50 "Must-Read" Science Fiction Books

[GOLLUM]

I've got a copy of Inverted World as a NYRB edn. so it sounds like it will be a good read. I'm currently reading priest's story collection Dream Archipelago and it's very good.

That was an early novel, I think '74 from memory....given it's on the NYRB list, usually means it's a quality read.

[Connavar]

NYRB ? I saw it listed as SF Masterworks copy in my bookstore catalogue list but i'm not sure if its upcoming version cause i dont see it Sfsite list for SFM.

I looked for Dream Archipelago but there were no library version of it.

Inverted World it is. I should checked his books earlier, his themes sound very interesting. I'm looking for new SF with interesting ideas. Thinking about his latest books.

[AE35Unit]

Here's the list that I've read

•352. "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy," Douglas Adams
•353. "Hothouse," Brian Aldiss
•354. "Brain Wave," Poul Anderson
•355. "I, Robot," Isaac Asimov
•357. "The Crystal World," J.G. Ballard
•358. "The Demolished Man," Alfred Bester
•359. "Who Goes There," John W. Campbell
•362. "The Martian Chronicles," Ray Bradbury
•367. "2001: A Space Odyssey," Arthur C. Clarke
•372. "Stranger in a Strange Land," Robert A. Heinlein
•373. "Dune," Frank Herbert+didn't finish,maybe one day!
•384. "Ringworld," Larry Niven
•397. "A Journey to the Centre of the Earth," Jules Verne
•399. "The Island of Dr Moreau," H.G. Wells
•401. "The Day of the Triffids," John Wyndham
All but Dune I enjoyed. Who Goes There is a story not a novel,that became the basis of the film The Thing

[J-WO]

Yeah. I've got a copy of the Green Child and its a curio at best.

[Spade]

•
•373. "Dune," Frank Herbert
•386. "Nineteen Eighty-Four," George Orwell
•396. "Slan," A.E. Van Vogt
•397. "A Journey to the Centre of the Earth," Jules Verne



I've read these... guess I'm not very well read.

[J-WO]

Originally Posted by clovis-man

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]

Originally Posted by Connavar

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]

Originally Posted by Connavar

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]

Originally Posted by CyBeR

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]

Originally Posted by knivesout

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]

Originally Posted by Fried Egg

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.