Customer Reviews

100 Must-read Science Fiction Novels (Bloomsbury Good Reading Guide S.)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

First of all, with a book like this it hardly matters if the editors get it 100% correct. In fact, I think they get it wrong, a lot. What matters is whether or not they make a persuasive case for their understanding of the field, whether they introduce you to new titles, whether you add new books to your reading list, whether you love to argue with them about their list. In this case the book succeeds splendidly. I have a list of SF books that I want to read and I added a slew of new titles. Some I had heard about but hadn't considered reading, some were new to me, some were books by authors I already knew but had only considered reading other books.

There are some huge gaps, but spotting the gaps is often half the fun. No Octavia Butler? None at all! How is that possible? And there are some strange options. H. G. Wells's THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU instead of THE TIME MACHINE? A. E. Van Vogt's THE VOYAGE OF THE SPACE BEAGLE instead of the far better THE WORLD OF NULL-A or SLAN? Brian Aldiss's HOTHOUSE instead of the Helliconia books or NON-STOP? Two different J. G. Ballard novels instead of his short stories? Where is Cheryhh's CYTEEN? No Poul Anderson? No -- and here is a huge one -- James L. Tiptree Jr.? I mean, seriously, Tiptree belongs on the shortest list of great writers of short stories in the genre. She is also the person who lent her name (well, her fake name) to the name of the major award given to SF dealing with gender issues. I have no trouble with Stephen R. Delaney's NOVA, but what about DHALGREN, TRITON, and STARS IN MY POCKET LIKE GRAINS OF SAND. There are also a lot major novels by serious writers that are omitted, like Margaret Atwood's THE HANDMAID'S TALE and Marge Piercy's WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME. And why make it about novels? Why not books instead? As Christopher Priest points out in the foreword, until the fifties SF novels were actually relatively rare. And even after the fifties much of the best work continued to be short stories. But see, none of this matter. The value of a book like this is the way it makes you argue with it. Books like this that are dumb you just dismiss.

By the way, I loved the foreword. Christopher Priest's biases are almost exactly like my own. I agree with him that we should just omit Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein from such lists. They are bad writers. They have poor prose styles and cardboardish and superficial characters. And I agree with him that many writers like E. E. "Doc" Smith truly do belong in museums (although I disagree with him on Jack Williamson -- I still find enjoyment in THE HUMANOIDS). Priest's complaint is with the explicit rejection of good writing by SF through the fifties. SF was supposed to be about "the big idea." A story or a novel was supposed to focus on a neat idea and ignore things like character development. Mainstream readers might find this difficult to conceive or assume that I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. Many, many SF fans were suspicious of literary qualities. This bias is part of the reason that SF contains so much bad writing. I mean, someone reading Asimov's CAVES OF STEEL who is not especially a fan of SF would be utterly agog at how badly written it is. No mainstream publisher would have published such a poorly written book. But SF at times has not only tolerated but celebrated bad writing, as long as there was a "neat idea" at the heart of things. As long as there were good ideas, nothing else mattered. But there are a very large number of very good SF novels that not only contain "neat ideas" but are well written. You can recommend Le Guin's THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS to any high brow, just as you can Lem's SOLARIS or Piercy's WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME.

That really is my only complaint with the book. Too many weak books are included, mainly because the book tries to cover all historical periods, even though not all periods are created equal. But see, this is my point. In saying why the book is wrong at points you end up saying what is important in your own conception of SF. Between this book and the recently published FIFTY KEY FIGURES IN SCIENCE FICTION by Mark Bould and others, I've had a ton of fun. And ultimately, that is what this is about. Having fun and discovering new books to read.

This book, 100 must-read sci-fi novels, is a concise and too-the-point reference on classic and contemporary sci-fi. It reviews the most popular novels to come our way and gives it's opinion on each choice without giving away too much of the plot or story-line. They start with the earliest and most classic novels, also giving what other readers have felt about them over the years.
Instead of including every great novel from any particular sci-fi novelsit, the book decides to include only one or two of his/her best works. They review each book with flair and honesty, and explain why the peice is considered a quality one. It wisely explains what made the particular novel so popular to the sci-fi community.
Also, at the end of each review it gives alternates written by that same author and gives examples of other pieces that are simliar in idea, style and genre. All in all, it is an easy read that gets to the point in helping the beginner or the pro sci-fi reader become aware and identify which books would fit best on their library shelves.

This book is a huge help to SF novice readers who are otherwise well read. Mr Andrews' introduction is wise and whip smart and links the reviewed books to their historical and literary contexts as well their cultural cousins in music and film. I've been encouraged to explore books I would not have known about,or known where to start with, many thanks for that. I cannot comment on how Sf purists recieve this book but I strongly recommend it to the general reader.

Is science fiction in decline? It is seemingly popular, but from a cinematic standpoint, most of it is only borderline SF, using the lasers, spaceships and aliens common to the genre while ignoring the truly speculative nature that makes science fiction unique. In the literary world, science fiction is getting more and more crowded out by its lightweight cousin, fantasy (which has its own problems). Like the ancient Roman Empire, the seeming strength of the genre hides the cracks that threaten to diminish it.

But even if there was never another good science fiction novel published, it's comforting to know there's plenty of good, older material to choose from. 100 Must-Read Science Fiction Novels doesn't necessarily choose the best - either in terms of books or authors - but does provide a list of what the authors figure are the essential works in the field.

This is, of course, a subjective list, but some of the ones you'd figure on being on such a list can be found: Frankenstein, The Foundation Trilogy, Neuromancer, The Time Machine, War of the Worlds and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Sometimes, it is not the true classics that are picked, however: under Robert Heinlein, we get Orphans in the Sky and Starship Troopers, but Stranger in a Strange Land and the Moon is a Harsh Mistress may have been better choices (in my opinion).

Many big authors, both past and present, are not featured, including John Varley, Keith Laumer, Clifford Simak, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Robert Sawyer, and Alastair Reynolds. Other, more obscure authors have been chosen instead, such as Angela Carter or Ward Moore. UK authors are probably overrepresented (then again, the authors are British).

As said before, this is subjective, and you'll agree with some choices and disagree with others. What's more important, however, is that the writing is decent and informative and it gives you a chance to explore the wonderful universe of science fiction.

This book is half the size of a paperback. a 2 hour read. If you want a better reference book on this subject, go with Pringle's "Science Fiction: The 100 Best Novels." Much better.

An extremely disappointing collection of half-baked, superficial, and sometimes offensive opinions about 100 works (mostly, but not entirely novels) by various authors. The works are organized alphabetically by author, with one or two books by each author discussed for about a page, and then a "Read on" list of unannotated recommendations. The book itself, by the way, is small, pocket-sized, and of excellent production quality.

The foreword starts out unpromisingly when Christopher Priest argues that he would have left out anything by Isaac Asimov because Asimov's prose style was not good enough. This brings to mind nothing so much as the adage "the good is the enemy of the best". Asimov had a carefully honed, extremely clear, classical style that nobody has been able to replicate, leastwise Priest. Moreover, Asimov has a logical, deep, and scientifically-minded orientation infusing his books. That Priest is contemptuous of a clear, logical, and well-loved author like Asimov says a lot more about Priest than about Asimov.

The editors' puerility continues in the main entry on Asimov, where his only novels that merit discussion are "I, Robot" and "Foundation". The discussion of "I, Robot" is not that bad, although it fails to capture adequately either (1) the deep influence the collection had not only on the genre but also on numerous working computer scientists and engineers; or (2) the cleverness and subtlety of the logical puzzles Asimov discusses.

The discussion of "Foundation", by contrast, is absurd. It begins by claiming Hari Seldon is a "professor of psychohistory" when everyone knows he is a professor of mathematics. And nowhere in the novel does it state that Seldon established two foundations on the "galaxy's edge" as the entry incorrectly states.

The childish insults about Asimov continue when the editors argue that Foundation lacks "subtlety of characterization" or "carefully nuanced plotting."

How can Foundation, which has some of the best plotting of the whole science fiction genre, be said to lack "carefully nuanced plotting"? It's such a ridiculous claim to anyone who has read the first trilogy carefully that it's not even worthy of refutation. Only sloppy readers like these editors, who manage to make two major fact errors in a paragraph summary about the book, could conceive of this incredibly wonderful novel as not having "careful...plotting." These guys don't read closely, they can't write, so they resort to snideness.

The editors do not even mention "End of Eternity", probably the greatest time travel novel ever written and one of the most intricately plotted besides; nor do they mention "The Gods Themselves," which was very influential; nor do they mention Asimov's remarkable short story or editing output.

Everyone knows that simplistic readers have denigrated Asimov's classical style, because by definition Asimov's style is so limpid that it is imperceptible to any reader not specifically looking for it. Yet it is characterized by balance and clarity. Consider the elegant introduction of general Bel Riose from Foundation and Empire:

-----
But Bel Riose was young and energetic - energetic enough to be sent as near the end of the universe as possible by an unemotional and calculating court - and curious besides. Strange and improbable tales fancifully repeated by hundreds and murkily known to thousands intrigued the last faculty; the possibility of a military venture engaged the other two.
-----

There just are not that many (if any) science fiction authors who write in such a clear, balanced, but elegant and classical way.

Similarly, the discussion of William Gibson's Neuromancer is ridiculously misleading. The great thing about Gibson's prose in that novel was his shimmering, glittering, diamond-like style. Thousands of readers have committed to memory the opening of Neuromancer, especially its amazing first sentence (whose import only becomes clear much later) "The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel." Yet the authors dismiss his style in a sentence, without any specific indication of how mesmerizing it is.

In fact, the editors seem more enamored of Richard Morgan's perfectly adequate but derivative style in Altered Carbon. That the editors cannot see that Gibson's Neuromancer towers above Morgan's prose (not that Morgan's prose is bad, it is just not as subtle as Gibson's) is distressing.

The preference for Morgan over Gibson, and especially and even more ludicrously for Morgan over Asimov, shows how incredibly shallow the editors are in their judgments. Morgan seems more stylish than Asimov because his style is easier to perceive; it's Asimov's art to conceal his.

Moreover, Asimov is able to thrill with only logic; Morgan relies on the usual tools of the less supernaturally gifted - lots of gore, violence and profanity. (Sorry to pick on Morgan here, who is, after all, one of the better science fiction authors around and whose "Altered Carbon" deserves to be included - but his works are not in the stylistic class of Gibson or of Asimov, much less superior to both, as the editors suggest).

There are a lot of other extremely disappointing choices, choices that to me point to more than aesthetic disagreement but that go to a superficiality of thought and of careless reading.

Egan's "Permutation City" is rightly mentioned - but not "Diaspora", which is the culmination of some of the ideas in it. And Egan's short stories, which is where he really shines - not even mentioned. Oh, I have to quote the final mixed metaphor of the Egan section: "Permutation City provides a rollercoaster [sic] ride through notions that stretch the mind in all directions." The notion that editors who write about roller coasters through notions stretching minds can consider themselves qualified to opine on the stylistic merits of Asimov and Gibson is just shocking.

In fact, in the "Read on" section for Egan, instead of mentioning Egan's own superb "Diaspora", the editors cite an obscure novel whose primary reason for being recommended seems to be that it's written by one of the editors!

Reading through this collection is infuriating. The editors just do not seem to understood or to have read closely most of the canon. George Turner's "Brain Child" - not mentioned. Nor is George Turner at all.

Oh, get this: in the Phillip Dick section, there are entries on "Ubik" and "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" - but nothing on "The Man in the High Castle"! "The Man in the High Castle", probably Dick's most famous novel, and far better (and better known) than "Electric Sheep" - not mentioned in the entry for Dick. Not even in the "Read on" section, although several other Dick novels are at least mentioned. How can a 4-page entry on Dick not mention "The Man in the High Castle"? It's just laughable - what is going with these guys? Why are even reading science fiction?

The Herbert entry again glosses over one of the best things about Dune, its prose, instead discussing solely its plot. And it does not mention Herbert's excellent "The Dosadi Experiment," which omission, although unfortunate, is probably understandable in the context of editors who omit "The Man in the High Castle" and "The End of Eternity."

The Card entry is so preposterous and offensive that I won't even discuss it (the editors spend most of the time making some weird and tasteless joke) except to say that "Ender's Shadow" is not mentioned in the "Read on" section. The Keyes entry on "Flowers for Algernon" does not mention the very important novel "Brain Wave" (in fact, Poul Anderson is not even in the book) or Children of the Atom (ok, Children of the Atom is not that good, although "In Hiding" was).

In some cases the editors include collections, not novels, notably for Harlan Ellison. But if collections are included, then obviously "Stories of Your Life" should be included, since that Ted Chiang collection is probably the best single-author story collection in the genre; as well as Egan's colossal "Axiomatic". Both "Axiomatic" and "Stories of Your Life" are much better and more of a "must read" than the Ellison collection, although certainly the Ellison collection is well worth reading.

I will not adduce more examples, although I could. I think this collection highlights so much of what is wrong with science fiction and indeed with fiction writing generally.

The superficial reading. The underestimation of people like Chiang and Egan and Asimov who care deeply about logic. The lack of attention to prose style, or confusing an idiosyncratic prose style with a great prose style. The infatuation with violence and gore.

I guess I could sum up all that is wrong with this simply by noting that the collection is full of pointless references to movies. In entries like the Morgan entry, and more subtly by the choice of the Dick novels to include lesser novels that happen to have made into great movies, I get the sense the editors mostly care about movies, and are reading science fiction novels as if they were screenplays. Maybe this collection should be titled "100 Must-Read Science Fiction Screenplays."