Jane Galt asks an interesting question. I match to type, preferring Heinlein and being basically libertarian. The fact that Paul Krugman is an Asimov fan only confirms my preference.

I also think that people who are SF readers in general are much more prepared to deal with the future than those who are not, and this is becoming more the case over time as the pace of technological innovation continues to accelerate.

Oh Great! a Psychoeconomist........

That explains much.

I read both as an adolescent and preferred Asimov. My parents were statist, yellow dog Democrat, school teachers and they had an influence. As a "grown-up" in Amerika I appreciate Heinlein much more. Although, when I read either now, I find Asimov sterile and Heinlein puerile.

My favorite reading today is Philip K. Dick(ten percent of his writing is fantastic, the rest is junk) and Philip Jose Farmer. Does anyone else read the two Philips?

Interesting question about the mapping of preferences into the "conservative/liberal divide". That may apply to a lot of things. Maybe we could use it at high school age to shunt people into the field for which they are best qualified. I wonder if it works with music?

Today, I like Vinge. And Niven's "Protector" is a superb take on selfish DNA.

In my teen age years I very much preferred Heinlein and "Harsh Mistress" was my favorite novel for many years. But as I grow older, much older (sigh) I find I agree with Jardinero. Asimov is too often sterile and Heinlein is too often puerile.

I like them both but really like H Beam Piper. I wouldn't say his stories were really libertarian (most characters worked for the government) but everyone had a 'can do' attitude that was really appealing.

Then again I tried to read one of the Fuzzy books as an adult and couldn't get past the first chapter so maybe I need to reread and reevaluate.

I think the model breaks down somewhat as to the mapping to the political axes. I substantially prefer Heinlein to Asimov myself, but am far more liberal than the typical Heinlein fan as near as I can tell.

I grew up with Asimov, and only came to Heinlein later. I enjoyed Asimov mostly for his science and technological concepts, and not for his skill in fiction. Asimov had some good non-fiction, too, including a review of the theoretical concept of a space tower/elevator (using steel; he showed that it was essentially impossible with the materials of the day).

Come to think of it, I think that I read most science fiction out of a desire to learn about how things work in that world, more than out of concern for the characters. Thus, my favorite Heinleins would be Starship Troopers and The Roads Must Roll.

One note on Asimov--he may have been statist at times, but he *did* write The Stars, Like Dust...

I don't think (and I don't mean to imply Rand does) that reading SF causes a person to be more adaptive to the future. I think if there's any causation, there's probably more in the opposite direction.

I always preferred Asimov, although I read and liked the occasional Heinlein.

rjschwarz mentions H. Beam Piper. The only thing I've read of his is "A Planet For Texans" aka "Lone Star Planet", and that was when I was a teenager. Very funny. I think I may read it again and see how it holds up, especially with a Texan in the White House.

Heinlein and Anderson would have to top my list of favorite science fiction writers, but I read all of Asimov's science fiction (and a good deal of his non-sf) material as well. Other favorites would be Clarke (but not what he has written in the last couple decades), Niven and Niven/Pournelle, Vernor Vinge, and Sheffield.

If Vernor Vinge wrote more (and assuming he could keep the quality up) he could easily match or exceed Heinlein and Anderson as "top writers." Sure, part of why you like (or don't like) a writer may be the portrayed political attitude, but for science fiction a good story that hangs together, characters that you can care about, and excellent ideas are also important.

For instance, I liked one or two books by L. Neil Smith (like "Probability Broach") but most of his more recent books are unending preaching with a pathetic story.

Some stories, like David Weber's space opera/war books, are like cotton candy - they might be an okay read, but there is zero substance.

Heinlein wrote about strong people who you could actually admire and care about, wrote stories that kept you turning the pages, and left you with something to think about after you finished reading.

The interesting question is more what people's take on Bank's science fiction is. I've seen terrible fights break out at Conventions between Libertarians and non-libertarians with both sides trying to claim him as their own.

P. K. Dick has had this interesting track record of having his stories translate well into movies. I wouldn't be surprised if the gross from adaptations of his stories make him the top $ SF author (although of course those who ended up with the rights from his estate wouldn't be getting most of that.)

I am not sure Asimov actually WAS a statist -- rather I think he greatly overestimated how statist people in general are. Heinlein greatly UNDER-estimated the same, but in his case it was clearly wishful thinking.

I can understand how Asimov came to that belief, being a Russian Jewish boy in 1930's New York. There are very few rugged individualists in immigrant tenements, and during Depression were even fewer.

Actually, most of the societies Heinlein portrayed were far from libertarian - that was where much of the story conflict came from. He wrote about strong individuals, however.

lsqt wisv jvfashqcu qywhf igcljo twpymlau ytogqp

lsqt wisv jvfashqcu qywhf igcljo twpymlau ytogqp

lsqt wisv jvfashqcu qywhf igcljo twpymlau ytogqp