Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy discussion

3385 views
SF/F Book Recommendations > NPR Top 100 Science Fiction & Fantasy Novels

Comments Showing 1-50 of 129 (129 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3

message 1: by G33z3r, The Old Guy (last edited Sep 02, 2014 08:17AM) (new)

G33z3r | 8411 comments A year ago (2011), the American NPR (National Public Radio) polled its listeners for their favorite Science Fiction and Fantasy novels of all time. (The poll was conducted on the Internet.) Here are the resulting NPR Top 100 Science Fiction and Fantasy (From 2011).

NPR Top 100 Science Fiction and Fantasy
1. The Lord of the Rings
2. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
3. Ender's Game
4. Dune (Chronicles)
5. A Game of Thrones (A Song of Ice & Fire)
6. 1984
7. Fahrenheit 451
8. Foundation trilogy
9. Brave New World
10. American Gods
11. The Princess Bride
12. The Wheel of Time
13. Animal Farm
14. Neuromancer
15. Watchmen
16. I, Robot
17. Stranger in a Strange Land
18. The Name of the Wind (Kingkiller Chronicles)
19. Slaughterhouse-Five
20. Frankenstein
21. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
22. The Handmaid's Tale
23. The Dark Tower
24. 2001: A Space Odyssey
25. The Stand
26. Snow Crash
27. The Martian Chronicles
28. Cat’s Cradle
29. The Sandman series
30. A Clockwork Orange
31. Starship Troopers
32. Watership Down
33. Dragonflight (Pern)
34. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
35. A Canticle for Leibowitz
36. The Time Machine
37. Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea
38. Flowers for Algernon
39. The War of the Worlds
40. Amber Chronicles
41. The Belgariad
42. The Mists of Avalon
43. Mistborn trilogy
44. Ringworld
45. The Left Hand of Darkness
46. The Silmarillion
47. The Once and Future King
48. Neverwhere
49. Childhood's End
50. Contact
51. Hyperion
52. Stardust
53. Cryptonomicon
54. World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War
55. The Last Unicorn
56. The Forever War
57. Small Gods
58. The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever
59. The Vorkosigan Saga
60. Going Postal
61. The Mote in God's Eye
62. The Sword of Truth
63. The Road
64. Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
65. I Am Legend
66. The Riftwar Saga
67. The Sword of Shannara Trilogy
68. Conan the Barbarian
69. The Farseer trilogy
70. The Time Traveler's Wife
71. The Way of Kings
72. A Journey To The Center Of The Earth
73. The Legend of Drizzt series
74. Old Man's War series
75. The Diamond Age
76. Rendezvous With Rama
77. Kushiel's Dart trilogy
78. The Dispossessed
79. Something Wicked This Way Comes
80. Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West
81. The Malazan Book Of The Fallen series
82. The Eyre Affair
83. The Culture series
84. The Crystal Cave
85. Anathem
86. The Codex Alera
87. The Book of the New Sun
88. The Thrawn trilogy
89. Outlander series
90. The Elric saga
91. The Illustrated Man
92. Sunshine
93. A Fire Upon the Deep
94. The Caves of Steel
95. The Mars trilogy
96. Lucifer's Hammer
97. Doomsday Book
98. Perdido Street Station
99. The Xanth series
100. The Space trilogy


message 2: by Jonathan, Reader of the fantastic (new)

Jonathan Terrington (thewritestuff) | 525 comments Interesting to see how different some of the selections are from each other. For instance number one is an epic (a brilliant epic may I add) while number 2 is a comedy (also brilliant). Number 3 again is a children's fiction novel in many ways.


message 3: by Stef (new)

Stef | 56 comments If asked I would add some books on that list. Like Solaris or Cyberiad or Malevil


message 4: by Pickle (new)

Pickle | 92 comments why does Do Androids Dream always appear in these lists when its not even close to being his best (in my opinion)


message 5: by Jim (new)

Jim (JimMacLachlan) | 1895 comments FWIW, I liked 'Do Androids Dream' better than any of his other books. Typically, I don't care for Dick's writing much. Maybe it differs from his typical work? More people like the style?


message 6: by Stef (last edited Feb 21, 2013 06:23AM) (new)

Stef | 56 comments Pickle wrote: "why does Do Androids Dream always appear in these lists when its not even close to being his best (in my opinion)"

They are popular but not necessarily the best books. If Harry Potter and Hunger Games would qualify for this list they would have the first two spots assured by a wide margin.

You can have here a glimpse: http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7....


message 7: by Pickle (new)

Pickle | 92 comments Jim wrote: "FWIW, I liked 'Do Androids Dream' better than any of his other books. Typically, I don't care for Dick's writing much. Maybe it differs from his typical work? More people like the style?"

better than UBIK, Flow My Tears, A Maze of Death, Martian Time Slip, VALIS, Three Stigmata, Man in High Castle etc

if so you are the first person ive came across that actually rates Androids higher than any of the above especially Flow my Tears.

A few friends admit to reading Androids but never anything else... i feel bladerunner has a lot to blame there.

You seem to be the exception.


message 8: by Jim (new)

Jim (JimMacLachlan) | 1895 comments Then, yes, I'm your first & the exception, Pickle. Most of his novels are pretty unreadable IMO & I've been reading that sort of SF for a fair few years. I like his shorter works better, but often like the movies better, which is odd. It's usually the other way around. Zelazny is my favorite author, but I couldn't finish Deus Irae that he wrote with Dick. C'est la vie.


message 9: by G33z3r, The Old Guy (last edited Feb 21, 2013 10:48AM) (new)

G33z3r | 8411 comments Pickle wrote: "why does Do Androids Dream always appear in these lists when it's not even close to being [P.K. Dick]'s best (in my opinion)"

I have a theory about on-line polls like this: media halo. People only vote for titles they know about. A lot of the voters don't read that much, and quite possibly haven't even read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, but it's a title they've heard of thanks to "Blade Runner", so it gets a vote. (And if they have read PK Dick, it was probably DADoES because of movie.) I think movie adaptations also account for the presence (or high ranking) of several other books on that list.

That's my theory, anyway.


message 10: by G33z3r, The Old Guy (last edited Feb 21, 2013 04:29PM) (new)

G33z3r | 8411 comments Stef wrote: "If Harry Potter and The Hunger Games would qualify for this list they would have the first two spots assured..."

The fact that they decided to exclude "Young Adult" books probably also explains why Narnia, Earthsea and The Golden Compass don't appear. And yet, the "YA" label can be quite arbitrary. It's often a marketing choice. As Jonathan pointed out earlier, Ender's Game could easily be classified as YA, and I know many people consider the Pern novels the same way.

The distinction also seems to me unnecessary. I read the "Heinlein juveniles" when I still was a juvenile (the term "Young Adult" sounds ever so much more better than "juvenile". :) But I've enjoyed quite a number of YA books in the last decade (including Harry Potter and The Hunger Games).


message 11: by Xdyj (new)

Xdyj | 418 comments I'm a bit surprised that The Name of the Wind was ranked higher than Slaughterhouse Five, 2001: A Space Odyssey & The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Maybe there is sth. in it I failed to appreciate in my first read:)


message 12: by Nelleke (new)

Nelleke (Nellekie) | 5 comments Jim wrote: "FWIW, I liked 'Do Androids Dream' better than any of his other books. Typically, I don't care for Dick's writing much. Maybe it differs from his typical work? More people like the style?"

I haven't read this one, but I am reading A scanner darkly at this moment. Started for the second time, the first time I wasn't in the mood. It is now to discover if I like it or not.


But there are a lot of books which I did not consider as fantasy/sf books --> 1984, slaughterhouse 5, frankenstein. They are good, anyway, but why do they appear on the list?


message 13: by G33z3r, The Old Guy (new)

G33z3r | 8411 comments Nelleke wrote: "But there are a lot of books which I did not consider as fantasy/sf books --> 1984, slaughterhouse 5, frankenstein. They are good, anyway, but why do they appear on the list?"

I'm curious why you don't think those three novels qualify as SF/F, other than the fact that they have achieved mainstream acceptance. Do you feel that science fiction must be a pulp genre of purely escapist literature?

1984 is a now classic dystopian vision of the future, including electronic media and televisions that watch back. Granted, it's intended as a cautionary allegory of trends from its contemporary as well as present era. It's titular year has come and gone (but that doesn't disqualify 2001 or any number of other books that foolishly put specific dates on their "future".) Granted it's an anomaly for George Orwell, whose other works, with the exception of the fantasy fairytale alegory Animal Farm, are all firmly rooted in his present day. And, the technology has pretty much come to pass (my TV, or more specifically the PlayStation Move Eye, indeed watches back.)

Slaughterhouse-Five is about WW-II through a guy who travels in time and talks with aliens. Kurt Vonnegut used SF/F elements in several of his books to make his point, for example the ICE-9 as a doomsday device in Cat’s Cradle.

Frankenstein is considered one of the original works of science fiction, using biological engineering (a term that didn't exist then) to examine the question of how society should handle the emerging creations of science and technology. Its themes are still very pertinent today.

All these books use science fiction elements to make social and political points, and have achieved acceptance by the mainstream literati. I don't think that disqualifies them as SF/F, nor Jules Verne nor H. G. Wells.

It's true that a lot of science fiction is purely escapist adventure, such as space opera and sword and sorcery: a genre of pulp fiction. I don't think that means that many authors don't aspire to create something more, including political/social commentary amid the adventure. When they succeed, I don't think they suddenly ceased to be SF/F authors.

I read SF/F as an escapist entertainment media, and I don't expect much more from it than other genres' fans would expect from a good western, mystery, espionage, or romance novel. (I found all three of those books entertaining as well as thoughtful.) I'm sure the literary fiction crowd would not be impressed with my reading list. Nuts to them.


message 14: by Diana (new)

Diana Gotsch | 27 comments What I find strange about the list is that in cases they have listed whole series as a single entry,the Vorkosigan Saga and the Foundation trilogy for example. Then they turn around and list one book out of a series.As they did with the Pern series (Dragonflight). Are they implying that that book is better than the rest of the series?


message 15: by Nelleke (new)

Nelleke (Nellekie) | 5 comments G33z3r wrote: I absolutely agree with you. But I think because those books contains elements from normal life, WW2, eartly politics etc, I consider these books as just fiction, not fantasy. I never thought about that. This only means that I like the fantasy genre, even more :)


message 16: by Stef (last edited Feb 24, 2013 01:44AM) (new)

Stef | 56 comments G33z3r wrote: "And yet, the "YA" label can be quite arbitrary. It's often a marketing choice.
The distinction also seems to me unnecessary. I read the "Heinlein juveniles" when I still was a juvenile (the term "Young Adult" sounds ever so much more better than "juvenile". :) But I've enjoyed quite a number of YA books in the last decade (including Harry Potter and The Hunger Games).


Yes, YA sounds more self-important than juvenile or children, and also lures some adults in the reading game but the term is here to stay. I consider Harry Potter more "children book" than YA. It has some elements borrowed from Tolkien still doesn't match The Hobbit.


message 17: by G33z3r, The Old Guy (last edited Feb 24, 2013 07:23AM) (new)

G33z3r | 8411 comments Stef wrote: "YA sounds more self-important than juvenile or children"

It's not so much about self-importance as it is about a marketing judgment that teens would rather be called young adults than juveniles (especially since the latter term has picked up negative connotations over the last half century; it's most often encountered as an adjective in front of things like delinquency, crime, and bad behavior.)

It's much the same reason another genre is called "literary fiction" instead of "boring books for snobs.”

Stef wrote: "and also lures some adults in the reading game"

I don't accept the notion that a book that is written to be accessible to teens cannot have entertainment value for adults.

Stef wrote: "I consider Harry Potter more "children book" than YA. It has some elements borrowed from Tolkien still doesn't match The Hobbit."

The books of my generation are far superior to the books of younger generations. Also, they don't make movies like they used to. Excuse me, I have to go chase some kids off my lawn... :)


message 18: by Stef (last edited Feb 24, 2013 08:57AM) (new)

Stef | 56 comments When I say self-important I basically agree with your marketing affirmation. No YA like to be named juvenile or kid, and you explained why, but YA. It gives him a different perspective, helps him feel better hence I coined that self-important.

"Lure adults" in the game is again a marketing reference, it has no implications about books quality. Many adults don't like to say: I just finished a children book. YA book is more acceptable.

So, I don't see any difference between our "marketing" statements.

The difference between The Hobbit and Potter is something I will stick with. It is a comparison between two books not between generations. For me The Hobbit is a better book, so it is only a matter of taste.


message 19: by G33z3r, The Old Guy (new)

G33z3r | 8411 comments Stef wrote: "When I say self-important I basically agree with your marketing affirmation."

The distinction I see is that the young adults didn't choose the term for themselves, it got imposed on them by market research for publishers and bookstores.

I never asked to be called a "senior citizen", either (but I still take the discount when offered. :)


message 20: by Deeptanshu (new)

Deeptanshu | 120 comments Wow LOTR made the number 1 spot. good to see the Thrawn trilogy there as well as I wasnt expecting any star wars stuff to make it. But i cant believe the Malazan series is way at the bottom.


message 21: by Christopher (new)

Christopher Dodds | 6 comments I'm really enjoying reading Aurian, the first book of Maggie Furey's Artefacts of Power series because it's more old school magic, like being in control of the elements, wearing robes and sporting a beard in a man's case. Most new fantasy doesn't have that kind of magic in it any more.


message 22: by Gard (new)

Gard Skinner (gard_skinner) No Logan's Run? Wow, that was a phenomenon in its time. Still reads beautifully.


message 23: by Jim (new)

Jim (JimMacLachlan) | 1895 comments Gard wrote: "No Logan's Run? Wow, that was a phenomenon in its time. Still reads beautifully."

While I like William F. Nolan, I don't think he's a good enough writer to be in the top 100. For sheer fun, Space for Hire is hard to beat, though.


message 24: by Gard (new)

Gard Skinner (gard_skinner) Space for Hire...

Wow, nice find, wasn't aware of that. Thanks, it's going on my stack.


message 25: by Jim (new)

Jim (JimMacLachlan) | 1895 comments You're welcome, Gard. You might also like Planet of the Gawfs by Steve Vance, if you can find it. It's an old favorite of my youngest son & myself.


message 26: by [deleted user] (new)

if anything, the work of OLD included should have been the Valis trilogy, NOT Androids....


message 27: by G33z3r, The Old Guy (new)

G33z3r | 8411 comments Corey wrote: "I would never lump science fiction and fantasy together in any list...."

I think Science Fiction and Fantasy are more commonly lumped together than not. E.g., bookstores usually shelve them together. (And, incidentally, they are both the subject of this Goodreads group :) Both are flights of fancy that invite the reader to imagine places or times that don't exist. In some fan circles find it's convenient to lump it all together under "speculative fiction".

I think that may go back to the early days when science fiction was hardly distinguishable from fantasy. Other planets or other worlds, "A Princess of Mars" has more in common with "Conan" sword and sorcery than science.

In the modern era, many magazines cater to both (e.g. "Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction", "Lightspeed", "Clarkesworld") though a few stick just to one (e.g. Analog).

Major fan conventions tend to embrace both (excepting very narrow conventions, such as a Star Trek convention.)

The two major awards, the Hugo and Nebula, pertain to both fantasy and science fiction as well. The British awards, on the other hand, have the distinct British Fantasy Award and British Science Fiction Association Award and Arthur C Clarke Award to separate the two sub genres.

Yes, there are a lot of genre benders, including sci-fi/romance, paranormal romance, sci-fi/western and fantasy/mystery. And there are lots of sub-genre within SF/F, such as hard SF, time travel, space opera, cyberpunk or urban fantasy. The usual genre designations invite combinations, because some (such as science fiction or western) designate a setting while others (mystery, romance) suggest plot elements.

I prefer not to over think the taxonomy. Labels can be helpful in describing something concisely to a friend, but not worth getting to wrapped up about.


message 28: by Andreas (new)

Andreas | 674 comments There is a quite elaborate discussion about "Science Fantasy" at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

If you want to find valid samples for the more fantasy oriented half of Science Fantasy, then look for their current nomination thread https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...


message 29: by Jim (new)

Jim (JimMacLachlan) | 1895 comments The king of SF-fantasy is Roger Zelazny, IMO. Many of his books fall in that category. Roadmarks, Lord of Light, This Immortal, & even his short stories. The only other writer who has come close is Samuel R. Delany in The Einstein Intersection. I just named my favorite books of all time, BTW. They're all re-readable because of the various interpretations. Was Conrad a mutant or really the god Pan? Both? They give plenty of room for thought & yet have a fast paced story on the face.


message 30: by G33z3r, The Old Guy (new)

G33z3r | 8411 comments Jim wrote: "The king of SF-fantasy is Roger Zelazny, IMO. Many of his books fall in that category. Roadmarks, Lord of Light, This Immortal, &..."

Concerning Lord of Light, Zelazny wrote:
“Lord of Light was intentionally written so that it could be taken as a science fiction or a fantasy novel. On the one hand, I attempted to provide some justifications for what went on in the way of the bizarre; on the other, I employed a style I associate with fantasy in the telling of the story. I wrote it that way on purpose, leaving some intentional ambiguity, because I wanted it to lie somewhat between both camps and not entirely in either."



message 31: by Jim (new)

Jim (JimMacLachlan) | 1895 comments If you ever get a chance to read Roadmarks, you'll find it populated by all manner of characters. Time is a mutable road that some can travel & do into what we consider the past & future. It's written in chapters that are titled I or II denoting which time line or point of view they represent. He separated them, then threw one section in the air & put them pretty much randomly in between the other sections, so it can be a bit confusing on the first read. It's good & short, so well worth a second read.


message 32: by V.W. (new)

V.W. Singer | 253 comments G33z3r wrote: "Jim wrote: "The king of SF-fantasy is Roger Zelazny, IMO. Many of his books fall in that category. Roadmarks, Lord of Light, This Immortal, &...."

Always loved the Epic style of Lord of Light that somehow blended perfectly with a solidly SF background.


message 33: by George (new)

George Hahn | 87 comments G33z3r wrote: "Corey wrote: "I would never lump science fiction and fantasy together in any list...."

I think Science Fiction and Fantasy are more commonly lumped together than not. E.g., bookstores usually shel..."


Sometimes they even change in the middle. The original "Beauty and the Beast" TV series (with Linda Hamilton and Ron Perlman) seemed to be fantasy for several seasons and then became science fiction when it was revealed that the beast was a biological experiment. Sometimes the only difference is whether the author puts in some scientific basis for what happens, even if the science is unbelievable in its own right.


message 34: by Timothy (new)

Timothy Michael Lewis (timothymichaellewis) | 48 comments Good point George Jr..I think fantasy is often just sci-fi where no effort is made to explain why things happen. Though I think sci-fi has a bias to being in the future. Though Star Wars was set a long long time ago...


message 35: by Doc (new)

Doc | 56 comments I certainly agree with putting LOTR at the top.
On the other hand, for me, American Gods (10) shouldn't be on the list at all.


message 36: by G33z3r, The Old Guy (last edited Apr 25, 2014 06:39AM) (new)

G33z3r | 8411 comments Doc wrote: "I certainly agree with putting LOTR at the top.
On the other hand, for me, American Gods (10) shouldn't be on the list at all."


I rather enjoyed American Gods for its imagination, though perhaps not all the way up at #10. It's not my "favorite" Gaiman novel, though I think it's his "best" (so far), if that distinction makes any sense at all....

If I were going to cross one off the list, it would be The Belgariad (#41), which I found made an excellent cure for insomnia. :)


message 37: by Jeff (new)

Jeff (Jeffcreer) | 12 comments Doc wrote: "I certainly agree with putting LOTR at the top.
On the other hand, for me, American Gods (10) shouldn't be on the list at all."


I agree. I found that American Gods was not for me. But I recognize that it appeals to a certain group of people. Some of those people are even my friends.


message 38: by [deleted user] (new)

I suspect the list might be more accurately re-titled "Which 100 Science Fiction & Fantasy Novels can most NPR listeners name?"

It's all subjective. On the cover of my copy of Lord of Light there is a George R.R. Martin quote that it is one of the top five SF novels. It would be interesting to know what his other four are.

Damian


message 39: by Doc (new)

Doc | 56 comments Jeff wrote: "Doc wrote: "I certainly agree with putting LOTR at the top.
On the other hand, for me, American Gods (10) shouldn't be on the list at all."

I agree. I found that American Gods was not for me. But ..."

I hear you, as we used to say in a past decade. Many of my friends, all of whom are intelligent and perceptive, enjoy things I don't--and I'm fine with that. For me, disliking something is often not a judgment of its quality nor a reflection on those who like it. Instead it is, as you say, not for me.


message 40: by Doc (new)

Doc | 56 comments G33z3r wrote: "Doc wrote: "I certainly agree with putting LOTR at the top.
On the other hand, for me, American Gods (10) shouldn't be on the list at all."

I rather enjoyed American Gods for its imagi..."

I give your opinions some weight, so Belgariad forewarned is Belgariad armed.
I haven't read any other Gaiman books, and don't anticipate doing so.
This is the sort of thing all of us must ponder, in our reading, our music listening, and elsewhere: Striking a balance between being flexible and open to new things, and wasting time on things for which we truly have no affinity. I, for example, do not care for Broadway music. I have no problem that other people like it and I cannot point to anything wrong with it. It just doesn't speak to me--so I don't spend any of the limited amount of listening time I have in my very finite life listening to it.


message 41: by Doc (new)

Doc | 56 comments G33z3r wrote: "Nelleke wrote: "But there are a lot of books which I did not consider as fantasy/sf books --> 1984, slaughterhouse 5, frankenstein. They are good, anyway, but why do they appear on the list?"

I'm ..."


We walk the same path here, Old Guy. I read SF for enjoyment, an enjoyment unalloyed by denizens of the Ivory Tower.


message 42: by [deleted user] (new)

Is the Ivory Tower where Saruman dwells?


message 43: by Mary (new)

Mary | 26 comments G33z3r wrote: "Jim wrote: "The king of SF-fantasy is Roger Zelazny, IMO. Many of his books fall in that category. Roadmarks, Lord of Light, This Immortal, &...." I agree. The best Zelazny novel I have read. I also like Andre Norton, especially the 'Witch World' series.


message 44: by Mary (new)

Mary | 26 comments Xdyj wrote: "I'm a bit surprised that The Name of the Wind was ranked higher than Slaughterhouse Five, 2001: A Space Odyssey & The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Maybe there is sth. in it I failed to appreciate in m..."

Only browsed so far, but can't imagine it beating Space Odyssey. I will soon find out as I have got it on audiobook. If it passes that test, it is good. The thing about audiobooks is that it is not easy for me to skip boring bits, so a recent novel, with over a 100 chapters, heavy with description of everyday matters, sent me to sleep on audio book.And that was in the last 3 chapters, when the great mystery was to be revealed. I think it was just the wrong book, though. I shall persevere, as it is good to be able to listen while doing something else or just lying around.


message 45: by Mary (new)

Mary | 26 comments Jack Vance takes some beating as well. The dying Earth series is sublime.


message 46: by Allynn (new)

Allynn Riggs (AllynnRiggs) | 45 comments @Xdyj I haven't seen mention of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" in a long time. It was one of my favorites in early college. My copy is buried deep in boxes of books we don't have room to display (much to my dismay). Glad to know others have also read it. I will have to locate a copy at the library and check it out. It has been over thirty years since I last read it. Thanks for bringing up good reading memories.


message 47: by Mary (new)

Mary | 26 comments One unusual fantasy is called 'Jurgen' by James Branch Cabell. Written around the thirties (approx) and a little known gem.


message 48: by Mary (new)

Mary | 26 comments All in all, my own top 100 would differ, but Space Odyssey and Dune win in any list. Masterpieces, Dune in particular. Asimov's Foundation trilogy is great, too. I read one of his books and cannot remember anything but the closing lines. Does anyone remember the book? The lines are:
Grow old along with me
The best is yet to be
The last of life
For which the first was made.


message 49: by G33z3r, The Old Guy (last edited Apr 30, 2014 01:10PM) (new)

G33z3r | 8411 comments Mary wrote:
"Grow old along with me!
The best is yet to be,
The last of life, for which the first was made:
Our times are in his hand
Who saith, "A whole I planned,
Youth shows but half; trust God: see all, nor be afraid!"..."


From a Robert Browning poem (Rabbi Ben Ezra) which Asimov quoted at the end of Pebble in the Sky.


message 50: by G33z3r, The Old Guy (new)

G33z3r | 8411 comments Allynn wrote: "I haven't seen mention of "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" in a long time. It was one of my favorites in early college. My copy is buried deep in boxes of books we don't have room to display (m..."

One of our three Heinlein Book Discussions from about six months ago.


« previous 1 3
back to top