24, plus a few partials. I need to catch up.
I agree with you all about Terry Brooks. Forget about Dan Simmons, Julian May, George R.R. Martin or my beloved Guy Gavriel Kay - I’d put Margaret Weiss and Tracy Hickman on that list before that Shanarra crap. Sheesh.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Exapno Mapcase *
**About 44 or so. Top Geek! Cue the Kenny Rogers music!
The only ones I’m sure I’ve missed are Shiras, Matheson, Crowley and Cordwainer Smith. So I rank you there. It’s been so long since I read Bester and Haldeman that I will have to revisit them.
The list is crap, as are all Top x lists, but it gives us something to talk about while waiting for meaning to come into our lives. The Foundation Trilogy is a set of books, not one (also Book of the New Sun, Cities in Flight). A Wizard of Earthsea is one of a set, as is Dune, Gateway, Potter, Hitchhiker, Vampire, Rama, Shannara (yuck), and To Your Scattered Bodies Go. Does one judge the book on its own or as part of the set? Wizard of Earthsea doesn’t really stand alone, nor To Your Scattered Bodies Go…the rest maybe. Dangerous Visions is a collection. What makes something a “book”? Being published all in the same cover?
I was surprised that Snow Crash made the list. It’s really just a comic book made into a novel–prettily written, but no character development, no message, nothing in the way of depth.
Someone asked why people rag on Thomas Covenant. Here’s why: The guy is a whiner!
Oy vey. I’ve only read nine on that list. Probably the least of anyone here calling themselves a sci-fi fan. Of course I did read all of the top four, and two of those are actually trilogies, so I feel I should get more credit for them…
Credit? There’s credit to be had? My F&SF collection has more than 500 books in it, and I’ve read them all! What do I win, Johnnie?
If I called out Asimov and Blish, I had to be consistent in mentioning Lewis’ publishing dates.
NCUN, If you haven’t read Crowley and Smith, you’re in for a treat. They are some of the best (or most interesting or whatever) work on a weird and wonky list.
You’re right in that it’s a best 87 or something list. At least Dune and Gateway and Rama and Bodies won Hugos in their own rights, before the seriesitis started. I think I count 16 Best Hugo novel winners on the list.
(Bolding mine)
Slight nitpick, but the sequels to Rama were co-written by Clarke and Gentry Lee, and were pale imitations of his original work. I’d personally hesitate to call Rama one of a set for this reason.
Ah, but these are supposed to be “The Most Significant” books.
The local library has The Rediscovery of Man–it also is a collection. I’ve got it on reserve. They also have I Am Legend–a vampire story. Hmmm…
Can’t find Crowley or Shiras. Dang.
I’ve read 22 of them. It’s not the worst list I’ve seen.
How common is the terraforming subgenre? besides the movie for total recal, i can’t think of another real one. Robinson’s terrible characterizations and racial generalizations turned me off from reading Years of Salt and Vinegar (or whatever the name is), despite being a huge Alternate History fan. I’ll probably try it eventually if i see it at a used book store, but it is no longer must get. Alternate History seems more of an important subgenre, and is not represented on the list (unless i missed one), and i thought discworld covered the hard sci-fi (or am i wrong in remembering during every Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer thread people chiming in about how they fight unrealistically and to read Discworld for what would really happen?)
Since nobody has posted it yet, I’d like to stick in this link to Fenris’ old thread on “What every well-read science fiction fan should read-maybe”:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=74792
The final list I think is pretty darn good. However I believe fantasy was specifically excluded ( when are you going to get around to doing the definitive fantasy thread Fenris 
? ).
The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick checks in a #33. It’s one of the best of the “Germany & Japan win WWII” alt history genre. It won the Hugo award and put PKD on the map. Check it out!
Hmm. Only about 9. But then again I’m not hardcore and not into fantasy.
And I do have a bit of a problem dealing with the listings of “a book” that are really collections/compilations.
Loved seeing Miller’s “Canticle for Leibowitz” in the list, though.
I thought I was more of a sci-fi fan. I only read 13. No Silverberg? Well, I suppose so. Silverberg is not incredbly influential, although he is one of the best sci-fi authors out there, and has been so for a long time.
The problem with the list is that it’s hard to be influential when you are way beyond what anyone else is doing. Philip K Dick’s more important works (“Valis”, etc) were not listed. Stanislaw Lem, the most popular sci-fi writer on the planet, was not listed, as far as I saw. They aren’t influential because they are too good to copy.
Then again, I just looked at the list, and saw that it was “Most significant” not “Most influential”. The list is therefore way off.
Look again, you fatuous jackass. Looks like the list was originally alphabetical, then some items were moved around.
I’d like to see Brain Wave by Poul Anderson on that list, but that’s just because I liked it so much.
I’ve got 25, weighted toward the SF side.
I thought Varley should have made it for <i>Steel Beach</i> or for the <i>Titan</i> trilogy.
I’m glad to see that “Ender’s Game” was on the list. Mostly because I just read the series like 2 weeks ago.
With the “Foundation” trilogy – I read 'em, but I’m not a big fan. Mostly because I couldn’t accept psychohistory as being valid.
I’m glad that they just included “Dune”, but not the whole series.
And with the Brooks-bashing that’s going on… I’ve not read any (apart from his adaptation of “The Phantom Menace”), but didn’t he want to set is stuff in the Tolkien universe, but the Tolkien estate said “Nope.”?
Um, Baldwin, not to be fatuous or a jackass, but numbers 11 through 50 are pretty clearly in alphabetical order when I pull the list up. The only exception I see to that is that 36 and 37 seem to be reversed.
37
If I’m allowed to count stuff that I started but either didn’t finish or started and then hurled the book across the room(the abysmal Dahlgren, for one, or Thomas Covenant books 2 and 3), I clock in in the low '40s
Overall good list: Personally I love Shiras, but I don’t know that she deserves to be on the list: Except for the fact that Stan Lee (cough) “borrowed” heavily from the concept (a school for mutant children who are hated and feared), she’s sadly forgotten today (and even back when, no-one remembered anything past the first story “In Hiding”). I’d have substituted the far superior Zenna Henderson “People” books.
And WTF with Brooks. You could make a case for Piers Anthony starting the big '70s light-fantasy craze with A Spell For Chameleon, but Brooks? C’mon.
I thought Needle was a far better book than Mission of Gravity. Hell: Iceworld was a better book. But at least they got a Clement on the list!
Overall a decent list…not the same list I’d have made, but a legit one.
Fenris
I’d better clear this up – I was quoting myself, from my first post in this thread (about the list being in alphabetical order), and calling myself a fatuous jackass. Just a little self-deprecatory humor. I would never start throwing insults around at my fellow Straight Dopers like that.
Just occurred to me, Clifford Simak should be on the list, only I’m not sure for what specific book. And where’s John Wyndham? Oh well, it’s hard to put together such a list without being biased by one’s personal taste. So this list could never be definitive, but look what an interesting discussion it’s started.