The 10 Worst Science Fiction Series

Just jumping in to say that I also produced a best sf series list here.

But it's nice to see some friendly discussion on the subject :)
 
Ian,

I'd love to chat about this list as well! But maybe a new thread is needed?
 
On the whole, I can't really disagree too much with Ian's list, when considered for the purpose it was drawn up, especially. However, I do have a few reservations. I can't, for instance, quite agree with him on the Foundation series. Faulted it most definitely is. Clumsy in parts. And it gets off to a rather slow start by today's standards.

However... I have read the thing -- the entire series (by Asimov, at least) more than once during my 30+ years as an adult, and I still find it holds my interest and is a wonderful imaginative adventure. (This does not apply across the board; some of the books are better than others; but nonetheless I think it holds true for the whole.) As for whether it is suitable as an introduction to sf... I suppose that depends on the sort of thing the recipient enjoys outside of the field. If they have a taste for writings of a similar sort, then by all means, it should be used. If their taste is more contemporary, or much older, or of a higher literary strata... then no, definitely not.

I've not read the Honor Harrington series, so I can't judge there; but (much as I respect and have an affection for the man and his work) I would definitely agree about the Lensman series by E. E. Smith. These are wonderful books, in their own humble way, but not I think a good introduction to sf for the modern reader.

As for the other series... some I have read, some not. I attempted (very briefly) the continuation of the Dune saga, but these were so poorly written that I couldn't even get through a handful of chapters, and have since selectively amnesed the contents. Sorry. Abominable crap.

Pern... I enjoyed several of those books, many years ago; and have fond memories of them, but I haven't gone back to them in at least 20 years now... however, I was an adult when reading several of them, so it isn't the undeveloped taste of a child talking there, simply a different approach from Ian's. Again, faulted and flawed, but there are some very good books there; they just aren't what I would call science fiction (science fantasy, yes; a perfect example of one aspect of that form). Again, I wouldn't recommend them to newcomers, but I don't think that the series is anywhere near a "worst" in any critical sense. (Poor Neil R. Jones' Professor Jameson tales, for example, would score far, far below Pern.)

So, on the whole... not a bad list of at least poor options for an introduction; but with some severe reservations about some of the additional comments surrounding them....
 
I'm not trying to excuse writers for producing bad material, but isn't it the editor's job to make sure a lot of this stuff never sees the light in the printer's shop?
 
j. d. worthington said:
On the whole, I can't really disagree too much with Ian's list, when considered for the purpose it was drawn up, especially. However, I do have a few reservations. I can't, for instance, quite agree with him on the Foundation series. Faulted it most definitely is. Clumsy in parts. And it gets off to a rather slow start by today's standards.

However... I have read the thing -- the entire series (by Asimov, at least) more than once during my 30+ years as an adult, and I still find it holds my interest and is a wonderful imaginative adventure. (This does not apply across the board; some of the books are better than others; but nonetheless I think it holds true for the whole.) As for whether it is suitable as an introduction to sf... I suppose that depends on the sort of thing the recipient enjoys outside of the field. If they have a taste for writings of a similar sort, then by all means, it should be used. If their taste is more contemporary, or much older, or of a higher literary strata... then no, definitely not.

I've not read the Honor Harrington series, so I can't judge there; but (much as I respect and have an affection for the man and his work) I would definitely agree about the Lensman series by E. E. Smith. These are wonderful books, in their own humble way, but not I think a good introduction to sf for the modern reader.

As for the other series... some I have read, some not. I attempted (very briefly) the continuation of the Dune saga, but these were so poorly written that I couldn't even get through a handful of chapters, and have since selectively amnesed the contents. Sorry. Abominable crap.

Pern... I enjoyed several of those books, many years ago; and have fond memories of them, but I haven't gone back to them in at least 20 years now... however, I was an adult when reading several of them, so it isn't the undeveloped taste of a child talking there, simply a different approach from Ian's. Again, faulted and flawed, but there are some very good books there; they just aren't what I would call science fiction (science fantasy, yes; a perfect example of one aspect of that form). Again, I wouldn't recommend them to newcomers, but I don't think that the series is anywhere near a "worst" in any critical sense. (Poor Neil R. Jones' Professor Jameson tales, for example, would score far, far below Pern.)

So, on the whole... not a bad list of at least poor options for an introduction; but with some severe reservations about some of the additional comments surrounding them....
Click to expand...

Foundation series was my first foray in SF it opened my eyes in that it was an epic,imagainative adventure. The Mule is one of the most memorable sf characters i have read.

Asimov's characters might weaker than other classic sf,modern ones but ideas wise,story wise it was an eye opener. To me it doesn't look weaker even after many modern and other classic books.

I have recommended Foundation to one of my brother who would never read SF but he enjoyed the books. I would not recommend most of the modern sf books i have read to a newbie. Might be better prose wise than the 40s,50s but they are denser,slower. I think as first SF book you must choose a imaginative,one with ideas but also very good storytelling wise. I usually only recommend Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan of modern sf. Not some huge space opera that will bore them are not used to them.
 
Connavar said:
Foundation series was my first foray in SF it opened my eyes in that it was an epic,imagainative adventure. The Mule is one of the most memorable sf characters i have read.

Asimov's characters might weaker than other classic sf,modern ones but ideas wise,story wise it was an eye opener. To me it doesn't look weaker even after many modern and other classic books.

I have recommended Foundation to one of my brother who would never read SF but he enjoyed the books. I would not recommend most of the modern sf books i have read to a newbie. Might be better prose wise than the 40s,50s but they are denser,slower. I think as first SF book you must choose a imaginative,one with ideas but also very good storytelling wise. I usually only recommend Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan of modern sf. Not some huge space opera that will bore them are not used to them.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure whether you are agreeing with my assessment of Asimov's Foundation series or not....:rolleyes:

At any rate, as I noted, for all its faults, it still holds my interest and is, I think a wonderful imaginative adventure. And yes, the Mule... I love that character, and the way Asimov handled him. All the terror that the Mule holds for the rest of the Galaxy, and then the very human side we see... only to have the darkest hints confirmed by a very light touch at the end as we truly look, as it were, into the eyes of the Mule for the first time... yet with the memory of having come to care for the character in the meantime, which makes the shock all the more complex.

Looking at the original "trilogy", one can see Asimov's skills as a writer developing tremendously just through the brief span of time this set was written. The advancement wasn't entirely consistent, but it is most definitely there... and Asimov is a much better, and more subtle, writer than he is often given credit for -- in part because he tended toward very lucid yet simple prose. It does, however, have its own sort of complexity to it, and repays careful reading for the subtleties and often sly (as opposed to his overt) humor contained in it.

Incidentally... for me, I tend to include the entire set of writings which became subsumed into the Foundation series: the robot tales, the Galactic Empire novels, the stories of Lije Baley and R. Daneel Olivaw, and the Foundation proper (including those later/earlier books about Hari Seldon); a massive series, all told, yet he did manage to weave it all together fairly well before he died... and there are some damn' fine things there.

As I said, it depends on the recipient's taste in reading matter whether these will appeal or not; but I would by no means suggest it in all cases, nor would I avoid suggesting it in all cases either....
 
I'm fully agreeing with you and while Foundation isnt perfect its a real classic of SF.

I dont want to even think what would have happened if my first SF wasn't Foundation and it was weaker, not as imaginative work. I didnt have any interest in SF genre at all before the series.

This remind me of that i shouldn't put off reading more Asimov just because i have read all Foundation books.
 
Connavar said:
This remind me of that i shouldn't put off reading more Asimov just because i have read all Foundation books.
Click to expand...
I see you've read "Caves of Steel" by haven't read the others that follow? If not, that would be a good place to continue in my opinion as, especially in the fourth volume (Robots and Empire), it ties in quite heavilly with the "Foundation" series.
 
Fried Egg said:
I see you've read "Caves of Steel" by haven't read the others that follow? If not, that would be a good place to continue in my opinion as, especially in the fourth volume (Robots and Empire), it ties in quite heavilly with the "Foundation" series.
Click to expand...

Yes, now altho I didn't particularly get on well with the original Foundation 'trilogy' I did enjoy the robot novels and even quite liked the Robots and Empire book, which kind of does tie thinghs in. (have never read Foundation's Edge or any of the later ones as I found the politicing in the early books bored me. Can someone reassure me that I can read Foundation's Edge without having to re read the original trio?)
 
AE35Unit said:
Yes, now altho I didn't particularly get on well with the original Foundation 'trilogy' I did enjoy the robot novels and even quite liked the Robots and Empire book, which kind of does tie thinghs in. (have never read Foundation's Edge or any of the later ones as I found the politicing in the early books bored me. Can someone reassure me that I can read Foundation's Edge without having to re read the original trio?)
Click to expand...
You can read "Foundation's Edge" without re-reading the original trilogy as it only follows on loosely (significant number of years has elapsed since the events of the last story in "Second Foundation") so different cast of characters.

It's quite different in style from the original trilogy too. One continuous story instead of episodes and the story arc is concluded in "Foundation and Earth".
 
Taltos said:
Ok, couldn't resist - just wanted to know where would you put "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" books as series ?
Click to expand...

Hmmm I doubt Ian would even consider them worth a look to be honest! Especially when a lot of the SW books were penned by Kevin J Anderson, who he hates!
 
All I have to say about lists of "The BEST" or "The Worst", is that wouldn't the world be a very boring place if everyone liked the same thing. I dislike many of the books on the list and really enjoyed others and I'm sure most other readers feel the same.
 
The DeadMan said:
All I have to say about lists of "The BEST" or "The Worst", is that wouldn't the world be a very boring place if everyone liked the same thing. I dislike many of the books on the list and really enjoyed others and I'm sure most other readers feel the same.
Click to expand...

You're dead right there!
 
Taltos said:
Ok, couldn't resist - just wanted to know where would you put "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" books as series ?
Click to expand...

I'm only interested in written sf, not media sf, and I count media tie-in novels as media sf.
 
Taltos said:
Figures - somehow I forget, that such lists should be taken with a notion - that this is best/worst what list maker has experienced (in his/hers opinion) - and not best/worst overall.
Click to expand...

Yes, some people asked why I didn't include Orson Scott Card's Ender series. I've never read them.
 
iansales said:
Yes, some people asked why I didn't include Orson Scott Card's Ender series. I've never read them.
Click to expand...
Is that as a matter of principle or simply because you never got around to it? Jut curious...;)
 
Fried Egg said:
Is that as a matter of principle or simply because you never got around to it? Jut curious...;)
Click to expand...

Initially, never got round to it - although I'm fairly sure I've read the original novella. But now I've no desire to see if I missed anything on principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Worst Episodes From Your Favorite Science Fiction And Fantasy Tv Series General TV Discussion 8
B Hard Science Fiction Film best and worst General Film Discussion 68
B WORST MOVIES OF ALL TIME(Non-Science Fiction) General Film Discussion 29
Z Worst Science Fiction/Fantasy you have read. Book Discussion 214
Mighty mouse Which is worst, bad US or bad UK science fiction? General TV Discussion 18

Similar threads


Back
Top