Who was the greater visionary?

[Jaron]

Vernes writing is very dry, boring and hard to read.

HG is the shit.

[Josquius]

Wells all the way for me.
His stuff was both more representative of science fiction to come and of real world developments, depending on his mood. (land dreadnoughts).

Jules Verne.  French, not a communist, and was not egotistical enough to lose Rebecca Wells.

Also, better in translation than Wells is in the original.

Wells wasn't communist either, he was a Fabian 

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure.  I prefer Verne, though, so I voted for him.

[Sheilbh]

a Fabian :english:

[Scipio]

Wells all the way for me.
His stuff was both more representative of science fiction to come and of real world developments, depending on his mood. (land dreadnoughts).

Jules Verne.  French, not a communist, and was not egotistical enough to lose Rebecca Wells.

Also, better in translation than Wells is in the original.

Wells wasn't communist either, he was a Fabian 

Degrees of potty leftist thinking don't matter.  Also, Wells was an egomaniac.

[CountDeMoney]

Is it still the case that the average teenage nerd reads a lot of their output?

Unfortunately, no.  It's all Turtledove now.

[grumbler]

... Voted Verne, because I like his solid scientific base.

Not exactly "solid" given the hollow earth and temperatures not rising with depth (despite Verne knowing that all scientific data said this was true).

I would agree that Verne ignored more science than Wells ever knew, but his style is so dull it is almost like he was deliberately making his books unreadable (which he wasn't, of course - he wrote exactly like readers of his time expected a writer to write, but still...)

[PDH]

Which one was less gay?

[CountDeMoney]

After not very much reflection, I voted HG Wells, as he's considered the father of modern wargaming.

[Threviel]

I heard somewhere that the reason that Verne isn't so popular in the english-speaking world is that the translations are atrociously bad.

Any truth to that?

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Voted Verne, though I'm entirely under read in both their Canons. Couldn't get into either as a kid, and have never really had an interest in looking back.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I heard somewhere that the reason that Verne isn't so popular in the english-speaking world is that the translations are atrociously bad.

Any truth to that?

If you mean the translations suck out whatever life was in the words then yes.  Yes, there is.

[Razgovory]

I heard somewhere that the reason that Verne isn't so popular in the english-speaking world is that the translations are atrociously bad.

Any truth to that?

It's possible.  I just know he's really dull.  At least the copy of 20,000 leagues under the sea I had was.  It's the only one I've read.  I've read a few of Welles (Time machine, War of the Worlds, a few short stories.)

[The Brain]

I heard somewhere that the reason that Verne isn't so popular in the english-speaking world is that the translations are atrociously bad.

Any truth to that?

It's possible.  I just know he's really dull.  At least the copy of 20,000 leagues under the sea I had was.  It's the only one I've read.  I've read a few of Welles (Time machine, War of the Worlds, a few short stories.)

Classics Illustrated is your friend. I used to read these like candy a a kid.

[Alexandru H.]

Verne is not boring at all.

Ok, some novels are. But some are worthy of reading even today. Like "Captain Hatteras", "Hector Servadac", "The Lighthouse at the End of the World", "The Golden Volcano" or "Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea".

Unfortunately, many are indeed quite boring for the modern-day reader. In this category are some of his famous works: "In Search of the Castaways", "Eight Hundred Leagues on the Amazon" etc...