A UK publisher, Orion Publishing Group, has been producing a run of SF novels called “SF Masterworks”. The list can be found here.
I’ve seen one or two “how do you make yourself well read” lists on here before, is this list a list of decent books? Most of the science fiction books I’ve read have been by Philip K Dick, Arthur C Clarke and Peter Hamilton. Are the rest of the books on the list worth checking out?
It looks fine to me. There’a a few oddballs (Olaf Stapleton is a classic author, but the prose is a bit turgid by today’s standard) and the list is crammed full of Dick, but it looks like they’re all worth checking out (at least from the library).
Certainly. When I came across the list I found that for the majority of the books I had either read them, heard of them, or read other books by the same author. I’m sort of working my way through the list slowly in no particular order and in general they are a pretty good sampling of quality SF through the years. Some of them will make you go ‘wow’ and some of them will make you go 
depending on your affinity for the author but in general each book is recognised as a classic by a significant segment of the SF-reading population. In particular some of the older ones from the fifties and sixties are staggeringly forward-thinking for their day. If you’ve read The City and The Stars you’ll know what I mean.
It seems like a pretty good selection, with people from several different types represented.
There’s an awful lot of Philip K. Dick. And there’s no Jules Verne! (even though they have Wells). I’d also have tossed in some acerbic short 1950s SF, like William Tenn, Robert Sheckley, Fredric Brown, or someone else (they’ve got Matheson, but long works only)
And there’s no Heinlein? Any good list of essential Sf has to have Heinlein.
Of course, this isn’t a definitive list per se – it’s a list of what they publish. That might explain the lapses.
Ahh – missed The Moon is a Harsh Mistress down in the hardcovers.
Still. One Heinlein and all those PK Dicks seems — unbalanced. (I’m not a huige Philip K. Dick fan, I admit.)
I looked up the list as I’d seen the Masterworks cover primarily through reading some Philip K Dick books, it does feature an awful lot of his works in reflection.
Looking through the list I realise I’ve read a few more than I thought, the first two on the list, “Forever War” and “I am Legend” then “Sirens of Titan” as well as all the Dick.
I wondered if perhaps I had just struck upon the only good ones on the list. There are only two more Dick books to read for me so I wanted to read something else and didn’t know where to look really. I got a bit tired of Clarke’s stories (despite having a dozen or so novels and short story collections on my shelves :o )
I’m no fan of Heinlein. So this list is good. However I’d add the Riverworld series by Philip Jose Farmer. But the big omission from the list is Jules Verne! I cannot believe it. And if you want to be a little elastic in the definitions, stretching towards early sci-fi and ‘exploration of humanity’ themes go Frankenstein (by Mary Shelley).
Too much Dick. Should replace The Fifth Head of Cerberus with one of Wolfe’s less opaque works like The Book of The New Sun.
Great to see a list that includes Walter Tevis. Better known for The Hustler and The Color of Money he was a superb writer who turned out two often forgotten SF classics - The Man Who Fell To Earth and Mockingbird. He also wrote the best novel I have read about chess = Queen’s Gambit.
No Asimov on the list? I hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
Well, the list is biased toward people who could actually write and create believable characters, so that might explain the omissions.
Overall, it’s a fair list of mostly older works. Some good stuff has been published recently as well, you know. (Their definition of “classic” is stretchable, it seems.) And there’s only five books by women out of the 80, which is probably lower than it should be.
Like any list of “best” books it’s full of idiosyncrasies and weird choices. But you’d get a good education into the field by reading those books.
What’s with the paperback vs. hardcover distinction? Aren’t they all available in paperback by now?
IMHO, authors notably absent from the list are:
[ul]
[li]Isaac Asimov[/li][li]William Gibson[/li][li]Orson Scott Card[/li][li]Stanislaw Lem[/li][/ul]
I don’t see any “this doesn’t belong on the list” entries, except some authors have too many entries.
The list was created by a publisher, so my guess is that these are the ones for which they could get reprint rights. I suspect a more unbiased person would create a different list. (I’d include more Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke.)
Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke are probably still in print by other publishers in the UK. Their omission has nothing to do with their quality, just the problems of getting the rights to their books. That will skew against authors whose books are in print.
It is a very good list, given that restraint, if only for including authors like Cordwainer Smith, Alfred Bester, Theodore Sturgeon, Daniel Keyes, Keith Roberts, and Hal Clement, and for books like The Day of the Triffids, A Canticle for Lebowitz, Babel-17, Stand on Zanzibar, Pavanne, Roderick, The Dancers at the End of Time (I assume that this is a collection of Moorcock’s Dancers novels), *Dying Inside, Mission of Gravity, Tau Zero, Camp Concentration, 334, * and Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang.
The only major omission I see is Edgar Pangborn. Hopefully, they will eventually reprint Davy.
Douglas Adams’ stuff was meant to be funny, but that doesn’t make it any less steeped in the genre. Any list of SF Greats without at least the first book in his Hitchhiker series is incomplete, IMO.
As Cal said the list is light on Heinlein, it is heavy on Wells but no Verne. No **Asimov ** is bad but plenty of Clark at least. E.E. Doc Smith is another bad oversight. Ask Qadgop the Mercotan about that one.
It should have at least one AE van Vogt, L. Sprague de Camp, Anthony Burgess and Harlan Ellison.
C.S. Lewis should possibly be there.
There should be a collection of Short stories written or edited by John W. Campbell.
Heinlein, Clark and Asimov where the Big three of the Golden Age of Science Fiction and John W. Campbell is the man who really push Sci-Fi towards the main stream. I think he is the most famous editor.
I think it should go lighter on Dick & Wells to make room for others.
It is a Poor list overall.
Jim
You know of course that this phrase will never catch on.
I am in no way versed in classic SF. And, I’m a huge Dick fan (there’s just no way to make that sound right). Even I think there’s too much Dick (again…). I, too, am surprised at the lack of Heinlein, though I’ve only read two books from him (I just hear so much about him): Starship Troopers (awesome, awesome book) and Stranger in a Strange Land (did not like the last one).
It’s arguable whether anything Lewis wrote qualifies as science fiction (as opposed to science fantasy). If he belongs there, then certainly Ray Bradbury does too, and maybe some other works by writers who aren’t exactly thought of as SF writers, like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World or George Orwell’s 1984.
And, as some posters have already noted, to be well-read in SF you have to read shorter works as well as novels, which is what the list focuses on.
Lewis is borderline, the list could live without him. Brave New World and 1984 should be on the list even though I am not a large fan of these Classics.
There really should be about 20 books of short stories. The short story was so important to early & Classic Science fiction.
You really need to pick up Moon is a Harsh Mistress, it is one of his classics and loved even by non-Heinlein fans. **Puppet Masters ** and **A Door into Summer ** are two more greats.
Jim