![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So I got to thinking after looking at some of the "100 best / most important SF books" lists of the past years: what would I put together?
I think it's both contentious and meaningless to try to establish canons which allow a clear selection of "best" independent of personal taste. Even though there are a very few novels which probably can be clearly given laurels, the boundaries are really, really murky. And "most important" and "most influential" won't necessarily line up with "best". (Conan is hugely influential; I don't think any of Howard's work is likely to make a "best" list, even within sword-and-sorcery.)
In addition, on reflection, it's pretty clear that speculative fiction is not one genre, or two, but a connected set of sub-genres, and a representative selection of those sub-genres is another beast again.
Still, I couldn't avoid being tempted to put a list together with some constraints.
1) I'm not including anything that I haven't read. Since I haven't made any systematic attempt to read all of SF, or even all of SF's important works, it will therefore be idiosyncratic. (I should read Butler, Hopkinson, major Delany (I've read only his minor ones and bounced off Dhalgren), Kress, Bruce Sterling, more Gaiman, more Wolfe, Vonnegut, more Pohl ...)
2) I'm trying to cover a variety of subgenres at a fairly fine degree of division. (Urban fantasy isn't one subgenre; it's several, with overlaps).
3) Some works get in because they're historically important; quality therefore will vary.
4) Some books, on the other hand, get in just because I think they're good, even if this may mean clustering in some subgenres.
5) I ran out of important enough / representative enough books to add well before I got to 100. (It was either going to be close to 50 or close to 200).
That being said, the list is below, with annotations.
( Cut for length )
I think it's both contentious and meaningless to try to establish canons which allow a clear selection of "best" independent of personal taste. Even though there are a very few novels which probably can be clearly given laurels, the boundaries are really, really murky. And "most important" and "most influential" won't necessarily line up with "best". (Conan is hugely influential; I don't think any of Howard's work is likely to make a "best" list, even within sword-and-sorcery.)
In addition, on reflection, it's pretty clear that speculative fiction is not one genre, or two, but a connected set of sub-genres, and a representative selection of those sub-genres is another beast again.
Still, I couldn't avoid being tempted to put a list together with some constraints.
1) I'm not including anything that I haven't read. Since I haven't made any systematic attempt to read all of SF, or even all of SF's important works, it will therefore be idiosyncratic. (I should read Butler, Hopkinson, major Delany (I've read only his minor ones and bounced off Dhalgren), Kress, Bruce Sterling, more Gaiman, more Wolfe, Vonnegut, more Pohl ...)
2) I'm trying to cover a variety of subgenres at a fairly fine degree of division. (Urban fantasy isn't one subgenre; it's several, with overlaps).
3) Some works get in because they're historically important; quality therefore will vary.
4) Some books, on the other hand, get in just because I think they're good, even if this may mean clustering in some subgenres.
5) I ran out of important enough / representative enough books to add well before I got to 100. (It was either going to be close to 50 or close to 200).
That being said, the list is below, with annotations.
( Cut for length )
