Comments on: Sci-fi Greatest Works [updated]

By: Award-Winning Sci-fi List at attempting:Lucidity

Award-Winning Sci-fi List at attempting:Lucidity — Sat, 03 May 2008 01:41:40 +0000

[...] Previously i posted a spreadsheet of some sci-fi writing. Gradually i’ve expanded that list, until it’s included all the Hugo, Locus, Nebula, Campbell and Sturgeon winners and most of the runner-ups. Then i threw in some other works from early sci-fi and to complete some series. All told, it now contains about 700 novels, and with shorter works 2153 items.In order to keep all this straight, i’ve calculated the “Combo Rank” of all the works. This spreadsheet takes into account how well a work did in all 5 of the awards, and using a convoluted formula produces a single number roughly between 0 and 10. Thus a book that got second place in 3 awards would rank higher than one that got first in one award but did not place in any other award.I have no delusions that this method is the perfectly corresponds to a work’s greatness. Frederik Pohl’s Gateway and A. C. Clarke’s Rendevous with Rama are at the top of the list, being the only two novels to take first place in four of the awards i use. Though they are not unknown novels, i don’t expect to find them at the top of many “All Time Sci-fi Greats” lists. But in as much as winning a Nebula or a Hugo award indicates a work’s quality, this rank can be a useful tool to discover books of quality.That is the purpose of the spreadsheet. It’s a tool to help me, (and hopefully other people) to find some of the better sci-fi to read. To that end i’ve also included brief summaries and links (when i could find the info). But of course the info is sometimes incomplete, or maybe even wrong. And inclusion on this list in no way implies a recommendation or endorsement by me. I’ve personally only read 13% of the list. But i’ve found using the list is much more rewarding than browsing through a library or bookstore looking at covers or blurbs. Enjoy. [...]

By: jwbjerk

jwbjerk — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:31:19 +0000

Porretto:
I believe you misunderstand Card’s main point. He’s not worried that a writer will reuse a concept/cliche— after all, this is virtually unavoidable. Card’s concern is that a writer who is ignorant of his genera will create inferior versions of a concept/cliche. If someone was going to write about Robots which are all governed by a few fundamental laws of behavior, he would be foolish not to read Azimov’s Robot stories, because many of his readers will be familiar with those stories. The informed writer could build on and/or contradict Azimov’s thought on the subject. The uninformed writer’s concept will likely seem underdeveloped, because he is in the dark.

I also must disagree with your assertion that concepts and world-building have no value except as a setting for the characters. That may be all that you value, but it misses the main (or a major) point of speculative fiction. (fiction that asks “what if?”)

Considering only the emotions and characterizations, i don’t rate 1984 a great novel. But those aren’t Orwell’s focus. He has an idea about possible totalitarian governments, and Winston’s degradation is only a means to communicate that idea.

Flatland is a more extreme example. It’s characterization is sketchy, and the concepts clearly dominate. However it is an enjoyable way to explain these dimensional concepts, and certainly far more fun that a textbook approach.

There are people, including myself, who find ideas about the future, possible human societies, or alien life, etc. just as interesting as the personal struggles of a well-written character. Including well written characters to the conceptual mix is valuable, and improves a story. But the readers of speculative fiction find much or more enjoyment in well-thought out ideas.

By: Francis W. Porretto

Francis W. Porretto — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:54:00 +0000

Card’s advice, however well-meant, is at least half wrong. The probability that you’ll reuse some SF or fantasy cliche goes UP, not down, in proportion to your familiarity with “the root stories in the field.”

In any event, fiction of any sort derives its power from its ability to evoke emotions. A story is categorized as SF or fantasy according to its attitude toward setting: that is, what motifs it allows itself in the depiction of the world its characters inhabit. Retraveling a well trodden path — e.g., space flight, alien societies, psi powers, time travel — is legitimate as long as your characters are fresh and appealing, their crises are original, and their motivations are consistent with their actions.

The great, invariably fatal failing is to think originality about setting and motifs is the prime determinant of competence in the writing of fiction — of ANY sort. Think first and foremost about your characters, what motivates them, and what sort of crucible you want to put them in. Then choose the appropriate setting within which they can work out their destinies.

By: A Progressive on the Prairie » Delayed marginalia

A Progressive on the Prairie » Delayed marginalia — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:10:20 +0000

[...] John W. Bjerk has posted an “exhaustive or monstrous” Excel spreadsheet of award-winning SF. (Also via.) As an aside, I’ve read 30 percent of the nearly 290 novels on the [...]

By: Wheels within Wheels » Blog Archive » And, for the science-fiction-obsessed …

Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:25:22 +0000

[...] with the theme, here we have a spreadsheet of important science fiction. My numbers, based on my recollection, [...]

By: jwbjerk

jwbjerk — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 05:05:58 +0000

Thanks.

In my searching on the internet i find that the last-name-first thing is less frequently used. But more importantly the lists that i pulled the data from all had the names written this way, and it would be a minor pain to switch the first name to the front.

By: john

john — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:38:24 +0000

Great list, if the author was sorted (or sortable) by last name it would be easier to find the books at the store…