Pharyngula: Uh, yeah, I guess I do read some SF now and then

#1

Hmmm, I had just about the same reaction to SWORD OF SHANNARA. Brooks has improved since, from unreadable to poor/mediocre.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | March 10, 2007 4:13 PM

#2

Terry Brooks has a special gift: the ability to outlast his critics. The initial reaction to The Sword of Shannara was a mixture of amusement and contempt. Brooks had produced the most blatant and unapologetic rip-off imaginable of The Lord of the Rings. The poverty of his imagination resulted in a quasi-plagiarized imitation that Tolkien fans disdained. But Brooks labored diligently onward, cranking out one Tolkienesque pastiche after another ("Tolkienesque", that is, if you forgot that Tolkien was a master of languages).

Maybe Brooks has gotten better with the years, but I had the same experience as PZ -- tossing the first book aside after skimming it. Practice makes perfect. Still, I'm always surprised to see some reviewer or another gushing about how wonderful some Brooks fantasy is. I wouldn't know.

When Lord Foul's Bane first appeared, I confidently expected another clumsy LOTR rip-off (complete with a lousy title and -- ogawd -- a character named "Drool Rockworm"). That one, however, surprised me, and I ended up devouring one Stephen Donaldson novel after another. There is a lot of room to maneuver in epic fantasy. You don't have to go treading on Tolkien's heels.

Posted by: Zeno | March 10, 2007 4:22 PM

#3

Well, gosh -- I only get 26 out of 50 (hangs head in shame). But what criteria do they use for "most significant"? Some of those books are utter crap -- Shannara, obviously; and McCaffrey's "Dragon" books (like much of her oeuvre) are overblown melodramatic soap operas, just barely rescued by the intriguing setting.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 10, 2007 4:26 PM

#4

I've only read nine (flogs self in shame). Though I think the list didn't include nearly enough Bradbury, and it also includes quite a few books I've started and given up on, or that I avoid because the author's fans are a bunch of insufferable morons.

Posted by: Wally Whateley | March 10, 2007 4:41 PM

#5

I notice that the most recent one on that list is Harry Potter (and #1 at that, from 1998), and all the rest come from the the sixties through the early eighties, except for a handful form the fifties. Nothing of importance has been written in SF in the last ten years? Or is it just too soon to tell?

Posted by: Keith | March 10, 2007 4:44 PM

#6

Eamon, you beat me to it: I'm pretty sure that even the list's author has no stringent definition of a "significant book".

And yes, Terry Brooks is really, really, really lame.

Posted by: Martin R | March 10, 2007 4:48 PM

#7

Jeeeeez! I remember reading about half of these, about 30 years ago. But, 'A Canticle for Leibowitz', by Walter M. Miller, Jr. was a bit, errr, Catholic, if I remember right. But I managed to get to the end of it, but only because a religious colleague had asked me to give it a chance.

The dragon stuff ... Holy shit - I'd rather read the goddam bible!

Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | March 10, 2007 4:49 PM

#8

I list roughly 20,000 of what I consider the "Most Significant SF & Fantasy Books of the Last 500 Years" organized chronologically, by author, by genre, by country, and the like -- including details on most of the 50 mentioned above, at:

THE ULTIMATE SCIENCE FICTION WEB GUIDE
http://magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/SF-Index.html

Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | March 10, 2007 4:59 PM

#9

My list is IDENTICAL to yours, except that I've read the Cordwainer Smith and Algis Budrys that you haven't. Also started and discarded the Terry Brooks.

List needs more Vinge, more Stephenson. Less swords, sorcery, dragons.

Posted by: Bob Munck | March 10, 2007 5:02 PM

#10

No 2001: A Space Odyssey ??

Posted by: Chris Bell | March 10, 2007 5:02 PM

#11

I diligently read through "Sword of Shannara" and then confined it to a place of shame in the darkness under my bed. There it was joined by the novelization of "E.T. the Extraterrestrial", wherein we find out that E.T. has the mass of a large star (or something like that, because the earth's gravity is threatening to compress him into a black hole) and also that bathwater is teeming with micro-organisms (as E.T. discovers when he switches to microscopic vision while taking a bath).

I may be in the minority, but I think the first three Xanth books should be on that list. I also think Dune and Thomas Covenant are over-rated.

Posted by: Mark Borok | March 10, 2007 5:05 PM

#12

Ender's Game and The Man in the High Castle are my two favorite on the list.

A science fiction short-story list of mine would start with That Only a Mother by Judith Merril. I didn't sleep well for a week after reading it.

Posted by: Matt the heathen | March 10, 2007 5:08 PM

#13

The first few Xanth books were good, though I don't think I'd place them on a list of the Most Significant.

I've noticed that the first few books in most of Piers Anthony's series are good, then he apparently rediscovers the joy of injecting heroin into his eyeballs, and everything else dives straight into the toilet...

Posted by: Wally Whateley | March 10, 2007 5:10 PM

#14

I have read most of these and those and they were all pretty good, despite various flaws. For example, Foundation is set way in the future, but everyone smokes and I don't think the first volume had a single female character important enough to have a name. Maybe 3000 AD will be sort of like the 50's only with spaceships, but I doubt it.

Other suggestions:
The Dispossessed, Always Coming Home (LeGuin)
Woman on the Edge of Time (Piercy)
Dreamsnake (Mcintyre)

Recent stuff:
Diamond Age, Cryptonomicon (Stephenson)
Fire upon the Deep, Deepness in the Sky (Vinge)
Stories of Your Life and Others (a wonderful short-story collection by Ted Chiang)

Posted by: Ford | March 10, 2007 5:15 PM

#15

Hmm.. I would add David Brin's "Uplift War". An entire universe full of aliens that are so far removed from "normal" evolution that having some species show up with ships, their own uplifted species and technical expertise that makes the "Look it up on the galactic Conversapedia" method of problem solving look bloody stupid. The only real complaint I have heard from "anyone" about the series basically seems to be the bizarrish, "Why didn't they make humans one of the stupid races and have some alien race pop up as the Wolflings." I.e., its too "human centric" for some people, placing us in too "priveldged" a position. Now.. Had the ID movement been revving up back when Brin wrote it, he might have included a blurb on some earth history along the lines of, "Yeah, we had people just like you galactics on earth too at one time. We grew out of it." He never the less did have a version of the current religious wackos in the series. A bunch of nuts that **insisted** that it was impossible for humans to have "evolved" so we must be some long lost, possibly abandonned, project from some other previous civilization that *was* part of the whole galactic uplift thing, and that if we only dug up enough fossils they could prove it. Its not "religious" ID, but slightly less silly, equally unsupported and patently absurd, "maybe aliens did it!", form of ID.

It was a major series for me. Probably sadly not for near enough of anyone else.

Making a list from the ones I have read would include about 50-70% of the ones on the above list, but I would have to spend hours going through the thousands I own to figure out *if* that list was what I would have used myself. A real list would need to be based on common opinion, not personal, and sadly, common opinion has more to do what what crap they sometimes put on a shelf in K-Mart as a "best seller" than which ones have real value.

Frankly, I also have the same problem with people here ragging on Brooks and McCaffrey when calling one a LOTR rip off and the other soap opera like, as I do with some of the complaints about movies and TV shows by those same people. Who the frack cares if they are derived or a bit soap opera like? Just read the story for what it is and stop acting like the damn king in the movie about Mozart who tells his attendent to say to Mozart that it had, "Too many notes." The former does stand on its own, even if derivitive, and I really don't get the problem people have with McCaffrey's works at all. I have seen soap operas (My mother used to steal the TV for hours to watch them, and they haven't improved from what I have occationally seen since). The comparison is only true in the most vague sense (and then only barely), it is laughable and insulting.

It tends to be real obvious which people have "never" read anything past the first book in a series. But hell, even some of the best TV shows that have ever run nearly bombed the *first* season, because the number of people that where willing to suspend belief and overlook minor issues in the writing, which even out as the world is better understood, both by the writer and the reader/watcher.

Do you see huge numbers of people whining about Robert Jordon using the mythology of King Arthur to stage his books? Gosh, why not complain that Pratchett picked some obscure story about elephants and a flat world, then dared to do nothing but parody everything from hollywood movie making to werewolf and vampire flicks. Not one scrap of "originality" (or non-soapish drama in the later) in any of them, if you apply the same "standard" of originality that you insist makes Brooks work bad, or the same non-stereo typical story elements you seem to imply makes McCaffrey's works so bad. I have read bad. These are bloody works by Picasso compared to what truly qualifies as "bad".

I just don't get some people on here.

Posted by: Kagehi | March 10, 2007 5:17 PM

#16

Hmm, 31 for me, and that's fewer than I would have guessed.
I've bounced off "Little, Big" by John Crowley before, and I keep trying Neil Stephenson, and keep bouncing off him too. Obviously I am deficient in some respect.

But I love Cordwainer Smith.

Posted by: Janice in GA | March 10, 2007 5:19 PM

#17

I don't think "Hitchiker's Guide" really makes sense without "Restaurant" in any satsifying way, but I don't think I saw that there.

Also, you can take out any fantasy book on the list in order to put in, just off the top of my head, "The Man Who Folded Himself" by David Gerrold, "The Martian Chronicles," "The Doomsday Book" by Connie Willis, "The Day of the Triffids" by John Wyndham, "Walking on Glass" by Iain Banks, and the "His Dark Materials Trilogy" by Phillip Pullman. Oh, and "The Tripod Trilogy" by John Christopher, "Riddley Walker" by Russell Hoban, "Memoirs Found in A Bath Tub" by Stanislaw Lem, "The Wanting Seed" by Anthony Burgess, and maybe even "Kalki" by Gore Vidal.

And definitely "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH" by John Christopher.

And if you must name a Harry Potter book, "Order of the Phoenix" is easily the one.

I found this list to be very conservative and that's one thing sf shouldn't be.

Posted by: John | March 10, 2007 5:24 PM

#18

What about Shockwave Rider (Brunner)? Published in 1975 but has both computer worms and Paris Hilton. How's that for prescience? Unacknowledged source of the TV series "Pretender".

Posted by: Ford | March 10, 2007 5:25 PM

#19

I only get 20 of those but I reckon I would hit a better average on a better prepared list. For my money all of the following are far better and more important than Brooks,
SF:
Anthony Burgess: A Clockwork Orange
Vernor Vinge - A Fire Upon the Deep, A Deepness in the Sky, Across Realtime.
Iain M. Banks - Use of Weapons, Player of Games, Consider Phlebas
Greg Bear - Eon,The Forge of God, Blood Music
Kim Stanley Robinson - Red, Green and Blue Mars
Peter F. Hamilton - The Nights Dawn Trilogy
Carl Sagan - Contact
And what of Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 ??
Peter Watts - Behemoth trilogy and Blindsight
Michael Crichton might have some dodgy ideas on some issues but both The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park are pretty good and arguably "important".

Fantasy:
Richard Adams - Watership Down
David Gemmel - Legend, Waylander
George R. R. Martin - A song of Ice and Fire
Roger Zelazny - too many to mention
Susanna Clarke - Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
Garth Nix - Abhorsen trilogy
Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett - Good Omens
Neil Gaiman - Neverwhere, Stardust, American Gods
Clive Barker - Weaveworld, Imagica

Posted by: Joe Mansfield | March 10, 2007 5:41 PM

#20

1. I've read 28.

2. I notice that after the first 10, the rest are alphabetical. I guess that means the first 10 are most important?

3. Dune is not overrated. Subsequent books in the series should never have been written though.

4. What is overrated? #11, Book of the New Sun. I can't believe I read all four volumes. The third one was just awful.

5. I also miss more recent material. I'd start with Patricia McKillip (including but not limited to Riddle-Master). Brin's Uplift trilogy is good, but the second one (Startide Rising) is so much better than the other two that the trilogy suffers as a whole. I just read Vinge's Fire Upon the Deep, which definitely belongs. As does Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell.

Posted by: Dave M | March 10, 2007 5:43 PM

#21

Read: 32
Have: 6

I echo the sentiment -- "most significant" according to whom?

"His Dark Materials" -- seconded.

-- CV

Posted by: CortxVortx | March 10, 2007 5:53 PM

#22

Read: 5
Have: 3

I suppose I'm a rather poor SF fan. :(

No mention of Stansilaw Lem though?

Fiasco
Solaris
His Master's Voice (one of the greastest novels about scientists ever written)

Posted by: XPM | March 10, 2007 6:04 PM

#23

The thing is, its a list of most "significant." So even if a book is kind of lame, if it was "significant" it should still be there. Its not a list of "best" science fiction and fantasy for the past 50 years.

So Anne McCaffrey should stay. She certainly does melodramatic soap opera type writing. But she's SO GOOD at it, and she's attracted so many young readers to the genre (including many teenage girls who otherwise might not have been interested) that she's certainly in the "significant" category. She's practically spawned an entire sub genre of fantasy writing based on her work. See, eg, Mercedes Lackey.

Similarly, consider Terry Pratchett. "The Color of Magic" isn't his best work. His later work is just phenomenal, his early work is simply ok. But "The Color of Magic" is the one that started the craze for his style of writing. So it belongs.

Posted by: Patrick | March 10, 2007 6:05 PM

#24

And one of the greatest novels, too...

Posted by: XPM | March 10, 2007 6:07 PM

#25

I'm going to have to disqualify your first listing on a technicality. The Lord of the Rings was published in 1954 and 1955, so it's going to have to go from any list of fiction of the last 50 years.

Posted by: John Owens | March 10, 2007 6:13 PM

#26

It may be significant, but I loathed the Thomas Covenant series, one of the few novels where I had absolutely no empathy with the main character - indeed, I spent most of the book hoping that he'd get squashed or eaten or meet some suitably bloody end. Plus, I'd say it was even more derivative of Tolkien than Brooks.

(BTW, I've read 23 of them)

Posted by: Graham Douglas | March 10, 2007 6:27 PM

#27

For the specific I read on that list. 16-17 of them. Most of those are probably hard sci-fi, which I don't read as often as more fantasy style ones, or where not in publication back when I got most of the ones I have. A few I have seen the movie adaptations for, like Interview and Starship Troopers. The Ranma one I tried to play an old computer game of, but gave up because imho, it was a pain in the ass. Maybe someone will remake it in some format that is actually playable some time. lol

Have to agree, somewhat, with Graham Douglas on the Thomas Covenant ones. The first series wasn't horrible, but it wasn't spectacular either. The second one... Got absurdly religious in theme. Like Covenant was sort of a messiah or something, only he dies and his "ring" gets passed on to some woman that was taking care of him. Real Narnia like BS, with the world remade through his death and her taking over into some new paradise of some nonsense. Read the second series while grinding my teeth the whole time and hoping they where not going the direction they seemed to be and it was just my imagination.

Posted by: Kagehi | March 10, 2007 6:37 PM

#28

It seems some pretty significant works have been left off this list:

We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin
1984, George Orwell
Brave New World, Huxley
The Handmaid's Tale, Margret Atwood
Flatland, A Romance of Many Dimensions, Edwin Abbott

...or I have an inordinate fondness for dystopias.

No I, Robot or Dan Simmons novels?

Posted by: perseid99 | March 10, 2007 6:38 PM

#29

Is 'A Clockwork Orange' not considered a science fiction novel? It has as many science fiction elements a 'The Man in the High Castle' does and both are should be at the top of any list like this methinks.

Posted by: Flounder | March 10, 2007 6:45 PM

#30

It's a good list, at least for old guys like me. I've read all of them,I think.

Some of them remind me of Theodore Sturgeon's "Sturgeon's Revelation" or "Sturgeon's Law". Google it with pleasure. It applies to so many things in life.

It's not on the list, but Clarke's Rendevous With Rama (first book only) is one I reread happily because it gives me the thing I most enjoy in SF,a sense of strange.

Posted by: Gray Lensman | March 10, 2007 6:46 PM

#31

Admittedly, I haven't read much science fiction in the last twenty years, but I have read more than half the books, and all but two of the authors.
Other entries:
Solaris. Much better than any of the movies of the same name.
The Sheep Look Up.
The first two Riverworld novels
Anything by Philip Dick
I've got no time for sword and sorcery, and wish fantasy would not be listed in the same category of science fiction.

Posted by: Shoeguyster | March 10, 2007 6:50 PM

#32

Brooks is terrible, and no, his later works have not improved.

I'm puzzled Robin Hobb("Assassin", "Liveship Traders") doesn't make the list, surprised that David Brin("Uplift", "Kiln People") isn't on it, and where the heck is Vinge?

I'd also contend that China Mieville("Perdido Street Station") and perhaps CS Friendman ("This Alien Shore" and others) ought to kick a few people off this list.

And why is Childhood's End on the list? That book was terrible in comparison to, say, 2001.

Posted by: Kuni | March 10, 2007 6:54 PM

#33

Frankly, I also have the same problem with people here ragging on Brooks and McCaffrey when calling one a LOTR rip off and the other soap opera like.....

Me being among the first on this thread to say that, I suppose I'd better step up and defend it ;-).

The problem with Shannara isn't just that it's derivative of Tolkien. Damn near everything in literature is derivative of something else by now -- we've been telling tales for a long time, and there just aren't that many new things under the sun. The problem is that it's cheap knock-off of Tolkien. It's been a good 25+ years since I read it, so I no longer recall details, but I do recall, starved for fantasy as I was at the time, thinking "This is just so thin". No texture. Shannara is to LOTR as Kraft dinner is to linguini con vongole prepared by an expert chef.

As to McCaffrey: read the whole Dragonrider series, and managed to mostly like them despite the characterization: everyone seems to be a one-dimensional hero or asshole, and/or constantly whining about their insecurities. Ditto what I remember of The Ship Who Sang, as well as a book of shorts Get Off The Unicorn that's kicking around the chaotic collection of two-books-deep shelving (or just stacked on the floor) that passes for our household library (is there a 12-steps program for bibliophiles?).

However, I will grant you that there is crap far, far, FAR SCREAMING PURPLE WITH SHOOTING STARS FAR worse than either of those. ;-)

Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 10, 2007 7:13 PM

#34

Yeah, what Eamon said. ("Kraft dinner" -- ha ha!) The Sword of Shannara was not only a rip-off, it was a bad rip-off. You can be derivative if you're also clever.

Also: My count is 33. Maybe 34, since I'm not sure about the Cordwainer Smith book. I read most of his stuff years ago.

Posted by: Zeno | March 10, 2007 7:22 PM

#35

My husband has read all of the Shannara books, but he thought Wizard of Earthsea wasn't that good, and The Left Hand of Darkness was, in his words, "really pretty bad".

Sometimes I worry about him. =(

Posted by: DiscGrace | March 10, 2007 7:33 PM

#36

Yeh, all of the Foundation stories are more than fifty years old, as is the Sturgeon, the Bester, and most of those that perseid99 (#28 above) complained are not on the list.

The list completely ignores the feminist canon, so Judith Merril's absence is no surprise given that there's no Russ, Piercy, Charnas, Tiptree, or McHugh.

Posted by: Josh | March 10, 2007 7:41 PM

#37

Fourteen for me. (Ugh; I need to read more.) Didn't count The Rediscovery of Man; I read most of the stories, but not all of them, in another collection.

I agree with some of the other posters; this list would be much more interesting without the fantasy, and it should include A Fire Upon the Deep and Startide Rising, at the very least.

The ISFDB has its slightly outdated top 100 lists, if anyone wants to look at those.

Posted by: grendelkhan | March 10, 2007 7:54 PM

#38

My list is the same as your own, except that I read the Cordwainer Smith and Budrys books, and I never read "On the Beach."

I don't think I'd argue with putting any of them (the ones I've read, anyway) on the list, although several authors deserve more than a single entry. I also think that the absence of Vinge and Stephenson is odd. Tiptree also would seem to belong on the list. And Michael Moorcock. And Charles Stross, I think--he hasn't been writing for long, but I still think he makes the cut. I'd also include something by Steven King, who I think has been enormously influential (and whom I think is a better writer than he is given credit for). How about Beagle's, "The Last Unicorn"? Some other favorites are missing, but I'm not sure that I could make the case for "Significant."

Posted by: tgibbs | March 10, 2007 7:59 PM

#39

Thomas Disch: Brave Little Toaster, On Wings of Song
Neal Stephenson: Snow Crash
Poul Anderson: Tau Zero (I really fear a gravitationally-closed universe)
Too damn many others.

Posted by: VJB | March 10, 2007 8:00 PM

#40

I quite enjoyed the Shannara books after the first one - the settings become quite epic and the characters aren't all as hopeless as the one in the original. The 4-part series that finished it was really quite well done.

I much preferred his 'Magical Kingdom for Sale: Sold' series though. A lot more light hearted.

For a fantasy setting I would have thought that Feist would made it with Magician though. And Peter F. Hamilton with The Nights Dawn Trilogy for sci-fi. :(

Out of all the books on the list the one that was the most significant for me was Lord of Light.

Posted by: Goffer | March 10, 2007 8:01 PM

#41

The presence of Brooks burns me a bit as well (might as well put Eddings in there), but wasn't Shannara the first of the 'derivative fantasy bricks' to hit the bestseller lists? Thus the significance points?

But what about Hyperion?
Or on the fantasy side, why not some Lloyd Alexander, Susan Cooper or Robert Holdstock? (derivative done right, I'd say) Or Guy Gavriel Kay?

And hey, Bulgakov's Master and Margarita wasn't published until the 1960s...

Posted by: windy | March 10, 2007 8:01 PM

#42

Timescape?! I can't see what kind of merit gets it onto the list, I thought it was pretty poor myself. Like many of Benford's books I've read, I thought it had a couple of really neat ideas, but it's let down by a clunky plot and characterisation.

Posted by: andy | March 10, 2007 8:11 PM

#43

Some of the comments on this thread remind of my general distaste of critics. I go more my Duke Ellington's credo, "If it sounds good, it is good." (thanks Peter Schickele) I don't mind if someone enjoys something that isn't my preference, as long as they don't insist that I MUST LIKE IT OR BE EXTERMINATED. EXTERMINATE. EXTERMINATE.
EXTEEERRRRMINAAAAAATE.

OK, who let the Daleks out? Anyway, I liked the Covenant series, have always thought Bradbury tended towards the pretentious, Heinlein had two modes - amazing and unreadable, as a child I wanted to be Asimov and even if she wasn't a great novelist Alice Sheldon (James Tiptree Jr.) should be on any list of significant SF. I probably would have also included something by Silverberg on the list.

None of which should matter a whit to what you like or dislike, as if there were some objective criteria of judging popular entertainments.

Posted by: justawriter | March 10, 2007 8:41 PM

#44

The target article didn't note anything from Kim Stanley Robinson's corpulant corpus, and only one reader has noted even a single of his titles. Only some are PC hack-work, and even the alternative history in YEARS OF RICE & SALT (which simply supposes that Europe was completely depopulated by the Great Plague, which isn't such a stretch) is nonetheless often interesting.

I'm also fond of more introspective SF which tries to imagine other forms of cognition, as we presume exist in evolution (hard to know where to classify Stephen Mithen's speculations here such his THE PREHISTORY OF THE MIND - science and/or fiction?). Other such efforts:
THE INHERITORS (William Golding, 1955, so technically ineligible) about go-with-the-flow Neandertals losing to H. sapiens;
THE EVOLUTION MAN (Roy Lewis, 1960, a spoof on the evolution of Freudian psychodynamics);
SOLDIER OF THE MIST (Gene Wolfe, 1986, a classical Greek soldier who has amnesia - a kind of historical fantasy neurology). And this last reminds me of Jaynes'
ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND - another one hard to classify.

Posted by: thwaite | March 10, 2007 8:42 PM

#45

Having been born well before any of these were published I've read nearly all including the Budrys and the Shiras (both major writers who've been almost completely forgotten.) To my undying shame I have to admit I couldn't get past the first chapter of vol. 2 of LOTR before succumbing to ennui. Loved the movies, though. And naturally I wasn't likely to try Brooks, Donaldson et. al after flunking Tolkien 101.
Most of the additional works suggested here were good ones but I'd like to mention the one I'd consider best of all: The Stand, by Stephen King (the unabridged version.) A masterpiece.

Posted by: fyreflye | March 10, 2007 8:44 PM

#46

Almost all of them.

In a couple of cases involving old classics like the Budrys, I'm honestly not sure if I read them at some point as a kid or if I've just read so much about them that I feel as if I have. But I definitely have not read anything by Terry Brooks.

Posted by: Russell Blackford | March 10, 2007 8:49 PM

#47

I concur with those who mentioned Iain M. Banks. The Player of Games is one of my favorites and I've reread it a couple of times with the keenest pleasure. Must. Not. Go. Dig. It. Out. Again.

I have work to do this weekend.

Posted by: Zeno | March 10, 2007 8:56 PM

#48

I once took a flight with nothing but The Sword of Shannara for distraction. I spent an hour and a half in the airport staring at other people and three hours on the plane staring out the window at the clouds instead and never made it past the first chapter. If you need to have a big fat dopey fantasy novel in the list somewhere, why not put David Eddings' neverending BelMalPolgariad series in there, with its at-least-attempted bits of humor?

Also, I quite agree that Guy Gavriel Kay, Neil Gaiman, Robin Hobb and Connie Willis deserved places on that list; it seems a bit space-operatic and dragon-infested for my tastes. (I like my nonrealistic fiction with a heavy dose of realism, thank you.)

Posted by: RedMolly | March 10, 2007 9:11 PM

#49

READ:
The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien
Dune, Frank Herbert
Childhood's End, Arthur C. Clarke
Neuromancer, William Gibson
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Philip K. Dick
A Wizard of Earthsea, Ursula K. Le Guin
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury
A Canticle for Leibowitz, Walter M. Miller, Jr.
The Colour of Magic, Terry Pratchett
Dangerous Visions, edited by Harlan Ellison
Dragonflight, Anne McCaffrey
Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
Interview with the Vampire, Anne Rice
The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin
The Man in the High Castle, Philip K. Dick
On the Beach, Nevil Shute
Slaughterhouse-5, Kurt Vonnegut
Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson

COULDN'T FINISH:
The Foundation Trilogy, Isaac Asimov
The Silmarillion, J.R.R. Tolkien
Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert A. Heinlein
The First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, Stephen R. Donaldson

KEEP MEANING TO READ:
Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein
The Mists of Avalon, Marion Zimmer Bradley
Rendezvous with Rama, Arthur C. Clarke
Ringworld, Larry Niven
The Book of the New Sun, Gene Wolfe
The Caves of Steel, Isaac Asimov
The Forever War, Joe Haldeman
To Your Scattered Bodies Go, Philip Jose Farmer

NEVER FRICKIN HEARD OF:
Children of the Atom, Wilmar Shiras
Cities in Flight, James Blish
Deathbird Stories, Harlan Ellison
The Demolished Man, Alfred Bester
Dhalgren, Samuel R. Delany
Gateway, Frederik Pohl
I Am Legend, Richard Matheson
Little, Big, John Crowley
Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny
Mission of Gravity, Hal Clement
More Than Human, Theodore Sturgeon
The Rediscovery of Man, Cordwainer Smith
Rogue Moon, Algis Budrys
Stand on Zanzibar, John Brunner
The Stars My Destination, Alfred Bester
Stormbringer, Michael Moorcock
The Sword of Shannara, Terry Brooks (started it, but it was such appalling dreck I threw it away after page 3)
Timescape, Gregory Benford

STEADFASTLY REFUSE TO READ:
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, J.K. Rowling

Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | March 10, 2007 9:22 PM

#50

I agree with fyreflye above. I read LOTR once, barely and have never been able to make it past the endlessly dull second book again.

I also second the call for Dan Simmons "Hyperion" series which is wonderful. It could replace the Thomas Covenant stuff for my money.

And Gene Wolfe is bloody brilliant, but I've always preferred the more quiet novels. His short stories are unparalleled: "The Island of Dr. Death" or the "The Death of Dr. Island" are great. FREE LIVE FREE is a favorite novel, but I've never met anyone else who's read that. So I guess it isn't "significant."

How about we consider Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels one big book and vote for that one?

Posted by: fardels bear | March 10, 2007 9:27 PM

#51

Heinlein's "Time for the Stars" gave me the bug to read science fiction when I was in 7th grade, so it's significant on my list. Have read 23 of the 50. Rendezvous with Rama and its sequels were high impact novels for me. I tried LOTR and just couldn't do it -- I like "hard science" fiction, not fantasy, and LOTR was fantasy, to me. I wanted to write like Azimov -- big laugh. Hooray for Ender's Game! I'm always looking for a sci-fi novel that will "grab me" like Rendezvous with Rama did. Feeling that I've exhausted the list of really great science fiction, I've resorted to reading, gasp, mysteries!

Posted by: dieselrain | March 10, 2007 9:36 PM

#52

...

I get 40 ... and didn't we do this once before, a year or so back?

Two not on the list: David Brin's "The Uplift War" would be in my top 5. Vernor Vinge's "A Deepness in the Sky" would be in the top 10.

(I liked the Uplift series because it was based in believable territory. Uplift is something we COULD do in the near future, and I would dearly love to talk to a chimp, or a dog, or maybe an elephant.)

Something more recent that I thought was thoroughly enjoyable: Eric Flint's "1632."

Note to Hollywood: Alfred Bester's "The Stars My Destination" would make a totally rockin' movie! (IN MY LIFETIME PLEASE.)

Sword of Shannara: Two thumbs down! and a popcorn fart.

Vomit-worthy: I tried reading Covenant the Unbeliever, but I got annoyed at how stupid the main character seemed in the first chapter, dully refusing to believe what was happening to him, and then there was this chicky who kept insisting "But it is hurtloam!" My lip curled at the very word. Hurtloam! Hurtloam! Hurtloam! Argh. The crowing of brain-damaged roosters. Threw the book down and lived my life happily without either Steven R. Donaldson or regrets.

...

Posted by: Hank Fox | March 10, 2007 9:51 PM

#53

I don't care that it's a Catholic novel- 'A Canticle for Liebowitz' is a classic that most atheists would find worth reading.

The list is missing two of PKD's strongest works: 'Ubik' and 'The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch'. (PKD was a religious nut, but a genius nevertheless.)

I'd also recommend 'Sirens of Titan' by Kurt Vonnegut for a really clever plot.

Oh- and where's 'Watchmen' by Alan Moore?

'The Stars My Destination' by Bester is another undoubted classic. Fantastically original.

Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 10, 2007 10:20 PM

#54

Allowing movies (since it is unlikely I will read a filmed book):

The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien
The Foundation Trilogy, Isaac Asimov
Dune, Frank Herbert
Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert A. Heinlein
A Wizard of Earthsea, Ursula K. Le Guin
Neuromancer, William Gibson
Childhood's End, Arthur C. Clarke
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Philip K. Dick
The Mists of Avalon, Marion Zimmer Bradley
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury
The Book of the New Sun, Gene Wolfe
A Canticle for Leibowitz, Walter M. Miller, Jr.
The Caves of Steel, Isaac Asimov
Children of the Atom, Wilmar Shiras
Cities in Flight, James Blish
The Colour of Magic, Terry Pratchett
Dangerous Visions, edited by Harlan Ellison
Deathbird Stories, Harlan Ellison
The Demolished Man, Alfred Bester
Dhalgren, Samuel R. Delany
Dragonflight, Anne McCaffrey
Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card
The First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, Stephen R. Donaldson
The Forever War, Joe Haldeman
Gateway, Frederik Pohl
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, J.K. Rowling
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
I Am Legend, Richard Matheson
Interview with the Vampire, Anne Rice
The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin
Little, Big, John Crowley
Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny
The Man in the High Castle, Philip K. Dick
Mission of Gravity, Hal Clement
More Than Human, Theodore Sturgeon
The Rediscovery of Man, Cordwainer Smith
On the Beach, Nevil Shute
Rendezvous with Rama, Arthur C. Clarke
Ringworld, Larry Niven
Rogue Moon, Algis Budrys
The Silmarillion, J.R.R. Tolkien
Slaughterhouse-5, Kurt Vonnegut
Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson
Stand on Zanzibar, John Brunner
The Stars My Destination, Alfred Bester
Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein
Stormbringer, Michael Moorcock
The Sword of Shannara, Terry Brooks
Timescape, Gregory Benford
To Your Scattered Bodies Go, Philip Jose Farmer

Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 10, 2007 10:41 PM

#55

Read everything on the list except Children of the Atom by Wilmar Shiras (which I've never even HEARD of) and the latter two-thirds of Shannara. Apparently I'm a speculative fiction fan. =p

But this list ... I'm not a fan of this list. I understand that "significant" is really nebulous, ideally considering awards, sales, critical acclaim, and influence on later works, all squished into one package. But the lack of some of THE most significant -- by any means -- books is damning. No 2001? No Snow Queen? No Hyperion? No American Gods? No Darwin's Radio? No Doomsday Book? No Spell for Chameleon? Did I mention no 2001?

Posted by: Serpent's Choice | March 10, 2007 10:44 PM

#56

Oh merciful godlings, not Darwin's Radio...

Posted by: Caledonian | March 10, 2007 10:59 PM

#57

I might as well pitch in for good books:

Strong and/or unconventional:
The Stars My Destination, Bester.
Riverworld, Farmer.
Time enough for love, Heinlein
Ender's game, Card (But only Ender's game by Card.)
Anvil of Stars, Bear

Basic:
I, Robot, Asimov
Reality Dysfunction trilogy, Hamilton
Uplift, Brin

Much of anything of Moore, Vinge and van Voigt are also good reads for one reason or other.

Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 10, 2007 11:02 PM

#58

I'm a fairly new returnee to fantasy/Sf, and though I now find Brooks' stuff mediocre, at very best, it spawned a genre of similar type of stuff. Stuff I like to sift out from my sf/fantasy purchases as mediocre, of course.

McCaffrey gets the same sort of points. Dragons + time paradoxes = ka ching!

If I'm going to complain about anything, I'll have to grumble about Fritz Leiber not being on this list.

And let me thank K. Signal for admitting to not having finished Thomas Covenant. How can somebody stomach reading three books with such a detestable and unlikeable protagonist?

Posted by: Mike Nerdahl | March 10, 2007 11:17 PM

#59

Here are the ones I can recall reading. Listed authors I've read only other books by: Pratchett, Dick, Budrys, Moorecock. Other significant authors in my collection: Brian Aldiss, Margaret Atwood, Anthony Boucher, David R. Bunch, Michael Crichton (boo hiss), L. Sprague de Camp, Lester del Rey, Gordon R. Dickson, Gardner R. Dozois, David Gerrold, Damon Knight, Henry Kuttner, Keith Laumer, C. M. Kornbluth, Murrey Leinster, Fritz Lieber, Judith Merril, C. L. Moore, Joanna Russ, Robert Sheckley, Robert Silverberg, Clifford D. Simak, William Tenn, A. E. van Vogt, Jack Vance, John Varley, Stanley G. Weinbaum, Philip Wylie, John Wyndham. All of this, except for the Pratchett, is decades old. And that's my second collection, having sold many books years earlier.

The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien
The Foundation Trilogy, Isaac Asimov
Dune, Frank Herbert
Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert A. Heinlein
A Wizard of Earthsea, Ursula K. Le Guin
Childhood's End, Arthur C. Clarke
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Philip K. Dick
The Mists of Avalon, Marion Zimmer Bradley
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury
A Canticle for Leibowitz, Walter M. Miller, Jr.
The Caves of Steel, Isaac Asimov
Cities in Flight, James Blish
Dangerous Visions, edited by Harlan Ellison
Deathbird Stories, Harlan Ellison
The Demolished Man, Alfred Bester
Dhalgren, Samuel R. Delany
Dragonflight, Anne McCaffrey
Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card
The First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, Stephen R. Donaldson
The Forever War, Joe Haldeman
Gateway, Frederik Pohl
The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin
Little, Big, John Crowley
Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny
Mission of Gravity, Hal Clement
More Than Human, Theodore Sturgeon
The Rediscovery of Man, Cordwainer Smith
On the Beach, Nevil Shute
Rendezvous with Rama, Arthur C. Clarke
Ringworld, Larry Niven
Slaughterhouse-5, Kurt Vonnegut
Stand on Zanzibar, John Brunner
The Stars My Destination, Alfred Bester
Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein
Timescape, Gregory Benford
To Your Scattered Bodies Go, Philip Jose Farmer

Posted by: truth machine | March 10, 2007 11:20 PM

#60

Wait a minute--only 4 women made the list?
and one of them is J.K Rowling??
Hmm.

I may have to ponder this for a while. I think there are some missing authors here.
Connie Willis, for one, springs immediately to mind. Domesday Book was incredible.

Posted by: bug_girl | March 10, 2007 11:27 PM

#61

I'm surprised no one mentioned C.J. Cherryh. I was particularly fond of her 'Arafel's Saga' and her 'Gates' series but despite enjoying these, I would agree they don't belong on a "most significant" list - just surprised she was not mentioned.

However, Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser series should be on the list. Books can still be signficant, even if they are fun...which makes me think that there's an interesting way to put together a list of "most significant books," to whit, all the books that Terry Pratchet makes fun of. ;-)

I believe I would put 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' above 'Stranger'. It is his best written book and, along with 'Starship Troopers' and 'Revolt In 2100' had a profound impact on many people's politics of the time.

Oddly (perhaps) I would put Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy on the list despite the fact that she never wrote anything else nearly as good and is not generally considered as being a fantasy author. But these books spawned a raft of historical fantasy books and predates 'The Mists of Avalon.'

Several people have mentioned Connie Willis so I will only observe that she most definitely meets one of Ursula Le Guin's litmus tests of fantasy/sf: 'Mrs. Brown' (an imaginary, slightly mousy character who inhabits Ms. Le Guin's imagination) would definitely be comfortable in Ms. Wills's books. See (I believe) one of Ms. Le Guin's essays or prefaces in one of her collection books like 'The Winds Twelve Quarters' for more details.

I must try again to read Phillip K. Dick. I don't like him and think he's overrated but so many people whose judgement I trust like his work that I think I must be missing something. To my mind he comes across as a drugged out, self-destructive "artiste" railing constantly about the evils of society...which come to think of it, is exactly what he was. But then, I don't have a taste for many of the British sf writers so the failing is probably mine.

Posted by: BillW | March 10, 2007 11:29 PM

#62

Oh yeah, Marge Piercy and Ms. James Tiptree Jr. are in another room.

Posted by: truth machine | March 10, 2007 11:33 PM

#63

I could have said a few things about my opinion of all those authors I read.

Fabulous stuff: Anything by Gene Wolfe or Ray Bradbury. The choices for LeGuin and Zelazny are excellent.

Dune is very good, but Herbert had one book in him. The rest is crap.

Pratchett has a lot of good books in him, but the one they picked is ho-hum.

I can't stand Heinlein. Clarke and Asimov are interesting for historical reasons, but seriously -- they couldn't write. Cool ideas scrawled on cardboard with crayons.

Donaldson leaves me cold. I've known a fair number of people who love his work, though.

Dragons? Boring.

Anne Rice? Boring.

I'm a big fan of Gibson, and I think the complaints he gets are unwarranted. There's a misperception about what he does: he's not really an SF author. He writes character pieces and moody novels that just happen to be set a little bit in the future.

Neal Stephenson is the most infuriating author on the list. I love his work to pieces, except every single book has some huge flaw that makes you want to tell him to go back and start over and leave that piece out.

The stuff that should have been in there that isn't:
Vinge. Seriously, how can anyone leave him out of a list like this anymore?
Banks. #1 on my list. Fantastic writer, wonderfully grim.
Mieville. If you're going to be heavy on the fantasy, how can you leave the most imaginative writer in fantasy out?
Gaiman. Another fabulous fantasist. Coraline for the kids, American Gods for the grownups.
Powers. His latest books have been rather plodding, but The Anubis Gates and On Stranger Tides are phenomenal.
Maybe Susanna Clarke...but it's on the basis of one book, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. Maybe that one needs more time.
Sterling, especially for Schismatrix.
Stewart, for Earth Abides.
If we're talking influential, Alan Moore ought to be on there for Watchmen.

Posted by: PZ Myers | March 10, 2007 11:46 PM

#64

Big thumbs up for Willis and Leiber. I should have remembered CJ Cherryh myself -- I've got a stack of her books on my shelf. Downbelow Station, 40,000 in Gehenna are great, I thought Cyteen was a bit overdone.

Posted by: PZ Myers | March 10, 2007 11:49 PM

#65

Here are the ones I've read/seen:

The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien
The Foundation Trilogy, Isaac Asimov [I still have this in my old closet at my parents' place, but haven't gotten around to it]
Dune, Frank Herbert
Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert A. Heinlein [Also in the closet]
A Wizard of Earthsea, Ursula K. Le Guin [This one was very strange. It seemed to not really go anywhere. Mind you, I last read it nearly 20 years ago.]
Childhood's End, Arthur C. Clarke [I love this one, for some reason, despite the fact I disagree with some of it completely]
Dragonflight, Anne McCaffrey [I read something of hers. I can't remember anything beyond the "thread" idea, and dont' remember which book it was from.]
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, J.K. Rowling [Overrated.]
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams [Douglas was taken from us too soon :(]
The Silmarillion, J.R.R. Tolkien [Ouch. Yes, I read this. It read like notes, which it probably was.]
Slaughterhouse-5, Kurt Vonnegut [Pretty good]

Is "Wizard's First Rule" by Pratchett? I forget. I found that somewhat amusing at the time, but I can't remember why.

Posted by: Keith Douglas | March 10, 2007 11:56 PM

#66

Well, the formatting is just too much work ...

But my total is actually fairly low. With only a few exceptions, most of the "real" science fiction that I've read (Harry Potter is not real science fiction) dates to more than 20 years ago. But back then, I read a lot of it. Probably caused subtle, yet long term, damage.

Posted by: Greg Laden | March 10, 2007 11:57 PM

#67

LotR: You need to let the book entertain you, instead of demanding it entertain you.

Significant: I don't think this word means what certain commenters think it means.

Thomas Covenant: The man is a self-important whiner. He also has serious medical problems. Though I suspect they have far more to do with some form of schizophrenia than they do with leprosy.

Derivative: Show me one original work Shakespeare ever produced.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | March 11, 2007 12:09 AM

#68

P. Z.

Has Gibson done anything worthwhile since Neuromancer?

I packed it in with him when he ripped off Iain Banks' Bridge novel.

Speaking of Banks- The Wasp Factory, The Bridge and Walking on Glass were genius works of a modern day Kafka. He's never lived up to the promise of his three first novels.

---------------------------------------------------
People are too sniffy about J. K. Rowling. She's a great children's writer, and her books contain enough meat for many adult readers to enjoy.

Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 11, 2007 12:36 AM

#69

I'm a big Charles Sheffield fan, though I don't know if he has done any one book that would crack a top 50 list. Glad to see some props for Simmons-Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion are just stunning (the Endymion books blow chunks, IMO).

I confess that I like the Thomas Covenent books entirely out of proportion to the quality of the writing-it is so overwrought and melodramatic, but it works for me in some weird way.

Posted by: Chris | March 11, 2007 12:37 AM

#70

For the benefit of those complaining about the dearth of female writers on the original list and in early SF: Wilmar J Shiras was a woman. Julian May was a woman. Andre Norton was a woman. C. L. Moore was a woman who also published under the names "Lawrence O'Donnell" and "Lewis Padgett" when collaborating with her husband Henry Kuttner.
To the best of my memory Judith Merrill was the first SF writer to actually admit to being being a woman.

Posted by: fyreflye | March 11, 2007 12:39 AM

#71

BTW-
Should I bite the bullet and read Ender's Game?

Orson Scott Card seems like a poisonous right-wing nut, but I've heard Ender's Game is a classic.

Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 11, 2007 12:41 AM

#72

I've read 20 on the list (though I've seen film adaptations of maybe 3 or 4 more).

Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks Terry Brooks is garbage. And I'm one of those people who think Lord of the Rings is overrated. You have to give props to Tolkien for world-building and influencing a whole genre to the point that rarely do any other authors deviate from his blueprint. But man O man is his prose dull! Why does he also get the Silmarillion on here, a book that most of the rabid Tolkien fans I know aren't able to finish?

I always preferred sword and sorcery fantasy to epic fantasy anyway. Give me Howard's Conan or Leiber's

Pharyngula

Search this blog

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Uh, yeah, I guess I do read some SF now and then

TrackBacks

Comments