50 "Must-Read" Science Fiction Books

[J-WO]

Here's the list (the SF section covers numbers 352 through 401):

•352. "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy," Douglas Adams
•353. "Hothouse," Brian Aldiss
•355. "I, Robot," Isaac Asimov
•356. "The Handmaid's Tale," Margaret Atwood
•358. "The Demolished Man," Alfred Bester
•363. "The Sheep Look Up," John Brunner
•364. "A Clockwork Orange," Anthony Burgess
•369. "The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch," Philip K. Dick
•371. "Neuromancer," William Gibson (Didn't finish)
•372. "Stranger in a Strange Land," Robert A. Heinlein (Wish I hadn't started)
•373. "Dune," Frank Herbert
•374. "Brave New World," Aldous Huxley
•376. "Left Hand of Darkness," Ursula K. LeGuin (Will read next. Promise!)
•383. "A Canticle for Leibowitz," Walter Miller
•386. "Nineteen Eighty-Four," George Orwell (My most read book ever)
•389. "The Green Child," Herbert Read
•391. "City," Clifford D. Simak
•394. "Last and First Men," Olaf Stapledon (Skipped bits)

Surprised myself here. Hadn't realised I'd read so many.

 

[AE35Unit]

I was wondering about The Inverted World by Christopher Priest that was mentioned in that list in the first page.

Is it seen as one of his better books ? Its one of my choices for library books of his and i would like to start there then getting a library book of his latest novel.

You know I'm sure I used to have thaat in paperback but never got round to reading it! Heaven knows where it is now!

 

[AE35Unit]

Thats what the great about that list. Its not about the best SF books ever.

Its about mentioning authors who are worth being in that list. Doesn't matter its their best book or not.

1984 doesnt belong in that list, same with Wells,Verne. Those guys are mainstream classics no matter their genre. People who dont read SF knows them,read them.

I've not read 1984 so can't say if its SF or not but Verne and Wells definitely belong on there, mainstream or not! They're household names yes but that doesn't detract from their importance in the genre. Verne was the fisrt professsional SF writer and look how many times Journey to the Centre of the Earth has been (badly I admit) filmed, and Wells stories have inspired a generation of SFists-writers,readers, filmmakers etc. A lot of blockbuster movies have Wells to thank!

 

[CyBeR]

I'm amused...I just read the list. I admit to having read very few of those there, but plan of fixing that up as I go along. I've got time.

What amuses me is the presence of "1984" and not "We". Now, please do not misunderstand me, I do not hold one book over the other, but "1984" is best attributed to a political satire of sorts and the Sci-Fi (I can't for the life of me read write in English SF) there isn't really Sci-Fi. Whereas "We", in a similar vein to Orwell's classic, goes far beyond what could possibly be, getting deep within that scientifically fictional realm.

As I've said...it amuses me. I will read most of those books since most of them are in my "To read" list. It's just a matter of getting hold of copies, since it would seem that the premiere Sci-Fi publishing house in Romania is having some difficulties. I'm picking up their books in troves whenever I get some extra money...but I may start fearing the worst for that collection.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Zamyatin's novel was a huge influence on Orwell - at one time he wanted to to translate it into English (from a French translation he had access to, I think) but was not able to interest Victor Gollancz in it. It's a pity that the 1984 is the better-known work in the Anglophone world, just as I suspect that Orwell's real masterpieces are his critical and journalistic writings.

 

[Fried Egg]

What amuses me is the presence of "1984" and not "We". Now, please do not misunderstand me, I do not hold one book over the other, but "1984" is best attributed to a political satire of sorts and the Sci-Fi (I can't for the life of me read write in English SF) there isn't really Sci-Fi. Whereas "We", in a similar vein to Orwell's classic, goes far beyond what could possibly be, getting deep within that scientifically fictional realm.

Going far beyond what could possibly be makes it fantasy, not SF. Infact, what makes "1984" so terrifying is that it is so worringly plasubile. And I think it is well within the remit of SF to explore the implications of what is and extrapolate nightmware scenarios that might result if we are not careful.

 

[Fried Egg]

Zamyatin's novel was a huge influence on Orwell - at one time he wanted to to translate it into English (from a French translation he had access to, I think) but was not able to interest Victor Gollancz in it. It's a pity that the 1984 is the better-known work in the Anglophone world, just as I suspect that Orwell's real masterpieces are his critical and journalistic writings.

Show me one novel who's author didn't draw influences from other things they have read or experienced. I don't see why that's a problem.

"1984" is a well regarded novel and deservedly so. It is certainly one of the (if not the) greatest books I have ever read. Although I have admittedly not read "We".

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

I never said that Zamyatin's influence on Orwell was a problem (although this is precisely what some have suggested; I'm inclined to take a broader view of the matter, not least because I am a great admirer of Orwell's work). Having read both books, it is clear that the earlier work served not just as an influence but as a model for 1984. It is at least as good as the later work and it is a pity, as I've said, that it isn't as well known.

 

[CyBeR]

Going far beyond what could possibly be makes it fantasy, not SF. Infact, what makes "1984" so terrifying is that it is so worringly plasubile. And I think it is well within the remit of SF to explore the implications of what is and extrapolate nightmware scenarios that might result if we are not careful.

I understand that. I may have misspoken, because even Zamyatin's world can become a possibility and his devices are not as outlandish as to be completely improbable (let's not bring into discussion the glass airship here). His vision is no less terrifying than Orwell's, but simply shielded by being set in an unknown future age.

 

[Fried Egg]

If Zamyatin's book is as good as your guys are suggesting, then it is indeed a crime that it isn't more widely known. Hopefully I'll get around to reading it soon so I can comment.

 

[thesoothsayer]

•352. "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy," Douglas Adams
•355. "I, Robot," Isaac Asimov
•369. "The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch," Philip K. Dick
•372. "Stranger in a Strange Land," Robert A. Heinlein
•373. "Dune," Frank Herbert
•374. "Brave New World," Aldous Huxley
•386. "Nineteen Eighty-Four," George Orwell
•397. "A Journey to the Centre of the Earth," Jules Verne
•399. "The Island of Dr Moreau," H.G. Wells

Only read 9/50, and some of the rest I've never even heard of.

 

[iansales]

I reread Stranger in a Strange Land only last month, and I've just written about it on my blog here.

 

[Taltos]

This is not a topic I would normally delve into. However, I just picked up a copy of the 2006 book edited by Emma Beare, entitled 501 Must-Read Books.

Well, all "the best" and "must see\read" lists are always subjective and depend on the person making the list - so if your list doesn't exactly match that it's only a matter of oppinion.

Here's the list (the SF section covers numbers 352 through 401):

•352. "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy," Douglas Adams
•355. "I, Robot," Isaac Asimov
•358. "The Demolished Man," Alfred Bester
•361. "Planet of the Apes," Pierre Boulle
•362. "The Martian Chronicles," Ray Bradbury
•364. "A Clockwork Orange," Anthony Burgess
•367. "2001: A Space Odyssey," Arthur C. Clarke
•370. "To Your Scattered Bodies Go," Philip Jose Farmer
•371. "Neuromancer," William Gibson
•372. "Stranger in a Strange Land," Robert A. Heinlein
•373. "Dune," Frank Herbert
•377. "Solaris," Stanislaw Lem
•381. "I Am Legend," Richard Matheson
•383. "A Canticle for Leibowitz," Walter Miller
•384. "Ringworld," Larry Niven
•390. "The Laxian Key," Robert Sheckley
•391. "City," Clifford D. Simak
•396. "Slan," A.E. Van Vogt
•398. "Slaughterhouse-Five," Kurt Vonnegut
•401. "The Day of the Triffids," John Wyndham

These I've read, at least 2 books are currently in reading and some more are in the TBR for this year - so not doing very bad

 

[Fried Egg]

I reread Stranger in a Strange Land only last month, and I've just written about it on my blog here.

Indeed, I wouldn't put this book on any list of "must-read SF", that's for sure.

 

[iansales]

It apparently has its fans...

 

[Rodders]

I loved Stranger in a strange land when i read it. I don't understand why people are so negative about this.

 

[Fried Egg]

I loved Stranger in a strange land when i read it. I don't understand why people are so negative about this.

I don't mean to be negative about it. I thought it was ok, just nothing special. What was it about it that you loved?

 

[iansales]

Rodders, I'd be interested as well to know why you loved it. How long ago was it you last read it?

 

[AE35Unit]

I loved Stranger in a strange land when i read it. I don't understand why people are so negative about this.

Me too Rodders-I sailed thru it way back when.

 

[clovis-man]

I was wondering about The Inverted World by Christopher Priest that was mentioned in that list in the first page.

Is it seen as one of his better books ? Its one of my choices for library books of his and i would like to start there then getting a library book of his latest novel.

Conn, I've been away from my sources for a few days. Looking at the 501 Must-Read Books book now, I see that the entry re The Inverted World doesn't indicate any ranking of this among his other works, but does include a list of four which seem to be considered as also notable:

The Affirmation
Existenz
The Space Machine
The Separation

I'm just now becoming aware that the movie, The Prestige, was based on a novel written by him of the same name.