Do you believe the novelization of a movie could be one of the 100 best science fiction books without the input of the movie? 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?
Or was the novelization included because the creator of the list thought the movie was cool? Then, after reading the novelization, thought that was cool too. I believe this is the case here.
Since this a list of best books, a movie has no place on it.
I noticed this too, and I think including the Upanishads is an odd (to say the least) and unfortunate choice.
While the definition of “science fiction” is obviously fluid (although IMHO actually not as fluid as the definition of many other genres) I don’t that any useful definiton of the term can embrace the Religious Scriptures from any major religion. (The inane scribblings of L. Ron Hubbard may barely qualify as science fiction–albeit crappy science fiction–but I don’t consider the vile and criminal Scientologists a major religion by any sensible definition of the word).
While I want to give the list creator the benefit of the doubt, I would expect Hindus to be offended to see their scriptures in the company of 20th century fiction.
Putting that issue to one side, I think this is an interesing, thought provoking list. FTR I’ve read about 20 of the books on the list, and I’m going to check out some of the other books mentioned.
Funny, it was an entirely different book’s presence that delighted me :).
35/100, I think, although some of them I couldn’t quite remember whether I’d read.
Notable absences: Perdido Street Station: IMO the best science fiction to come along in years. This book’s absence is inexcusable. The Dispossessed, a far better novel than The Lathe of Heaven. (Strange that I’d have opinions on Le Guin, huh?)
That book about dancing in space by Spider Robinson. Certainly influential. Invasion of the Bodysnatchers. Fun book by a fun writer, and has entered the common culture more than most of the others. We (I think that’s the title), the Russian precursor to 1984.
Personally, I think Starship Troopers is the worst book I’ve ever read, tied possibly with The Stars Like Dust, but only possibly. Doesn’t belong up there.
The fact of the matter is that neither the movie or book could have been created without the input of either Arthur C. Clarke or Stanley Kubrick. Despite this, it’s completely irrelevant.
For the sake of the argument, let’s assume the book was entirely based on the movie, there is absolutely no reason why the book could not stand by itself as a significant accomplishment. However, as anyone who’s done a shred of research can attest to, this is not the case. In actuality, the movie is a shortened version of the book, lacking several plot points created by the book’s author, Arthur C. Clarke.
Good thing he didn’t list the movie, but the book instead. Until you interview the author himself and determine his stance, I’m unable to view your opinion as relevant due to its dependency upon assumptions you made.
I’ve read 36-37 of them. I can’t remember which of the Lensman books I’ve read.
I don’t think this is the best such list, though that is sadly informed more by my taste than anything else. It’s sad to see it miss such authors as Cordwainer Smith and Fritz Lieber.
Okay, so I’ve only read five. I’m thrilled to see Marion Zimmer Bradley on the list, but disappointed that A Wrinkle in Time isn’t on there. And The Handmaid’s Tale. (Maybe that’s just my college feminist speaking, though.)
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?
Y’know, I read that and thought “OH!! So that’s where he got it.”
Yeah, Starship Troopers wasn’t his best. It’s been mentioned that there seems to be some correlation with books that have been made into movies. That’s certainly the case with this one and Puppet Masters. Not to mention Solaris; Stanislaw Lem wrote some great stuff, much better than the one book that ended up becoming a George Clooney movie.
That’s the fun thing about lists like this…you get to see a whole different world out there. For me, Starship Troopers was the book that made me want to be a teacher. And I see a number of people speaking well of books I dismiss as being woefully bad or “Pretentious Literary Shite.”
LHoD, the Spider & Jeanne Robinson book you are thinking of is Stardance.
I read a lot of SF when I was in my teens/early-20s, but have slowed down since then. I’m reasonably sure that I’ve read 51 of the list, and might have read another 13, so average and round down and say 57/100.
I was glad to see a lot of newer (i.e., post “Golden Age”) books on the list, including The Doomsday Book, Hyperion and Blood Music.
By this account, books written about Buffy the Vampire Slayer could be considered some of the great works of horror. :dubious:
But wait… after looking over lots of four and five star Amazon reviews… maybe I should bite my tongue.
If this were Great Debates, maybe, just maybe, you could call out me for not interviewing the author, but in the Café opinions are just fine. I happen to think the inclusion of the novelization was due mostly to the coattails of the movie.
For me, 2001 will always be a movie, whither or not a famous science fiction writer did a novelization\collaboration, more detailed or less detailed, then the film.
Aside from the quality of the books (which are pretty bad, IMO), why not?
Just for the record, informed opinions are just fine in Cafe Society. Uninformed opinions aren’t much welcomed in any forum on the boards.
Why can’t it be both? The fact that there’s a more famous movie doesn’t say anything one way or the other about the quality of the book. I can understand (and even agree, to a certain extent) arguing the inclusion of 2001 because there are better novels out there, but to object simply because there’s also a popular movie seems incredibly arbitrary.
But it’s not a good book, and were it not that the list maker was reaching for a way to include an influential movie (or possibly to include Clarke), the book would not have been on the list. Clarke’s finest stuff has always been his short stories.
And I forgot to mention earlier that I am also one of those who has read Dhalgren more than once. Every word.
Yeah, but neither is Dhalgren, and that’s on the list.
Wherefore this assumption that the author was trying to include an influential sf movie, anyway? If that were the case, where are the Star Wars novels? The Alien novelization? Hell, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? isn’t on there, and I’d say that Blade Runner was far more influential (although not necessarily better) than 2001.
I’m not arguing wether or not the book should be included on the list: I’d’ve gone with City and the Stars myself, if I were writing it. I’m just saying that it’s entirely possible that the guy who wrote that list just really likes that book.
I’m wondering if this list refers to the Novel or the short story. I found the Short story to have more emotional impact. But then again, I read that one first, and once you know what happens to charlie its just pretty damn sad
Yeah, I’ve heard that too. Pretty funny, since the account of it had the aliens riding elephants and firing nuclear weapons from them. (Saw this is in a program on the History Channel, of all things!)
I’ve read about 35 or so of the books, and I disagree with some of the titles on there and their ranking. I think that the older works should be higher on the list, not necessarily because they’re better than the later works, but because they’ve had more influence not only on sci-fi, but culture as a whole. I’m not sure about the PKD that’s on there, either. They’re all good books, but given that Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is what served as the basis for Bladerunner (a hugely influential film), I’m surprised that it’s not there. I also think that A Scanner Darkly should be on there instead of some of his other works.
Why no Skylark of Space by E. E. “Doc” Smith? That work was just as influential as Gray Lensman, if not more so. Yeah, Gray’s better written, so what? If you’re making a list of important rock and roll songs, do you dump Elvis’s It’s Alright Momma in favor of Jailhouse Rock because JR was recorded better? (Elvis fans, don’t get in a snit, I’m just going for something that’s easy for everyone to identify with.)
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.
