As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Top 100 Science Fiction Books

hesthefastesthesthefastest Registered User regular
edited October 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
Hi everyone, as a lonely twenty something with no life, I have made it a goal: To read to the top 100 science fiction books.
The time limit is my lifetime, but I should be done before that, hopefully.
The list I'm using can be found here:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/topscifi/lists_books_rank1.html
It is updated every now and then, which will probably save me from having to read 'The Time Traveller's Wife', but might waste some of my time (not really).

I've copy/pasted the list here and annotated the ones I've read with a number.
1: not that great
2: good
3: great

Old Rank Author/Editor Title Year Amazon
1 1 Orson Scott Card Ender's Game [S1] 1985 3
2 2 Frank Herbert Dune [S1] 1965 3
3 3 Isaac Asimov Foundation [S1-3] 1951 3
4 4 Douglas Adams Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy [S1] 1979 3
5 5 George Orwell 1984 1949 3
6 6 Robert A Heinlein Stranger in a Strange Land 1961 1
7 7 Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451 1954
8 8 Arthur C Clarke 2001: A Space Odyssey 1968
9 9 Isaac Asimov [C] I, Robot 1950 2
12 10 Robert A Heinlein Starship Troopers 1959 2
10 11 William Gibson Neuromancer 1984 3
11 12 Philip K Dick Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? 1968
13 13 Larry Niven Ringworld 1970 3
14 14 Arthur C Clarke Rendezvous With Rama 1973 2
16 15 Dan Simmons Hyperion [S1] 1989 2
15 16 Aldous Huxley Brave New World 1932 2
17 17 H G Wells The Time Machine 1895 2
18 18 Arthur C Clarke Childhood's End 1954
19 19 H G Wells The War of the Worlds 1898 2
20 20 Robert A Heinlein The Moon is a Harsh Mistress 1966
21 21 Ray Bradbury [C] The Martian Chronicles 1950
22 22 Joe Haldeman The Forever War 1974 2
23 23 Kurt Vonnegut Slaughterhouse Five 1969
24 24 Neal Stephenson Snow Crash 1992 3
25 25 Niven & Pournelle The Mote in God's Eye 1975
26 26 Ursula K Le Guin The Left Hand of Darkness 1969 4
27 27 Orson Scott Card Speaker for the Dead [S2] 1986 2
28 28 Michael Crichton Jurassic Park 1990
29 29 Philip K Dick The Man in the High Castle 1962
30 30 Isaac Asimov The Caves of Steel 1954
31 31 Alfred Bester The Stars My Destination 1956
32 32 Frederik Pohl Gateway 1977
33 33 Roger Zelazny Lord of Light 1967
36 34 Jules Verne 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea 1870
34 35 Madeleine L'Engle A Wrinkle In Time 1962 2
37 36 Stanislaw Lem Solaris 1961
35 37 Kurt Vonnegut Cat's Cradle 1963
39 38 Michael Crichton The Andromeda Strain 1969
38 39 Carl Sagan Contact 1985
40 40 John Wyndham The Day of the Triffids 1951 2
41 41 Isaac Asimov The Gods Themselves 1972
42 42 Neal Stephenson Cryptonomicon 1999 2
45 43 Vernor Vinge A Fire Upon the Deep 1991
43 44 Anthony Burgess A Clockwork Orange 1962
44 45 Philip K Dick UBIK 1969
46 46 Robert A Heinlein Time Enough For Love 1973
48 47 Kim Stanley Robinson Red Mars [S1] 1992
49 48 Walter M Miller A Canticle for Leibowitz 1959 3
47 49 Daniel Keyes Flowers for Algernon 1966 3
50 50 Isaac Asimov The End Of Eternity 1955
54 51 Jules Verne Journey to the Center of the Earth 1864
51 52 Mary Shelley Frankenstein 1818
52 53 Neal Stephenson The Diamond Age 1995 2
53 54 Iain M Banks Player Of Games [S2] 1988
55 55 L Ron Hubbard Battlefield Earth 1982
56 56 Kurt Vonnegut The Sirens of Titan 1959
57 57 Ursula K Le Guin The Dispossessed 1974 3
58 58 Peter F Hamilton The Reality Dysfunction [S1] 1996
59 59 Orson Scott Card Ender's Shadow [S1] 1999 1
60 60 David Brin Startide Rising [S2] 1983
61 61 Greg Bear Eon 1985
62 62 Niven & Pournelle Lucifer's Hammer 1977
63 63 Philip Jose Farmer To Your Scattered Bodies Go 1971
64 64 Margaret Atwood The Handmaid's Tale 1985 3
65 65 Philip K Dick A Scanner Darkly 1977
66 66 Arthur C Clarke The City and the Stars 1956
67 67 Alfred Bester The Demolished Man 1953
69 68 Harry Harrison The Stainless Steel Rat [S1] 1961
68 69 Gene Wolfe The Shadow of the Torturer [S1] 1980
71 70 Robert A Heinlein The Door Into Summer 1956
72 71 Michael Crichton Sphere 1987
70 72 Philip K Dick The Three Stigmata Of Palmer Eldritch 1964
73 73 Connie Willis Doomsday Book 1992
76 74 Alastair Reynolds Revelation Space [S1] 2000
77 75 Robert A Heinlein Citizen Of the Galaxy 1957
74 76 Dan Simmons Ilium 2003
75 77 C S Lewis Out of the Silent Planet [S1] 1938 1
78 78 H G Wells The Invisible Man 1897 2
79 79 Robert A Heinlein Have Space-Suit - Will Travel 1958
80 80 Robert A Heinlein The Puppet Masters 1951
82 81 Edgar Rice Burroughs A Princess of Mars [S1] 1912
81 82 Clifford Simak Way Station 1963
84 83 Ursula K Le Guin The Lathe of Heaven 1971 2
85 84 John Wyndham The Chrysalids 1955
83 85 Iain M Banks Use of Weapons [S3] 1990
86 86 Richard Morgan Altered Carbon [S1] 2002
89 87 Edwin A Abbott Flatland 1884
88 88 David Brin The Postman 1985
90 89 Arkady & Boris Strugatsky Roadside Picnic 1972
87 90 Julian May The Many-Colored Land [S1] 1981
93 91 John Brunner Stand on Zanzibar 1969
91 92 E E 'Doc' Smith Grey Lensman [S4] 1951
92 93 Clifford Simak [C] City 1952
94 94 Philip K Dick VALIS 1981
99 95 Greg Bear The Forge of God 1987
96 96 Stanislaw Lem [C] The Cyberiad 1974
97 97 James Blish [C] Cities in Flight 1955
95 98 Greg Bear Blood Music 1985 2
98 99 Theodore Sturgeon More Than Human 1953
110 100 John Scalzi Old Man's War 2005

What do you think of the list? Which book must be read immediately?
I'm sure there are many people out there that put me to shame but I wanted to know what D+D thought about the best science fiction has to offer.

*Updated*

hesthefastest on
«13456716

Posts

  • Options
    Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Read Fahrenheit 451. It's short, it's great, and it's a classic.

    Solomaxwell6 on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    It doesn't have Recursion by Tony Ballantyne.

    Boo.

    I'd switch it out for Day of the Triffids, Solaris or Frankenstein.

    They're all good books but I think sort of boring for different reasons.

    EDIT: No, I'd switch it out for ANY Chrichton. Sphere, in particular, blows goats. The things I mentioned before are way better than anything Chrichton wrote. I feel silly now.

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I liked "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" way more than I liked Blade Runner.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I liked "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" way more than I liked Blade Runner.

    I don't like Blade Runner. But I do like Blade Runner.

    I can never decide.

    One thing I will say is it's a movie you have to see to understand a whole bunch of other cultural references, like the Bible or Shakespeare. Also, any industrial band worth their salt samples Blade Runner in about three songs.

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    GalahadGalahad Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I liked "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" way more than I liked Blade Runner.

    Completely different animals.

    Galahad on
  • Options
    NijaNija Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I loved Ender's Game. I believe I have re-read it at least 5 times.

    Nija on
    Priest lvl 110 Warlock lvl 9x DK lvl 110 Paladin lvl 9x Rogue lvl 8x

    Steam Me
  • Options
    GalahadGalahad Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The Mote in God's Eye would probably make a pretty decent movie, with minimal Hollywood plot rape.

    Galahad on
  • Options
    FunkyWaltDoggFunkyWaltDogg Columbia, SCRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    What do you think of the list? Which book must be read immediately?

    Read some Asimov! There's a reason he's on the list five times.

    FunkyWaltDogg on
  • Options
    GalahadGalahad Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Hm, I'm surprised Revelation Space is on this list. It was a good book, but I dunno if I'd put it in the top 100.

    Galahad on
  • Options
    GalahadGalahad Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    You should re-organize the books by publication date, and then read them in order.

    Galahad on
  • Options
    Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    You didn't like Stranger in a Strange land? I thought it was great.

    It's weird, and I don't agree with most of his views, but I still thought it was really interesting.

    Pi-r8 on
  • Options
    ueanuean Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Nija wrote: »
    I loved Ender's Game. I believe I have re-read it at least 5 times.

    Me too, which turned me onto Orson Scott Card, which led to me D:'ing quite a bit. Except for Xenocide... that book was awesome. Pequininos turning into trees to form Avatar!

    uean on
    Guys? Hay guys?
    PSN - sumowot
  • Options
    ueanuean Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Also, I've been using the same list for awhile. Never knew my mom was so cool... I'd read a good chunk of it before ever seeing the list because it was all in her collection downstairs for when I needed something to read. No wonder I barely read anything but sci-fi.

    uean on
    Guys? Hay guys?
    PSN - sumowot
  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I liked most of Arthur C. Clarke's books. Childhood's End was probably my favorite.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Its got some unarguable books on there for sure.

    But Startide Rising by David Brin? Not that its a bad book - its really good. But its not even the best in the series of books its in.

    And I would put Consider Phlebas by Iain Banks in there over Player of Games.

    I would also try and find room for Accelerando by Charles Stross in there some where.

    Wassermelone on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    You didn't like Stranger in a Strange land? I thought it was great.

    It's weird, and I don't agree with most of his views, but I still thought it was really interesting.

    During the first, maybe, 50-100 pages of the book I thought I could see where it was going.

    I thought that people would unwittingly betray Michael to the government which would interfere with everything in a well meaning but overly bureaucratic and short-sighted fashion. And Jill(?) would ultimately come to free Michael due to the kinship she felt with him or something. You know, the usual tropes.

    Boy was my face red.

    I also agree with pretty much none of Heinlein's positions.

    I also thought Michael was far more likeable before he began to grok the ways of earth.

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    And I would put Consider Phlebas by Iain Banks in there over Player of Games.


    You'd be wrong or did you mistype Use of Weapons?

    zeeny on
  • Options
    SanguineAngelSanguineAngel Lord Centre of the UniverseRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    This is the best thread I have come across.

    Thank you.

    Aslo: Stranger in a Strange Land got a 1? Boo.

    I see you have not yet hit up Asimov's Foundation - I will be very interested to hear your thoughts. I will not share mine until you have read it though.

    Finally, I have noticed a lack of Anne McCaffrey's 'The Ship Who Sang", this does sadden me. I would recommend giving it a read at some point if you have not already.

    SanguineAngel on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    hesthefastesthesthefastest Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    You didn't like Stranger in a Strange land? I thought it was great.

    It's weird, and I don't agree with most of his views, but I still thought it was really interesting.

    It wasn't the weirdness or the message (well, maybe a bit the message), it was just the ham-fisted way he wrote. Every other paragraph is basically: "This is why you are wrong and stupid...".

    Right now I own 'A Canticle for Leibowitz', 'Battlefield Earth' and 'Ilium'. I'm not sure I have the courage to start 'Ilium' right now, nor the massacism for ' Battlefield'. Chapters is having a sale this weekend, I may pick up some collections of PKD or Asimov.

    hesthefastest on
  • Options
    WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    And I would put Consider Phlebas by Iain Banks in there over Player of Games.


    You'd be wrong or did you mistype Use of Weapons?

    Use of Weapons IS in there.

    Wassermelone on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The Postman and Old Man's War are both easy reads on that list. You might want to save them for a break between some of the denser works though.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    And I would put Consider Phlebas by Iain Banks in there over Player of Games.


    You'd be wrong or did you mistype Use of Weapons?

    Use of Weapons IS in there.

    Didn't see it. This list really isn't eye-friendly to me.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    DrakeDrake Edgelord Trash Below the ecliptic plane.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Read all the Philip K Dick, Vonnegut and Bradbury that's on that list.

    Do it as soon as possible.

    You will become a better human.

    Drake on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    And I would put Consider Phlebas by Iain Banks in there over Player of Games.


    You'd be wrong or did you mistype Use of Weapons?

    Use of Weapons IS in there.

    Didn't see it. This least really isn't eye-friendly to me.

    That's a funny pseudo-homophone mistake

    My fiancee did this type of thing for a year or two with the top 100 novels off all time. It takes a long time

    ed
    Ha in before the ninja :P

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Hmm, I've actually already read 20 of those. After I finish reading my current series, and rereading the two Void books in anticipation of the third coming out in August, I may have to start going through that list.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Options
    BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    There are Richard Morgan and Michael Crichton books in there and no Olaf Stapledon and no Sam R Delaney and Jesus H Christ no Brian Aldiss or Keith Roberts or John Sladek and Ender's Game is number 1 and now I'm so angry I could vomit.

    If you want a really good list try the SF Masterworks list: here.

    Bogart on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    One of the two radical feminists I am acquainted with was bitching about how Vonnegut was a crazy sexist and his writings did nothing but reinforce the patriarchy or something of that nature. She's more than a little unhinged though.

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    SanguineAngelSanguineAngel Lord Centre of the UniverseRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    You didn't like Stranger in a Strange land? I thought it was great.

    It's weird, and I don't agree with most of his views, but I still thought it was really interesting.

    During the first, maybe, 50-100 pages of the book I thought I could see where it was going.

    I thought that people would unwittingly betray Michael to the government which would interfere with everything in a well meaning but overly bureaucratic and short-sighted fashion. And Jill(?) would ultimately come to free Michael due to the kinship she felt with him or something. You know, the usual tropes.

    Boy was my face red.

    I also agree with pretty much none of Heinlein's positions.

    I also thought Michael was far more likeable before he began to grok the ways of earth.


    Well, you're speaking the truth here, the book certainly does imply one direction and then go COMPLETELY elsewhere in my view. Partly, though, that's probably due to us reading it with a completely different cultural background and those tropes were not necessarily quite so common back then. I'd suggest this would be the root cause of the book feeling quite disconcerting at times.

    The thought about michael's personality changing as he grok'd the ways of earth is interesting because
    that is undoubtedly got to be the point. Earth's culture changes him but he also changes it due to his own powerful cultural backdrop. But I didn't dislike him - I admired his goals and basic emotional output. I didn't feel particularly comfortable with the majority of his actions though.

    I now know more about Heinlein's own views but at the time I took the whole thing about love to be an exaggeration to express an simpler, purer (and less disturbing) idea about non-sexual love in the wider community. I think the whole sex thing was VERY different for Michael and those who eventually grok'd him. It wasn't about carnal knowledge but a higher form of love that you might hear in relation to Jesus' teachings for example. But the physical expression of that clashed with our own ideas of what sex is about. That's how i read it anyway. I have since learned that Heinlein might have been pretty serious about the whole thing. yikes.

    SanguineAngel on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    Seriously, how high do you have to be to put a Richard Morgan book on the list and miss out Helliconia? Or Pavane? Or The Fifth Head of Cerberus?

    Bogart on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    You didn't like Stranger in a Strange land? I thought it was great.

    It's weird, and I don't agree with most of his views, but I still thought it was really interesting.

    During the first, maybe, 50-100 pages of the book I thought I could see where it was going.

    I thought that people would unwittingly betray Michael to the government which would interfere with everything in a well meaning but overly bureaucratic and short-sighted fashion. And Jill(?) would ultimately come to free Michael due to the kinship she felt with him or something. You know, the usual tropes.

    Boy was my face red.

    I also agree with pretty much none of Heinlein's positions.

    I also thought Michael was far more likeable before he began to grok the ways of earth.


    Well, you're speaking the truth here, the book certainly does imply one direction and then go COMPLETELY elsewhere in my view. Partly, though, that's probably due to us reading it with a completely different cultural background and those tropes were not necessarily quite so common back then. I'd suggest this would be the root cause of the book feeling quite disconcerting at times.

    The thought about michael's personality changing as he grok'd the ways of earth is interesting because
    that is undoubtedly got to be the point. Earth's culture changes him but he also changes it due to his own powerful cultural backdrop. But I didn't dislike him - I admired his goals and basic emotional output. I didn't feel particularly comfortable with the majority of his actions though.

    I now know more about Heinlein's own views but at the time I took the whole thing about love to be an exaggeration to express an simpler, purer (and less disturbing) idea about non-sexual love in the wider community. I think the whole sex thing was VERY different for Michael and those who eventually grok'd him. It wasn't about carnal knowledge but a higher form of love that you might hear in relation to Jesus' teachings for example. But the physical expression of that clashed with our own ideas of what sex is about. That's how i read it anyway. I have since learned that Heinlein might have been pretty serious about the whole thing. yikes.

    RE: MVS and grokking the world.
    I didn't pick up that the point was that he became less likeable intentionally. Of course, that may well have been the point - I tend to put my reactions down to my immediate dislike of religious expression so tend to assume that in cases like this, where it isn't played for the crazy theocratic fascist angle that it's mostly idiosyncratic.

    However, while it isn't mutually exclusive to the intended consequence of MVS becoming less likeable, the fact that the his religious epiphanies are in fact correct (or at least a very good approximation of the nature of the SIASL universe and theology) meant that in his learning of Earth culture and religion he gained a deeper insight into reality. You can be right and a douche, but I didn't feel like that was the intention.

    I am frequently wrong about authorial intent though so...

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    PantsB wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    And I would put Consider Phlebas by Iain Banks in there over Player of Games.


    You'd be wrong or did you mistype Use of Weapons?

    Use of Weapons IS in there.

    Didn't see it. This least really isn't eye-friendly to me.

    That's a funny pseudo-homophone mistake

    My fiancee did this type of thing for a year or two with the top 100 novels off all time. It takes a long time

    ed
    Ha in before the ninja :P

    Hah, something tells me that "Readers' List Best 100" got bombed by certain enthusiasts.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    Grid SystemGrid System Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    You'd think they could have found space for at least one Vorkosigan novel. I'd put pretty much any of them ahead of Old Man's War.

    Of the books on the list, Lord of Light should be a priority.

    Grid System on
  • Options
    BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    Wow, that Random House reader's list is obnoxious in the extreme.

    Bogart on
  • Options
    SanguineAngelSanguineAngel Lord Centre of the UniverseRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    You didn't like Stranger in a Strange land? I thought it was great.

    It's weird, and I don't agree with most of his views, but I still thought it was really interesting.

    During the first, maybe, 50-100 pages of the book I thought I could see where it was going.

    I thought that people would unwittingly betray Michael to the government which would interfere with everything in a well meaning but overly bureaucratic and short-sighted fashion. And Jill(?) would ultimately come to free Michael due to the kinship she felt with him or something. You know, the usual tropes.

    Boy was my face red.

    I also agree with pretty much none of Heinlein's positions.

    I also thought Michael was far more likeable before he began to grok the ways of earth.


    Well, you're speaking the truth here, the book certainly does imply one direction and then go COMPLETELY elsewhere in my view. Partly, though, that's probably due to us reading it with a completely different cultural background and those tropes were not necessarily quite so common back then. I'd suggest this would be the root cause of the book feeling quite disconcerting at times.

    The thought about michael's personality changing as he grok'd the ways of earth is interesting because
    that is undoubtedly got to be the point. Earth's culture changes him but he also changes it due to his own powerful cultural backdrop. But I didn't dislike him - I admired his goals and basic emotional output. I didn't feel particularly comfortable with the majority of his actions though.

    I now know more about Heinlein's own views but at the time I took the whole thing about love to be an exaggeration to express an simpler, purer (and less disturbing) idea about non-sexual love in the wider community. I think the whole sex thing was VERY different for Michael and those who eventually grok'd him. It wasn't about carnal knowledge but a higher form of love that you might hear in relation to Jesus' teachings for example. But the physical expression of that clashed with our own ideas of what sex is about. That's how i read it anyway. I have since learned that Heinlein might have been pretty serious about the whole thing. yikes.

    RE: MVS and grokking the world.
    I didn't pick up that the point was that he became less likeable intentionally. Of course, that may well have been the point - I tend to put my reactions down to my immediate dislike of religious expression so tend to assume that in cases like this, where it isn't played for the crazy theocratic fascist angle that it's mostly idiosyncratic.

    However, while it isn't mutually exclusive to the intended consequence of MVS becoming less likeable, the fact that the his religious epiphanies are in fact correct (or at least a very good approximation of the nature of the SIASL universe and theology) meant that in his learning of Earth culture and religion he gained a deeper insight into reality. You can be right and a douche, but I didn't feel like that was the intention.

    I am frequently wrong about authorial intent though so...
    Absolutely true but I certainly thought that the idea was that he had been tainted to some degree by Mankind.

    But I am also frequently wrong about authorial intent too.

    Having said that, interpretation is what it is.

    SanguineAngel on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    DrakeDrake Edgelord Trash Below the ecliptic plane.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    One of the two radical feminists I am acquainted with was bitching about how Vonnegut was a crazy sexist and his writings did nothing but reinforce the patriarchy or something of that nature. She's more than a little unhinged though.

    Maybe Sexist Kurt Vonnegut can go on the PC book burning pile next to Racist Mark Twain.

    I guess I see what your friend is reacting to in Vonnegut's stuff, but I really don't think he was doing anything more than portraying the actual values of his day. I really don't see it as promotion, anyway.

    Really, Vonnegut makes me like people more than any other author I read. That's one of the things I love about his books.

    Drake on
  • Options
    EntriechEntriech ? ? ? ? ? Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    As someone mentioned earlier, requires Stross' Accelerando. Also needs some Peter Watts and Karl Schroeder.

    Entriech on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »

    My fiancee did this type of thing for a year or two with the top 100 novels off all time. It takes a long time

    Hah, something tells me that "Readers' List Best 100" got bombed by certain enthusiasts.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah its really blatant how the Randians and Scientologists took the reader's list over

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is much, much better than Stranger in a Strange Land, and worth a read.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    desperaterobotsdesperaterobots perth, ausRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I loved Chricton's Sphere. but I pretty much loved every Chrtictony moment of the book. I re-read it a few times and enjoyed it more with each subsequent read through.

    The film adaptation was totally shitty (though cast pretty well). It couldn't begin to capture the paranoid inner-monologue of the protagonist, and that's kind of the fun part of the book.

    desperaterobots on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Is this "top" as in "most influential" or "top" as in "most popular" or "top" as in "best" or "top" as in "if you only read 100 sf books in your life, read these?"

    Because these lists are always a little goofy. I would never put Canticle for Liebowitz or Red Mars that low. Ender's Game as #1? Jurassic Park? I love me some Philip K. Dick but... VALIS?

    I've been pretty vocal on these boards about how I think 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 are overrated, but I know that I sound like a crazy person when I talk about that.

    As Bogart said, it needs some Sam Delaney. I would have gladly cut a few of those titles for Babel-17. Speaking of new wave sf, William Burroughs' Nova Express never gets enough love.

    Also, it's missing We. Everybody remembers 1984 and Brave New World but nobody remembers We. Poor We. It's okay, I'll always love you with your funky glass houses and your wacky pink coupons and your lobotomies.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Sign In or Register to comment.