# Scientists choose favourite 'lost' SF novels



## J-WO (Nov 4, 2010)

A great article on the New Scientist website, asking scientists for their favourite 'forgotten' SF novels. A better idea than asking them merely for their favourites as it gets 'em to dig a bit deeper and not choose 'The Time Machine' or 'Brave New World' or 'First and Last Men' (Oh actually, wait a minute...)

Richard Dawkins makes a choice that says a lot about his interests and outlook- a novel I hadn't heard of called 'Dark Universe'.





Gallery - Brilliant SF books that got away - Image 1 - New Scientist


Some interesting books I'd never heard of.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 4, 2010)

Start of the list was good but then they started mentioning classics of SF that isnt forgotten.  Books you could find in any library or books that are read pretty often.  First and Last Men is in SF Masterworks people....

Scientist you mentioned ?  Most of the people in the list are known as  a novelist.  Atwood,Gibson,Baxter etc


----------



## Ian Whates (Nov 4, 2010)

Hmm, I've read and own three of these -- _Dark Universe_ by Daniel F Galouye, _Last and First Men_ by Olaf Stapleton, and _Earth Abides_ by George R Stewart -- and have a further two in my collection which will be read at some point. The only one of these I haven't specifically heard of is _The Listners_ by James Gunn, though I have read other titles by the same author... 

But then perhaps the list isn't aimed at long-standing genre fans such as myself, but at newer readers.


----------



## clovis-man (Nov 4, 2010)

Perhaps I'm easily impressed, but I thought it was a pretty good list. I've been meaning to read the Galouye as he was one of my favorite authors in the 1950s and 1960s. But I need to snag a copy. The others are intriguing as well. Haven't read any of them......yet.


----------



## J-WO (Nov 5, 2010)

Connavar said:


> Scientist you mentioned ?  Most of the people in the list are known as  a novelist.  Atwood,Gibson,Baxter etc



Oh yeah, I should have spotted that. Mind you, they're all so much cleverer than me that they may as well be Einstein!


----------



## blacknorth (Nov 5, 2010)

Pretty disappojnting choices, I'd say, though it's nice to see Sheckley's Journey of Joenes up there. Holland's Floating Worlds is an interesting choice too. The rest... meh.

I don't think Dark Universe is a good book - I sold my copy on ebay recently; maybe Dawkins bought it. Have to check the invoice. Yep, he was slow to pay.


----------



## clovis-man (Nov 5, 2010)

J-WO said:


> Oh yeah, I should have spotted that. Mind you, they're all so much cleverer than me that they may as well be Einstein!


 
Well, Baxter is a mathemetician and engineer. Does that count? Sean Carroll is a cosmologist, whatever that's good for. Is that the same as a make-up artist?


----------



## J-WO (Nov 6, 2010)

Yep, its the doctorate you can get at the University of Rimmel.


----------



## Pyan (Nov 6, 2010)

IW said:
			
		

> Hmm, I've read and own three of these -- Dark Universe by Daniel F Galouye, Last and First Men by Olaf Stapleton, and Earth Abides by George R Stewart



As have I, plus _New Maps of Hell _(which I would question anyway, as not being a novel by any stretch of the imagination). 

I think their definition of "lost" is more applicable to the hypothetical Average Reader than to the people that the Chrons cater for, as Ian says...


----------



## Connavar (Nov 6, 2010)

pyan said:


> As have I, plus _New Maps of Hell _(which I would question anyway, as not being a novel by any stretch of the imagination).
> 
> I think their definition of "lost" is more applicable to the hypothetical Average Reader than to the people that the Chrons cater for, as Ian says...



Still i can understand Atwood,some scientist not knowing their older SF but SF writers who think classic writers genre fans know are forgotten is the weird thing.

Because if you are classic author in a genre it the fans of that genre who makes you not forgotten.  Its not the mainstream readers.


----------



## blacknorth (Nov 9, 2010)

Absolutely, Connavar. In fact, given the post-modern tend to, ahem, re-use plots, one might almost suppose it's convenient that many books are forgotten, not to mention their authors. I don't object to a recycling process where ideas are concerned, but credit where credit's due.


----------



## J Riff (Nov 10, 2010)

Well I just finished a novel called _Syzygy, by Michael J. Coney,_ 1973- that I missed 1st time round. Not so bad if you enjoy stories about intelligent plankton.


----------



## blacknorth (Nov 10, 2010)

J Riff said:


> Well I just finished a novel called _Syzygy, by Michael J. Coney,_ 1973- that I missed 1st time round. Not so bad if you enjoy stories about intelligent plankton.



I really enjoyed that one. Check out his novel _Friends Come in Boxes_, a distinctly analogue take on life after death. _Mirror Image_ is great too. Spent a lazy _(hello) summer (goodbye)_ reading his books, back in 2000 - enjoyed them all to varying degrees.


----------



## Elflock (Nov 19, 2010)

Well,no surprises there really I suppose...it's mostly boring 'clever' sciencey type of stuff. There are a couple of ok ones there,I really liked that 'Floating Worlds' at the time...1976 or whatever it was. 'Earth Abides' is ok I suppose...but I would call it 'overrated'...same as 'Last And First Men'...that's almost unreadable I think!! The Daniel Galouye one sounds ok but nothing I've read of his has done anything at all for me,so... 
There are some pretty ridiculous statements made there too...like this one...

*Robert May*,  former UK chief scientific adviser (re.Kingsley Amis' 'New Maps of Hell'... “This is the book that made science  fiction grow up. It’s a scholarly review that takes science fiction  seriously – which is how I think it should be.”   

Cringe!!! Yuk!!! Vomit!! This quote from J Riff on another thread is appropriate here I think...

"A good writer avoids as much of the science as possible..'

I heartily agree with J Riff's statement and cringe in horror at the science dude's statement


----------



## jojajihisc (Nov 20, 2010)

Interesting list. I'll probably get a few of those now. I don't know about Attwood, but Gibson and Baxter at least sure appear to at least have quite a bit of knowledge about science whether they have degrees within the field I can't say, nor could I be bothered to look them up to find out. Baxter in particular is also good at including terminology and explaining physics in a way that is more accessible to the layman.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Nov 21, 2010)

*Lost SF Classics in the New Scientist*

The _New Scientist_ magazine is a serious journal aimed at keeping the scientific community (plus interested bystanders like me) up to date with current developments across the whole field of science. However, the editor obviously has a soft spot for science fiction, as occasional pieces about it appear. The most recent example was in the 23 October issue, in which ten prominent scientists and writers were asked to nominate a lost SF classic. Their choices, with their comments, were as follows:

*Dark Universe* by Daniel F Galouye, nominated by the biologist (and atheist flag-bearer for Darwin's theory of evolution) Richard Dawkins. _"…hauntingly imaginative, and uses the medium of science fiction to let the reader reconstruct how myths can start."_

*Journey of Joenes* by Robert Sheckley, nominated by James Lovelock (who invented the Gaia concept). _"...a mid 20th century version of Voltaire's *Candide*. I like it because I am often asked to predict the future state of the world and authors like Voltaire, Wells, Orwell and others of their kind appeal more than purely technical prophets."_

*The Cyberiad* by Stanislaw Lem, nominated by cosmologist Sean Carroll. _"...a wide-ranging exploration of robotics, technology, computation and social structures."_

*Random Acts of Senseless Violence* by Jack Womack, nominated by cyberpunk novelist William Gibson. _"It's a book you really have to read to see why."_

*New Maps of Hell* by Kingsley Amis, nominated by Robert May (former UK Chief Scientific Adviser). _"…a scholarly review which takes science fiction seriously."_

*We* by Eugene Zamiatin, nominated by novelist Margaret Atwood (winner of the 1987 Arthur C. Clarke Award for the novel *The Handmaid's Tale*). _"…contains the rootstock of two later themes - the creepy, too-smiley utopia, as in *Brave New World*, and the Big Brother dystopia, as in *1984*."_

*Last and First Men* by Olaf Stapledon, nominated by SF author Stephen Baxter. _"…a kind of god's-eye-view survey of the human far future, as bracing and original today as it was when first published…"_

*Floating Worlds* by Celia Holland, nominated by SF author Kim Stanley Robinson. _"…Holland's immense power as a novelist, and her new take on old science fiction themes, turn everything to gold."_

*The Listeners* by James Gunn, nominated by SETI astronomer Seth Shostak. _"I read this book two decades ago when I was first becoming involved with the search for cosmic company…"_

*Earth Abides* by George R. Stewart, nominated by physicist Freeman Dyson. _"It's a sensitive human drama, with California providing the enduring natural environment as background."_

An interestingly varied selection. Of the ten, I have only one on my shelves (*New Maps of Hell*) although I recall reading (and being impressed by) *Floating Worlds*, and assume (simply because they are so well known - not exactly "lost" classics) that I probably read *Last and First Men* plus *Earth Abides* a long time ago when I absorbed large quantities of SF every week, although I don't remember them.  I have certainly read books by Galouye, Sheckley, Lem and Gunn, although I don't recall the specific titles mentioned. I fear that when it comes to SFF, I have forgotten rather more than I remember!

(An extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## Ian Whates (Nov 21, 2010)

*Re: Lost SF Classics in the New Scientist*

An interesting list, Anthony, no question.

There has already been some discussion about this over in the 'Classic SF&F' section:
http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/529354-scientists-choose-favourite-lost-sf-novels.html


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Nov 21, 2010)

*Re: Lost SF Classics in the New Scientist*

Sorry about that - didn't spot that one!


----------



## J-WO (Nov 21, 2010)

*Re: Lost SF Classics in the New Scientist*

Your first post is decidedly better than mine, though!


----------



## Pyan (Nov 21, 2010)

Threads merged - sorry if it looks a bit odd, but the posts go by date-order...


----------



## J-WO (Nov 23, 2010)

Ah, jobsagudun, Mr Pyan.


----------



## Contrary Mary (Nov 24, 2010)

I have read only two.

"Dark Universe" I read as a teen and did not find it too interesting--as an adult I might enjoy a re-read .

"Earth Abides" was a good end of the world novel and I have always liked it.  A bit dated, but a lot of good writing overall.


----------

