Looking at the list, and at the rankings within the list, I think I have to agree with William Tecumseh Sherman: “Vox populi? Vox humbug!”
A major omission–Jack Vance.
I can’t say I’m surprised there’s no Cherryh, but I’m still disappointed by it.
The problem with Vance is that despite the fact that he’s produced a staggering amount of consistantly excellent work, he has no real standout novel or collection that can be nominated. Ask 10 SF fans to name the best Vance book, and they’ll give you 10 different titles.
I would have put Dragonlance on there before considering the pretty terrible Drizzt series (if we’re considering the A/D&D books at all) but it still made me chuckle that ole Angsty-Two-Scimitars beat out Xanth.
It’s disappointing given some of the howlers on the list, sure. But would you really put her stuff in your top 100 All Time SF / fantasy list? I’ve read a lot of her fantasy stuff and it’s good, but not top 100 all time good. Her weaker books are also written to a pretty bad standard.
I’ve not read some of her more celebrated SF books though, so could well be missing out on her best stuff.
For Vance, has to be Cugels Saga for me. Peerless.
I love Cryptonomicon, but I don’t really see it as science fiction or fantasy.
I think God Emperor is the best book of the series, personally.
I was also hoping for some John Varley, Lovecraft, Fritz Lieber. This list seems like the voters were all born post-1990, with obligatory Lit 101 reading list inclusions mixed with recent popular selections.
I agree with both of these points. I wonder if the Xanth multiplicity wasn’t selected over worthier entries simply because just about everyone is bound to have tripped over a passel of them at some point. I’d be happier with Heinlein’s rankings if we switched the positions of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land.
Not a fan of the Harry Potter stuff, but I do think that’s an odd omission.
Meanwhile, I’m just glad to have a list that includes a bunch of stuff I haven’t read. Whee!
From here (the nomination page):
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/24/137249678/best-science-fiction-fantasy-books-you-tell-us
I image that eliminates almost all H.P. Lovecraft and all Lovecraft worth considering.
Xanth?? Crazy people. The first book is fun and pretty good. The ones just following until Night Mare are fun reads. Everything after that is pure and utter dreck. And also the exact same plot.
I was surprised I had read as many of those as I have. It definitely gives me a good list to take to the library next time I go. I have many holes to fill in my fantasy education.
You are - I can’t read her fantasy for love nor money (though I haven’t tried in a decade) but I’ve read her Foreigner and Chanur books several times, and Cyteen is an amazing work (although divisive as I understand.) Not to mention Downbelow Station and the rest of her Alliance/Union books. I just reread 20,000 in Gehenna and Merchanter’s Luck, as it happens, and there was a lot more to them than I really got the first time around as a teenager.
ETA - IMHO, she is absolutely peerless in the sci-fi mini-genre of “going native stories”. She was apprenticing in Chanur (although they’re definitely more fun) and doing her masterwork with Foreigner.
See post #54
You raise a very good point, have Vance’s prodigious talents and longevity rendered any single work nuncapatory when compared to the totality of his career?
If pushed to settle on just two books I’d back Suldren’s Garden for fantasy and The Languages of Pao for science fiction.
I think that a lot of the “howlers” are books that skew very young. I liked Xanth a lot when I was 13, and The Belgariad when I was 16, but they were both unreadable by the time I hit 20 or so. I would guess the Zz’dtri Chronicles (or whatever it was) are similar.
All in all, not a terrible list, and there are a few great books that don’t often show up on these lists–I am thinking of *The Last Unicorn *here.
I have read about 60 of them–and I am now reading *Sunshine *for the first time.
I imagine a lot of the votes (those Reno mentioned, plus things like the Star Wars books) are from people for whom that’s the only SF they’ve read.
Surprised to see Canticle for Leibowitz on the list, remember that vividly from college–thought it was more of a niche novel.
No James Tiptree? Harlan Ellison? Stanislaw Lem?
Ah ha! That explains it. Thanks for digging that up.
I was thinking… one of the reasons that Rowling and the Harry Potter books are absent might be because no one wants to admit to reading them, or taking them seriously (for what it’s worth, I enjoyed them).
Yeah, I think the list would look a lot differently if it were from Asimov’s or Analog readers as opposed to NPR listeners. I think we’d see a lot more of the missing “classic SF” authors that other posters here have noted.
Harry Potter and Narnia were omitted because the list excludes Young Adult (YA) books. That’s probably a good thing, else *The Hunger Games *would likely have been voted on.
I agree with the poster who mentioned the absence of Sturgeon. I recently read More than Human and it is one of the most unique concepts I’ve ever seen. The only problem is I think it may be out of print and somewhat hard to find.
I’m sure I know more people who’ve read the Harry Potter books as adults than the Xanth books!
OK, THAT one is going on my Nook list. I read it when I was quite young. My mother’s father was quite an SF fan, and he was delighted that at least one of his grandkids also read SF…even if I WAS a girl.