3/5 of the books in the linked article are included.
It's not perfect-- it's missing War for the Oaks, for example, and doesn't have any Iain M Banks. But there's an awful lot of good material in there.
I suppose they just don't see any need to republish Banks books, most of which are quite recent, continue to be popular and are mostly still in print under Orbit as part of an already unified series.
Though I'm carefully not going to look on AbeBooks to see what the first editions currently go for since I don't need to spend that kind of money (want to yes, need to no).
But anyway, they've "only" published about 200 novels, mostly older, so it's not that weird that Banks hasn't been added yet. It makes sense if they focus on works that have not been republished as recently until they get through the many obvious candidates.
I have books from both before and after. The original SF Masterworks series has black covers with a number clearly printed, while the new one has yellow covers.
According to Wikipedia, the yellow version is from a "relaunch" in 2010 onwards, with some of the original numbered books being republished with the new cover as well. Why they felt the need to do that, who knows.
To make it even more confusing, Gollancz appear to have marketed other series with the same name.
Here's a page that shows a bunch of them in both iterations, though without showing the spine:
https://bearalley.blogspot.com/2019/06/sf-masterworks-cover-...
Here's one showing yet another version (the other version of the "yellow" series has yellow spines as well):
https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/SF-Masterworks-Mas...
I quite like that one. What I don't like is starting to buy a series and then not being able to keep buying the same design... If it's going to keep changing, I'd rather just have them be individual.
Here's someone on Reddit that has two of the SF Masterworks variations (top left, and top right), and Fantasy Masterowkrs (most of the second row from the top)
https://www.reddit.com/r/sciencefiction/comments/q2eiwk/my_h...
From what I can tell they've done yet another variant at some point, but that's titled "The Best of the SF Masterworks" so I guess that can be forgiven for using a different design:
https://www.redlionbooks.co.uk/product/the-word-for-world-is...
(yes, I care more about this than I should; it's made me pretty much stop buying paper books and instead put other things on my shelves)
> "amazing" and "genuinely the best novels from sixty years of SF".
And even then, that can swap between the genres. Scifi often contains FTL tech, which from what we know is almost certainly impossible so it's actually more like fantastical magic. Meanwhile, fantasy can have hard rules for its magic, in which case it acts more like technology that we haven't discovered yet. I haven't read it yet myself, but I've heard of Wizard's Bane, where a programmer is transported to a magical land and becomes really powerful because he treats the magic system like a new programming language.
Other things I've noticed is that scifi tends to involve spaceships and is more mystery oriented, whereas fantasy tends to take place on the ground and is more hero's journey oriented. But even these aren't defining traits. Plenty of scifi books involve investigating alien planets and many contain the hero's journey (including the original Star Wars if you count that as scifi). Meanwhile plenty of fantasy books are on some sort of ship (Narnia - Voyage of the Dawn Treader) and many are more mystery oriented (Harry Potter for example).
Personally, I think a better line of division is hard vs soft. Was the world created first with actual rules and the characters molded to fit the world (Dune, Lord of the Rings)? Or were the characters created first and the rules are bent to create the story that is being desired to tell (Star Trek with its technobabble, Star Wars's prequels and sequels, the entire universe of Harry Potter)?
By the numbers, Star Wars is far more grounded as science fiction that Star Trek, but people will insist the former is at best merely "science fantasy." It's really all just vibes.
The best rage bait I've seen in years.
Sure, the Jedi are "magic." But that's one magic element in a universe that's otherwise grounded in science fiction elements. Aliens. Spaceships. Robots. I'll see you the Jedi and raise you Trelane, the Q, the Douwd, the Traveller and a dozen other aliens that are no less "magic." Or in the case of the Q, far more magic than the Jedi.
The Jedi are telepaths (which Trek also has) and telekinetics (which Trek also has) and can predict the future (which exists in Trek.)
And they connect to a mystical all-encompassing energy force... which, ok. Trek doesn't have that. Oh wait they do, it's called "subspace."
And the entire Trek universe runs on fantastical nonsense. None of the physics is actual physics, it's subspace and technobabble. The galaxy is surrounded by a mystical barrier and God lives in the middle of it. There are wild magic fields in space that can do literally anything, and one has a face. You can travel back in time if you go around the sun fast enough like Superman. If Star Trek is science fiction, where is the science?
To say one is fantasy and the other isn't is simply a matter of taste.
>and the heroes are fighting an Emperor who is very little different from someone like Sauron
If your complaint is that Star Trek doesn't feature a single, universal villain... fair, but that isn't a fantasy only thing, science fiction has plenty of Big Bad Evil Guys. If it's that Star Wars' villains are just broad caricatures MF the Klingons are literally Space Mongols. Romulans are Space Romans. Cardassians are Space Nazis. Ferengi are Space Jews. The Borg Queen is basically Sexy Sauron.
You could take the spaceships away from Star Trek and map many Star Trek races to a common fantasy race archetype. Vulcans are elves, Romulans are Dark Elves, Klingons are Orcs, Ferengi are Dwarves or Goblins, Cardassians are snake people from the desert and the Borg are insect people.
Sure there may be some similarities if you want to take an analytical view of the genres, but there's an awful lot of people who like one but not the other.
I do agree it would be impossible to provide an entirely objective division that everyone would go along with.
Even so, I'd love it if all the "medieval dragon witch ghost magic spirit quest" stories could be placed on a different shelf of the bookshop to the "black hole generation ship dark forest faster than light" ones :)
"Inversions" by Banks is "just" a medieval quest story with magic unless you know The Culture stories, in which case is a interstellar politics story with high tech.
So even those categorisations aren't that straightforward (I would put both in the SF category, but Inversions is tricky - someone unfamiliar with Banks could read it as a straight-up fantasy novel, and if you don't like fantasy it might feel tedious)
In the UK at least, fantasy and sci fi occupy the same shelving. Takes me ages pulling books out of the shelf, and immediately rejecting because they are fantasy.
The majority of the books are fantasy, not sci fi. Fantasy seems to have a much bigger audience in the UK anyway.
You could argue a lot of semantics but the majority of fantasy and sci fi books are not blending the two.
"Its roots go much deeper into history, and its concerns are more archetypal" [1]
There can be a lot of cross-over of course. Right now, "fantasy" (perhaps of the "romantic" variety) seems to be a juggernaut and is taking over.
[1]https://sf-encyclopedia.com/fe/introduction
(edit: spelling)
(The lines get blurrier when talking about imagined historical fiction, or even things like alternative fiction.)
Even things like Tau Zero are using relativistic time dilation as the plot driver.
I agree, and sometimes the line is drawn between SF being "things that are theoretically possible" vs. Fantasy where things are impossible. But then you have things like Egan's Clockwork Trilogy, which is "what if the laws of physics actually worked a bit differently in this specific way" but which I assume anyone would consider SF. As opposed to Brandon Sanderson's books, which could be described in a similar way, but are usually categorized Fantasy.
At the end, it's mostly a marketing and feeling thing. As one of my favorite authors put it, the different between SF and Fantasy sometimes comes down to - are you putting a tree or a spaceship on the cover of your book?
What would you say is the reason for categorising works differently? Can you see differences there or do you also think it's mostly marketing?
An author once wrote an intro to some short story. The story is part of a much larger futuristic scifi universe in which people have developed telepathy and other things through genetic means. And the specific short story was the first one he wanted to publish, and it was about a specific planet in that world, in which the whole story is basically a telepath coming into town and interacting with the population.
And the publisher returned the note that this wasn't scifi, it was fantasy. Because of course he did - stripped of the broader futuristic setting that the story takes place in, it's just a story of a wizard coming into town. Never mind that there are solid science fiction explanations for the "magic" - you don't get that in the short story.
While Tau Zero that was mentioned elsewhere is believed to not match the laws of nature now, the science the entire plot rests on was considered scientifically plausible at the time it was written.
It was speculative, but it explicitly did not set out to make up a world in which some scientific law is different.
In other words, that isn't a defining factor of SF.
The speculative nature of it is closer to it - hence the shared label of speculative fiction often used to group SF and fantasy.
Even the "hard" sci-fi tends to comprise of the author's one area of expertise or hyperfixation while everything else is nonsense. You'll have descriptions in intricate detail of how the spacecraft are engineered down to the self-sealing stembolts, but biology is basically magic.
A common sf theme is "here is this change to the laws of physics, what would our universe then look like". Eg Arrival (and the story it's based on), tons of books by Egan, any book with FTL.
> I’m merely observing, in the peculiar, devious, and thought-experimental manner proper to science fiction, that if you look at us at certain odd times of day in certain weathers, we already are. I am not predicting, or prescribing. I am describing. I am describing certain aspects of psychological reality in the novelist’s way, which is by inventing elaborately circumstantial lies.
This is how I think about both science fiction and fantasy. Elements of world building are different, even within each sub-genre, but this element of incorporating elements that are inconsistent with our world to tell stories is common to both. It's also why the term "speculative fiction" persists: a category that subsumes sci-fi and fantasy.
[1] Read that full preface here: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/342990/the-left-hand...
and then when they are done writing down this pack of lies, they say, There! That’s the truth!"
The preface is as valuable as the book that follows.
1. Many people who like one genre also like the other.
2. Many authors write in both genres.
3. There's a lot of similarity in the genres, and lots of things that are hard to categorize. More true lately btw.
Just as an aside though, I personally was an avid almost-only-SF reader for the first 30-ish years of my life, but lately have been reading a lot of fantasy as well. I highly recommend trying, especially more modern fantasy - I feel like the lines are even blurrier between them today, and a lot of the best work today has shifted from SF to fantasy. (I still love SF and there's a lot of great SF as well, to be clear.)
*urban fantasy has entered the chat*
While that may have been true historically, fantasy has a new, blossoming, largely female readership, although you could consider this to be overloading the term 'fantasy' as these new BookTok books seem to have little in common with the old school sword and sorcery.
Especially given how some of the "science fiction" elements of it read 100+ years later.
On a more serious note, yeah scifi and fantasy can usually be distinguished, I get why it so often gets lumped in together as speculative fiction, even though it annoys me when I'm looking for one and have to sift through the other.
The distiction isn't clear anyway. Some "fantasy" book are more scientific than some "sci-fi" books - if they have a system of magic then is that any difference to FTL travel, or Vinge's Region's of Thought?
In particular, SF plots often mix in significant fantasy themes to the point that they are sometimes a majority of the book.
Banks' Inversions is a Culture novel (SF) that intentionally reads as fantasy if you don't know the Culture setting, while leaving the reader to infer the SF setting if you do.
"Grass" by Sheri Tepper, or "Left Hand of Darkness" by Ursula Le Guin are other examples. Both happen on other planets, but while both have SF settings, most of the stories fits better into fantasy tropes.
Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep is very explicit SF at "top level", but a significant part of the plot is closer to fantasy, happening on a planet in a pseudo-medieval setting.
Others like Stanisław Lem's The Cyberiad, while more explicit SF, also intentionally mix the two - being written as fantasy in a mock-medieval inspired proto-feudal society, where the characters engage in typical fantasy-inspired quests, with dragons, princes and princesses, with medieval weaponry, but with most characters being robots and with access to space travel...
There's a lot of overlap where authors toys with the distinctions, or outright mocks them.
A Canticle for Liebowitz for example mostly feels like some kind of fantasy but for the fact that the reader knows it's set in a post-apocalyptic nuclear wasteland.
Big chunks of the Peter F. Hamilton Void series is basically more or less set in a slightly magical Early Modern Venice.
The Laundry Files is strongly and deliberately in the middle ground of technology and magic, despite being ostensibly set in the present-day.
Stone Spring is an alternate history set in the Stone Age, but is not substantially more ahistorical than a non-fantasy historical novel about a person who didn't exist in reality doing things that never actually happened. Perhaps there's more focus on the engineering rather than fighting, romance, politics, murder and whatever else historical novels often revolve around, but building is as valid a human thing to do as plotting a regicide, say.
Generally, the concepts in both are the same: construct an "unreal" world and set a story in there, often with a projection of real-world issues onto the hypothetical substrate. Often the only real difference is if the unreal element is driven by magic, technology or a small change in a historical event. Sometimes it's a mixture. Sometimes the technology is treated as magic because the users don't understand it. Sometimes the magic is treated as a technology. Sometimes the historical divergence was thousands of years ago, sometimes it has only just happened in the story.
It would probably be more accurate to lump the whole lot under something generic like "speculative fiction" but that's not really a well-known term and has a slightly different meaning that blends into things like historical settings which may not be generally considered fantasy.
You might compare The Sword of Shannara, which is a character-for-character, scene-for-scene copy of Lord of the Rings, but which is technically set in the postapocalyptic future (it's easy to read the book without noticing this) rather than the legendary past.
I used to be the same. Ask yourself why.
Harumi Marukami and Han Kang count as fantasy. (I’d argue so does Ian Banks.) Read Tolkien with a hard eye towards rules, meanwhile, and you find a universe that is largely consistent in the Unseen over the Seen, which pretty neatly maps to invisible physics guiding visible phenomena.
Why? Because there’s technology somewhere? Why doesn’t magical realism through a cell phone, for example, count?
The line between sci-if and fantasy is often arbitrary, with a lot of it coming down to readers’ self-perceived identities than anything having to do with the text. What counts as tech or magic, moreover, comes down to priors and perspective. (Harry Potter and Star Trek are on similar levels of technobabble, for instance.)
Both fit in the category of speculative fiction and as the many commenters have pointed out, speciation is difficult.
One definition I saw that sort of kind of worked is:
One puts an ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances, the other puts an extraordinary person in ordinary circumstances.
I’m with you though.
Characters are all interchangeable and quirky because he says so. The science is tacked on like a chemistry teacher putting their kids to bed.
SciFi: Read Larry Niven and James Blish if you like feats of engineering, read Ann Leckie and Nancy Kress if you like characters defined by their actions.
Don’t tell me to be excited Andy just because you wrote “THAT’S SOO COOL!” after revealing some tidbit. I’m not a fucking child.
I can see that you wouldn't like him if you're more into characters than plot, but that's not what everyone wants.
I had the same vitriol you do for Weir toward Ernest Klein. Absolute shit author in my opinion...but my opinion doesn't matter. His first book was still a wild success with a movie adaptation despite having one of the weakest plots and and some of the flattest characters I have ever seen in print, dressed up in a patchwork coat of nostalgia, which is the only reason it had the mass appeal that it did. But the book was not written for me, was it?
I think we forget, sometimes, that authors don't really owe us anything, that they're trying to pay the bills doing what they do, so our approval means little and only makes us look like self-rightious jerks so I had to learn to let that go and just not read those books that weren't jiving with my tastes or demands. In the end, let people have their books they like because, well, at least they're still reading and not watching TikTok or whatever.
> Whats red and green and goes around and around and around? A frog in a cuisinart.
Just one small example...
* Sci-Fi
* Fantasy
* Sci-Fi & Fantasy
Always annoys me having to wade through fantasy to find the sci fi on bookshop shelves. At least you can filter to just sci fi for ebooks mostly.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_N
On your latter question, I don't see much discussion surrounding The Magus by John Fowles (1965), which is one of my favorite fiction novels of all time.
It's not fiction but it feels like a time warp into a world unimaginable.
I need to read the new Peter Hamilton book (book 2 due out soon). And I am ashamed to admit I haven't read any Greg Egan yet, need to get on that :)
I also just discovered the short story collections of Rich Larson (Changelog and Tomorrow Factory are both recommended)
Just published as well is There is No Antimimetics Division by qntm. You can read the original on SCP [1], but it's now out in book form.
I'm also a huge fan of R.A. Lafferty, but his stuff his harder to find, mostly out of print.
Peter Watts' Blindsight is amazing recent-ish hard SF. (the follow-up, I did not like at all).
Anything from the Strugatsky brothers you can get your hands on!
There are now multiple English translations of Solaris available. I know that there’s been a lot of praise for the newer translation, and I read it, but I do not like it. Something about the earlier translation feels more ominous.
On that note—I’ve always found it hard to believe that The Cyberiad was written by the same author! I love the Cyberiad as well but almost for the opposite reasons I love Solaris. The entire universe is charming and funny, whereas Solaris is engrossing but dreadful. I went through a phase in college, reading every Lem book I could find, and eventually discovering that my library’s stacks also included Lem in Polish. Sadly I know no Polish, and was not motivated enough to learn it, so those novels remained off-limits to me.
- All 18 Expeditionary Force books by Craig Alanson
- The first 5 Starship's Mage books by Glynn Stewart. UnArcana Stars (book 6) went in a direction that made the government look extremely incompetent.
- Jacques McKeown series by Yahtzee Croshaw
- Murderbot Diaries by Martha Wells
- Bobiverse series by Dennis E. Taylor
Station Eleven - Emily St. John Mandel, plot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_Eleven
Nine Fox Gambit: Yoon Ha Lee: disgraced officer of space fleet must capture fortress protected by complex mathematics.
Theatre of the Gods and Hunters and Collectors by Matt Suddain. Both defy a one line plot description, look them up. Theatre was one of the best books I have ever read.
This is How You Lose the Time War - Amal el Mohtar and Max Gladstone. Two opposing generals mess with time to gain a personal meeting.
Sea of Rust - C. Robert Cargill: the story of a scavenger robot
Indian politics 100 years following independence, forbidden AIs that pass a predefined threshold and policemen that chase them, individuals who have all their gender indicators surgically removed ...
An amazingly saturated piece of writing
Dream Park - Larry Niven & Steven Barnes: A group of pretend adventurers suit up for a campaign called "The South Seas Treasure Game." As in the early Role Playing Games, there are Dungeon Masters, warriors, magicians, and thieves. The difference? At Dream Park, a futuristic fantasy theme park full of holographic attractions and the latest in VR technology, they play in an artificial enclosure that has been enhanced with special effects, holograms, actors, and a clever storyline. The players get as close as possible to truly living their adventure. All's fun and games until a Park security guard is murdered, a valuable research property is stolen, and all evidence points to someone inside the game. The park's head of security, Alex Griffin, joins the game to find the killer, but finds new meaning in the games he helps keep alive.
The Long Run - Daniel Keys Moran: Years after the massacre of the Castanaveras genies, Peaceforcer Elite Commander Mohammed Vance still searches for the survivors. Now the gene-altered children have come of age. Denice – the world’s most powerful telepath – and Trent the Uncatchable – hacker, thief, and revolutionary – are about to come out of hiding. The world will never be the same. (It's book 2 in the series, but I'd recommend this as a stand-alone, or starting here.)
Space Opera's not really my genre but I enjoyed Commonwealth Saga by Peter F. Hamilton some years ago.
Read by myself and the rest in audiobook read by boring John Lee walking the dog. But I finished it and several conceptes have stayed with me since.
First Contract (Greg Costikyan) - a book about the economics of first contact
John Courtney Grimwood (author) - science fiction, generally cyberpunk, told from the point of view of characters who don't understand the tehcnology, which gives his work a kind of mystic vibe. (Eg, Nine-tail fox is about a detective trying to solve his own murder)
Footfall (Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle) - was a big release back in the day, but not so well known these days. Hard SF alien invasion novel (Independence Day might have ripped this off a bit)
The NASA trilogy (Stephen Baxter) - dark alternative future books, with bleak endings but great science. I think not so well known these days because of the bleakness, but that's also part of what made them memorable when I read them.
Permutation City is his best-known work, and while some people (including me) enjoy the density of ideas, others find the characterisation weak. I'd start with one of his short story collections, such as Luminous.
And if you like that, Phase Space by Stephen Baxter feels very similar.
> Ann Leckie's Ancillary Justice series.
> Culture, gender identity, hive mind, all rolled up into one extremely dense universe with a rich history told through warfare and cutting remarks, humanising potentially inhuman central characters with a vague number of limbs.
> It takes ten pages to get used to the dense yet clipped writing style, but once it clicks, you cannot put the book(s) down: the plot moves forward at breakneck speed.
The 1950s was a particularly good time for sci fi I think.
Anyways, in no particular order ...
- Adiamante by Modesitt (1996), pacifist environmentalists vs cyberpunk warmongers. It's a lot of philosophy and a bit preachy at that but the world building was pretty thorough.
- Last and First Idol by Gengen Kusano (2018). Similar to Last and First Men by Olaf Stapledon, it parodies various aspects of Japanese culture over a period of eons. (It's a set of three ~70pg stories).
- Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality by Eliezer Yudkowsky (2010). Parody where the main character investigates how to exploit magic. Kind of like xkcd / what-if but in the Harry Potter universe. Author is controversial and the story's pompous /r/iamverysmart vibes can be offputting but I enjoyed it.
- Greg Egan's stuff
- There is No Antimimetics Division by qntm
- Sequels to Enders Game and the Ender's Shadow spinoffs by Orson Scott Card.
- Dragon's Egg and its sequel by Robert L. Forward.Dune by Frank Herbert - I'll get the obvious one out of the way. Everyone needs to read at least the first book. The world-building is a commentary on our own and none of the movies, series or games will every really capture the books in their entirety. There is just so much more to Dune than the barely-below-the-surface treatments we get with film because they have to appeal to a mass audience that tends to have the relative intelligence of my left shoe.
Candy Man by Vincent King - take PKD's Electric Sheep question of what makes a human a human, then explore the answer in a far-flung future that ends up being a bit of a nightmare circus. Great world-building, here, but King reveals in slow morsels that leave us with questions and fuel turning the page. While his other works are not really that prolific, he hit the nail on the head with this one, bringing some dialect playfulness to the writing that just adds to the immersion. It's a haunting world, unsure of why it exists due to short memories and withholding of information, and unintentionally hints at the modern day disquiet of man as we race toward whatever Singularity we have accidentally or intentionally created.
Colossus by D. F. Jones - a bit like Wargames but more swanky, the US and Russia each create artificial super-intelligence then let them talk to each other, which goes about as well as you can imagine. The story hints at the notion that as soon as politics gets involved with science, things tend to get really cocked up, resulting in hostile takeovers, or worse, annihilation. It's a short read, and should be on the to-do list of anyone experiencing existential dread over the AI race today.
A Canticle For Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller - everyone needs a bit of post-apocalypsia now and then and I always recommend this one to get your fix. Here's an extreme treatment of what happens when anti-intellectualism becomes the modus operendi as we are thrust into a harsh and desolate world brought about by global nuclear war, roaming mobs blaming science (rather that politics, as Simpletons will do) for getting humanity into the mess it's in, going so far as to forbid pretty much any book-learning or education beyond the church. As artifacts from the past (our present, more or less) are uncovered, things get a bit hectic.
I'm also happy to take any recommendations, enjoying other authors like Stanislaw Lem, John Brunner, Robert Heinlein, Vonnegut, Jack Vance, etc. Reading books is probably one of the few things in my life that makes me feel a little less alone.
I also recently read Speaker For The Dead (sequel to Enders Game) and was pleasantly surprised. Possibly better than the original.
A sibling comment mentions Tchaikovsky which I strongly concur with.
IIRC this was the first book in the universe that the author wrote, but publishers insisted it was a bit heavy, so he wrote Ender's Game as an easier entry into the universe. On the topic of Ender's universe, the whole Ender's Shadow thread is also a great read. The first book is covering some of the same events but from the perspective of Bean.
1. Roadside Picnic, by the Strugatsky brothers, loose basis of Tarkovsky's Stalker movie.
2. XX by Rian Hughes -- hugely under-rated book. Starts with a signal from outer space and goes quite far, and also has a book-within-a-book. Nearly 1000 pages but found it very engaging.
Currently trying to read Stanlislaw Lem's His Master's Voice which has a similar theme of a possible signal from an alien intelligence.
I had not heard of XX before - will have to check it out, thanks.
Awake in the Night
https://web.archive.org/web/20090524012412/http://www.thenig...
In the side panels are users/readers who drew up their own maps on what they think the Nightscape is.
It has all the romantic mystery of a fantasy tale, whilst still being firmly grounded in reality.
I remember when London's Shard was going up, and I'd see it lit up slightly at night, glowing and ominous and thinking, "this is it: this is the last holdout of humanity."
Wright also has an extended paen to the mentioned Voyage to Arcturus: https://a.co/d/hubUM05 which neither I, nor the author, recommend unless you have read and deeply love Voyage to Arcturus, but I mention it because the overlap reading this list was quite uncanny. That is a very, very specific point of overlap.
Should the original author ever read this thread I highly recommend Wright to them because of the overlap.
The blurb reads like a Gene Wolf story, surreal in its landscapes and interactions.
I will give it a try, and follow up with Wright's book.
Thanks for the recommendation!
The culture novels by Iain M. Banks are also amazing, ship names in particular, but also themes.
And then there is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (or is this too recent) another fine example of exploring the absurdity of mankind.
I often find that older works deal more with ideas and philosophy than the modern works, which tend to be more formulaic with some notable exceptions, like K. J. Parker and Adrian Tchaikovsky - there are less niche works - or so I feel.
- "A voyage to Arcturus" tried hard at being strange and philosophical, but it seemed shallow and I did not feel interested.
- "The worm Ouroboros" was better, with a very unusual epic style, both in writing style and in the story. But some points made me cringe, e.g. the focus on nobles and the despise of common people, even heroic characters. Then it got repetitive, with a final trick that felt like a mockery of the whole story.
- "The dying Earth" was a good book, but it is far from my favorites. I prefer continuous novels to collections of short stories, even when they share a common setting. The book sometimes felt like a poetic tale, with nature and nostalgia as strong themes, though it was also quite brutal.
Since anonymous suggestions aren't very useful without any context, I'll match little-known books with famous books:
- If you thought that "1984" had good ideas, but also many stupid parts that spoiled the whole book, then try two older books. "We", by Zamiatin, is a bit old and naive but enjoyable. It was a source of inspiration for "Brave new world" and "1984". The Swede "Kollocain" (1940), by Karin Boye, is excellent, and much more subtle than the latter.
- If you like collections of related short stories, like "The dying Earth", then "The carpet makers" (1995) by Andreas Eschbach is a must. I remember the joy when I finally had a global understanding of the whole situation.
- If you wish for bizarre fantasy, not the epic Tolkien style, not even the dark saga of Ouroboros, but something more gothic and unsettling, then Mervyn Peake's "Titus groans" is perfect.
- I think "Brain twister" (1961) is the only funny book I've read in SF-Fantasy-supernatural.
As an aside, I've had the good fortune to play in a few "Dying Earth" roleplaying campaigns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dying_Earth_Roleplaying_Ga...) and it's one of the most fun RPGs as most of the gameplay revolves around one-upping everyone else and experience is awarded for using taglines appropriately rather than killing monsters etc.
I have met very few people under 50 that have read the early Schekley short stories. That are probably one of the sci fi peaks.
But in cult and unknown works - Ticket to tranai. One of the best (anti) utopias written.
Pretty much anything by Jack Vance is a win.
Memoires of an imaginary friend
Dogs of war (Adrian Tchaikovsky one)
The devil's detective
Red rising
The painted man
It always surprises me (although it shouldn't) how many underrated gems there are still in the world. And new ones are produced every day.
E.G: I still think QTMN will deserve a place as a classic sci-fi author among the great ones, for "there is no antimemetics division" alone. And yet despite a solid fan following, it has never exploded in popularity. It is 10 times better than the 3 body problems, which comparatively had stratospheric success.
In movies, "Amelie" has been a planetary success, but from the same author, the excellent "The city of the lost children" is practically unknown.
Even last month, a tv show named "Nero" came out on Netflix, and while not revolutionary, is clearly above most of the crap that regularly comes out. Yet, nobody talks about it.
Popularity is a cruel mistress.
However, I think there’s something to be said - sci-fi people of the 70’s all knew AE Van Vogt. This list was, for me delightful, because it reminded me of books I once owned, long ago, indeed many in this list .. back when books were how you encountered these materials. Real books were how we read, back then.
The need to know things has been radically compartmentalized by the mega-computer we’ve allowed to take over our planet, meanwhile, apropos cruel mistresses ..