# 100 Must Read Sci-Fi Books **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 17, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167 "2004-08-17T01:05:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/61 "2004-08-18T01:24:32Z")
What? Only three **Heinlein** books? Where is **The Moon is a Harsh Mistress**? There should be at least two or three more Heinleins on that list. Other notable omissions: **The Mote in God’s Eye** **A Fire Upon the Deep** by Vernor Vinge ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/62 "2004-08-18T01:33:19Z")
And here I keep trying to read _A Fire Upon the Deep_ because of the, like, two or three good ideas in it, but I keep getting a headache for rolling my eyes too much at the wasted freaking potential. What a frustrating piece of crap! (So far, that is, I suppose.) Oh well, different strokes for different folks. I still stick by the idea that the _intent_ of the list was to say “these are some of the _best_ of the genre”, and in the process of making the list the author couldn’t help but semiapologetically put in some dutifully “important” books. Hell, _Ringworld_ is a great, fun example of the art and science of worldbuilding, but is it a _good book_? Er… no. No, it isn’t. It’s a good collection-of-ideas that once come up with, to display them Niven realized that there had to be a plot and characters and things. Oh well. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/63 "2004-08-18T01:33:34Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > You _did_ notice #1 on the list? 😃 Oops. I’ve even read it. More than once. Every word. OK, **Miller** , maybe he thought it was a good book, an influential book. But he’s got some awfully odd definition of influential then. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/64 "2004-08-18T01:37:01Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > And quite frankly, given some of the titles on the list that I’ve read, I’m not inspired to read the ones that I’ve never heard of, because if the compiler’s going to go for a number of books that I don’t think should be on there (even if the author should), I see no reason to put those books on top of my “to read” list. I agree in general, but the problem is that there is some gold among the dross there. I’m not inclined to go immediately read the 56 I haven’t because among what I have read is some junk. But I may be missing out on something, and with luck I’ll find it again someday on another list I trust more. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/65 "2004-08-18T01:52:10Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > OK, **Miller** , maybe he thought it was a good book, an influential book. But he’s got some awfully odd definition of influential then. Can’t argue with that. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/66 "2004-08-18T02:19:14Z")
The novel _2001_ was written simultaneously with the script for the movie with some inspiration from a short story Clarke had written called “The Sentinel”. Originally the plan was that the novel would be published as being by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick, but eventually they decided to publish it as being by just Clarke. It came out just before the movie opened. ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/67 "2004-08-18T02:47:52Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Just for the record, informed opinions are just fine in Cafe Society. Uninformed opinions aren’t much welcomed in any forum on the boards. The creator of the list already has other questionable choices. Normally, _Alice In Wonderland_ is thought of as either Fantasy or a Children’s book. Normally, the _Upanishads_ are thought of as sacred writings. Normally, _1984_ and \*A Clockwork Orange \* are thought of as mainstream literature. You won’t find them shelved with SF at Borders. Okay, the guy has a history of putting books on the SF list that wouldn’t normally go there. He has his reasons, but we don’t know them. We can only speculate. Normally, 2001 is thought of as a movie. If the list were the top 100 SF Films, of course it should be there, without a doubt. But #15 of the top 100 books? Odd, very, very damn odd that the novelization would make it that high. Sure, maybe the guy really did like the book and thinks it is that great; however, given the creator’s predilection for included other written genres on the list, having him include a film in the guise of a book as not completely irrational. > [@Miller](#): > > Aside from the quality of the books (which are pretty bad, IMO), why not? I would find it difficult to believe there are many readers of movie\TV noveliztions who don’t watch the source material. Could there be readers of Star Trek, Star Wars, or Buffy novels who don’t follow the TV show or movies? Sure, anything is possible. But aren’t the books mainly a written subsidiary to the shows? Maybe I’m just a literary purest and snob, but I think that lowers overall quality. Too truly enjoy the books fully, you have to watch the shows. That Clarke and Kubrick worked in collaboration during the filming and writing, I think, has been established. To what degree the novelization of _2001_ is solely subsidiary to the movie could be a matter of debate. Likewise, its independence from the stigma of tie-in is not wholly confirmed. ---
**Author:** ![NoCoolUserName](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5fc32e/32.png) [@NoCoolUserName](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoCoolUserName)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/68 "2004-08-18T05:24:43Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > It means he has been researching our culture for decades, searching for a weak point through which his thundering armada might swarm… > > (Do Mercotans swarm? Really, I would think that folks who can eat neutronium would tend to be loners.) 1. One does not have to assume the literal meaning of “swarm” as if they were bees or ants. One can use “swarm” in the metaphorical sense, the same way that “thundering” does not, I think, mean the sound that follows a lightning bolt. 2. It’s not clear that Mercotans eat neutronium. They can simply use their zymolosely polydactile tongues to erode it. 3. Since there is a Ms. Mercotan and at least 1 little Mercotan, one might be tempted to say there is already a swarm. Not that I would (since I have 7 kids and 2 former spouses/spice), but someone might. Nobody has anything to say about “Postman” being on the list? WTF? I haven’t read it–is it actually good? Did it influence anyone??? Note: if you find someone who can define what “zymosose” is/was/means, you can write that person off as a blowhard. If they define “zymolyase,” on the other hand, you’ve got a totally different discussion. I’d be willing to bet that QtM can define zymolyase without looking it up. My score: 75 out of 100–a guess because after you turn 50 your memory ain’t what it used to be and while I did finish Dhalgren I couldn’t get to the end of Solaris (maybe something is lost in translation). There are some books I’ve never heard of on the darned list–I guess I’ll be hitting the library soon. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/69 "2004-08-18T05:30:14Z")
> [@NoCoolUserName](#): > > Nobody has anything to say about “Postman” being on the list? WTF? I haven’t read it–is it actually good? Did it influence anyone??? David Brin is pretty well respected in the genre, although he’s not really to my personal taste. That said, _The Postman_ was an entertaining little book. I wouldn’t put it on my Top 100, but it’s significantly better than the crappy Costner movie. ---
**Author:** ![rjk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@rjk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjk)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/70 "2004-08-18T05:42:46Z")
I’ve read 50 or so for sure, and there are a few more I think I have, but so long ago I might be mistaken. One of these days I’ll have to get _Flowers For Algernon_ the novel, but I’ll bet it doesn’t have half the impact the original short does. I can still tear up just thinking of that last line. ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/71 "2004-08-18T11:29:00Z")
> [@NoCoolUserName](#): > > I couldn’t get to the end of Solaris (maybe something is lost in translation). Most books lose something in translation, but _Solaris_ was hit with a double whammy. The author wrote it in Polish, then it was translated into French by someone else, and then translated from the French translation into English. I read it, every word, but couldn’t shake that clunky feeling. To survive as well as it has must indicate it is one hell of a book in Polish. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/72 "2004-08-18T12:52:18Z")
27/100 good thing I’ve got several business trips coming up. Lots of time to read on airplanes. Is the numbering system he used on his list meant to be from best to worst? I have no indication that it is so. I tried to link to “find out more” but it was not working. Maybe it’s just a random list. I guess it’s kinda hard for him to list favorites and not give a mention to most influential in passing, seeing as his list was written to be published. > [@McKnittington](#): > > It’s always been my feeling that children’s books should be mentioned on “most influential” lists as that’s what most readers start reading. They definitely play a role in shaping later tastes. Why should children’s/YA fiction be left off? I thought **Starship Troopers** _was_ Young Adult? what? no **Star Trek** “novels”? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Miss\_Mapp](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miss_mapp/32/369_2.png) [@Miss\_Mapp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miss_Mapp)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/73 "2004-08-18T13:29:51Z")
I’ve read about 35 of these. A few years ago, some online friends and I put a list group together to read and discuss Hugo- and Nebula-winning novels. It fell apart after a few months, when people got behind in their reading or couldn’t locate some of the older books–and eventually died when two people got into an ugly personal fight–but it was a lot of fun while it lasted. It made me finally get around to reading classics like _Ringworld_, _Canticle for Lebowitz_, _Demolished Man_, and the Foundation trilogy. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/74 "2004-08-18T13:51:31Z")
What’s the deal with including **The Shadow of the Torturer** as opposed to the whole **Book of the New Sun** tetralogy? **Shadow** isn’t really a stand-alone work. And I have too read **Dhalgren** all the way through. Twice. Can’t say it was one of my favorite books, though. It _was_ my wife’s favorite book. She not only read it over and over again, she even communicated with Delany and sent him lists of errata which he incorporated into later editions. ---
**Author:** ![Algernon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@Algernon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algernon)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/75 "2004-08-18T13:52:21Z")
> [@rjk](#): > > One of these days I’ll have to get _Flowers For Algernon_ the novel, but I’ll bet it doesn’t have half the impact the original short does. I can still tear up just thinking of that last line. Seeing as how this is my namesake, I can’t resist. Here is the ending from the short story. > [@](#): > > Im taking a cuple of books along and even if I cant reed them Ill practise hard and maybe I wont forget every thing I lemed. If I try reel hard maybe Ill be a littel bit smarter than I was before the operashun. I got my rabits foot and my luky penny and maybe they will help me. > If you ever reed this Miss Kinnian dont be sorry for me Im glad I got a second chanse to be smart becaus I lerned a lot of things that I never even new were in this world and Im grateful that I saw it all for a littel bit. I dont know why Im dumb agen or what I did wrong maybe its becaus I dint try hard enuff. But if I try and practis very hard maybe Ill get a littl smarter and know what all the words are. I remember a littel bit how nice I had a feeling with the blue book that has the torn cover when I red it. Thats why fin gonna keep trying to get smart so I can have that feeling agen. Its a good feeling to know things and be smart. I wish I had it rite now if I did I would sit down and reed all the time. Anyway I bet fin the first dumb person in the world who ever found out something importent for sience. I remember I did somthing but I dont remember what. So I gess its like I did it for all the dumb pepul like me. > Good-by Miss Kinnian and Dr. Strauss. and evreybody. And P.S. please tell Dr Nemur not to be such a grouch when pepul laff at him and he woud have more frends. Its easy to make frends if you let pepul lafi at you. fin going to have lots of frends where I go. > P.P.S. Please if you get a chanse put some flowrs on Algernons grave in thebakyard… For those who have never read the short story, [Flowers For Algernon, by Daniel Keyes.](http://www.level4.org/archives/000110.html#more) (though the formating is a little strange, all quote marks appear as question marks). As a further hijack, for those who are interested, here is a great site: [Short Story Classics From The Masters Of The Genre](http://www.angeltowns.com/members/shortstories/index.html). ---
**Author:** ![Algernon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@Algernon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algernon)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/76 "2004-08-18T13:56:44Z")
> [@Miss Mapp](#): > > A few years ago, some online friends and I put a list group together to read and discuss Hugo- and Nebula-winning novels. Here is a site that lists [url=http://www.explorers.whyte.com/sf/nebhug.htm]The novels, novellas, and short stories that have won _both_ the Hugo and Nebula awards (with links to the complete list of winners). ---
**Author:** ![Algernon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@Algernon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algernon)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/77 "2004-08-18T13:57:53Z")
:smack: Fixed link: [The novels, novellas, and short stories that have won both the Hugo and Nebula awards](http://www.explorers.whyte.com/sf/nebhug.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2004, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/78 "2004-08-19T03:35:01Z")
Pyrrhonist writes: \> Most books lose something in translation, but Solaris was hit with a double \> whammy. The author wrote it in Polish, then it was translated into French by \> someone else, and then translated from the French translation into English. I \> read it, every word, but couldn’t shake that clunky feeling. To survive as well \> as it has must indicate it is one hell of a book in Polish. This isn’t true anymore. The first translation of the book was from Polish to French to English, but that’s no longer in print. The current translation is directly from Polish to English. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2004, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/79 "2004-08-19T06:01:42Z")
27/100 With several already on my to-read list. Though some of the books I _have read_ I thought were terrible and shouldn’t be on the list. _Omnivore_ wasn’t that good and most books by Piers Anthony aren’t either. _The Man Who Folded Himself_ was nearly unreadably bad. I just read _Brave New World_ and found it pretty bad. I slogged through it out of a sense of some sort of duty. Or something. _Ender’s Game_ really should be higher on the list. Oh, and I’ll never read anything by C. J. Cherryh again–she single-handedly ruined Thieves’ World, and I won’t waste any more of my time on her. It seems like the author of the list picked books by how “new” the central idea was, or how much of an impact they seem to have had. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2004, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/80 "2004-08-19T06:31:28Z")
> [@Pyrrhonist](#): > > Normally, _1984_ and \*A Clockwork Orange \* are thought of as mainstream literature. You won’t find them shelved with SF at Borders. > [/indent] To quote Kingsley Amis - SF’s no good, they say until we’re deaf. But this is good. Well then it’s not sf. \* Both are clearly science fiction, and influential too. > [@](#): > > Normally, 2001 is thought of as a movie. If the list were the top 100 SF Films, of course it should be there, without a doubt. But #15 of the top 100 books? Odd, very, very damn odd that the novelization would make it that high. > > I would find it difficult to believe there are many readers of movie\TV noveliztions who don’t watch the source material. > > That Clarke and Kubrick worked in collaboration during the filming and writing, I think, has been established. To what degree the novelization of _2001_ is solely subsidiary to the movie could be a matter of debate. Likewise, its independence from the stigma of tie-in is not wholly confirmed. It is not a novelization!!! (I almost wrote that in all caps.) If you read the book (which I think is quite good, by the way) you will notice that they go to Saturn, not Jupiter. That is because that is how the script was originally written, but Kubrick couldn’t get Saturn right. In fact the book was finished long before the movie, but it could not be released until the movie was, something that caused Clarke quite a few problems, since he was low on money at the time. He made out okay. 🙂 Especially with 2001, movies are not books! I was one of the few people who understood it when it first came out, but that was from having read all of Clarke (and reading the Life Magazine story.) Try it, and you will be shocked at the treatment of Heywood Floyd in the book - he is an entirely different person. I think Clarke made him the hero of 2010 to apologize for Kubrick’s treatment. I’ve read 77, and I think have all, and have 4 - 5 more I haven’t gotten around to yet. I don’t understand how he put **Brainwave** , which is okay but not great, before **The High Crusade**. I haven’t had the time or stomach to read **Dhalgren** yet, but I’d think I’d put **The Einstein Intersection** first. But the list in general is not too bad. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167.md?page=5)