Building a SciFi/Fantasy Library discussion
OK, who agrees with this list?
As noted in the methodology, this was voted on by the general public and not a secret group of writers/critics. So there will be a bias toward newer and "popular" titles. That said I think the list is mostly right...
I mostly agree with the list as well. There are some I would rank higher or lower, but overall it's a good list. (For full disclosure, I actually voted for this list. I was happily surprised to discover that all the books I voted for made it, as did the next few books that I wanted to vote for but couldn't- you were limited to 10.)
My biggest disappointment was that Dhalgren was not on the list, an all time favorite. Perhaps many dont consider it speculative fiction. I also don't like that they closed comments. One cannot even red the comments anymore, except 1 page.
In baseball, if a hitter is able to hit the ball successfully 3-4 times out of every 10 tries, he is considered really good. I would say the same thing about "best of" lists of any type. I suppose there are some entries on here that I would consider a little bit strange, and certainly some omissions that seem odd (A Star Wars series instead of Helliconia?!) I'm also not generally a fan of epic fantasy (with the exception of Tolkien and Martin, and much of my childhood was spent in Xanth). That said, the list has some great titles that make me smile, and overall, it's batting at least .300.
Not a bad list but it is not all SF---there is a lot of Fantasy mixed in.I have indeed read some fantasy but every now and then I wish we'd get more straight SF and less wizards and elfs and so on.
All Best of Lists are inherently flawed, no matter how they are compiled, though all in all, regardless of my beliefs, its not a bad list.There are a ton of books that I think are worthy of placement that are not there (ie Anne McCaffrey's Freedom Series - Anne McCaffrey Freedom Collection: Freedom's Landing, Freedom's Challenge, Freedom's Choice and my personal favourite Vacuum Diagrams), and I shutter at some of the inclusions (ie Arthur C. Clarkes - The Rama series - Rendezvous with Rama) but its all based on my personal bias. Though, I must say that I bristled to see some Fantasy on the list... granted, there are some Fantasy texts that "crossover," but despite the commercial push to unite them, they are different genres.
I do think that of all the lists I've seen compiled in this manner, its one of the better ones because it spans most of the history of sci-fi. It is also a good list for sci-fi newcomers.
Wow. That's actually the best user-voted book list I've ever seen. Of course there are titles I disagree with, but it isn't full of titles from the last two years. Many of my favorites are there, and few of the ones that are have, imo, no redeeming features. Of course, there's the fact that I rarely ever give a book a 5-star rating here, and two of mine, of the 15 I've ever given, are rated 1-2. Two others are in the top 7, and all but 6 are on the list (The City & the City, King Rat, Stardance, Walden Two, Redliners, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass - and to be fair, The City & the City doesn't belong on that list)
Quite a good list. I don't think "Time Traveller's Wife" belongs; I'd replace it with "Kindred" by Octavia Butler if you need a non-science time travel book--or "Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus" by Card. And why not "The City and The City"--a brilliant fantasy? I was surprised and delighted that Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next ("The Eyre Affair") made the cut.
Well, I'd put the City & the City on any best-list, but I didn't consider it fantasy. I suppose, by any reasonable definition, it really is :-)
For being a user-voted list, it seems to exceed expectations. There are some books on there which I might not sort under either sf or fantasy, but not more than a few. I have few issues with omissions from the list (there are some books I might have expected to see there that aren't there, but most of those I haven't read myself and can't have an opinion on). All of the most obvious great works of the genres seem to be at least somewhere on the list, which is encouraging.Still, I have a hard time taking seriously any list that claims to list the best of the best and yet includes books like David Eddings's "The Belgariad".
And having just finished reading Asimov's Foundation trilogy, I'm left to wonder whether some books are included on lists such as this only because of their historical influence and/or nostalgic value, rather than for actually being good books that have stood the test of time.
Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy may not be everyone's cup of tea. I am a fan of his--and it is not one of my favorites.However, it was originally published in 1951--so it has been reprinted off and on for 50 years. Imho, they HAVE "stood the test of time". SOMEBODY'S buying them or they would not keep getting re-printed.
Mary JL wrote: "Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy may not be everyone's cup of tea. I am a fan of his--and it is not one of my favorites.However, it was originally published in 1951--so it has been reprinted off..."
It is one of my favorite Asimov's, the original trilogy, which I've read multiple times.
Kernos wrote: "Mary JL wrote: "Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy may not be everyone's cup of tea. I am a fan of his--and it is not one of my favorites.However, it was originally published in 1951--so it has been..."
It is one of the greatest Works of Science fiction ever because it explores humanity not simply playing out a fairly linear story as many fantasy and Sci-fi stories do.
Robert wrote: "NPR put out their choices for the top 100 SF/F novels ever. I agree with a lot of it, but like some people have already said, there are puzzling omissions and additions to the list. See for yoursel..."Yeah...I have to agree. I agree with most of the selections but there were a few I thought should have been on there. Maybe there was just too much awesomeness in this field to include?
Tim wrote: "If you are not happy with the list of top 100, you can check out the list of 237 titles that the panel used to pare down to the final 100. Dahlgren is on that list.http://www.npr.org/2011/08/07/1..."
Wow, seeing the list of nominees actually makes me a little bit more disappointed with the final 100. There are some far superior works that didn't make the final cut.
I take all of these kinds of lists with a grain of salt and just check and see if there is something listed I have never heard of or have somehow missed putting on my grand-master reading list.
Very strange top 100, but I'm glad Conan was among them.No "The Windup Girl"
Sweet, Derek - thanks for that post! It's an excellent companion to the list.
Ridley Walker wasn't even on their original list. That's a serious oversight and a damn shame.
I think that's what's great about this list - a hundred books, and most people can only manage to complain about 1 or 2 :-) I have _never_ seen a "best-of" list that doesn't provoke argument.
And having just finished reading Asimov's Foundation trilogy, I'm left to wonder whether some books are included on lists such as this only because of their historical influence and/or nostalgic value, rather than for actually being good books that have stood the test of time. I don't think it's nostalgia. A lot of people who read these books when they first came out aren't alive today, or are probably pretty old by now. I don't think they alone would have enough sway to make these books consistently rank as among the best sci fi novels. Since it keeps getting republished, newer readers must be finding them and enjoying them.
I first read the Foundation series a few years ago, and I loved them. I went through the original three books in just a couple of weeks, and then went on to read Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth. Asimov's books are largely why I've become a big fan of sci fi. Prior to that, I had read some but mostly stayed away due to my stereotypical views of the genre.
No Alfred Bester? Where's Robert Silverberg? And is there anybody else that thinks A Deepness in the Sky is a much better novel than A Fire Upon the Deep?
Robert wrote: "NPR put out their choices for the top 100 SF/F novels ever. I agree with a lot of it, but like some people have already said, there are puzzling omissions and additions to the list. See for yoursel..."The NPR list is all over the place they mix long series along with stand alone books. I would have been happier if they broken it down into three lists of SF, Fantasy and book Series.
That being said, I would agree that most of the books on the list will not disappoint.
I may take a lot of flak for this, but I don't think American Gods should be #10. It's not as innovative or groundbreaking or imaginative as many of the books that come after it. I think it's a sign of the popularity contest nature of the vote.(Though yes I've read the book a few times, and greatly enjoy it)
Also I dont think I'd put David Eddings anywhere near the list :D
L.S. wrote: "I may take a lot of flak for this, but I don't think American Gods should be #10. It's not as innovative or groundbreaking or imaginative as many of the books that come after it. I think it's a sign of the popularity contest nature of the vote."I don't think it was strictly a popularity contest - yes, people got to vote, but NPR decided what got on the list. That's what makes it such a good list - the top ten aren't all from the last 5 years, the way these things usually end up. That said, I haven't read American Gods, and am trying to resist doing so, but a lot of people do seem to think it's "innovative or groundbreaking or imaginative".
As for Eddings, I enjoyed his first book, and his second. By book three, things were getting tedious, and he's been steadily flogging a dead horse ever since.
Derek wrote: I don't think it was strictly a popularity contest - yes, people got to vote, but NPR decided what got on the list. That's what makes it such a good list - the top ten aren't all from the last 5 years, the way these things usually end up. That said, I haven't read American Gods, and am trying to resist doing so, but a lot of people do seem to think it's "innovative or groundbreaking or imaginative"."Yeah, it's a tough call. American Gods is a great book and if you like the genre at all, it's a must-read. Looking through the list, there's not many books behind below it that are as well written or as involving as American Gods.
There are, however, many books whose ideas are much more innovative, and important in the context in which they were written. So I guess it depends on on your criteria for evaluation. For me, personally, I think it's the substanc behind the stories, and in that case I'd probably put it a little lower.
Also, in that case, I'd probably promote 1984 a few spots, maybe even to first.
Otherwise, the only other outlier I thought was there was Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Mars' books at 95. I'd put those way higher, top 50 easily. Such an amazing amount of knowledge went into each of those books in so many diverse fields of study.
Just my 2 cents.
Would loved to have seen Tigana by [Author: Guy Gavriel Kay] on there (it wasn't even a nominee). I think it's grossly underappreciated and much better than the the Fionavar Tapestry (which didn't make the list, but was a nominee). Good list though, overall although I cosign that the Belgariad didn't belong on there (but absolutely think American Gods was rightfully placed at #10 as it's a favorite of mine).
I thought this was a very good list and am largely satisfied.
Peter wrote: "Would loved to have seen Tigana by [Author: Guy Gavriel Kay] on there (it wasn't even a nominee). I think it's grossly underappreciated and much better than the the Fionavar Tapestry..."Yeah, Kay belongs on the list and think I agree that Tigana is his best. The Fionavar Tapestry suffers from standard fantasy author first novel syndrome - highly derivative from Lord of the Rings
L.S. wrote: "I may take a lot of flak for this, but I don't think American Gods should be #10. It's not as innovative or groundbreaking or imaginative as many of the books that come after it. I think it's a sig..."I like Neil G. and I liked American Gods, but did I like it enough for it to be on that list?, not a chance. There are a good number of books that easily outclass it. It was funny and clever, but far from innovative or seminal.
These kind of lists are rather un-useful, IMO, unless perhaps one is just starting out reading SFF. I've read nearly all the books or parts of the series, many multiple times. The only real disagreements I would have are GRR Martin's and Robt Jordan's series being on the list at all, esp as high as they landed (above 1984 and Animal Farm, geesh...). And Stephen King's Dark Tower—puleez. And the lack of anything by CJ Cherryh on the list, esp Cyteen or Downbelow Station is unforgivable. I'd also put her Fortress series far above Jordan or Martin as fantasy and as literature.
Going down the list: 62, The Sword of Truth; 63, The Road; 64 Jonathan Strange—How does one compare an S&S fantasy series to 2 literary masterpieces? And then 65, I Am Legend, one of the great horror/ecofictions of all time. But, I would rather see Day of the Triffids there, because it is better literature, IMO and as important.
I was happy to see that Perelandra made it, even as 100. It's a classic SFF I don't see discussed much anymore, though Lewis' Screwtape Letters is his greatest fiction, IMO.
Oh well, tastes vary and times change. It could have been much worse, especially as a popularity contest.
Mary JL wrote: "Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy may not be everyone's cup of tea. I am a fan of his--and it is not one of my favorites.However, it was originally published in 1951--so it has been reprinted off..."
There's an interesting short report in the current issue of Scientific American about advances in computer grids analyzing big data sets and making predictions about human civilization, societies, economics etc. It compares the process to the Psychohistory equations from Foundation and as an example of Science Fictions becoming science fact.
Gaiman should have never been in the list.
Danielle wrote: "Gaiman should have never been in the list."I like Gaiman myself (though I don't really understand the appeal of the Sandman graphic novels), but I certainly wouldn't be putting him in my top ten.
I'm amused at how their panel of experts decided that I Am Legend and World War Z are not horror.
No Guy Gavriel Kay at all? No Tim Powers? No Poul Anderson? No Philip José Farmer? No Robert Charles Wilson? No Robert J. Sawyer? I could understand more obscure authors like Barzak, Bakker, Brust, Kearney, Marillier, and Parker being left off, but those guys?
I really won't comment other than to say that I personally think a LOT of good SF wasn't on the list and several books that I think good only for a fireplace are on the list.
Hi , My name is Khairu. I'm the mother of 2 beautiful kids. M a stay at home mom. I live in Canada. I love reading. N just over ayear ago I started blogging. My site includes, reviews on books, different aspects of life, parenting, and some personal experiences n stories. I hope u visit my blog, might interest u. As a comment do leave ur site n sure will follow. http://khairusworld.blogspot.com/
As others have stated, it's a surprisingly good list. I'm almost surprised by the lack of Harry Potter (certainly not complaining, though). Though as I peruse the finalists complete list, I am slightly disappointed by the inclusion of some at the expense of others. I particularly find it strange that Neil Gaiman has 4 books on this list. And of those it includes Stardust, a mediocre novel which was surprisingly out shined by its film counterpart.
There are some great books in there, but Really? Robert Jordan is not better than ANY Ray Bradbury. Nor is he better than Heinlein or Isomov. He ruined Robert E. Howard's Conan. Jordan isn't that good -- Popular, yes. Well represented by his publisher, yes. But awful characters, terrible, terrible writing through and through. King's Gunslinger Series should have been a lot higher in the ranks than Jordan.Can you tell I'm not a Jordan fan?
Jake wrote: "There are some great books in there, but Really? Robert Jordan is not better than ANY Ray Bradbury.... Can you tell I'm not a Jordan fan? "Aw, come on, he wasn't _that_ bad (not top 100 good, though). I kept with it almost to the end. I finally gave up when I discovered that Sanderson was actually going to write THREE more novels to finish something that should have been done at least 6 books earlier.
... and nothing King's written in 20 years (at least) belongs there.
Interesting mix of a list. Plenty of good stuff on there.Some strange inclusions, though:
-Silmarillion (Tolkien's glorified notebook)
-Mistborn (Was this after he started writing the Jordan books? That could have meant a lot of new readers discovered him and skewed the poll)
-Stardust (I love Gaiman, but that's the weakest novel of his I've read)
-Small Gods (Again, I love Pratchett. He's written many better books, though)
Some sad omissions:
-No Alfred Bester? Really?!
-No Glen Cook? He was writing modern fantasy before other writers even knew it existed.
-No Bakker. That man is a rare talent.
Peter wrote: "Some strange inclusions, though:-Silmarillion (Tolkien's glorified notebook)"
Hardly. If you want his notebooks, you need to read the HoME books, which are largely just a means to extract money from fans, afaict. The Silmarillion was far, far, more than a notebook.
"No Alfred Bester? Really?!"
He's been gone 25 years, nobody remembers him. Be thankful that any of the old-timers made it to the list.
Don't mean to get in an argument, but Silmarillion was the mythology behind LOTR. As such, it really does work more as a writer's notes to a book than a book in its own right. Silmarillion's the stuff fans might find interesting, but it feels like the book essentially was written (or conceived) to facilitate LOTR. I write, and that's how I see it anyway. And Bester might be from a while ago, but he wrote 2 books that were pretty damn good by anybody's standards. I was genuinely surprised neither of those books made the list. I think readers of fantasy and sci fi do remember more than just a few years back.
Just my opinions, though. And I did like the list on the whole. A lot more than I thought I would. :)
Pete
Peter wrote: "Don't mean to get in an argument, but Silmarillion was the mythology behind LOTR. As such, it really does work more as a writer's notes to a book than a book in its own right."Well, it doesn't work as "a" book, because it's a compendium, but the individual works (particularly Ainulindalë and Quenta Silmarillion) are at least as good literature as The Hobbit. They are not "the mythology behind LOTR", they're stories set in the same universe, that the author was never happy enough to publish in his lifetime - but that doesn't mean they weren't publishable. Unlike most of the stuff that followed.
"And Bester might be from a while ago, but he wrote 2 books that were pretty damn good by anybody's standards. I was genuinely surprised neither of those books made the list. I think readers of fantasy and sci fi do remember more than just a few years back."
Clearly they do — a few old-timers made the list (J.R.R. Tolkien died well before Bester) — but while I agree The Demolished Man should be on such a list, I still doubt many of the people voting even remember Bester. Even though I agree he's good enough to be on the list, I confess I didn't remember him until you brought him up.
Hmmm maybe 1 of the best uses of these lists is reminding us of great books. There were books on there that made me think 'I really have to go back and read that one again.' :)I suspect the slightly guilty pleasure is complaining about books that were included or lamenting ones that were left off. ;)
Peter wrote: "Hmmm maybe 1 of the best uses of these lists is reminding us of great books. There were books on there that made me think 'I really have to go back and read that one again.' :)"
Yeah, that's a really good point.
Building a SciFi/Fantasy Library
Books mentioned in this topic
The Demolished Man (other topics)The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)
The Silmarillion (other topics)
Stardust (other topics)
Tigana (other topics)
More...
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/11/1390858...