Comments on Best Science Fiction - page 3
Comments Showing 101-150 of 158 (158 new)
If you vote for a book that is already on the list you will not create a duplicate. Never fear. The system just adds your vote to the ones a book already received and provides you feedback to that effect regarding what place on the list the book occupies.
Dan wrote: "If you vote for a book that is already on the list you will not create a duplicate. Never fear. The system just adds your vote to the ones a book already received and provides you feedback to that ..."Thanks!
It may create a duplicate depending on edition added, but that's why there's a "combine duplicates" option on the edit page for Librarians. (Only an issue when the "combine duplicates" bug hits a list. Luckily this is not an issue with this list - not yet, anyway.)
Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (Miss Peregrine's Peculiar Children, #1) by Ransom Riggs is not sci-fi fi
Mysticzzzgmail.com wrote: "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (Miss Peregrine's Peculiar Children, #1) by Ransom Riggs is not sci-fi fi"
Deleting Lord of the Rings and Storm Front were no-brainers as these are clearly fantasy only. I researched this delete request because I'm not familiar with the book and find that it gets classified as science fiction, at least in part, by some because it contains time travel.
Anything by Tolkien is fantasy. Swords? No guns?Star Wars is Sci Fi Fantasy. Swords? Magic? Spaceships?
Star Trek is Scifi. Spaceships? Rayguns"
Nr 39 in the list is Animal Farm by George Orwell. Though I love this book, it is absolutely not SF. I would classify it as a moral fable, maybe even fantasy, but definitely not SF. If anybody disagrees, I would love to hear why he/she considers it SF.
The only explanation I've ever heard for considering Animal Farm SF is that it won a Hugo.
Josse wrote: "Nr 39 in the list is Animal Farm by George Orwell. Though I love this book, it is absolutely not SF. I would classify it as a moral fable, maybe even fantasy, but definitely not SF. ..."Personally, I wouldn't say The Handmaid's Tale and A Clockwork Orange, to name just two titles that come to mind, are science fiction either, yet they are on the list... Then again, maybe it's just me 🙂 (but I guess it's like Erin said, it is getting ridiculous).
I would consider those dystopian fiction which in my view is a subgenre of SF. In clockwork orange there is even some science involved in the reeducation program (not that I would argue that science is a necessary component in SF). Handmaids tale I can't remember well enough, but the big difference is that both those books are in the realms of the possible, but speculative which make them SF. Animal farm is not.Dan, that's not a very good argument is it?
@JosseYou're (a lot) younger than I am 😃 In my 'school days' (that does sound very old 😕) science fiction had to be just that; science fiction 🙂 A dystopia was a completely different genre. But I guess that has changed now.
I agree with everything you wrote about all the books you wrote about, Josse. However, the expression, "You can't fight city hall" arises whenever I think of Animal Farm. Even though not science fiction, it is speculative fiction, which is defined thusly (in part) in Wikipedia: "This includes, but is not limited to, science fiction, fantasy, superhero fiction, horror, utopian and dystopian fiction, fairytale fantasy, supernatural fiction as well as combinations thereof (e.g. science fantasy)." Animal Farm, among other genres, can clearly be seen as a modern fairytale fantasy, thus speculative fiction, which I imagine is the justification for giving it a Hugo.That brings up the question of whether Animal Farm should be on a list that purports itself to consist of Science Fiction works. You and I would say 'no'. So many other people say 'yes' that it has risen to position 39 (at the time of this writing). As a GR librarian I am not supposed to impose my view against a distinctly majority-held view to the contrary no matter how dimly I regard that assessment. So I decided to leave it alone. I'm not the only librarian or final authority on this list by any means though. I'm just offering one person's rationale.
I take your point on not fighting city hall :D.However, in that quote don't you say that SF is a sub-genre of speculative fiction and not the other way around? Does it not then follow that a book can be speculative fiction while not being Science fiction?
Defining SF remains an insoluble "problem" and I take the view of Delany who said that it really can't be defined, merely described. That does not mean that we cannot have fun debating about it though :).
This is how I would describe the genre: SF is about the realms of the possible, however unlikely, which does differ from our world in a significant way. It establishes rules, but then cannot lightly break those rules (as the fantasy genre can with the aid of magic, or the superhero genre which in my view is not SF at all but wish fulfillment escapism).
It uses the techniques of displacement in time and/or space (I consider The Forever War by Joe Haldeman one of the finest examples of this) and decentralization of the human point of view (usually in the form of robots or aliens), to say something about the human condition, or to offer social commentary.
Now you could probably say, "but hold on, does animal farm not do exactly that" and yes you would be right, however, one essential point that makes a book SF or not is in my view at least a semblance of realism. The above mentioned techniques have existed for a long time before Shelly wrote Frankenstein, but what was so different about that book and what made some people start measuring time in the SF genre as BF-AF (you can probably figure out what that means :D), was that she had a rationalization for the animation of Frankensteins monster, namely the natural sciences. Orwell did not.
Damn, I went on for a bit there :P.
@ booklovinglady: I'm not sure that has to do with difference in schoolyear, SF has never been considered a serious genre in schools (idiots!), and where they do talk about it, 1984 or fahrenheit 451 for instance, they don't actually call it SF.
How am I the only person to vote for the 2016 Arthur Clarke award winning novel Children of Time?! An amazing book you should all read ASAP!
Steve wrote: "How am I the only person to vote for the 2016 Arthur Clarke award winning novel Children of Time?! An amazing book you should all read ASAP!"I really want to read it but I think I have a slight case of arachnophobia. I started but didn't want to go on past the second chapter.
Peter wrote: "I really want to read it but I think I have a slight case of arachnophobia. I started but didn't want to go on past the second chapter."Yeah, that could be problematic... The evolutionary tale of that species and the evolution of their society is amazing though!
Removed the spam "Reversed Order Existence" at #40, voted on by the author's 172 sockpuppet accounts.
Great to see this list still going and growing. I think the most fascinating comments aren't about particular books, but rather what is and isn't sci-fi. Also, I don't have much time for authors who flog a single idea book after book until it dies a non-profitable commercial death. Orson Scott Card's first three Ender books are a very good example of books that can be read and enjoyed as stand-alones, without having read the entire series.On the other hand, Asimov's Foundation trilogy is the exception, where it helps a lot to read the books in sequence, but they are so good, who cares? I only knocked ten of the top 100 books off my list. Of course, that number grew with each passing 100. The reason this list is so strong is because people who care about sci-fi come here. Well done to all of you (except the spammers).
Is it some weird sense of humour, or why "No Logo" by Naomi Klein is on this list?
Félix wrote: "Dune and Ender’s Game are overrated!!"Actually, they are rated #1 and #2. No two works of SF are more famous, widely known, or loved.
Jouni wrote: "Is it some weird sense of humour, or why "No Logo" by Naomi Klein is on this list?"
Dystopian fiction is considered a branch of SF. https://www.wired.com/2014/12/geeks-g...
He personally created that position should be occupied by works that are better and have aged well such as Foundation by Isaac Asimov or Hyperion Cantos by Dan Simmons
Neither of the two works are "more famous, widely known, or loved" by more people. That's why they are not #1 or #2. It is purely your opinion that they have "aged well," or are "better," whatever that means. I have yet to see a film based on either, not that if one gets made that will prove anything. I will concede that the two works you mention are more trendy currently among those with literary pretensions.
Dan wrote: "Neither of the two works are "more famous, widely known, or loved" by more people. That's why they are not #1 or #2. It is purely your opinion that they have "aged well," or are "better," whatever ..."So are all the lists by majority vote, I do not know what was waiting.
Félix wrote: So are all the lists by majority vote, I do not know what was waiting.."Yes. You can vote for a book as "good science fiction." When you do, it moves the book up in the standings by your one vote. So, if two books have 900 votes, but you only like one of them and only vote for one, you give that book 901 votes. It moves in front of the other 900 vote book.
Not too long ago, Ender's Game was the #1 book by a very comfortable margin. Joiners since a few years ago have voted for Dune, but not Ender's Game. Thus Ender's Game has moved down to #2.
Not everyone, perhaps no one, will agree what books should be at the top because we all have different, individual tastes. I have read 10 of the current top 20 books, for example, 15 of the top 30, and 20 of the top 40. Funny how that works out. Anyway, of the top 40, only five get five stars from me: Ender's Game, Foundation, Frankenstein, Flower's for Algernon, and Old Man's War. One even gets just one star: Neuromancer, a random mess of a novel I can't understand at all. Most of the other 14 get 4 stars from me, a few earning only 3. I imagine that spread is fairly typical of most voters on this list. I only vote favorably on the 5-star books and most of the 4s.
Wouldn't Belgarath the Sorcerer by David and Leigh Eddings be fantasy?
I would consider An Ember in the Ashes by Sabaa Tahir Fantasy. It is sitting at #1045 right now.
Because An Ember in the Ashes is considered a dystopia, some people classify it as science fiction.Rachel wrote: "Wouldn't Belgarath the Sorcerer by David and Leigh Eddings be fantasy?"
I agree. But the seven people who voted for it to be on this list don't. To say nothing of the 23 who classified the book as SF. Ignorance messes up many a democratic process. At least the books at the very top are true SF.
Dan wrote: "Because An Ember in the Ashes is considered a dystopia, some people classify it as science fiction.I didn't realize that it was considered a dystopian...
Some other books that struck me as not science fiction:#1998 Graceling by Kristing Cashore
#2093 Holes by Louis Sachar
#2159 The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
#2232 Artemis Fowl by Eoin Coifer
#2304 Glass Houses by Rachel Caine
Few if any librarians will remove books from a list like this. I have done so in the past rarely, reluctantly, and only when I felt the reason for doing so was indisputably, overwhelmingly correct. I now feel I probably made an unwise decision in removing the book. The reason is because if a librarian removes books from a list, someone disputes the removal of a particular one, any one, a GoodReads staff member could then become involved in arbitrating the difference of opinion. Some GoodReads staff members may have no idea what science fiction is and decide the person removing the book from the list overstepped. The consequence might then be removal of the librarian's privileges, all of them, including the right to remove books from lists.
Why risk it?
I agree that a list of science fiction books that included only science fiction books would be a lot more useful than a list of books that includes pretty much anything, especially science fiction lists that include lots of fantasy. I have been accused of having a restrictive view of what should be considered science fiction. I dispute this and could point to examples where other's views are much more restrictive than mine, meaning they would eliminate many more books than I would. The point is the definition of a title's genre often at some point becomes a matter of opinion, especially books near the edge of definitional boundaries.
There are so many books at the edge of fantasy and science fiction, for example. I would sharply disagree with anyone wanting to remove Andre Norton's Witch World, for being fantasy rather than SF. Someone else might disagree with me wanting to remove Zelazny's Amber series, which I consider pure fantasy, but someone else thinks is also SF.
I'd say that democracy will weed out books on a list like this and keep non-SF books at the low end of the spectrum, but I've found that's not the case in practice. If a book is popular fantasy, like Belgarath the Sorcerer, seven, and then soon more people, who are either too dumb to know it's not SF, or don't care whether it is or isn't, are going to vote for it just because they like it. And that's how and why a fantasy book rises on the SF list.
I hope everyone understands now why this SF list includes purely fantasy books and the reasons nothing can or will be done about it. Cheers.
Dan wrote: "Few if any librarians will remove books from a list like this. ...."As a fellow librarian, I totally agree.
Michael wrote: "Hi! If you see any books that you do not consider to be science fiction, please mention them in the comments! We'll take a look, maybe debate a bit, and make corrections. If it's a hard decision, w..."At the Mountains of Madness concerns Antarctic explorers who stumble on the ruins of an Alien occupation site. Their contents are eldritch (this IS Lovecraft, after all!) but of a culture and technology beyond men's ken, not necessarily supernatural. I'd put it on the side of science fiction, if not entirely without aspects of horror...
Can't you do something about the foundation trilogy or the The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, etc? It's frustrating
I think Stephen King - The Stand should be removed, it contains clear supernatural elements. Also, I don't see how Animal Farm could be considered SciFi.
On The Stand, here is how users classify it:Horror 9,173 users
Fiction 5,774 users
Fantasy 2,695 users
Science Fiction 1,663 users
Apocalyptic > Post Apocalyptic 1,221 users
Thriller 1,088 users
Science Fiction > Dystopia 921 users
Science Fiction > Apocalyptic 523 users
That's a lot of users who disagree with you on whether The Stand is SF or not. If a librarian removes The Stand, that's a couple thousand potential users who can rightly report the librarian. Bye bye librarian privileges. So that's a non-starter.
The question of how Animal Farm can be considered SF arises frequently, almost every time someone learns it is I imagine. It was awarded a Hugo. Also, SF has a political system, dystopia, type sub-genre. 1984 is in it, Ayn Rand's Anthem, Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. Some people place Animal Farm in this same sub-genre. I agree that's really reaching and why would you want to? But it happens. Some also get there through fantasy, considering talking animals to be that. Whatever.
The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka is a wonderful book, but it's not SF.
It can't be deleted. It's science fiction. But I agree with you. It doesn't belong in the top 100. Every book in the top 100 has at least 25,000 ratings; the majority have over 100,000. It's a shame a few kids and author friends are voting this one up. All we can do is ignore it.EDIT: Apparently, another librarian disagreed. The book my above post was written about was deleted from the list by someone else. I wouldn't have done it. That's a good way to lose librarian privileges. That said, the top 100 looks legit to me now.
Dragonriders of Pern should be included, any of the books in the series. Spaceship crashes. Thread falls from another planet, nearly destroying their civilization. Genetic manipulation, through science, creates the dragons. The Fallout video game series has ants that breath fire. Who says that is fantasy? Certain dinosaurs fly, so being a dragon should not be a problem. Or, is it just the idea of dragons that tend to make some believe, this is fantasy. I have heard this argument before. I always wonder if the details are clear enough. I thought it was stated clearly in the books. I have seen theses books in libraries also placed in the fantasy section. Someone riding a dragon, must be fantasy.
Tony wrote: "Dragonriders of Pern should be included, any of the books in the series. Spaceship crashes. Thread falls from another planet, nearly destroying their civilization. Genetic manipulation, through sci..."Dan wrote: "It can't be deleted. It's science fiction. But I agree with you. It doesn't belong in the top 100. Every book in the top 100 has at least 25,000 ratings; the majority have over 100,000. It's a sham..."
McCaffrey herself put forward the same argument as Tony's, but most regard the books as fantasy because they are marketed that way and they read like fantasy. If you look at Dragonflight, for example, it is shelved as fantasy by 6,496 readers, as sci-fi by only 1,337. To me, that is a pretty good indication of what the vast majority of people who have read it think.
You are correct it reads like fantasy. It is soft science fiction, barely containing anything that one can point at and say "thats science fiction". There are plenty of hybrid novels combining science fiction and fantasy and where they get classified really doesn't matter. I read another series by Julian May, that was about telepaths being persecuted, the first book of the series was titled, "The Many Colored Land". The telepaths travel back in time and at some point meet ancient man, and they became the wizards of old. But they were not wizards, magic was never in the book. It was also classified by my library as fantasy.
However these books are perceived, it seems marketing is the winner. Put a dragon on the cover, it will draw a fantasy crowd. Strickly sci-fi readers would look at the cover and its not for them
I think this list is great, its unfortunate that I disagree. In the long run it won't matter if its read as fantasy or sci-fi.
Why does a book have to be in only one genre? In logic we call that a false dichotomy. Dragonflight is a perfect example of a book that is both SF and fantasy. GoodReads members agree. 6,497 members classified it fantasy; 1,338 classified it SF. Many writers have written books that are simultaneously in both genres. Take Andre Norton's early novel Daybreak 2250 A.D. (Star Man's Son). I'd be hard pressed to name a book that wasn't to my way of thinking more purely SF. And sure enough, 54 GR members classified it as such. But 23 also classified it as fantasy. Go figure!
Anyway, this list is titled "Best Science Fiction." Any work that can reasonably be classified as SF qualifies as SF, no matter what else it can also be classified. The fact that 1,338 GR members classified Dragonflight as SF is firm proof to my mind that it indeed is.
Animal Farm by George Orwell is not science fiction.
It won a Hugo award. "The Hugo is widely considered the premier award in science fiction."
i have a few that you guys might want to add. the first one is the "wayfarers" series. the first book is called "the long way to a small angry planet". it is by becky chambers.
and the second one is "annihalation" by jeff vandermeer
I usually don't mind searching a few pages to see if my favorites are on there, but looking through 24 pages for a single title is cumbersome.