Posted on 12/04/2013 8:13:32 AM PST by Kip Russell
One of the things that makes science fiction so popular is that it means many things to many people. Some people will insist that they are not even reading science fiction when they read a Star Wars novel or a novel dealing with alternate history. That is what makes Sci-Fi so wonderful! It’s easy to love and difficult to define. What other genre has so many sub-genres? You have hard Sci-fi, often times written by people who actually were scientists. There’s Cyber Punk, adventurous Space Opera, Military Sci-Fi, Alternate History, Steam Punk, and even Space Westerns. Something for almost everybody!
In truth, speculative fiction dates back hundreds of years but modern Sci-Fi began to develop as we know it in the 19th century with writers like H.G. Wells and Jules Verne. But it was in 1926 that Sci-fi really began to take off with the creation of the pulp magazine, Amazing Stories, the first publication devoted to science fiction. The magazine survived for nearly 80 years and helped to launch the careers of greats such as Roger Zelanzy, E.E. “Doc” Smith, Jack Williamson, and countless others.
Trying to pick the 15 greatest writers is no easy task. I’ve based my list on a number of factors including body of work, influence, awards won, and staying power. With that in mind my list does tend to weigh heavily towards older writers. Another factor was that I went with writers who are predominantly known for their science fiction. Many great fantasy writers have written exceptional Sci-Fi stories but I decided to go with only those known for their science fiction. Ultimately is was more of a challenge to decide who to keep off rather than who to keep on.
(Excerpt) Read more at mania.com ...
Some authors are have held up much better over time. I personally think Heinlein is one of these, although I read a recent online panel of SF critics who came to mixed conclusions.
http://www.locusmag.com/Roundtable/2011/10/roundtable-heinlein-juveniles-then-and-now/
As one of them put it:
"Would they be willing to keep reading a book, though, where the “current-day” stuff is so different from the world they live in themselves, where there are no cellphones or personal computers or Facebook, where kids work as “soda jerks,” something that most of them have never even heard of? Will the fact that most of these books start out in a “present-day” that’s clearly the 1950s rather than the world that kids today are familiar with make the present-day part just too dated and alien from their own experience for them to be able to get through it to the Sense of Wonder stuff that eventually follows?"
You can’t capture the scope and depth of any novel on the screen. As much as I liked Lord Of The Rings (fantasy not sci-fi, I know) on screen, you’d have to make a 100-hour movie to even open the possibility of capturing it on film.
That said, 2001 A Space Odessey (I know, I can’t spell Odessey) was better as a movie.
Without Jules Verne I consider this list invalid. Also, Mary Shelly should be on there for Frankenstein, which influenced sci-fi writing tremendously.
I’m wondering if any of you have read Jack Chalker and what you thought of his work, Midnight at the well of souls?
> Edgar Rice Burroughs belongs on the list.
He belongs at the top of the list.
The points about Heinlein’s juveniles are well taken. The world of the 1940/50s teenager, which seemed at the time to be falling apart with delinquency, is in retrospect a time of great innocence.
Recently reread some of the juveniles. I think they hold up surprisingly well, but that’s perhaps because I found the “current-day” stuff just as interesting as the far-out stuff. The life Heinlein took for granted for young people has changed in astonishing ways.
And of course I’m not a young person anymore.
My List would start:
Edgar Rice Burroughs
H. G. Wells
Jules Verne
Wrong. Any such list STARTS with Heinlein, then Asimov, then Pohl. The rest of the positions can be argued over but the top three are set in stone.
I read them in the 80s and thought they held up just fine. My wife read them in the 90’s and thought so too. A lot of great scicfi does. E.E Doc smith is even more dated and is still a great read.
He isn't including anything pre-1926 on the list. Also, to make the list an author has to have a substantial body of SF work, and other than "Frankenstein", Shelly didn't write any SF (that I know of, anyway).
Kind of like a list of rock and roll greats that doesn’t mention the Beatles when everyone who came after bore the stamp of their influence on rock music.
Sounds depressing, based on my own reading of the tea leaves. In the near future, I only see it getting worse.
William WalterM. Miller - A Canticle for Leibowitz
Keyes - what sf did he write besides "Flowers for Algernon?" One short-story - later expanded into a novella - is simply too little for the author to be included in such a list.
Miller? His short-story "A Canticle for Leibowitz" was a masterpiece - light-hearted, intelligent, and imaginative. But the three-part book he developed out of it is unbearably pessimistic and depressing. Wasn't surprised that he committed suicide.
Regards,
I haven’t read all of the classics (yet), but can’t help bu mention one SF author whose trilogy blew me away: Dan Simmons
His Hyperion saga was truly epic.
All full of Blarney no doubt....I always call Jay Carney Jay Blarney.
However, I don’t think any of them have authored works on science fiction like Algore.
I love that series—though I consider that to be fantasy rather than Sci-Fi
Obozo does not write science fiction.
He has authored two books on his favorite subject: Himself, of course.
Interesting, most wouldn't put Pohl that high; the "Big Three" are traditionally Heinlein, Clarke, and Asimov.
Bump for later - many of my favorites on this list, more I need to explore...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.