# Help me build a classic science fiction reading list! **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 11, 2017, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986 "2017-07-11T06:23:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**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:** [July 11, 2017, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/21 "2017-07-11T16:14:32Z")
On the other hand, every edition of Asimov’s _I, Robot_ contains a note to that effect, with the result that a lot of readers of Asimov get introduced to Binder. It’s hard to say what the net effect is. EDIT: That was in response to **Exapno Mapcase**. ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/22 "2017-07-11T16:25:31Z")
I’ll add some links to the reading lists for the James Gunn Center’s SF Institute programs, which alternate each summer between covering novels and shorter fiction. [Novel reading list](http://www.sfcenter.ku.edu/SF-Institute/SF-Novels-Institute-syllabus.htm) [Short fiction reading list](http://www.sfcenter.ku.edu/SF-Institute/SF-Institute-syllabus-short-story.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/23 "2017-07-11T16:40:31Z")
> [@trapezoidal\_jellyfish](#): > > I am trying to put together a reading list of 15-20 classics of science fiction. Ah yes, that’s what makes it tough. As I predicted, you’ve been getting a lot of good suggestions, but way more than could fit on a list of 15-20 books. > [@](#): > > This was inspired by a conversation with someone who mentioned a book that he claimed was a science fiction classic, which I had never heard of. I’m tempted to put together a list of classic science fiction that it’s important to have _heard of_ but not necessarily to have read. For example, _Frankenstein_ is often acknowledged as the first real science fiction novel, and several of H. G. Wells’s novels are early SF classics. Everyone who has even a little interest of science fiction should know about these books, but I’m not sure I’d put them on a short list of 15-20 most important to actually read. > [@](#): > > I decided that if I’m going to consider myself a fan of science fiction, I should make sure I’ve read the books that are considered to be the most famous, influential, noteworthy, and/or genre-defining. The trouble is, the ones I can think of are mostly ones I’ve already read. I need help coming up with the rest of them! Please feel free to offer suggestions, or tell me that something I’ve listed here is actually pretty irrelevant to the genre. > … > Brave New World > 1984 > Farenheit 451 These are classics, but they’re more the kind of thing that people _outside_ the genre think of as science fiction. In particular, [Isaac Asimov has written a review about _1984_](http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm) claiming that [QUOTE=Isaac Asmov] Many people think of 1984 as a science fiction novel, but almost the only item about 1984 that would lead one to suppose this is the fact that it is purportedly laid in the future. Not so! … In short, if 1984 must be considered science fiction, then it is very bad science fiction. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > The Call of Cthulhu Lovecraft is probably more crucial to the genre of horror than science fiction > [@](#): > > Probably at least one book by Heinlein? > Something by Arthur C. Clarke? Definitely. My pick for one book by Heinlein (to actually read) is _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ (_Stranger in a Strange Land_ is arguably more important to _know about_), and for Clarke is _Childhood’s End_. You definitely need a Le Guin on your list—either _The Left Hand of Darkness_ or _The Dispossessed_ (which was my pick for [All Time Best Hugo Award Winner](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=818084)). And yes, you need a book of short stories. The one **E-DUB** linked to is the one I was going to recommend. ---
**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:** [July 11, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/24 "2017-07-11T16:53:48Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > On the other hand, every edition of Asimov’s _I, Robot_ contains a note to that effect, with the result that a lot of readers of Asimov get introduced to Binder. It’s hard to say what the net effect is. > > EDIT: That was in response to **Exapno Mapcase**. Today, maybe. The first edition definitely did not. The editions for the next several decades didn’t. _Adam Link - Robot_ wasn’t collected until 1965, with new printings in 1968 and 1974. A larger collection didn’t appear until 2009. Binder was in near total obscurity over all that time. His name gets tossed around today because of Joe Orlando’s adaption of three Adam Link stories in EC comic books. But those were issued just before the company folded its comics line and dropped everything but _Mad_, so I bet they are better know today than in the mid-50s. The originals hold up better than the silly stories that make up Asimov’s _I, Robot_. _The Caves of Stee_l and _The Naked Sun_ were more adult, but I haven’t reread them yet so I don’t know how well they hold up. ---
**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:** [July 11, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/25 "2017-07-11T17:04:13Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > These are classics, but they’re more the kind of thing that people _outside_ the genre think of as science fiction. In particular, [Isaac Asimov has written a review about _1984_](http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm) claiming that … I’d disagree strongly with this. Yeah, a certain age group brought up under Campbell’s influence always insisted that science fiction stories have to be about science. They also inisted that fantasy is a totally different field. Damon Knight, who found the Science Fiction Writers of America, was adamantly opposed to allowing fantasy writers in, no matter than most of the ones who did join had written some fantasy stories as well as sf. Everybody else, especially the more literary side of the field, has insisted at the top of their lungs that books like these \*must \*be included in science fiction. Science fiction is about change and ideas and the effects of science and technology, not just spaceships, they insist. The field needs to be more inclusive in its scope, not less so. Since all the Campbellians are dead, the organization is now named The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, and Le Guin is St. Ursula in the literary world, I’d say that old view is not dominant in the field. I’m sure you’ll find those who will argue for it. An amazing number of people in f&sf hate change. Especially when it requires changing their minds. ---
**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:** [July 11, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/26 "2017-07-11T17:09:38Z")
I’d say it’s more the reverse: “Literary types” outside of science fiction are likely to say things like “_Brave New World_ can’t be science fiction, because it’s Great Literature”. But I’m hard-pressed to come up with a definition of “science fiction” that would include _Foundation_ but not _Brave New World_. ---
**Author:** ![icantdraw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3ec8ea/32.png) [@icantdraw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/icantdraw)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/27 "2017-07-11T17:23:32Z")
Earth Abides - George R Stewart 1949 A great “almost everyone dies and how is society rebuilt” type story. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/28 "2017-07-11T17:26:00Z")
> [@wintertime](#): > > Last and First Men > by Olaf Stapledon (1930) > > Odd John > by Olaf Stapledon (1935) > > Star Maker > by Olaf Stapledon (1937) > [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > Olaf Stapledon _First and Last Men_ and _Starmaker_ Yes…Olaf Stapledon… I can’t deny that he was a major figure in the development of science fiction. He inspired many other writers with his examples of building vast settings. But as an actual writer…he’s not that great. ---
**Author:** ![wintertime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c68b51/32.png) [@wintertime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wintertime)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/29 "2017-07-11T17:49:05Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > (…) For example, _Frankenstein_ is often acknowledged as the first real science fiction novel, and several of H. G. Wells’s novels are early SF classics. Everyone who has even a little interest of science fiction should know about these books, but I’m not sure I’d put them on a short list of 15-20 most important to actually read. Yet, most readers of Science Fiction who know about _Frankenstein_ will likely give you a synopsis based upon the various movies, particularly the James Wahle classic with Boris Karloff, which is not primarily based upon the novel but the stage play by Peggy Webling (or, to be more precise, its adaptation by John L. Balderston). It’s not hard to see why so many have difficulty with the idea that Frankenstein is the first SF novel when its monster is associated so often with the irrational and even supernatural. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Yes…Olaf Stapledon… > > (…) > > But as an actual writer…he’s not that great. I won’t argue with your assessment. But he has introduced so many fundamental ideas to the genre that I consider him a must-read for everyone interested in Science Fiction itself. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/30 "2017-07-11T18:16:37Z")
**Exapno** , I’m inclined to agree with you (Post #25), with the following caveats: I think it may be useful to distinguish between Science Fiction proper, and Speculative Fiction (with the former being a subset of the latter). I think it’s possible for a book to be bad science fiction but good in other ways (or vice versa); and _1984_ _may_ be an example of this (I’m not willing to commit myself one way or the other, it having been so long since I’ve read it). I definitely think there’s a distinction between Science Fiction and Fantasy. The border between them is blurry, but there are plenty of works that are squarely within one territory or the other. In an exercise like this, I don’t think we should restrict ourselves to the narrower, more purist definitions of “science fiction,” but I do think it’s useful, or at least interesting, to note which books would or would not qualify under such a definition. > [@Chronos](#): > > But I’m hard-pressed to come up with a definition of “science fiction” that would include _Foundation_ but not _Brave New World_. I agree that _Brave New World_ is science fiction, but to play devil’s advocate, how about that _Foundation_ was published as the work of a well-known science fiction writer aimed at science fiction readers, while _Brave New World_ was published as the work of a satirical literary writer aimed at a general readership. ---
**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:** [July 11, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/31 "2017-07-11T18:41:36Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I agree that _Brave New World_ is science fiction, but to play devil’s advocate, how about that _Foundation_ was published as the work of a well-known science fiction writer aimed at science fiction readers, while _Brave New World_ was published as the work of a satirical literary writer aimed at a general readership. How is a book is marketed has been the de facto standard since the Golden Age of SF. Marketing is highly correlated with contents but not identical. Speculative fiction has been a term used \*more \*inclusively than science fiction since the 1950s, precisely because of this. Anyone inside the field with any literary understanding has been fighting this standard, also since the 1950s. The entire generation of writers that includes Le Guin, Delany, Zelazny, and Ellison, just to name a few, fought hard for the expansion of the narrow limits of the field. They won. Fantasy also won. Far more fantasy is sold than science fiction these days, especially since fantasy includes vampires and zombies. And therefore maybe horror. There’s a sinkhole of definitional abandon. _Lord of the Rings_ is pure fantasy untinged with science fiction, but it sits in the same aisle in most stores, book and movie. Superhero movies are slotted in with science fiction films and both are genre films along with fantasy. Dystopian fiction got lumped in decades ago and can be either pure genre or literary. Literary f&sf is often referred to as “slipstream” and is as common as dirt in modern fiction, sometimes with acknowledgement to the genre and sometimes with hands-off abhorrence. And before the Golden Age, which started in the 1930s, nobody really thought as science fiction as anything but a specialized form of romance fiction, which then had the definition of adventure. Wells and Verne wrote scientific romances, not science fiction. Is there a good reason to remove all the works that aren’t pure marketed science fiction from a list of classics? I can’t think of one. Doing so leads to blinkered ignorance, to my view. Remember that _Fahrenheit 451_ - mentioned by the OP - was not published as science fiction in hardback, even though its roots lay in genre magazines. Bradbury himself argued about it both ways over the years. A lot of f&sf genre writers didn’t consider him part of the field after that. He was never a member of SFWA. The book emerged into public prominence because it was reprinted in _Playboy_. The original \*Galaxy \*novella was instantly forgotten outside the field. What good do it possibly do to exclude it? There’s a bitter saying in the field that outsiders define works by declaring, “if it’s good, then it can’t be sf.” Why perpetuate that attitude here? ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/32 "2017-07-11T21:10:41Z")
No **Octavia Butler** yet? Her Xenogenesis series and Kindred amongst others are truly great. ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/33 "2017-07-11T22:49:16Z")
**Icerigger** Alan Dean Foster;) ---
**Author:** ![Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blue_blistering_barnacle/32/3386_2.png) [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blue_Blistering_Barnacle)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/34 "2017-07-11T23:08:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > _Dangerous Visions_, edited by Harlan Ellison. > > And you need something by E.E. Smith, either _Skylark of Space_, the first of the _Skylark_ series or _Galactic Patrol_, which is from the _Lensman_ series. > > Regards, > Shodan For EE Doc Smith I would have suggested “Spacehounds of the IPC”. Has all the flavor of the Lensman series, but it’s a single stand alone book, AFAIK. ---
**Author:** ![Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blue_blistering_barnacle/32/3386_2.png) [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blue_Blistering_Barnacle)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/35 "2017-07-11T23:09:58Z")
> [@Icerigger](#): > > **Icerigger** Alan Dean Foster;) I loved this book- great yarn! ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/36 "2017-07-12T00:11:39Z")
I’m gonna put in a plug for an anthology of short stories: [Nebula Award Stories Number Two](https://www.amazon.com/Nebula-Award-Stories-Number-Two/dp/B0007EGMTW/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499818065&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=nebula+award+anthology+number+two). (I don’t know if the link will work properly; it goes to an [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com) search.) This little collection has some of the best ever. Jack Vance’s “The Last Castle,” “Call Him Lord” by Gordon Dickson (someone else wrote a novel as a sequel!) “Light of Other Days” by Bob Shaw, “Among the Hairy Earthmen” by R.A. Lafferty… This is a treasure house, and I challenge anyone to a death-match with marshmallows and bananas who doesn’t find at least one story in here to admire hugely. Also, dirt cheap. Best investment you’ll ever make (until you go back in time and buy Microsoft at its IPO.) ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/37 "2017-07-12T00:43:26Z")
Since all the obvious ones have been mentioned, here are some less well known suggestions: Doorways in the Sand (Roger Zelazny). Tunnel in the Sky (Robert Heinlein) Deathworld (Harry Harrison) The Gods Themselves (Asimov) Jack of Eagles and Black Easter (James Blish) Riddley Walker (Russell Hoban) Gun, with Occasional Music (Jonathan Lethem) ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/38 "2017-07-12T01:22:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And you need something by E.E. Smith, either _Skylark of Space_, the first of the _Skylark_ series or _Galactic Patrol_, which is from the _Lensman_ series. I agree there. Failing that, read anything written by Sybly Whyte before 1980. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/39 "2017-07-12T01:24:04Z")
Anybody who suggests Chip Delany is not your friend. Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986/40 "2017-07-12T01:39:39Z")
Keep in mind that a past classic may be a classic because it was first to introduce _x and is important historically, but x_ is common as dirt now and the style and writing skills have been far surpassed by modern writers. ([This](http://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/) may be enlightening as to new views on classics.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-build-a-classic-science-fiction-reading-list/790986.md?page=3)