Yeh… I noticed the lack of Banks. I guess more than anything this conversation has shown how hard it is to round down to 100 books. Many authors are displayed by good gateway titles than necessarily their best. Many are missing entirely, even many classic titles are not there. What they seem to have tried to do is give a range of titles rather than just “classics”
1 Like
I knew I wasn’t saying anything original, but I didn’t realize it was attributable!
I had to look it up, but I’m guessing you’re referring to “90% of everything is crap.” Much more succinct than what I wrote, but I guess that’s why Sturgeon’s the pro and I’m just an occasional internet comment-writer.
Also, it occurs to me that this could apply much more broadly than just to literature, so thanks for the inspiration.
as a South American, I suppose he gets pinned down as a “magical realist.” But, by all means, let’s include him. And therefore, we must add Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude, yes?
Borges is really unto himself, I feel. Hard to put my feelings into words, but he is like a lot of your list–true literature in the tradition of the world classics, yet his premises are so mind-bending as to be fantastic. He cannot be recommended enough. The Collected Non-Fictions is incredible in its own right. Loved what he wrote about the classic nordic literature.
switching gears; I don’t actually feel he needs inclusion in the “must read” category, but I just want to give a shout-out to Harry Harrison (posthumously, unfortunately) for The Stainless Steel Rat series, 'cause it’s the best.
2 Likes
Yeah, that Excel list is doing weird things to the thread. I’m trying to look at the latest posts and the system insists that I check out the Excel list again.
That’s Rational.
There’s a lot of bitterness in these parts after a group-read of The Quarry.
2 Likes
We don’t want any steenking Iain Banks.
That Iain M Banks guy was really good, though.
3 Likes
The content is different. Science Fiction is feasible scenarios. Fantasy can make stuff up without justification. Star Wars, for example is Fantasy. Star Trek is borderline.
Was it Pratchett who said that Science Fiction is often Fantasy with added nuts and bolts?
Julian May is a big omission. Was happy to see Connie Willis represented.
Oh, and I second Zelazny. “This Immortal” has got to be one of my all-time decadent reads. Probably in my top 10 books to re-read of all time. Revisit it every few years.
1 Like
Sounds like a “No True Scotsman” argument.
By this definition, more than half of what people read as “Science Fiction” is not, which makes me wonder about the accuracy of the definition. Nothing with FTL travel, hyperspace, anything handwavy that isn’t possible in modern physics. Basically, only things in the Mundane Manifesto are SF then…
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
