SF Signal: Which Science Fiction Books Make Up the Perfect Library?

Which Science Fiction Books Make Up the Perfect Library?

The Telegraph lists 110 Best Books for the Perfect Library.

Here are the science fiction titles:

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne
The Time Machine by H.G. Wells
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
1984 by George Orwell
The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham
Foundation by Isaac Asimov
2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick
Neuromancer by William Gibson

Other notables...Listed under "Childrens books":

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis
The Lord of the Rings by J.R. R. Tolkien
His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman
Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling

Listed under "Books that changed your world":

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

It never ceases to amaze me that Asimov's Foundation routinely makes it into lists like this, the compilers of which would doubtless say "of course, most science fiction is badly written and too focused on crazy ideas". I'm not dissing Asimov, he was hugely important writer to the genre, but for goodness' sake, we've come so far since then!

Sorry, rant over. I should really be accustomed to this throwing-of-bones by now. *sigh*

Posted by Paul Raven on Monday April 07, 2008 at 4:07 PM

It's not a bad list and I can't really disagree with any of the ones there, but its just so... predictable.

I'm not sure I like the idea of creating the "perfect" library if it's going to be so safe.

You've got to respect the classics, but couldn't the author have taken a few risks and thrown in some less well known titles as well?

Posted by Eoghann Irving on Monday April 07, 2008 at 4:20 PM

Iain M Banks - Player Of Games
Bruce Sterling - Distraction
Geoff Ryman - Air
Iain McDonald - Ares Express
Jeff Noon - Automated Alice

But those, of course, are the first five random picks from list I'd write right now ... I expect I'm not alone in saying I know I'd write a different list next week, next year and so on. The point being that the perfect book is a function of the moment in which it is read or thought about.[/sophist]

But anyway, y'know, I kinda went off on one there. It just baffles me that non-genre readers can give misty-eyed accolades to a book that, while very important, reads like one immense cliche with the benefit of hindsight, but then refuse to read sf because they've heard it's not very good. Green eggs and ham, you dig?

Posted by Paul Raven on Monday April 07, 2008 at 4:47 PM

LOTR is a kids' book? Ridiculous.

(I'm not saying kids can't or don't read it. I was eleven when I read it. But it's not a kids' book. If you compare the density of the prose and ideas in LOTR to those of the others mentioned, there is a pretty significant difference.)

Posted by Joe Iriarte on Monday April 07, 2008 at 6:25 PM

That is pretty ridiculous... I think someone confused it with The Hobbit.

And lists like these are pretty much redundant, like Paul said. Everyone's lists are likely to be different and having a list of 110 books is a bit like a carpet bombing tactic. Bound to hit a few everyone will agree on.

Posted by Sambo on Tuesday April 08, 2008 at 8:24 AM

Another curiosity along these lines is the "Children's Recommended Reading List" compiled by the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society in 1994, which is available online at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824/kidlit.htm.

Posted by Mike Glyer on Thursday April 10, 2008 at 6:38 PM

I've been conducting a mind experiment using many of the listed books. Occasionally, I pick one of my favs that I haven't read in 10+ years, and reread it. I have found that they change with time. What really happens is my perception changes!

Posted by Ken Springs on Sunday May 04, 2008 at 9:26 AM