kids.  I’ve seen stories about baby boomers forming leagues to play grade school games like dodge ball, kickball, tetherball and four-square.  I think we still want to play physically together to recapture that illusion we had as kids that we were also mentally together.  I think that’s also why many older couples and singles take up dancing, to recapture those feelings of the high school years.

Another way we’ve found to get close to other people mentally is the Internet.  I have stumbled across blog pages where people write about the same exact things I love to write about.  I’ve often wondered if I could put my 100 favorite movies, books, songs and TV shows into a computer and it could find people that have the same favorite 100 of each, would we be mentally as close as people could get outside of telepathy?

I’m writing this blog post because I’m wondering if I’m sensing a shift in social awareness due to aging and I need to prepare myself for more social changes as I get older.  I’ve always felt that as long as I had a wife, a few friends and the social aspects of work I’m good to go for personal contacts both mentally and physically.  But if I retire, and my friends keep withdrawing into themselves, or my wife and I move to a retirement community, will I have enough social contacts?  And if my wife died or we got divorced, I fear that I could end up being very alone, and that’s scary. 

I understand why men die sooner than women.  Women seem to have a knack for living a long time alone, or at least that’s what my observations show me.  I can think of damn few men I know my age or older that lives alone, but I can tick off quite a list of women.  Not only that, but those women often joke about how glad they are to be free of having to put up with men.  The thought of living alone scares me. 

I don’t feel I’m dependent on my wife.  I do all my own cooking, shopping, cleaning and cloth washing now.  My wife works out of town and is only here six days of the month.  But if I was completely single I don’t think I’d survive my retirement years.  I can’t understand how all those women face decades of living alone.  Does that mean that women can handle a greater average distance between people?

I think there’s a physical and mental distance between other people that’s too far for us to handle.  It’s why people go crazy stranded on desert islands or forced into solitary confinement.  It may relate to why some people go nuts, because even though they might be physically close they can’t achieve any kind of mental closeness.

I used to think that getting old just meant losing my hair and getting wrinkled.  I figured no big deal, I can handle that.  I now realize that aging is a lot more complicated.  For one thing, I realize that physical degeneration makes me want to recede socially.  I didn’t see that one coming.  Now I’m seeing the physical and mental distance factor come into play and wonder where the trend will go.  I didn’t see that one coming either.  In fact, I now wonder how many changes will happen to me that I never imagined? 

I need to study TIME GOES BY: what it’s really like to get older, a favorite blog site I like to read, more carefully.  Ronni Bennett is exploring territory that I will travel in a few years.  I wonder if I can achieve a mental closeness from reading her post so I can understand what she has to say, or is there a barrier of comprehension because I’m not old enough to understand?

There are a growing number of people that are living past 100, and even to 110 and beyond, and I wonder how close to they feel to the rest of us?  How isolating is it to be over 100?  It must take an amazing kind of mental toughness to live that long.  I’m feeling wimpy at 57, so I doubt I have the right stuff for great aging.  Or maybe I need to toughen myself up now if I want to go the distance.

JWH – 3/14/9

Skills for Kens and Barbies

When little girls play with their Barbie and Ken dolls and have the couple drive around in their sports car, if they get a flat, which doll do the little girls expect to fix the tire?  This week was Barbie’s 50th birthday.  It was also the week I ran across “Should you be reading that magazine?” which is about an article in Popular Mechanics, “100 Skills Every Man Should Know.”  By the authority of Popular Mechanics, Ken should be the doll that knows how to change a tire.  The editors believe Barbie should acquire  her life  skills by reading their sister magazine, Good Housekeeping, but I bet Barbie studies Cosmo.

During the same week President Obama created the new White House Council on Women and Girls.  The council is charged with making sure each federal agency works to improve the economic status of women, develop policies that establish a balance between work and family, prevent violence against women, build healthy families and promote women’s health care.  It doesn’t sound like the White House is trying to rekindle feminism, but rather make paternal laws to protect women.

This week President Obama also made moves to change the Bush’s policies that were anti-science by signing a memorandum “directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making.”  Obama wants to make vast changes in education, including a renewed emphasis on science and mathematics.

Now all of these diverse topics might sound unconnected, but I see a thread.  Fifty years ago Barbie caused a controversy because parents wanted their little girls to play with dolls that looked like little babies, expecting their daughters to grow up to be mothers.  Little girls wanted to play with Barbie because they wanted to grow up to be big girls like Barbie.  They wanted long legs, a nice rack and lots of fashionable clothes, and of course a boyfriend that can change a tire on her sports car.  Was there ever Nobel Prize winning Barbie, or even aerospace engineer Barbie?  There was an astronaut Barbie, but I get the feeling little girls didn’t imagine her being a shuttle payload specialist, but instead just pictured her as a cute space girl like Barbarella.

If President Obama wants to empower little girls, should he encourage them to play with Hilary Clinton dolls?  Should his White House Commission come down hard on the editors of Popular Mechanics?  Should girls take shop class with the boys in school?  When I took shop in the 8th and 9th grade there were no girls in our class.  And us boys never saw the inside of a home economics class.  Is that still true today?

According to Natalie Angier’s The Canon we’re having a damn hard time getting boys or girls to stick with math and science.  Understanding science means understanding reality.  Science can explain why little girls play with Barbies and why the writers and readers of Popular Mechanics expect men to know their 100 specialized skills while women should study Good Housekeeping for important skills that all females should know.

If girls and women must fulfill their biological programming as well as the meet the biological expectations of men, while following guidelines for living set down by ancient patriarchal religions will they ever be free?  And fifty years ago, did Barbie reveal a shift in girl’s behavior?  Was Barbie a step forward in feminism?  Barbie throws off the burka of playing the mommy role to play the part of the hot babe, which is astoundingly documented in the history of the cinema and television since then.

President Obama campaigned on the promise of change, but our society is changing all the time.  The question is how much can we change.  Are there limits?  Will there one day be a new fad doll on the market that little girls take to like Barbie?  A doll that reflects a new generation of women?  Are the sexy outfits Western women wear the burkas imposed on them the males of our society, or do they reflect what women actually want to wear?  (In other words, does Barbie reveal that girls want to grow up to be the Sex in the City girls?)  Does the political shift in the White House towards women represent a new deal for women?  Is it a liberal step forward or does it merely add more protection and care of females?  Is that the role women want?  The majority of women pulled up on the reigns on feminism well before Bush.

Now that Obama is in the White House we can go back and pick up where liberal progress left off, but will we?  If you analyze the undercurrent of change, we only want progress in certain areas and not others.  Even in liberal times there are conservative genes in us that never get turned off.

JWH – 3/13/9 (revised 3/18/9)

Apple Computers in Schools

I work in a College of Education and our students go on to become teachers, so we get Apple sales reps visiting every year and I met with a couple yesterday.  Apple Computers tries hard to own the K-12 market, but I don’t have any figures to show how successful they are.  We have three computer labs in our building and two are filled with Macintosh computers, with the assumption that teacher education students need to train on the type of computers they will see in their future jobs.  Actually, the PC lab is the most used.

My day job involves programming, web development, server management and computer support.  I’ve been working with computers since 1971, and I began working with Apple II computers in 1978 and Macintosh computers in 1984.  I admire Apple.  The Macintosh is a fantastic computer, but I just don’t know if it belongs in the school systems.

Every time I meet Apple reps I feel like I’m talking to two clean cut Mormons that have come to my door to sell their religion.  Apple people believe in their Macintosh and feel all kids should have one.  Apple Computers got a beachhead in the school systems with the Apple II machines and it was natural that teachers wanted Macintoshes when they came out.  The trouble is students leaving K-12 schools end up in colleges and businesses where Windows reign supreme.

Despite Apple’s excellent computers, the exposure to kids to Macintoshes throughout their school life, the overwhelmingly cool marketing campaigns, Apple has only gained about 1/20th of the market.  Why is that?  Macs cost too much.  I mention that to the Apple reps yesterday and they pooh-pooh that belief, but it’s true.  Several times in my life I was determined to buy a Mac but after pricing them at the Apple Store, and even considering my education discount, I always faced too much sticker shock and walk out.  I then go elsewhere and buy a Windows machine for half as much money.

The last time this happened I wanted to buy an iMac, but only the $1799 version was practical because of memory, DVD burner and 20″ screen.  I left the story and bought a HP with more memory and hard drive space for $498, and then bought an excellent Samsung 22″ LCD monitor for $222 and was completely happy.

Which makes me wonder why cash strapped school systems buy Apple computers?  And now with the economy the way it is, really, why do they buy Apple computers?  If schools bought parts, taught their students to build computers, and accepted Linux, they could have 3-4 times as many computers for their money, or just save a lot of money.  Isn’t the idea of going to school to learn?  Wouldn’t building computers and using open source software inspire a lot more learning than getting the easy to use expensive computers?

When the Apple II came out schools justified expending enormous amounts of money on computers because students would learn about programming and computer literacy.  They don’t universally teach programming in schools anymore, and computer literacy is a moot point since most tykes pick up computer skills before they start school.  Hell, if I ran a school I’m not sure I would have computers in the schools at all, but that’s a different rant.

Another issue about computers in schools is compatibility.  If 95% of society uses one kind of computer, why have kids study on the one that gets 5% of the market?  Of course, I wonder why 100% of everyone isn’t using the same kind of computer.  Can you imagine what our society would be like if Sony TVs got some stations and Samsung TVs got different stations?  Or if Fords had to drive on different roads than Toyotas.  Or if you bought a toaster and it only worked with wheat bread.  Or if you have a telephone that only got calls from telephones of the same brand?  I could go on and on with the examples, but I’m sure you get my point.

But if my point is made, why should Windows be the universal computer OS, even if it has already gained 95% of the market share?  We’re pretty close to having 100% hardware standardized on Intel chips and its clones, and it’s just the finicky OS that’s giving everyone fits.  You’d think the open source folks and Linux would have won the war by now, but they haven’t.  The momentum is with Windows.  It’s a shame we can’t (inter)nationalize Windows 7 and take it away from Microsoft and make it open source and give it free to the world.

And what’s so technologically hard about building a computer OS that everyone can write programs for, that wouldn’t crash, that wouldn’t get infected by viruses and malware, that would be easy and elegant to use, and be universal across all the countries of the world.  I mean, Unicode has already been invented, why not UniOS?

When I saw the Apple reps yesterday I told them I would find Apple more acceptable if their OS was sold to run on any Intel box like Windows and Linux.  I just can’t get behind endorsing one company as a universal standard.  Hey, Bill Gates, make Windows 7 open source.  Windows is less elite than Apple because it runs on computers made by anybody, but it still can’t be a world-wide universal standard if it’s sold by one company.

I think schools should buy components and build computers that can run any OS that the students want to put on them.  Make Windows 7 and OS X open source and let them compete with Linux.  Let the OSes battle it out for 10 years and then let’s pick the UniOS for the world standard starting in 2020.

JWH – 3/12/9

Modern Audio Book Listening

I recommend Audible.com all the time, but I forget not everyone is a Geek like me that loves technology.  I figure I need a warning page to refer folks to if they are interested in trying Audible.com.  Most people think of CDs and cassettes when they think of audio books, and there are plenty of Amish like 20th century bookworms still needing something to hold when they purchase an audio book, but to really appreciate living in the 21st century you need to use a MP3 player, like an iPod, and get into buying invisible digital audio books.

If you are old fashion you can join Audible and burn CDs, but it takes a certain level of tech savvy to even do that, and it can be frustrating if the CD burning software doesn’t run well on your computer.  No, the real ease of use is in switching to digital files, and giving up physical media like CDs and cassettes.

Most books at Audible.com are $10-15 depending on the buying plan you sign up for, or $10-100 if you buy as you go, or get the same books from iTunes.  This can be considerable cheaper than buying 22 CD sets from your local bookstore or even Amazon.  I pay $9.56 a book because I buy 24 credits at a time that I take about a year to use.  The savings come from the publishers and sellers not having to manufacture a product to ship and warehouse.

Kids and cool oldsters who have iPods and buy digital music will have no trouble with getting audio books from Audible or iTunes.  I mention these two companies together because iTunes sells Audible.com books.  Audible.com is like a book club where you sign up for 1 or 2 books a month buying plans (or 12 or 24 packs).  You can go to iTunes and pay more and buy the same books one at a time with no commitments.

There are two skills involved with switching to digital audio books.  The first is getting a player that accepts Audible.com books, and most do, setting it up to buy and download books, and copying the books to your players.  Audible.com pretty much works with either iTunes for people with iPods, and Audible Manager or Windows Media Player 11 for all the other MP3 devices, and these include MP3 players, phones and PDAs that play MP3 songs, the Kindle and all the other odd digital devices that are Audible.com compatible.  If you wonder why the new ebook wonder, the Kindle is Audible compatible it might be because Amazon.com owns Audible.com.

The second skill, and often this is the harder one, is learning how to carry a player around and integrate listening to audio books into your everyday routines.  I’m afraid most people equate listening to audio books with playing CDs or cassettes in their cars on long trips, and that’s a great way to listen to audio books.  I carry my Zune in my shirt pocket all day long.  I’m never without it.  Having a small player like a Nano or Zune is better than having a heavier hard disk MP3 player because you want to learn to carry it everywhere.

When I see that the dishes need washing I think to myself, “Hey, it’s time to listen to my book.”  If I’m eating alone I listen to my book.  If I go for a walk or grocery shopping I listen to my book.  If you do anything physical that doesn’t involve words it’s possible to listen to audio books.  So filing bills doesn’t work, but my wife loves to cross-stitch and listen.  I can’t program computers and listen, but I can when I do software installs that involve a lot of tedious waiting.  You develop a knack for squeezing in reading.

The trick is to get past learning those new skills.  It is very futuristic to carry a 2 ounce device that can hold two dozen unabridged audio books.  Listening to audio books has transformed my reading habits too, because I’ll listen to books I’d never had the patience to read.  Who knew how much I’d love Edith Wharton’s fiction, or how intellectually stimulating it is to listen to the Bible, and I’m an atheist.  Philosophy and history books comes alive for me on audio books.  And listening to fiction with a great dramatic reader is like going from analog to high definition TV.

But, it can be a frustrating experience to get into.  Audible.com does have wonderful 1-800 support staff.  And there’s a Yahoo discussion group devoted to Audible that offers a lot of friendly help plus has great book chats.

Like I said, the easiest way to just try a digital audio listening is if you already have an iPod with iTunes set up is to just buy an audio book from the iTunes store to try out the concept.  It’s more expensive than Audible.com, but you don’t have to make a commitment.  I highly recommend that you listen to the sample audio passage before buying because some people do not take to all narrators.  And don’t give up if you have one bad experience.  Learning to listening to audio books takes practice like learning to read.

Most libraries now offer their patrons Overdrive or NetLibrary digital audio books.  This is another good way to try reading with your ears and learning to use digital media players.  This is a case where iPods aren’t the King of the Hill.  A low-cost Sandisk Sansa or Creative Labs MP3 player can be a good starting device – but check with your library first for compatibility issues.  Some digital players will work with Audible, Overdrive, NetLibrary and even music subscription services like Rhapsody and Napster.  A Zune 3.0 will work with Audible and Overdrive.

Low cost players can be had for $30 on sale, but you need to make sure it’s compatible with the audio books you want to buy or get from your library, and I highly recommend you get a player with a screen.  There are low cost players without screens, like the iPod Shuffle, and they can be used for audio books, but they can be tricky to use.  Audio books come on multiple files and if you don’t know which file is playing it can be hard to find the one you want without seeing the filename on the display.  Some of my friends have recommended the Sansa Clip as a good starter player.  Make sure it has the latest firmware because older versions had some quirks.

Just work through the techphobia and go digital.

JWH – 6/11/9

Science Fiction Classics on Audible.com

I read hundreds of science fiction books during my teenage years growing up in the 1960s.  Adolescence, rock music and science fiction came together in a perfect storm during that epic time.  What’s even more far out is how much fun I’m having rereading those books again in my fifties, but this time around I’m listening to them as audio books.  I’ve discovered that you really don’t love a book unless you read it several times over a lifetime, and I can’t emphasize this enough, you can’t really appreciate a book until you’ve both read and listened to it.  Inputting words through the eyes and ears are completely different ways to boot your brain into experiencing the full potential of fiction.

Many people have told me they can’t listen to audio books.  Well, audio book listening takes practice, just like reading.  And if you are like me, getting too comfortable with eyeball reading can be dangerous because it’s all too easy to get into eye track ruts.

It’s taken many years for publishers to start cranking out science fiction on audio.  Steve Feldberg over at Audible.com has been doing a bang up job of getting new audio book science fiction titles for his company.  I look at Audible’s new releases every day anxiously awaiting to see what new titles will show up, especially books from the Classics of Science Fiction list.

Recently More Than Human by Theodore Sturgeon hit the New Releases page and I’m listening to it now.  It’s nothing like what I remember reading 40+ years ago.  I now feel like Sturgeon is the Faulkner of science fiction.  I just finished The Naked Sun by Isaac Asimov that I considered a mildly fun, but mostly boring robot novel as a teen.  This time around I’m stunned by how good it is.  Time travel has always been a staple of science fiction, but time traveling backwards through my reading life is almost as much fun as having a real time machine, I kid you not.

On the Classics of Science Fiction list, three books tie for the #1 spot, by being on 25 out of 28 recommended lists:

  • The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester
  • Dune by Frank Herbert
  • More Than Human by Theodore Sturgeon

I’ll put the titles available on Audible.com in bold.  Dune is now out in its second audio book edition, so I’m mighty glad to see More Than Human, but I’m wondering when The Demolished Man will show up.

Four books share the #2 spot by being on 24 out of 28 lists.

  • The Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov
  • Stand on Zanzibar by John Brunner
  • The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. LeGuin
  • A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller

Sadly, Audible only offers an old abridged version of Foundation, but I know that Books on Tape has all three books of the trilogy plus Prelude to Foundation and their titles do show up on Audible eventually.  The book I want to see most here is The Left Hand of Darkness, but Stand on Zanzibar and A Canticle for Leibowitz are books I’d buy immediately too.

There are three books tied for third (23 lists):

  • Childhood’s End by Arthur C. Clarke
  • The Time Machine by H. G. Wells
  • The War of the Worlds by H. G. Wells

Audible streaks through here.  I profoundly enjoyed listening Childhood’s End recently.

Only one title holds the 4th place (on 22 lists):

  • The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury

At 5th place on 21 lists are:

  • The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester
  • The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin
  • Ringworld by Larry Niven
  • The Space Merchants by Pohl & Kornbluth

I’m most anxious hear the Bester and Le Guin.  I read The Space Merchants last year and I was rather disappointed with it, so I’m not sure if it would sell well with an audio edition, although with the right reader, the satire and humor might jump out and make it more appealing.  Audible has 19 Le Guin audio books, just not her two most famous.

In 6th place on 20 lists are:

  • Mission of Gravity by Hal Clement
  • The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick
  • 1984 by George Orwell
  • City by Clifford Simak

I can vouch for the Dick and Simak, both authors really shine through on audio.  In fact, listening to PKD’s weird imaginary worlds is the best way to do get PKDicked.  I can’t believe Hal Clement isn’t on audio.

Lucky seventh place brings in seven titles (19 lists):

  • The City and the Stars by Arthur C. Clarke
  • Rendezvous with Rama by Arthur C. Clarke
  • To Your Scattered Bodies Go by Philip Jose Farmer
  • The Forever War by Joe Haldeman
  • Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein
  • Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
  • Gateway by Frederik Pohl

I’m hoping to listen to Rama and Scattered Bodies soon.  And I hope Steve Feldberg finds Gateway because it was the novel that brought me back to science fiction after I gafiated for a decade.

Coming in 8th place are three novels (18 lists):

  • Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
  • Last and First Men by Olaf Stapledon
  • The World of Null-A by A. E. Van Vogt

Fahrenheit 451 is a beautiful novel for bookworms to read and it’s especially appropriate to listen to because it lets you imagine trying to memorize it.  I don’t have much hope for the other two books getting on audio because they have a reputation for being hard to get into, but audio book editions might make them more accessible.

In ninth place we get five more titles (17 lists):

  • The Long Afternoon of Earth by Brian Aldiss
  • A Case of Conscience by James Blish
  • The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein
  • Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
  • Dying Inside by Robert Silverberg

Of these, I’m most looking forward to the Aldiss.  That’s one trippy novel.   I listened to A Case of Conscience over the Christmas holidays and enjoyed it.  It makes a great companion book to Childhood’s End, because they both deal with religion.

Rounding out 10th place with seven books bringing the grand total to the Top 40 (16 lists):

  • Timescape by Gregory Benford
  • A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
  • Camp Concentration by Thomas Disch
  • Way Station by Clifford Simak
  • Star Maker by Olaf Stapledon
  • Slan by A. E. Van Vogt
  • The Humanoids by Jack Vance

Timescape is an elegant quiet novel that works very well on audio.  Way Station’s moody pastoral setting also works well on audio.  Again, I’ll be surprised to ever hear an audio edition of Stapledon.  I’m looking forward to Slan, which I’ll probably listen to soon, it should be a nice companion listen to More Than Human.  I listened to The Humanoids years ago and was impressed.  Now that I’m on a robot kick I should relisten to it.  Both Clockwork and Concentration are bleak novels that I might not get into the mood to hear for years.  I think I prefer the positive sense of wonder SF of the 1950s and 1960s right now.

There are 153 more books on the Classics of SF list, many of which are on audio.  There are four Samuel R. Delany novels, none of which have had audio editions that I’d love to hear.  I’m reading Babel-17 for the fourth time and I really ache to hear it, and it’s companion short novel, Empire Star, but I’m also very anxious to hear Nova, The Einstein Intersection and Dhalgren.

Other books from Audible that’s on the Classics of Science Fiction list:

  • Frankenstein
  • Lord of Light
  • A Princess of Mars
  • Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
  • 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
  • Out of the Silent Planet
  • I, Robot
  • Starship Troopers
  • Ubik
  • Sirens of Titan
  • Slaughterhouse Five
  • Startide Rising
  • Hyperion/The Fall of Hyperion
  • The Caves of Steal
  • Journey to the Center of the Earth
  • Double Star
  • Blood Music
  • Gray Lensmen
  • Ender’s Game
  • The Big Time
  • The Illustrated Man
  • Red Mars
  • Doomsday Book

And many many more.

Probably everyone has a favorite science fiction novel they’d love to hear on audio.  Be sure and join Audible and go to their Contact Us page and click on the content request link.  I put in 7 books in 2003 and just notice that I got 5 of my wishes over the years.

JWH – 3/10/9