They'd Rather Be Right

They'd Rather Be Right (also known as The Forever Machine) is a science fiction novel by American writers Mark Clifton and Frank Riley.

Two professors create an advanced cybernetic brain, which they call "Bossy." Bossy can "optimise your mind...and give you eternal youth into [sic] the bargain, but only if you're ready to abandon all your favourite prejudices." However, when given the choice of admitting they were wrong and therefore being able to benefit from Bossy's abilities, most people would rather be right, and Bossy's ability to confer immortality is almost made ineffective by humanity's fear of "her."

They'd Rather Be Right somewhat controversially won the Hugo Award for best novel in 1955, the second Hugo ever presented for a novel.

In a brief 1982 review of a contemporary reprint of the novel, author David Langford wrote that "though it contains an interesting idea, the book seems an implausible award-winner. It's fine (...) to postulate a machine giving immortality, youth and a perfect complexion to those and only those who can cast aside preconceptions and prejudices (...) The idea, though, is flattened into the ground by the authors' reluctance to do the work which would make it convincing."

Langford has also addressed conspiracy theories attributing They'd Rather Be Right's win to Scientology, saying it is more likely that Clifton was popular for his short stories.

Galaxy Science Fiction reviewer Floyd C. Gale faulted the novel, saying, "although a passably workmanlike job, loose ends outnumber neat knits in this yarn."

In 2008 Sam Jordison described the novel as "appalling," the "worst ever winner [of the Hugo Award]," and "a basic creative writing 'how not to,'" saying that its win "by public vote (...) raises serious questions about the value of a universal franchise." Similarly, Lawrence Watt-Evans has noted that They'd Rather Be Right is "the usual [book] cited" as the "worst book ever to win [the Hugo Award]", and Rick Cook responded to the question of "Is the book any good?" with "No," going on to explain that it originated as "one of those tailored-to-order serials for the old Astounding. Sometimes those things worked and sometimes they didn't. This one didn't."

James Nicoll found it "not as awful as it could have been", noting the plausibility of Joe's abusive childhood, and calling Mabel "an amusing character who would have fared better as a rejuvenated libertine in a Thorne Smith novel." However, Nicoll also emphasized the extent to which the book is predicated on concepts that were of particular interest to Astounding editor John W. Campbell, and observed that "(s)tructurally, the book is a mess" because it is a fix-up created at a time when fix-up techniques were still primitive: "it reads like a series of short stories whose unifying theme was 'we'd sure like Mr. Campbell to pay us.'"