# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Steve\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Steve\_Wright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_Wright)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2004, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/81 "2004-08-19T12:22:45Z")
78/100. I need to get out a lot more. Either that, or stay in a lot more, and work towards that perfect score. Plenty on that list to disagree with, I think … the _Upanishads_ being, to my mind, the most obvious place to say “WTF???” Several of the others are, well, books I’ve read, mostly painless, but not ones which would figure in a “Top 100” list I was composing. (Also, **Biffy** , if your wife happens to write to Delany again, perhaps she could mention a reader in England who’s read _Dhalgren_ and would like those hours of his life back, please? Damn book was about as much fun as groin surgery.) ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/82 "2004-08-19T14:08:37Z")
> [@Wendell Wagner](#): > > 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. This would be nice, since most of the other works by Lem have been directly translated in English by Michael Kandel. Kandel is a book editor by trade, but has also written several terrific sf novels. He has the skills and dexterity to do a proper translation. But every edition of _Solaris_ I can find on Amazon still has the old Kilmartin/Cox translation. And Kandel himself has [lamented](http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/112902/ent_solaris.shtml) the lack of a new translation of _Solaris_. > [@](#): > > “You’d be amazed to read ‘Solaris’ in the original (if you knew Polish),” wrote translator Michael Kandel in an e-mail message. Kandel, also a novelist and editor, has translated a number of Lem’s books from Polish, though not “Solaris.” “The scenes of the alien landscape are wonderful, symphonic.” > > “It’s probably a mix of publishing economics and copyright problems that keeps a new translation of ‘Solaris’ from being done,” Kandel wrote. Admittedly, that was in 2002. Do you have any details on a later translation? ---
**Author:** ![Banger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@Banger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banger)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2004, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/83 "2004-08-19T14:33:19Z")
I have read 22 so far, plus I’m working on a 23rd (_Red Mars_) and plan to start _Ringworld_ soon. ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2004, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/84 "2004-08-19T14:45:43Z")
> [@Wendell Wagner](#): > > 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. I’d be interested to know where this is available. The official Lem web site states [answers](http://www.cyberiad.info/english/faq/faq.htm#soltrans) that no such translation exists: > [@](#): > > \*\*Will Solaris ever be translated directly into English? \*\* > > Solaris indeed has never been translated directly into English and Mr Lem is dissatisfied with the current translation. Whether this state of affairs will change remains an open question. The following quote from a letter from the Managing Director of the Publishing House Faber and Faber serves as an explanation: “With regard to Solaris, I am afraid that we would not currently be willing either to publish a new translation or to license one.” The web site could be out of date, but I was unable to find it at Amazon. So if it exists, please let me know where to get it. > [@Voyager](#): > > 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…. So what do you want to call it then? To_MA_to or tomat_O_? The collaboration between author and movie director runs deep here. Very deep. That fact that the planet changed is irrelevant. The two versions were created in tandem. The relivent definiation of [Novelization](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=novelization)from [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com): To write a novel based on: novelize a popular movie. Now the question is: Was the book 2001 based on the script? ---
**Author:** ![curious\_kell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@curious\_kell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curious_kell)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2004, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/85 "2004-08-19T15:02:23Z")
> [@Pyrrhonist](#): > > If someone were to only read the novelization and never watch the movie, would he still come to the conclusion that the “book” was one of the 100 best? > … > Since this a list of best _books_, a movie has no place on it. Have you read this book? It’s great! Thus, since this is a list of best books, and since 2001 is, in my opinion, one of the bests books (regardless of whether or not you saw the movie), it definitely has a place on this list. In fact, it makes it even more unique because of the interesting way it was written alongside the production of the movie & influenced by the big K, and thus a must read for all. Whether or not the movie is cool is a separate issue. ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2004, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/86 "2004-08-19T15:13:21Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > 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. You could throw in Margaret Atwood’s _Oryx and Crake_ into the mix as well, but mainstream publishers wouldn’t want to market her as SF, even if it is. On the other side of the knife, Neal Stpehenson’s most recent books, \* Cryptonomicon\* and \* The Baroque Cycle\* could only loosely be called SF, if at all. But sure enough, they’re called SF. ---
**Author:** ![Banger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@Banger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banger)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/87 "2004-08-19T15:22:29Z")
Stephenson discusses whether the appropriate description for his most recent novels is “science fiction” in the August Locus Magazine. In fact, an excerpt of it appears on the [cover](http://www.locusmag.com/2004/Issues/08cover523big.gif). ---
**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, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/88 "2004-08-19T16:51:04Z")
> [@Pyrrhonist](#): > > So what do you want to call it then? To_MA_to or tomat_O_? The collaboration between author and movie director runs deep here. Very deep. That fact that the planet changed is irrelevant. The two versions were created in tandem. > The relivent definiation of [Novelization](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=novelization)from [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com): > > To write a novel based on: novelize a popular movie. > > Now the question is: Was the book 2001 based on the script? There are a number of books that describe the creation of 2001, including Clarke’s **Lost Worlds of 2001** and his biography. I’ll look it up, but IIRC Clarke and Kubrick discussed it, Clarke wrote chapters, and they revised. I’m not sure when the actual script was written (Clarke has credit) but the final script was clearly written after the novel - which is the point of my bringing up Saturn. The Star Wars novelization has some parts cut from the movie, but is clearly based on the actual script. 2001 wasn’t. Not that script means much in the traditional sense for the movie. The first words aren’t spoken until half an hour in, after the Pan Am docking scene. The novel is very verbal, the movie very visual. I’m not sure I’d trust that definition anyhow - I’ve seen novelizations of some very **unpopular** movies. 🙂 ---
**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, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/89 "2004-08-19T17:00:35Z")
> [@Pyrrhonist](#): > > You could throw in Margaret Atwood’s _Oryx and Crake_ into the mix as well, but mainstream publishers wouldn’t want to market her as SF, even if it is. > > On the other side of the knife, Neal Stpehenson’s most recent books, \* Cryptonomicon\* and \* The Baroque Cycle\* could only loosely be called SF, if at all. But sure enough, they’re called SF. The line between science fiction and fantasy has never been very clear, sf is a convenient abbreviation because you can make the “f” fantasy if you wish. As for Atwood, that’s marketing, and the poor reputation of sf as a genre - which was what Amis meant. Amis, if you don’t know him, was a mainstream novelist who happened to be an sf fan, and who wrote an early book on sf, **New Maps of Hell** , and edited a very good series of anthologies. I haven’t read a fanzine in years, but the desire of certain writers not to be considered as sf writers used to be a big issue. Vonnegut, who started as an sf writer (publishing in F&SF) utterly rejected the field when he hit it big. Not that long ago sf books never made the best seller lists - I think one of the Dune sequels was the first. When **Childhood’s End** was reviewed on the front page of the New York Times Book Review it was earth-shattering. I haven’t read Atwood, but a lot of mainstream writers sf is abyssmal. But it is still sf by any reasonable definition. ---
**Author:** ![bouv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@bouv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bouv)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2004, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/90 "2004-08-19T22:34:29Z")
Pity me, for I have only read five of the books on the list… ☹ I meant to read a bunch, though, just have never gotten around to it. And for those who are wondering why _Frankenstein_ is on the list, think about this: it was basically the first science fiction book published. Without it, a good portion of those books might not exist. ---
**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 20, 2004, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/91 "2004-08-20T04:35:19Z")
I’m sorry. I could have sworn that _Solaris_ was now available in a direct Polish-to-English translation. You’re right that the only translation is Polish-to-French-to-English. ---
**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 20, 2004, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/92 "2004-08-20T04:47:34Z")
> [@Pyrrhonist](#): > > You could throw in Margaret Atwood’s _Oryx and Crake_ into the mix as well, but mainstream publishers wouldn’t want to market her as SF, even if it is. > > On the other side of the knife, Neal Stpehenson’s most recent books, \* Cryptonomicon\* and \* The Baroque Cycle\* could only loosely be called SF, if at all. But sure enough, they’re called SF. Yeah, but… who cares what shelf Barnes & Noble puts the book on? That’s just marketing; it doesn’t mean anything. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/93 "2004-08-20T16:24:18Z")
I’ve read approximately 20 on the list (well, 19, and I couldn’t finish _The Martian Chronicles_ or _Stranger in a Strange Land_, so I’m counting them for a half each). I’d say that the most serious omission is _A Wrinkle in Time_, though I could understand not classing that as science fiction (though it’s certainly more SF than _Alice in Wonderland_!). I’m also puzzled by their choice of Heinleins: Certainly, _Stranger_ is influential enough to belong on the list, and _Starship Troopers_ and _The Puppet Masters_ weren’t bad. But _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ is much better than _Puppet_, and there should probably be one of his juvies on there, as well. I’ve never read _Frankenstein_, but I’d say that its position as the first SF novel (though probably not the first SF literature) should be enough to secure it a place on the list. And as for _2001_, both the movie and the book are good, and neither is really completely based on the other. I’d say that the book can stand on its own merits quite comfortably. ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/94 "2004-08-21T01:39:44Z")
On my home from the office tonight, I stopped at a used book store and bought an old signet paperback edition of _2001_ for $.0.45. At that price, it was hard too resist. Maybe one day I’ll actually read it. Here is an approximate reproduction of the book’s cover: **2001 a space odyssey** A NOVEL BY **ATHUR C. CLARKE** BASED ON THE SCREENPLAY OF THE **MGM** FILM BY STANLEY KUBRICK and ARTHUR C. CLARKE [Indent] **2001 a space odyssey** is the history-making motion picture produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick, In Cinerama® [/indent] No wonder I was under the impression it was a novelization. I guess you can’t judge a book by its cover. ---
**Author:** ![Adoptamom\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Adoptamom\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Adoptamom_II)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/95 "2004-08-21T01:45:17Z")
Quick question - my son will be 13 this fall and loves science fiction. I’m not a fan and have always been unsure which books to buy him. Would this list be considered a good choice in helping him build his library? Are there any books that might be too mature that I should stay clear of until he’s older? He’s pretty mature for his age, and I’ve never really limited his reading except to rule out books with really raunchy love scenes. Thanks in advance! ---
**Author:** ![Shoeless](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shoeless/32/7099_2.png) [@Shoeless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shoeless)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/96 "2004-08-21T02:00:32Z")
No **John Varley** on the list? That’s just wrong… ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/97 "2004-08-21T17:30:10Z")
8 I’ve read for sure; two I’ve read part of then given up on(2001: A Space Odyssey/Fahrenheit 451); then there’s several I don’t know if I’ve read or not. I know the stories - Alice in Wonderland; 20,000 leagues; the time machine; war of the worlds- but I don’t know why I know them. Maybe I read them when I was young, or maybe I just know them because of the movies. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/98 "2004-08-21T17:56:03Z")
I’ve read 66 of them. Some _don’t_ belong on the list. **The Upanishads**? As others have already pointed out, religious texts don’t belong here. Historical importance shouldn’t put things on the list. **Frankenstein** is important, and it’s oo – it can stay on the list. **Ralph 124C41+** is historically important, and awful. It shouldn’t be here (no offense to Doper **ralph124C41** ) I like seeing Dewdney’s **Planiverse** here – great and underappreciated follow-up to Abbot’s **Flatland**. ---
**Author:** ![manx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@manx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manx)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/99 "2004-08-21T18:48:48Z")
I’ve read 26 of the boos, with another half dozen sitting on my bookshelf waiting to be read. Most of the SF that I read these days comes from Orion’s [SF Masterworks](http://www.sfsite.com/lists/orion01.htm) series: a projected hundred of te best SF books. It’s highly subjective of course, but it means I read books I otherwise wouldn’t, and I’ve yet to read anything I haven’t enjoyed. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167/100 "2004-08-21T19:52:05Z")
I’ve read 55 of the list. I’m sure that puts me very high on the Stanford Binet Nerd Scale. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/100-must-read-sci-fi-books/260167.md?page=6)