that's a great list, for the most part. My only qualms is that The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy needs to be in the top 10... and that The Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis needs to be on the list, period.

other than that, I loved The Foundation Trillogy and the Dune series, so I won't complain.

peace.

Why must SF always be linked to Fantasy? It's a gratuitous question, of course, and the answer traces an obvious path back to the pulp magazines of 1920 through 1950. But for hard-core SF readers like myself, Le Guin and Tolkien hold no interest.

Brad

why? because most science fiction is fantasy.

very few science fiction books actually use real science (as you are well aware) so that would, essentially categorize them as futuristic fantasy.

peace.

Not much "sci" in the Tolkien "fi," but equally scholarly work from linguistics, mythology, and even, arguably, philosophy - about as low tech as it gets, though. I think there is one explosion in the trilogy.

The only kind of science fiction I ever cared for was the so-called New Wave stuff of the late 60s and early 70s, most of which is not science fiction by any accepted standard. Silverberg's Dying Inside and The Book of Skulls, Disch's Camp Concentration and 334, LeGuin's The Dispossessed, and The Lathe of Heaven, and, most notably, Delany's Dhalgren are among the best books I've ever read. Everything else I tried as a kid--Asimov, Heinlein--was just laughable.

I think Thomas Disch is right that if you're reading science fiction when you're 15, you're bright and precocious. If you're reading it when you're 30, you're emotionally damaged.

Sounds like a challenge.

I read the Foundation trillogy (and the other 2 books) at age 13 and the Dune books at 15...

eek.

peace.

I started out reading sci-fi in my late teens by getting hooked on the Foundation series. (They did get wierd near the end.) Tolkien's fine, but I'll probably only read LoTR once and watch the movies for years to come. I may have read Neuromancer too late (2000?) and can't appreciate its significance. It felt dated--as will his current Pattern Recognition. What I remember of Stranger in a Strange Land were the orgies. I loved Ender's Game with the jaw-dropping plot twist--which I never talk to anyone about until they've read it. I haven't read Dune, but I think I could easily get submerged in that world.

So what are you if you're still reading s-f and over fifty, I wonder?

Not surprisingly, I find the list a fairly conservative one, while the age range repped in it - from children's lit like Potter and Earthsea to much more adult fare like Dhalgren - is confusing. Some of the choices are just plain puzzling. (Why select the whole Lord of the Rings trilogy and only one of Michael Moorcock's Elric books - and where are Moorcock's Cornelius Chronicles?) If you wanted to get a decent overview of s-f and fantasy from the twentieth century, I suppose it's a good place to start. But any list that'll include Vonnegut and Stephenson and omit Thomas Pynchon is suffering from fanboy shortsightedness . . .

I've read 27 out of those 50 (six out of the top ten) Since I read quite a few of them after the age of 30, I guess that makes me emotionally damaged. Maybe that explains why I prefer prog-rock to indie?

Of course there are a few omissions, and some dubious inclusions - No Iain Banks, for starters. But I have yet to see a single top 50 list of anything that's free from personal tastes and generational bias. 'Great' is always going to be subjective quality. The best thing these lists do is promote discussion.

As for Asimov and Heinlein being dated, I find them dated too. SF probably dates badly, more so that other genres; past SF always tells you more about the hopes and fears of the generation in which it was written that it tells you about the future!

I didn't say that Asimov and Heinlein were dated. I said they were lousy writers who should have done something more useful like dig ditches or work at Dunkin' Donuts.

William Faulkner once defined literature as anything that compellingly portrays the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself. Most science fiction is about the conflicts of the Gorbatrams of Delta 5 with the Klandestine Klingons of the Fifth Galactic Quadrant. Who freakin' cares.

One could just as easily say the genre known as 'literature' consists of books by college professors writing about their own divorces. Of course, that's a ridiculous sweeping generalisation, but so is yours. I know that an awful lot of SF is formulaic drivel (I don't care for David Eddings or Star Trek sharecrops either) But surely Sturgeon's Law applies to mainstream literature as well.

I can't see the point of insulting those that share different tastes from yours.

Just havin' fun here, pal. And I'll have you know I LIVE to insult those with different tastes than mine. It's one thing about myself that I really like.

I'm suprised not to see any discussion of The Mists of Avalon. That is really a terrible book. Sure the premise is clever and interesting but the writing is horrible, repetitive and boring. I couldn't finish it which is rare.

Also, I was a very big Heinlein fan at 15 and have read nearly everything he's written. So I'm glad to see him on the list, but the books they picked are not ones I would have picked. Also, most of his books I have not gone back and re-read. The few that I have read as an adult, like Stranger in a Strange land were awful. I never realized that someone could be a right wing, eugenic sympathizer, hippie sex freak all at the same time. Still, Tunnel in the Sky and Citizen of the Galaxy were just plain old fun stories.

Not one I've read. I'm surprised to see Terry Brook's "Sword of Shannana" there; I thought that was an early example of the formulaic LOTR retreads that flood bookstore shelves. Still, I haven't actually read it, so I'm not really fit to judge.

And why is "The Colour of Magic" there rather than any one of Terry Pratchett's later Diskworld books, most of which are far better than tCoM?

I have at least read "The Lord of the Rings", "I am Legend" and "Interview with the vampire" . However, there are some novels in this list which are definitely on my "to read" list!

Did a tally myself and found I'd read 37 of the books in the list (tried reading The Silmarrillion, but gave up on it). I'm not sure what I should make of that fact, though. . .

I would pick "The Hobbit" above "Silarillion" if I was to go with two Tolkiens. Plus no Olaf Stapleton or Iain M. Banks, No "We" by Zamiatin, I'd go with "The Dispossessed" by LaGuin, "Have Space Suit, Will Travel" by Heinlein, any title with Tom Corbett or Tom Swift, and a collection by HP Lovecraft.

heck, i'd pick The Hobbit over the Lord of the Rings.

peace.

From an emotionally damaged 45 year old. There are some ommissions from the top 50 or at least some books and authors that should have gotten mentioned.

1. The Hobbit instead of the The Silmarilion
2. Anne Stewarts's Merlin books (Hollow Hillis, Crystal Cave and The Last Enchantment) should be in the top ten.
3. Andre Norton deservers a spot for the Witch World.
4. What? No C.J. Cherryth? Let me nominate the Chanur series and the Morgain series for places on the list.
5. What about the whole Thieves's World series? That was an original and ground breaking set of books.
6. Forget Foundation. I think Aasimov's best work and contribution to sci fi were his robot books (I Robot and The Rest of the Robots) as his laws of robotics are often used and quoted by other authors.

Maybe we should have separate lists for sci-fi and fantasy? We might almost have enough space to list all the books and authors who deserver mention.

Trouble with separating SF and Fantasy is that the two genres overlap (What would you classify Gene Wolfe's "New Sun" as?)

Agree with you about Asimov; I sometimes wonder why Foundation is his best known work when it's not his best (I think The End of Eternity has his best writing). Maybe it's the because the commercial success of the flatulent 80s sequels?

Some other "missing" works:

*Jack Vance: Durdane series
*C.J. Cherryh: Her Merchanter Universe books
*Robert Silverberg:Majipoor series among many,many others

I agree that Jack Vance, Durdane series should be mentioned as well.

Niven and Pournelle's "The Mote in God's Eye" was one of my favorites during my college years. I liked it more than Ringworld, which I read in my 30s.

Signed
Emotionally Damaged

I read science fiction in leap decades - got one coming up!

With the exception of the Le Guin I don't think a single one of the top ten will stand the test of time. Not even the Dick, which is unevenly written. In contrast, several of the remaining top 30 are authentic classics: Man in High Castle, most of Deathbird Stories, More than Human, Rogue Moon, etc. At least as far as 20th century English language sf goes.

I do wish there was a Disch, Ballard and Silverberg in there as well.

I do think it would help to have some seperation between sf and fantasy, even if it is a little fuzzy, just because they are quite different traditions and it would have cleared the field a bit.

Perhaps seperating out the juvenile from the adult would have helped as well (Heinlein's juveniles are classic whereas his adult novels, although cultishly fashionable, are terrible and will date as badly as The Klansman).

I would note for you all that one of the masters of science fantasy, H. G. Wells, distinguished bewtween the two kinds of works (with Tolkien's work, we have three kinds) by pointing out that the science fantasy was just a standared novel with a little razzmatazz deigned to look like science. Consider his works "War of the Worlds" or the "Island of Dr. Moreau." Sceince fiction works with issues truly related to science. Consider Asimov's "I, Robot." The key point he made in 1934 was that science should be an issue.

J.K. Rowlings works do not belong on this list at all. They are basically fantasy novels dealing with witchcraft and the like. IMHO, Tolkien's works are fantasy. Great fantasy, but not science fantasy. Similarly, utopias and dystopias do not really belong. They belong in their very own category.

Pehaps it would be healthy to admit that folks love fantasy tales - tales which are very differnt from science fiction.