Interesting list of the "Fifty Most Significant SF&F Books

[kennyc]

Might inspire some reading...

http://mdbenoit.com/blog/blog/2006/1...cant-sf-books/

First 10:

1. The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien*
2. The Foundation Trilogy, Isaac Asimov*
3. Dune, Frank Herbert*
4. Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert A. Heinlein*
5. A Wizard of Earthsea, Ursula K. Le Guin
6. Neuromancer, William Gibson*
7. Childhood’s End, Arthur C. Clarke*
8. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Philip K. Dick*
9. The Mists of Avalon, Marion Zimmer Bradley
10. Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury*

...

[jgaiser]

Interesting list, though I agree with some of the comments on the site. They're missing a lot of other 'significant' books. But On The Beach(?) Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone(?) Significant Science Fiction?

[hal2814]

Slaughterhouse 5, Ender's Game and Starship Troopers should be Top 10 if we're talking significance. I also scratch my head at the inclusion of Colour of Magic. It's not a particularly well-regarded Discworld book. I get the idea it's supposed to be a representative of Discworld in general rather than a significant standalone novel. It's interesting to look at others' Top X lists but I find this is one I highly disagree with both on ranking and content past the Top 5 or so.

[kennyc]

I'm sure there are any number of "alternates" that's why it's interesting to see what others think of the list. And make there own suggestions for alternates.

[weateallthepies]

Flowers for Algernon needs to be on there.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by weateallthepies

Flowers for Algernon needs to be on there.

Isn't that a short story rather than a book though?

[weateallthepies]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Isn't that a short story rather than a book though?

It was originally a short story but was later expanded into a (short) novel by the author.

[kennyc]

I would say significant in any case.

[weateallthepies]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I would say significant in any case.

Yep. I think the short story won the Hugo and the novel won the Nebula, or it could be the other way round. Certainly both great stories.

It's a bit of an odd list if the titles are supposed to be significant in the genre. Where is H.G.Wells? Jules Verne? Mary Shelley?

EDIT: Whoops just saw the date range, feel free to throw things at me.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

No "Martian Chronicles"... no "2001: A Space Odyssey"... no "I, Robot"... some list.

[brecklundin]

I just hate these lists because it is impossible to quantify which books are "most" anything. I mean don't we need to go back to at least to the era of H.G. Wells? What about The Sherlock Homes books which could be considered somewhat of an Detective/Mystery SF of their era. Every era of SF is built in the shoulders of those before them. And it's just not reasonable to say anything other than these books are excellent to read because I liked them a lot. I don't see any way to say which is "the best".

I know, I'm no fun...

[kennyc]

Yeah, but who cares about anything before the year I was born.

Steve, could be they considered Martian Chronicles as stories ...maybe same with I Robot...2001 was a novelization based on a short story - The Sentential ..

[drofgnal]

Do a google search on best sci-fi and best fantasy, and you'll get several entirely differnt lists, many or most which correct some of the deficiencies noted in this thread.

I just read Mists of Avalon, and I wouldn't put it in the top 100. I kept saying to myself over and over while reading it, Yea I get it you hate Christianity...

My favorite lists:

http://thisrecording.com/today/2010/...tion-or-f.html

http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersy...ifi/index.html

[kennyc]

Thanks for those links Drofgnal...

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by brecklundin

I just hate these lists because it is impossible to quantify which books are "most" anything. I mean don't we need to go back to at least to the era of H.G. Wells? What about The Sherlock Homes books which could be considered somewhat of an Detective/Mystery SF of their era. Every era of SF is built in the shoulders of those before them. And it's just not reasonable to say anything other than these books are excellent to read because I liked them a lot. I don't see any way to say which is "the best".

I know, I'm no fun...

Well in defense of the list, I would point out that it specifies the years 1953-2002. That being said though, that means that Foundation qualifies on a technicality since with the exception of the very first story in the Trilogy, the stories were for the most part published earlier than 1953.

I would say I am annoyed that in some cases, they count a "series" as a book, and at others, they only list a single book in the series.

--
Bill