Hi! If you see any books that you do not consider to be science fiction, please mention them in the comments! We'll take a look, maybe debate a bit, and make corrections. If it's a hard decision, we'll automatically consider it science fiction. If it's clearly not science fiction though, we'll make the change. Thanks!

So far I've removed The Best of H.P. Lovecraft: Bloodcurdling Tales of Horror and the Macabre because it is fantasy horror, not science fiction horror. Most of the stories within are focused on ancient gods and fantastical events.

I would bring Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness into question as well, but I haven't read it and am uncertain. Is it still about the supernatural? (Supernatural = not natural, but science fiction is fiction about the natural.) Is it about the Cthulu mythos? (Mythology is nearly opposite to science, right?) If so, we should remove it.

I appreciate having a list that is specifically for science fiction.
I've just deleted the Twilight series books that I found on here (already), but there are several more HP Lovecraft books that I think should be deleted as well. I'll leave that to you, Michael.

I would make two suggestions, to keep the list as useful as possible (and best to implement early on):
1) Only allow books that have at least 50 (or 100 or whatever) ratings to stay on the list. If the book is one of the 'best', it should have been read/rated by at least that many people. This should help ditch some of the authors who like to nominate their titles for every list possible for marketing purposes. There are already 4 of them in the top 100 titles.
2) To help keep the list manageable, only allow the first title in a series (or any single title from a series.) When these lists get to be 5 or 8 pages long, they get pretty useless if you're looking for new stuff to read - no one ever pages through the whole list.

Just suggestions, I've already voted on the list and added some new books. Looking forward to watching it grow!)

Carolyn:

Please make a case for the Lovecraft books or delete them yourself if you'd like to. If I haven't read them, I may well not know if they're sci-fi or not. As far as I can tell, all Lovecraft is fantasy (since all/most of his stories are at least partly about ancient gods), but there might be exceptions I don't know about.

Regarding suggestion 1: That doesn't seem like a bad suggestion for Listopia in general, but books like that will be pushed to the bottom of the list anyway, if other people vote, right? Besides, those could be the best sci-fi books ever written for all we know. Unpopular doesn't necessarily mean bad - it just means not many people have read the book yet.

2. Personally, I want to implement #2, but it doesn't seem fair if several books in a series are outstanding.

Any further thoughts on these issues, anyone?

Been getting into the Edgar Rice Burroughs books this year. Sure, not really believable, but great stories all the same!

As of today, I see "Ringworld" by Larry Niven listed twice.

Removed 16 duplicates.

Good to see you are trying to keep this restricted to sci-fi only. I run the Sci-Fi Lists website (scifilists.sffjazz.com) and I have always found the 'borderline' books a bit of a challenge. In the top 100, I would not regard the following as sci-fi:

Parish Secret's - Megan White
Nine Princes in Amber - Roger Zelazny
At the Mountains of Madness - H.P. Lovecraft
Dragonflight - Anne McCaffrey (McCaffrey cleverly got herself a fair bit of free publicity by arguing the point.)

Good list overall though. I often come here to see if there is anything relatively new that I have missed adding to my own online poll at Sci-Fi Lists. This list is pretty close to the mark. Cheers

Fusionjazz: thanks for pointing out the duplicate.

Cindy: thanks for removing the duplicates! I just removed one more.

Crocranger: thanks for the information. I agree with all four of your removal suggestions and have removed them from the list. Those books are fantasy and are not based in science in any meaningful way.

Good list, I found some new Titles and Authors to read. Thank you.

I think Footfall and Eifelheim would be a good additions.
Footfall
Eifelheim

Also, although I personally loved the book I would not consider Watership Down Science Fiction for inclusion in this list.

JJ: you need to add those books to the list yourself. You're right about Watership Down. It doesn't even resemble science fiction. I'll remove it.

Number 214, Temblor, is not science fiction. It's the spanish version of a teen fantasy/romance about werewolves. The english title is Shiver.

Thank you, Candice. Temblor has been removed.

Just a word about what qualifies as 'science fiction'. At Sci-Fi Lists I constantly struggle with what should and shouldn't be regarded as sci-fi, especially when it comes to 'alternate histories'. Frederik Pohl once commented that: "It is that thing that people who understand science fiction point to, when they point to something and say 'That's science fiction!" At the relevant Wikipedia page, alternate history is listed as a major subgenre of sci-fi.

If we take Philip K Dick's 'Man in the High Castle' (1962) as an example - it has always been regarded as sci-fi by critics and even won a Hugo back in the days when it was strictly a science fiction award. FDR gets assassinated, Germany and Japan win WWII, and the Germans end up starting a space program. OK... maybe.

More recently, Michael Chabon's award-winning AH 'The Yiddish Policemen's Union' took out three major sci-fi awards for best novel in 2008. You gotta be kidding! The novel is a 'what if' focussing on Franklin Roosevelt's unrealised proposal to establish a temporary Jewish settlement on the Alaska panhandle in the lead-up to WWII. So where is the science? It didn't happen and the novel is nothing more than a lengthy speculation on where it might have gone. Hardly science fiction... very fantastical.

I accept that a lot of stuff is classified as sci-fi simply because it is set in space or the future. However, I think there needs to be a separate rule for alternative histories. If there is some sort of scientific explanation as to why history went astray, then it can be regarded as sci-fi. Otherwise, leave it to the fantasists.

Crocranger:

At first thought, I vaguely agree that alternate histories which are not explained scientifically are better categorized as fantasy. However, I have two reasons not to do so. I'll examine them and then explain which argument I think has more weight for this list:

1. Every unexplained alternate history story can be seen as being in the "alternate dimension" genre of sci-fi by default. This isn't a very good argument, but it's not entirely unreasonable. I won't get into whether or not the idea of alternate dimensions (or alternate threads of time) is viable, because it's a common sci-fi trope, reasonable or not.

2. Sci-fi "experts" (those who choose winners of sci-fi awarsd, specifically the prestigious Hugo) consider alternate history stories to be sci-fi stories. Because of this, stores, fans of sci-fi, and libraries assign the sci-fi genre to these books.

I believe that argument 2 weighs strongly in favor of labeling alternate history books as science fiction on Goodreads, since Goodreads is something of a metadata library.

Personally, I don't have strong feelings either way, but as the primary editor of this list, I prefer to follow this philosophy: if I can't definitely say a book is *not* science fiction, I must assume that it was correctly labeled.

Michael wrote: "Crocranger:

At first thought, I vaguely agree that alternate histories which are not explained scientifically are better categorized as fantasy. However, I have two reasons not to do so. I'll exam..."

Hi Michael... I was actually responding to the note at the top of the list that asks people not to post alternate histories here and says they will be removed. Your philosophy is in line with Pohl's quote and, indeed, is the one I use on my own website. As for the future, I am going to try and tighten things up a bit at Sci-Fi Lists. Cheers (and keep up the good work)

I had forgotten that I put that note at the top of the list! I can get away with removing alternate history texts since I made that request. How silly of me. Thanks!

Michael wrote: "I had forgotten that I put that note at the top of the list! I can get away with removing alternate history texts since I made that request. How silly of me. Thanks!"

It's all good fun, so no worries. As promised, I left the Friday arvo pub session early and came home to spend a scintillating night purifying Sci-Fi Lists of alternate history pretenders.

The stuff that stays (mostly involving time travel):
L Sprague DeCamp - Lest Darkness Fall (1939)
Philip K Dick - The Man in the High Castle (1962): A borderline choice, but the Nazi space program saved it. Besides, not really a big fan of hate mail.
Ward Moore - Bring the Jubilee (1955)
Audrey Niffenegger - The Time Traveler's Wife (2003): Another tough one, but makes the grade.
Harry Turtledove - Guns of the South (1992)
Connie Willis - Doomsday Book (1992)
Connie Willis - To Say Nothing Of the Dog (1997)

The stuff that went (mostly straight historical fiction, albeit pretty good stuff):
Kingsley Amis - The Alteration (1976)
Gibson & Sterling - The Difference Engine (1990)
Tim Powers - The Anubis Gates (1983): A great book, but it has magicians and a werewolf. Wikipedia calls it a "time-travel fantasy". Have to agree.
Keith Roberts - Pavane (1968)
Kim Stanley Robinson - The Years Of Rice and Salt (2002)
Philip Roth - The Plot Against America (2004)
Harry Turtledove - Ruled Britannia (2002)

New kids on the block:
Stephen King - 11/22/63 (2011): His only real sci-fi since the Bachman novels.
Rene Barjavel - The Ice People (1968): Overlooked non-alternative history classic by a French author.

I would feel a bit guilty posting directly to a list like this, so I offer these suggestions for consideration only. Cheers

I definitely think the Connie Willis books belong! And agree that the Tim Powers does not.

Thanks for categorizing! Please vote for whichever of those books you personally think are excellent. I can only add The Man in the High Castle, personally.

Great to list things, makes life simpler all around.

However: The Road? No. Long time since I read it, but apocalyptic does not equal science fiction.

Espen: could you explain? The Road describes a future which is scientifically imaginable, in my opinion. Fictional but scientifically imaginable = the most basic definition of science fiction.

Here's a more elaborate definition: Science fiction (quoting the definition at the top of this list) deals "with imaginary but more or less plausible (or at least non-supernatural) content such as future settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, aliens, and paranormal abilities. [...] It is similar to, but differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation)."

I'd say it is more of a social commentary on today, or perhaps the zombieinfested, paranoid 70s.

It would be watering down the definition of science fiction if every book that is conceivably about an alternative time-line should be listed.

The Road is a dark journey in a bleak landscape, with no proposition of technological salvation - only a vague hope of there being something better, even if I as a reader not for a single moment believed there was something at the end of the rainbow. Nor does it put up any possible social model other than the status quo.

The Road might be in the future, it might be set in a technologically or more advanced society, after the event horizon or whatnot. But it is not ABOUT that.

Regarding the things you list: sure, it is plausible, it might be futuristic, but it is not about the science part of fiction. I don't remember any aliens.

Take a book like Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged. Some has called it a science fiction tale, and it certainly contains elements of scientific and rational (however effed up, conceited and downright inhuman) salvation. I disagree, simply because it is a (deranged) contemporary commentary, but at least it is a fantastic tale fulfilling every list element.

The Road does not. Besides, defining a genre by ticking boxes is damned hard. The Road does not, for my part, tick any science fiction receptors.

Cheers

And it is listed in "Best Dystopian and Post-Apocalyptic Fiction" :)

Espen wrote: "I'd say it is more of a social commentary on today, or perhaps the zombieinfested, paranoid 70s.

It would be watering down the definition of science fiction if every book that is conceivably abou..."

Hi Espen... I think there is a danger in narrowing the definition of the genre too much. Almost all sci-fi uses the story as a platform to comment on contemporary issues. Otherwise, it would have difficulty achieving relevance. Good sci-fi extrapolates on known scientific fact and/or credible theory. While the cause of the apocalypse is not clearly identified in 'The Road', McCarthy does a brilliant job commenting on a range of social and environmental issues that are certainly relevant to modern readers, and sets it in a plausible and possible future. Definitely sci-fi. Don't forget, 'science' also includes the social sciences.

As you quite rightly point out, Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' is a bit debatable as sci-fi. Right wing capitalists who don't give a stuff for humanity go on strike in order to preserve their God-given right to make money without contributing constructively to society. Her novella 'Anthem', on the other hand, fairly clearly depicts a dystopian sci-fi future. Basically the same premise as Shrugged, but with a lot more sci-fi devices. Rand's imagined future - at least in her eyes - was also plausible and possible.

It all comes back to that word 'science'. Whether it involves endangering the planet with political ideology, nuclear weapons, climate change... or any other modern bug-bear... it has certainly always been worthy of a good story.

Espen:
1. I was unaware The Road related to the 70's in any way. How did you figure that out? Everyone else I've talked to about the book's setting thought it was focused on the future rather than an alternate timeline.
2. The best science fiction stories are not "ABOUT" science fiction. Any story that is about science fiction would be incredibly boring and no one would be likely to vote for it to be on the list. The Road, like most good novels (I don't personally find it to be great, just somewhat good), is about people.
3. You seem to be a bit confused about what science is. We know that bombs (for example) can be made and used, therefore the setting and events of The Road are possible. That's what makes it easy to call it science fiction. Since we have not seen aliens yet, they're pushing science fiction a bit further, though they still count as being elements of science fiction because they might exist. Aliens are certainly not needed for science fiction to work. Claiming that they're essential or even something to look for to determine if a story is sci-fi is a very unusual idea.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but it seems unfair to list, for example, The Foundation Trilogy and each of the Foundation books separately. I would think that would split the vote, and lower all 4 choices down the list.

Dtigwell wrote: "I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but it seems unfair to list, for example, The Foundation Trilogy and each of the Foundation books separately. I would think that would split the vote, and..."

Dtigwell: That's, true, but I don't know of a way to solve this problem. If I remove the trilogy, people will just keep adding it. Any ideas?

Great list. Everything in the top 100 is unarguably science fiction with for me the weakest case being Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut. I am uncomfortable confusing all "having fun with reality" as being true science fiction just because a small plot device in the novel is jokingly premised on some ability we don't currently possess. But then Orwell's Animal Farm won a Hugo, and there's no possible argument to my mind for Animal Farm being science fiction. I think you may have a difficult case to make for classifying all alternate history as not science fiction. The work that really tests that contention to my mind is H. Beam Piper's Paratime series, which is unquestionably science fiction as well as alternate history. The reason people in Piper's Paratime series are able to move between Alternate Earths is because of technology we don't have on our Level 4 world. How history is alternate is less important in most of the works making up this series than the actual moving through dimensions with scientifically created apparati and the ability to do so. Also, Piper is dead serious in his writing style - no Vonnegut playfulness - which makes his work seem more inarguably science fiction.

On double listing Asimov's work, you could simply say at the beginning of the list "Please do not include fantasy, alternate history, entire series (list the individual works instead) or other speculative fiction genres ... Then, yeah, you will still no doubt have to constantly remove it.

Hi All. Some good points made here, but any list that allows a high level of interactivity is going to have its quality control issues. For mine, this is the best of its type that I have found. At my own website, Sci-Fi Lists, I run an online poll that lists 400 choices, out of which I generate a Top 200. People are free to nominate a book for inclusion, but at the end of the day I decide whether it makes it or not. Again, it's a quality control thing where I exercise my editorial prerogative.

As for some specific comments above, Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle is classic sci-fi satire and more than deserves a spot on the list. Vonnegut, however, always claimed his books were not sci-fi. Six of one, half-dozen of another.

Alternate history novels might be sci-fi, but are not necessarily so by definition. There needs to be some sort of science fictional element (time travel; parallel universe; etc.) to them to qualify. I have removed a few from Sci-Fi Lists over the years, but the survivors are at http://scifilists.sffjazz.com/books_h... for those who are interested. Cheers

Fantasy and other suspicious stuff:

First the obvious (at least to me):
Charles Dexter Ward by H P Lovecraft
The Gathering by Kelley Armstrong
PS I Love You by Cecelia Ahern
Belgarath the Sorcerer by David Eddings
Midnight Sun by Stephanie Meyers
Looking Glass Wars by Frank Beddor


The stuff I'm not sure about:

Diary of Evil by Rick Royster. From what I can make out of the summary, it's not science fiction. I confess the summary is rather confusing, so i could be wrong.

Priestess of the Stone Circle - & -
Oracle of the Coast - & -
The Hive Folk - & -
Did Feast the Pack - & -
Astarte the Great Queen : all by Jerome Brooke. Summaries sound like stone age fiction and fantasy.

Sirens of Rhine by Kaylynne Spauls

Black by Ted Decker. Supernatural thriller, from the sound of it

I'm sure there's more, but I got tired of looking for them