Comments on Best Science Fiction & Fantasy Books - page 2

Meh. It's all trivial anyway.
But I think Man In The High Castle is Sci-Fi,but only because of the extent. In that book, the real world DOES exist, but the story takes place in an alternate universe.
Haven't read Scanner yet, but I'm fairly sure that's not Sci-Fi, since the hallucinations are drug-induced.
And usully when Sc-Fi has creatures/aliens/whatever, it has to do with a scientific plot. I mean, what SETI does is considered science, I think, so why shouldn't aliens be thrown in there?
I don't know.
It's all pointless guesswork that varies.
But Yiddish Policeman's Union is definitely not Science Fiction, of that I am sure.

Yes, thanks for that. I also thought of Ian banks and Ian M Banks. He feels he has to distinguish between his main stream and Sc-Fi. For him Feersum Endjinn is Sci-Fi but The Bridge is (just) fiction. I'd like his thoughts/reasoning on that one.

Whoops - the Scots will Kill me. I meant, of course, Iain Banks and Iain M Banks.

I wouldn't know. I haven't gotten to him yet. Is he must read? He writes the Culture novels, right?
I always get him and the other guy named Ian confused.

The idea of alternate worlds/history is (usually) based on a particular theory of quantum physics; the writers are speculating about might happen/have happened if such a theory were to be true. So I'm comfortable with viewing such works as science fiction --unless the posited alternate world is one in which magic operates. But as some have noted, the whole idea of these genre labels can be somewhat subjective, and a label doesn't make us enjoy a book any more or less! They're just loose categories we use to help us organize books in our minds --and different people may organize them differently.

So, Werner, where would you put Glory Road?

I haven't read it, and am not familiar with it, so I wouldn't presume to characterize it! (I know, that sounds like a cop-out. :-)) Basically, if a book takes place in a world alternate to this one, but which (usually) operates according to natural law like ours does, I would call it science fiction. (If it's in a world where magic operates, I'd call it a fantasy.) But that's just my unsupported opinion. :-)

By that rule, Glory Road may be fantasy.
Possibly.
I don't remember magic, but I remember the world being quite barbaric.

I'm sorry, I just can't vote! Theres not enough books on here that I've read, or read recently, and the ones I have read are all equally excellent.

That's okay, Mukesh; you can "vote" more than once --for as many books as you want to, in fact-- so you can vote for all of the equally excellent books you've read! :-) You can also add books that you feel are deserving, if they're not on here already; that's how these lists grow.

I think this discussion illustrates why I prefer "Speculative Fiction" as the term that covers all the bases without excluding any on the list.

But I read them all (well, not so much the horror stuff!). And if the list serves any purpose, it is to point me to books that are similar to ones I've enjoyed in the past. The librarians have the concept well developed in the "Reads Like..." lists.

Has anyone read "The Billion-year Spree: The True History of Science Fiction " by Brian W. Aldiss, himself a fine SF writer? It's brilliant!

The Dune series will always be THE sci-fi classics for me.

Hi,
I wrote a new vampire book called,"Kismet---the fate of one man's destiny"
it's at lulu.com and on here.

Tanstaafl wrote: "I'm fairly sure The Terror would be classified as historical fantasy. The creature, is, as far as I know, not scientific, so it would be fantasy.

A lot of people put alternate history with science..."

Tanstaafl wrote: "I'm fairly sure The Terror would be classified as historical fantasy. The creature, is, as far as I know, not scientific, so it would be fantasy.

A lot of people put alternate history with science..."

Would you knock off The Difference Engine and The Man in the High Castle--both are alternative history. For that matter, what about The End of Eternity which is about changing history through time travel after doing impact studies ?

Tanstaafl wrote: "I'm fairly sure The Terror would be classified as historical fantasy. The creature, is, as far as I know, not scientific, so it would be fantasy.

A lot of people put alternate history with science..."

The creature is the book is a survival from another time, like the coelocanth....the Esquimos (Inuit?) knew of it, but the fact that Europeans considered it part of their "mythology" is part of the fun of it. By this measure, Eaters of the Dead/Crichton could be classed as science fiction. Helluva difference between a "real" Yeti/Sasquatch whose survival is explained and a unicorn ridden by Queen Maab. Finally, why worry about the obvious gaffs in the list ?

Madeleine Le'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time! The best of the three books I know of for introducing children to science fiction (which to me has always included fantasy fiction as well). The other two are The Hobbit and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.Add a comment

I agree with Thom that any novel or story that posits the survival of a prehistoric life form into present times would be science fiction. Doyle's The Lost World would be a perfect example.

Gaffes in the list may not always be obvious to beginning readers looking for reading suggestions in a particular genre; and the idea behind lists is for the books on them to share some sort of common feature or characteristic that's defined by the list description. So I can understand where people are coming from when they want the listed books here to be SF books, not something else. But I do think that within the scope of the list description (which here explicitly excludes fantasy), we should try to be as inclusive as possible --not as exclusive as possible.

Ender's Game? Really? *facepalm*

I can't wait for Ender's Game to be bumped down the list.

Additionally, Lord of the Flies is NOT sf.

From what I've heard about Lord of the Flies, I'd have to agree with Wealhtheow. But I haven't read it myself, so I'm reluctant to use my Goodreads librarian authority to delete it from the list.

Maybe whoever added it would like to explain his/her reasoning? I'm guessing that it's because the premise refers to a future war (maybe nuclear), and one could --by a stretch-- interpret it as dealing with the speculative social science of how people cope with that situation? But I could be wrong! :-)

I took the plunge and removed it. I personally don't see how it would be considered science fiction. In libraries or bookstores it would be catalogued under fiction or YA fiction or classics.

If anyone needs a sci fi book to read, I would reccomend The Hunger Games. Its my fav book, and is soooooo exciting! But for all the lists it is down near the bottom :( so read, and vote peeps!

Where is the City Of Ember and Margaret Peterson Haddixs books? And The Hunger Games isnt on here.
Atleast The Giver is in the top ten.

Well, Adam, this is your chance to add any books that aren't on here, but should be!

Science Fiction stories do not need to have anything to do with science. The genre-label is a misnomer, which is why the term Speculative Fiction is better.

I'm a little dismayed that this list contains so few books and stories by Theodore Sturgeon any where in the top 200.

I was going to comment and lament that Ender's Game is #1, but then I realized that I already have.

No offense meant but there are real differences between the genres: sci fi and fantasy and post apocalyptic. The lines sometimes blur, but they are there. There are a lot of books on this list that I love even more than the ones I voted for, but I can't in good faith where they are not sci fi.

Courtney, no offense taken --half the fun of Goodreads is discussing different opinions! I basically agree with you about SF and fantasy, but personally I would classify post-apocalyptic literature as a branch of science fiction. That's because the latter deals with speculation into areas of social science that are unexplored in real life (because the situation has never happened -- and hopefully won't!). The same would apply to Utopian and dystopian fiction. Arguably, the social sciences can and should be grist for the SF writer's mill as much as the natural sciences.

Post apocalyptic is defintetly sci fi.

Courtney wrote: "No offense meant but there are real differences between the genres: sci fi and fantasy and post apocalyptic. The lines sometimes blur, but they are there. There are a lot of books on this list th..."

Well, but it depends on who you believe, Courtney. Sam Moskowitz, winner of the Pilgrim Award from the S. F. Research Assoc., believed that ALL science fiction was a TYPE of fantasy, but one which used science and technology to get where it's going. Fred Pohl liked to say that SF was the all-embracing genre of which "realistic" fiction was a tiny sub-set, anchored in history or the present.
Seems there are as many definitions as there are Big Names to describe them.
I want to ask: does the apocalypse in your definition of the genre have to be a) nuclear, b) pestilential, c) millenial, d) something else/all and other, etc. ?

Mickythin wrote: "Tanstaafl wrote: "I'm fairly sure The Terror would be classified as historical fantasy. The creature, is, as far as I know, not scientific, so it would be fantasy.

A lot of people put alternate hi..."

Well, but the creature has an Inuit name and a "history" insofar as prehistory people can be said to have a "history". OK, it has an oral history.

I like these people, my three favorite books are in the top three slots!

Ursinus05 wrote: "Since when is Lord of the Flies science fiction?"

It's set during the third world war apparently.

Featherheart wrote: "Ursinus05 wrote: "Since when is Lord of the Flies science fiction?"

It's set during the third world war apparently."

Not World War II ?

i really dont know why the hunger games is 103. it was amazing

NOTHING here from Harlan Ellison!? Come on. At LEAST 'Again Dangerous Visions' for it's prose.

And I agree about 'The Terror'. Just finished it and I'd also call it historical fantasy.

However, I'd also recommend 'Rant' by Chuck Palhaniuk... a very well disguised sci-fi book.

Science fiction is fiction that has science (real, theoretical) as essential to the story. Doesn't matter if it's "imaginary" science, i.e. some alternate universe where the laws in this universe don't play the same.
Fantasy is fiction that has as its essential component completely imagination-borne elements - fantastical and strange worlds, creatures, powers, etc.
The line blurs often in Sci-Fi and Fantasy, but there are obviously books that solely fall into one or the other. This list seems to have a few purely fantasy books on it, but it's subjective.

That topic will always breed disagreement.

How does Frankenstein make this list? I recently tried to re-read this and it was even worse than I remembered. So many better s-f novels were written in the last hundred and fifty years. There have probably been 100 better written in the last 10.

Well, C-Tim, lists like this are expressions of opinion by a lot of different people, so the presence of a book on the list doesn't mean that everybody likes it --just that somebody does. :-) Personally, I like Frankenstein (if "like" is a reaction you can have to tragedy) but I can understand why a lot of people don't; I have more tolerance for 19th- century diction than many readers do, for one thing.

I didn't care for this as a novel. It was (I grant) very original at the time, but it so smacks of the teen age girl who wrote it being....well teen age.

It's a matter of taste and while I do like many 19th century books (the "prime example" here might be Dracula which has suffered at the hands of movie makers and adapters almost since it appeared. If I could I think I'd burn every copy of the movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" as it only barley resembles the book).

Anyway the Frankenstein story just left me cold, the creature learning and being educated while watching a family through a wall crack, on and on. So, like all the books on this list whether something is "actually" science fiction and the quality of whatever work it is will always pretty much be a matter of opinion and taste I suppose. Look at some of the other lists. They spark real anger, the books on the "best ever" fiction lists are the ones found on the "worst ever" fiction lists. Just humans being human.

I am a woman who absolutely loved-LOVED!- all of the Ender's books. I read books by what the stories are-and how they read, not the author. If we are going to change this to a sci-fi/fantasy list then Piers Anthony needs to be added. The Xanth books are great for being fantasy with humor included. But then again, I am often found to be odd. Feel free to disagree with me-for I don't care if you like me or not...as long as you allow me to have my own opinion, I will allow you to have yours.

I do disagree with some of what you said....doesn't mean I don't like you. We might totally disagree and get along fine, some of my best arguments have been with friends...or at least friendly acquaintances.

Now what do I disagree with? Can't stand the Xanth books. It's a matter of taste...but I tried to read them a few times. No good.

As for the Ender books, I liked the first on very well, but haven't cared for any of the rest. Ender's Shadow is still on my shelves waiting, maybe it will be different, I'll know when (or of course "if") I get to it.

You know so much depends on where you are at when you read a book - I just hit a book sale ($1/bag) and picked up a lot of my favorite Sc-Fi from the 70s. And a lot of it was just hack work. I thought Mack Reynolds was great - I was mistaken. Those guys were not terrible with the science but the fiction proves Disch's comment that the Golden Age of Science Fiction is 15. (Everyone who love science fiction should read Tom Disch's "The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of")

Stephy wrote: ""American Gods" by Neil Gaiman does not deserve to be on this or any list of the best anything. I read it, and if I could vote for worst book ever written, from this selection, He would have my vot..."



Not a fan of dry British humor????

Science fiction is a sub-set of fantasy (all sf is fantasy not all fantasy is sf). Where you want to draw the line is up to you. But alternate history, time travel, FTL travel, stories set in the future, or on other planets are all generally considered to be sf. If it's on a distant planet with dragons, wizards, and demons it's probably fantasy. But if the dragons and demons are explained by the evolution of life on that planet and the wizards use a type of magic which follows the rules of physics and chemistry it's probably sf.

Hi C-tim, that is a discussion that I have seen go on for a long, long time....

David, I like some "dry British humor" and I like some Neil Gaiman. And, while I wouldn't go so far as Stephy in her dislike for American Gods...I don't care for that particular book either.

Shane wrote: "Way too much fantasy on this list. It's easy to pick out. Is there a separate list? I only voted for sci-fi books even though some of the fantasy listed is my favorite (Perdido Street Station and F..."

The Pern books are SciFi!!!!!!! They are not fantasy. Come on, I knew that when I was a teen ager. What about them are Fantasy?????

Matt wrote: "Jeff wrote: "I really tried to just vote for what was really Science Fiction and NOT Fantasy, even though I like a lot of books that blur the line I have in my mind!"

I think the line is "it's f..."

Have to agree!