NPR list of Top 100 Sci-Fi Fantasy Novels

[Kadere]

Surprised this isn't already up, but WoT made number 12 on the NPR's Top 100 Sci-Fi Fantasy novels of all time list. Looking over the list and seeing LotR at number 1, Dune at 4, ASoIaF at 5, 1984, A Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451 all make the top 10, Princess Bride at 11, Malazan on the list, Space Trilogy on the list, Once and Future King in the top 50, etc I really quite like this list. Kinda wish Tad Williams would have made it on though. More people should have voted for Otherland. But overall not a bad list, to me. Sanderson made it twice. Rothfuss is on there. No Scott Lynch, yet. It's a nice mix of contemporary and classic though.

 

Top 100 list Check it out.

[Sleeper]

Glad to see my boy Iain M. Banks represented at #83

 

I definitely agree with the top 10, that's an all-star set of books right there.

[Red2111]

i'm just glad Twilight, HP & Inheratance didn't make it on there

 

saw Mistborn & Way of Kings were both on the list WooT WooT for Sanderson!!

[Hybrid]

Interesting list.

 

I was surprised they considered Pratchett's works as separate books as opposed to simply the Discworld series. I was also surprised which of his books were picked.

 

Agreed concerning Banks. It's too bad he's not ranked higher, but I can understand that since his books aren't easy to read.

 

I'm also glad Haldemann made it. He's a fantastic writer. If you haven't read him and you enjoy thoughtful and fairly hard sci-fi, do so now.

[Vambram]

I am very disappointed that the WOT series only got 12th on the list, especially when I see what got more votes in the top 10 than the WOT did.

[Sleeper]

I am very disappointed that the WOT series only got 12th on the list, especially when I see what got more votes in the top 10 than the WOT did.

Most of the top 10 are classics in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy department. I'm not at all surprised that they got there.

[Vambram]

I am very disappointed that the WOT series only got 12th on the list, especially when I see what got more votes in the top 10 than the WOT did.

Most of the top 10 are classics in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy department. I'm not at all surprised that they got there.

 

 

 

Six of the top 10 are Sci-Fi books. I know that it is common to lump together Science Fiction and Fantasy books together in bookstores. However, even though I am a HUGE fan of both Science Fiction as well as Fantasy fiction, I really wish that those two genres did not remain lumped together, especially now that in the last 15 years, both genres are popular enough to stand on their own without being shelved together with each other.

 

 

[Joshua Hendrickson]

Well well. Another list, another controversy.

 

I agree with most of the choices, though frequently not with the rankings. I suppose THE LORD OF THE RINGS is inevitably going to rank first, and I suppose I needn't argue with that judgment, but there are others with which I must argue. For instance, Neil Gaiman's AMERICAN GODS is a good book, but it's really nothing compared with his SANDMAN, and I don't think his charming but lightweight STARDUST belongs on the list, nor his rather-too-contrived NEVERWHERE. I love HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY as much as anyone, but #2? Really? And it's hard for me to see Gene Wolfe's THE BOOK OF THE NEW SUN so far down the list--Wolfe can write circles around just about anyone else on this list. I would rank Gregory Maguire's WICKED much higher as well. FOUNDATION is overrated. Niven and Pournelle's THE MOTE IN GOD'S EYE is a deserving classic, but LUCIFER'S HAMMER is not. And, sorry, WOT fans, but WOT simply is ranked too high--its merits are great, but its flaws really ought to push it down into the bottom 50.

 

What's missing, that I would include? GORMENGHAST, by Mervyn Peake. CEREBUS, the enormous 6000-page graphic novel by Dave Sim--a particularly egregious exclusion, considering that SANDMAN and WATCHMEN, also great graphic novels, make the cut, and the authors of those works would, if asked, absolutely not choose to exclude CEREBUS. Also, while 1984 deservedly makes the top ten, the great and influential (on both Orwell and Huxley) dystopia WE, by Yevgeny Zamyatin is ignored. Some older and less famous but no less influential books have also been ignored, such as William Hope Hodgson's THE HOUSE ON THE BORDERLANDS and THE NIGHT LAND, and THE WORM OUROBOROS by E.R. Eddings. Stephen King is well represented by THE DARK TOWER and THE STAND, but his masterpiece, IT, is missing.

 

Of course, these lists being as subjective and inconsequential as they are, I should probably stop grumbling now and check out some of the unfamiliar titles that made the list.

[Vambram]

I am pleased that Joshua Hendrickson is not considered to be a major authority when it comes to literary criticism of science fiction and/or Fantasy novels.

As we all know, lists like these are subjective and are often not a whole lot more than either popularity contests, or even name recognition polls.

Most of these books in the top 100 I have read.

There are a couple of books by Greg Bear and as well as Robert Heinlein which I believe should be in the top 50 of science fiction novels.

But, like I said, I would rather see polls like these done so that Sci-Fi is separated from Fantasy.

[Joshua Hendrickson]

I am pleased that Joshua Hendrickson is not considered to be a major authority when it comes to literary criticism of science fiction and/or Fantasy novels.

As we all know, lists like these are subjective and are often not a whole lot more than either popularity contests, or even name recognition polls.

Most of these books in the top 100 I have read.

There are a couple of books by Greg Bear and as well as Robert Heinlein which I believe should be in the top 50 of science fiction novels.

But, like I said, I would rather see polls like these done so that Sci-Fi is separated from Fantasy.

 

Like you, Vambram, I am not a "major authority" on anything. I'm sorry you felt the need to take a shot at me for no apparent reason. Was it, just possibly, my mentioning of books that you (shock!) haven't heard of?

 

There, shot returned. Can we go back to our truce now?

 

Thanks for mentioning Greg Bear--my personal favorite of hard sf writers. I would include THE FORGE OF GOD and ANVIL OF STARS in the top 50, and maybe QUEEN OF ANGELS.

[Vambram]

LOL, I did NOT really take a shot AT you. But, if you think or feel like I did, then I politely apologize.

I really could care less what you put in your own personal top 50.

But when you take a major fantasy series like the WOT and claim it belongs in the bottom 50 of a top 100 list of Sci-Fi/Fantasy books & series; and then tell WOT fans with an apparent voice of authority that's where it should be, then you are telling all the people here on dragonmount that you are right, and most of us are wrong about the WOT series.

Therefore, if there are any "shots" being fired or posted, then clearly it was you whom took a shot at fans of the WOT series, ...first in this thread.

Anyways, back to a polite and respectful truce, Joshua. Okay?

 

 

I'm curious if you and anyone else agrees with my opinion that the Fantasy genre and the Sci-Fi genre should NOT be lumped or mixed together as we so often have seen happen in various and sundry places?

[Hybrid]

It's also interesting that Zahn made it on there. He's a very enjoyable and solid writer, but I wouldn't have thought him popular enough to make the list, and I don't think he's on the same level as some of the writers on that list. Even more interestingly, he gets on for the Thrawn Trilogy, which is solid but not as good as some of his other work (e.g. The Icarus Hunt, which is my favorite soft SF novel).

[Joshua Hendrickson]

LOL, I did NOT really take a shot AT you. But, if you think or feel like I did, then I politely apologize.

I really could care less what you put in your own personal top 50.

But when you take a major fantasy series like the WOT and claim it belongs in the bottom 50 of a top 100 list of Sci-Fi/Fantasy books & series; and then tell WOT fans with an apparent voice of authority that's where it should be, then you are telling all the people here on dragonmount that you are right, and most of us are wrong about the WOT series.

Therefore, if there are any "shots" being fired or posted, then clearly it was you whom took a shot at fans of the WOT series, ...first in this thread.

Anyways, back to a polite and respectful truce, Joshua. Okay?

 

 

I'm curious if you and anyone else agrees with my opinion that the Fantasy genre and the Sci-Fi genre should NOT be lumped or mixed together as we so often have seen happen in various and sundry places?

 

@ Vambram:

 

apology accepted.

 

Sorry if I "speak with authority", but I doubt if I sound any more or less "authoritative" than anyone else on the Internet. I just don't always feel like saying "In My Opinion" when after all everything here is mere opinion. And so what if I speak an opinion which may well be contrary to the opinions of others in this forum? That isn't "taking a shot," because there is nothing personal--e.g. directed by name at an individual--about it, unlike what you wrote.

 

It's certainly fine with me if you don't care what I would put in my top 50. No one is asking you to care. But since you make similar remarks about your own choices for the best books, and my own response to those remarks was only to agree with your choice of Greg Bear (and mention a few titles), then perhaps you might consider that it is impolite of you to tell me that you "could [not] care less."

 

There. I hope that was polite and respectful enough to maintain the truce.

 

As for whether science fiction and fantasy should be divided: melding the two doesn't bother me, since so much of both genres blend together quite readily. Take STAR WARS, which is hardly hard sf, but as space opera partakes of fantasy quite liberally. Or THE BOOK OF THE NEW SUN, which reads like sword and sorcery but which is set in the far future and is based quite solidly on scientific principles.

 

I will agree that lists ought to be separated for clarity's sake, even if individual novels aren't always so clearly delineated. It is true that the general public doesn't differentiate much between them, and that when they do they are frequently more likely to favor sf over fantasy as a more "serious" genre (if they are inclined to think either one is "serious" at all). For those of us who care about the genres, and who know how to categorize various fictions into hard sf, soft sf, speculative fiction, sword and sorcery, gothic fantasy, supernatural and horror, etc., lists ought to be by category as well.

[John E. Kelley]

No mention of H.P. Lovecraft at all? Really?

[Hallow]

MBOTF was too far down.

[Red2111]

i do think that Scyfi & Fantasy should be seperated. Scyfi is technically a subsection of fantasy, but really everyone who like epic fantasy's like WoT aren't nessicarily going to like scyfi fantasy's like Enders Game.

 

 

that said, i don't understand why any of King's book's other thn the Dark Tower series made it on a fantasy list, as these boks (liek the Stand) are classified as Horror/Suspense.

[Suttree]

Looking at the list I really don't think any of the top ten could be moved to get WoT up a bit father. Maybe Hitchikers and American Gods(would have placed Sandman ahead) but I think they did a pretty good job with this one.

 

Don't see any issue with Scifi and Fantasy together, with the top 10 being almost half and half it seems fair to me.