50 Most Significant SF Novels

For those looking for SF classic suggestions, the SF Book Club has identified the 50 most significant SF books from 1950-2002. You can see the list on my blog on this post.

How many of those have you read? How many do you think you'll read in 2007?

Interesting list. Some of them would be on my 50 most significant SF books others wouldn't even be close. The Sword of Shannara for example could well be on my 50 worst books and maybe 50 least significant works. Generally there is too much fantasy on the list for me.

Others that might make it if I was doing the list might be Brain Wave maybe one of Ballard's catastrophe novels - The Drowned World maybe. I'm surprised that a Silverberg didn't make it. Dying Inside would probably be my choice for him. I would probably put Roadside Picnic and Solaris in there as well.

BTW - I've read 44 of the 50.

I'm impressed. I don't know what the standards were in selecting the works. I know that Eddings' Sword of Shannara usually makes the list because he was one of the first to gain popularity using Tolkien's style and world building. I agree with you, though, it's quite badly written. I haven't read any of the books you mentioned. Since I like personal recommendations, I'll pick them up at my local public library.

I've read 25 of 'em, mostly the "harder" scifi stuff ... I'm not much of a fantasy fan either ... if I were making additions, I'd definitely vote for Footfall by Niven/Pournelle and Dark Star by Alan Dean Foster ... and where's The Stand? I know some people might not consider it exactly scifi, but it's certainly a lot closer than Interview with a vampire.

One might include an Octavia Butler, simply because she occasionally gets taught in school, apparently. Not sure why this kind of crossover is so rare, looking at your list. Bradbury, Ellison, there's lots of real writers here.

I'd also cast a vote for Stanislaw Lem. Solaris is probably best known, but he wrote other, better books. Great writer.

I've read 33 of the 50. I agree that Brooks' Sword of Shanarra was significant but not worth reading (too derivative and thin for me). I guess I am surprised that Piers Anthony, Julian May, Robert Forward, and Patricia McKillip didn't somehow make the cut.

I may try to pick up a couple of the ones I haven't read yet, but my to-read pile is already life threatening.

:)

It does not include Flowers for algernon Therefore it is a crock.

5>

Yes some of Lem's other work may well be better but I doubt it is as significant (whatever that means) as Solaris.

It is interesting to look at the overlap with the SF Masterworks series which is published by the Orion group.

Thanks for posting that link ... interestingly (to me anyway) I've read exactly half of those, too ... it really reminded me of some classics I forgot the first time I saw this discussion ... Book of Skulls, Lathe of Heaven, Blood Music ... I guess it just goes back to my enjoying scifi more than fantasty.

looking at it, I haven't read Children of the Atom, Little, Big, or Rogue Moon. Probably will read the former soon. So 2 more for the wants list I guess. :)

Interesting list; it has its faults and omissions (I think it's somewhat biased toward stuff published in SFBC editions...), but it's certainly not a bad starting point.

I don't understand why either the Donaldson OR the Rice is on it. I think I'd send in Blood Music for the Anne Rice.

I think I've read about 36 of 'em (I'm weak on the fantasy side), but a couple titles that I assume I've read aren't bringing up very much in the way of memories.

Uh, Ringworld IS on the list. So are most of the other titles you mention.

And most of the titles ARE over 20 years old.

Um, I noticed that Clark's 2001 isn't on the list. It might not be the very best he ever wrote, but I think it's an important science fiction novel, along with Stranger in a Strange Land (which I reread a year or so ago and found much too dated to enjoy as I had the first time when I was in my early 20s). And what about The Martian Chronicles by Bradbury?

It turns out I've read 15 of those posted on the SF Masterworks list (plus 8 on the fantasy list) but only 17 of the list posted by mdbenoit.

By the way, one of my favorites that happens to be on the Masterworks science fiction list is No. 53 -The Dancers at the End of Time Trilogy by Michael Moorcock. Here's Robert Francis's review: "Jherek Carnelian is one of the last humans alive on Earth. He lives at the End of Time, and the people of his world have the power to instantly fulfill their every whim, thanks to millennia-old technologies. So why does Mrs. Amelia Underwood, reluctant time traveler and model citizen of Victorian England, stubbornly refuse to fall in love with him?"

And andyl #8, thanks for the link to the Orion/SF Masterworks list.

andyl, Thanks for that SFMasterworks link. I hadn't been on the SF Site for a while, missed that one. I find that list less varied, though (fewer authors, more works of the same author).

For instance, the beginning of the list is heavy with Philip K. Dick. Now, I've enjoyed his work, but to say they are Masterworks? Naw.

When you read the blurb at the top, it's based on reprints by Orion of Out-of-print books. I suspect they're the ones Orion has been able to get as the rights revert to the author (or the family of the author).

The SFBC editors were surprised to see this re-appear after a few years.

http://thebookblogger.com/sfbc/2006/11/sfbcs_top_50_books_list_goes_w.html

I had 21/50 for SFBC, and might have had another one if Anne Rice wasn't listed (Martian Chronicles would have been my replacement).

mdbenoit,

Sure Dick is over-represented on the SF Masterworks list but I would put 5 or so of them there on merit.

However they are not all OOP - I think The Day Of The Triffids has had umpteen imprints by Penguin and still sells well for them.

I don't think either list is particularly comprehensive - I can think of titles that aren't on either but should be. It is interesting to look at overlaps though.

Dick's dominance of the SF Masterworks list is my biggest gripe with it, though overall I like the list. PKD's work just frustrates me though - I find his books extremely unsatisfying for some reason, though I wouldn't go so far as to say I don't like them.

I too object to the inclusion of pure fantasy on a "science fiction" list. And I can't understand how 2001 missed out - I reread it about 12 months ago, and am just amazed at how well it has aged.

I've read about half of these, I guess, with several more of them on the "to be read" list.

I think the position of Snow Crash will rise in lists of this type over time. :)

Re. all the complaints about fantasy books on the list . . . it is titled "Top 50 Science Fiction and Fantasy Books." Given that, 9 or 10 outright fantasy books out of 50 (a quick count; may be off by one or two) doesn't seem unreasonable.

The contrast between the title ("Top") and subtitle ("Most Influential") is intriguing. I'd certainly argue for including Sword of Shannara (for instance) under the later criterion, but I think it's dubious under the former. Not sure if I have an example that runs the other way, though. Gateway, maybe . . .

It does appear at the lists original source

http://thebookblogger.com/sfbc/2006/11/sfbcs_top_50_books_list_goes_w.html

Which Nicely illuistrates the problem with secondary sources.

The link in the opening paragraph

Fifty Most Significant SF Books
According to the Science Fiction Book Club, below is a list of the fifty most significant SF Books from 1953-2002. I’ve placed an asterix beside the ones I’ve read, which makes 28, or 56%. How many have you read?

is to
http://www.sfbc.com/doc/content/sitelets/FSE_Sitelet_Theme_2.jhtml?SID=nmsfctop5...

Ah, yes... I try to quote and direct my sources as much as I can. Intellectual property and so on.

I've read at least 38 myself. I haven't heard of the Shiras book, and only vaguely of the Matheson; everything else I'm at least familiar with.
I note that they do not call themselves the Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror, SFnal and Speculative Fiction Book Club, so give them leeway in their definition.
Just to point out, there are six titles by women in the list.

Chris changed the way links are handled in comments today and was waiting for feedback on how successfull the changes were give him nudge.

Oh I see there is a queue forming.

Just to nudge this back toward the topic ... MrKris, Canticle for Leibowitz is a true "must read" for scifi fans ... and really for anyone because of its topic ... and regarding Philip K. Dick, I also agree that he is a bit over-represented on the second list ... I would have left it at Do androids dream of electric sheep? and mayb Man in the high castle ... I think he is more influential for his approach/themes than specific books.

Does anyone remember the David Pringle book listing the best 100 sf books (1949-1984). He then produced a fantasy list (1946-1987)? I'm not sure if they were published in the US.

Anyway the lists are available here....

Best SF
Best Fantasy

Isn't the problem with all these lists that taste and preference is individual and thus no list is true other than to the editor of it?
Also, it's something canon-like about them - a take at defining the area, making those who haven't read the major part of the books listed feel like amateurs.
In the best of worlds the list is inspirers, pointing at unread books worth looking at. But I doubt this is the case in such a tribal sect as the SF-community...
Sorry. I really enjoy reading SF & what I call fantasy, but discussions about SF tend to be more about who's really SF and not about the ideas presented or discussed in the actual books...

Of course with all lists (and non-algorithmic recommendations) there is bound of be areas of taste. However there are books which are generally regarded as being important within the field either through quality of writing or as being an exemplar of are particular style of story within the genre. I don't think that many people are trying to be exclusive when they talk about what they feel is great SF.

David Pringle's Lists look like a target for next year

(edited because the computer was still logged in to my wife's account)

(there - that's better)

Jargoneer, thanks for the links to the Pringle lists.

I've just started tagged stuff with "100 Best", and this is a case where the on-line reference is easier to use than the hard copy.

Busifer, I'm not sure what the objection is.
Sure, any "Top n" list is usually little more than a reflection of the list-makers' taste.
But you're free to dispute the authority of any canon.

The whole point of the list-making enterprise is to generate discussions like this. Looking at lists like these can help you clarify your thoughts on the subject.

Look at the compulsive list-makers in Nick Hornby's High Fidelity - they do little BUT generate arbitrary lists, simply as a means of generating arguments.

Well, it's not as much an objection as an observation. During big parts of this discussion one of the main topics has been "I've read x of y books". I added this to my observation the fact that almost every SF-related discussion I participated in IRL has been on the lines of "but that's not proper SF" and "real SF afficionadoes DO NOT watch Star Trek, what a LOWLIFE you are..." etc.

And no, I 'm not sure that I agree on that there are some books more important or defining than others, on a worldwide scale. IMHO what those lists are made up of depends on culture and geography...

But the issue is easily solved - I mostly choose to stay out of list oriented discussions, and so those of you enjoying this kind of talk can chat away without me interrupting ;-)

There is a distinct difference between "most significant" and "best". The former will include books which influenced the future of the genre, even if they are not the best written. In my opinion this is the only justification for putting the Foundation trilogy and neuromancer so high on the list.

Some of the entries are series rather than books: Foundation, Cities in Flight, Thomas Covenant series 1, Book of the New sun, you could say Lord of the rings. Why then A wizard of Earthsea rather than the first trilogy. Perhaps it depends hoe the book club published them?

If Ender's Game is significant then it is as the novella version rather that the later novel.

Books I would have liked to see on the list include:
flowers for Algernon ,Shockwave Rider , Briefing for a Descent into Hell which I would classify as science fiction though David Pringle has it under fantasy.

busifer, the reason people are saying how many they have read is because the original poster asked for that info.

ringman, surely Flowers For Algernon is in the same category as Ender's Game. The original novella was more influential and IMO it was better at that shorter length. I would agree about Shockwave Rider - ten years ahead of its time IMO.

I haven't read the Lessing you mentioned, but I had to chuckle at some of the reviews on amazon.com. It will go on my potential buy list but as that is approaching 400 books it might not get bought for a while.

Andyl > I know, and that it was so's part of the problem, asI see it... ;-) But - 'nough said on this!

I cant be bothered to add up my total does that mean i am part of the solution.

Some I know I have read some I strongly suspect I have abandoned unfinished and some I have no interest in.

I have 45 of the 50. The Pringle lists are thirty years old ending in 1984 and 1987 so I have fewer. 78 Science fiction and 51 fantasy.

Only one anthology made it to the list, it's one of the 5 I don't have, but I do know it is significant.

I've read 21 of the SFBC list and my 2007 TBR list has four of the titles.

I just do not get this list! Fantasy is not Sci Fi!!!!

I would love to see some of your own lists here, say your top 25 from any time.

Well, the list on SFBC does state that it's SF and Fantasy. I've corrected my blog entry. To be fair, I've always thought SF meant Speculative Fiction, which encompasses all genres of science fiction and fantasy. These days, to call some SF sci-fi is ridiculous, and some fantasy titles are more than simply fantasy. Some are definitely a combination of both, while others, like China Mieville's books, are titled "weird" fiction, because they can't be classified in the outdated definition of SF.

A lot of science fiction fans do not like sci-fi because to the general public sci-fi usually means the big-budget films that Hollywood put out and the TV shows that try to emulate them. The SF=Speculative Fiction is a retroactive definition and not universally accepted. However nor is any other definition . Hal Duncan has an interesting and entertaining blog post which addresses the definitions of SF.

As for books that straddle between science fiction and fantasy there have been plenty of those for years. Science Fantasy used to be quite a popular marketing term.

In the spirit of mdbenoit's last message (#49) about our own lists, I've started a separate discussion in the group for favorite scifi from the last 10 years ...

40/50.
I would include: Brian Aldiss , Robert Silverberg and John Varley.
Also a great favorite of mine: Christopher Priest

52.
You might find David Pringle's lists suit you better. see 34. All the authors you mentioned feature on his lists. There is however nothin more recent than 1984 for science fiction or 1987 for fantasy.

I have started Children of the Atom, pretty sure I have read some part of this before, and had forgotten about it, now.

The Hampdenshire Wonder style Wonder Children, but mutants.

Ive read 35 of the 50 - most of those I have not read are fantasy. I do have a copy of mists of avalon that I'm going to get round to read soon. I also have a first edition copy of the silmarillion I have been meaning to get around to reading since, well since I got it when it was a new first edition. ;-)

I mean wtf is that doing on the list? Its an unreadable book that isnt even really a novel, its backstory.

I lliked silmarilion.

But no Divine Invasion? Or J G Ballard?

Well, I've managed four on that list - not terribly impressive, but better than three!

Neat blog, btw.

Well, I'd say that Vernor Vinge is certainly missing from this list. Given that he was one of the earliest authors who described virutal reality in True Names, he seems quite influential...

I love lists, and this is a good one. though I usually disagree with something on the list. My big beef on this one is The Silmarillion which is not significant because it is only background material for the LOTR trilogy, and not very readable. But I have read 39 of the books and only plan on reading a couple more. The authors that are on the list that I don't read will still not be read because they made a list. But I like the lists.

I have read about half of the books on the list so there is another challenge inspired by LT. I feel like I must read the entire list simply because it's there.

When I looked through the list I immediately thought about The Martian Chronicles. I think it should have been included, but there are too many books there I know nothing about to say what I think should have been left off. After I read the above posts I noticed that storeetllr mentioned it as well.

Maybe it was overlooked because it only just sneaked in. It was first published in 1950 and obviously some (or was it all) of the stories originally appeared in the SF magazines of the late 40s.

soylentgreen: Thanks. I've had a blog for more than two years, now, and it took me that long to find the balance I wanted.

Any Sci-fi "best of" list that doesn't include J G Ballard is poorly constructed, in my opinion. I would also include Inter-Ice Age 4 by Kobo Abe and Mockingbird by Walter Tevis.

Wow. Out of that entire list I've read only two.

Dragonflight by Anne McCaffery
Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks

Just Rogue Moon to go, and have started it. Little, Big I definitely wouldn't include.

For a committed bookworm this is irritating. Eddings did NOT write the Sword of Shannara series. Terry Brooks did. Check it out, mdbenoit.

I have Rogue Moon and never read it!
* goes off to look for it *

I've only read 15 of them. Which on second thoughts is actually quite good in a country where SF and fantasy isn't really taken seriously. However I find the "1950-2002" a bit restrictive since I'm rather fond of the "old" SF like E.E. "Doc" Smith.

Rogue Moon is pretty good.

I've read 16 of the list, though to be honest I think The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant ought to count for about half a dozen instead of one given how much effort it took just to get through the first volume!

I find hard to believe that Dune by Frank Herbert is not on this list.

But it is on the list mdbenoit posted right at the very start of this topic. It is also on the Pringle list that jargoneer posted. It is also on the SF Masterworks list I posted. Everyone agrees that it is one of the SF's great works.

66:oops. You're absolutely right. I still stand by my opinion, though. I read the Sword of Shannara series maybe 10-15 years ago and haven't read anything of him since. Same with the Belgariad. I find that Fantasy is pretty much a rehash of the same story.

#73 - I find that Fantasy is pretty much a rehash of the same story.
I had the same opinion, but that was before I read anything by Guy Gavriel Kay. Maybe you should check him out...

#73 you are partly right there is a lot of rehashing of the same story. But there are lots of very good variations, and some complete departures. the morgaine Saga or Master of Whitestorm being two very good very different stories.

busifer: I've read everything from Guy Gavriel Kay. I love him, although I was very disappointed by his latest novel Ysabel (Read my review of it.)

I've also read The Cracked Throne by Joshua Palmatier, which I really liked.

So, I agree with you, there are exceptions.

reading_fox: I'll have to try them out, see if you're right :-)

#76 - :)

(I've not felt any inclination to try Ysabel - the description of it has not intrigued me...)

Hrm. I've read... 22, looks like. I own about a dozen more on the list but haven't gotten around to reading them.

I don't know what their criteria are, but I'm continually irritated by the fact that everybody talks about Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and virtually none of PKD's other novels (though I did see The Man in the High Castle) on there). He wrote like 30 books, people, and I don't really think Dadoes was the best. It's just the one that happened to have a good film adaptation. (Though I personally think the movie of A Scanner Darkly was pretty good.)

Actually, PKD's Dadoes (I love this) is so different from the movie that it stands on its own. It's very short, but it's more about androids replacing humans and being unrecognizable. There's no chase, no killing, etc. There's an owl, though.

Yeah, I know that. But I think one can safely say that it's the most widely-known and read of his novels, and that one can attribute that in large part to the movie. (Hell, they still publish the movie tie-in mass-market with Harrison Ford and the Blade Runner logo, with the real title in tiny letters sandwiched between them.)

I've read 46. Not sure whether to be pleased or alarmed. I'm missing Children of the Atom (never heard of it or the author; Deathbird stories (know the author, not the work); I am Legend (I think I know the author as an editor) and The Sword of Shannara (deliberately).

Pretty good list, I thought. Not the best 50 books, but includes a lot of books that started new things.

Deathbird Stories is a story collection, like almost all of Ellison's books. It contains several fairly well-known stories, including "The Whimper of Whipped Dogs", "Adrift Just Off the Islets of Langerhans", "Paingod", and of course, "The Deathbird".

Honestly, there are several collections of his I'd probably rate higher than it. (Of course, the collection I'd rate the highest is Love Ain't Nothing But Sex Misspelled, which isn't SF.)

Also, I Am Legend is the novel that the movie The Omega Man is based on. (There's also an eponymous movie starring Will Smith that's due out either later this year or in 2008.)

I've read 17 of the 50 novels listed. Don't plan to re-read any of them this year and don't plan to read any of the others at all.

How about:
Cherryh
Cuckoo's nest
Foreigner series

McCaffrey
Crystal Singer

What about Brave New World by Huxley?

I have read about 10 of those book on the list. Interesting how I have missed so much of the "classics." But then, its always a matter of opinion. Most probably will give some of them a try.
Most of LeGuin's scifi books are classics including Lathe of Heaven (not talking about her fantasys).

I think Cuckoo's Egg is pretty minor C.J. Cherryh. The Foreigner series might make it although I don't care for it myself. Cyteen I think definitely does.

BTW - read all the posts and the links to other lists first. Some of the books on the original list are pretty minor Children of the Atom or fall outside what is usually regarded as SF.

I have read at least 23 of the books on your list, some many years ago. Not a loser in the bunch (of the ones I've read). This may have inspired me to back and read a few of the older ones!

I've read 32 of the 50. I would say the only real waste of time aming that bunch was Shannara. I don't love The Forever War the way some people seem to, and I never managed to get all the way through Dhalgren or Little, Big.

My biggest complaints are: where is The Dispossessed? Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang? One Gene Wolfe is not enough; definitely should also include The Fifth Head of Cerberus. No Clifford Simak? If we're going to include fantasy, put in Tigana in place of Shannara. Of course, without an explanation of what the list is intended to reflect, such quibbles are just self-amusement ;-)

If it's C.J. Cherryh then the book has to be Downbelow Station or Cyteen.