# Top SF Series of books



## Parson (Dec 26, 2006)

In the past years it seems like most all of the SF books that come out are part of one series or another. If an author has a successful book (I wonder what constitutes a successful book in a publisher’s view 20,000 copies?) It is almost always followed by a sequel. I would guess that SF authors today pitch their books as trilogies at least. What do you consider to be the five to ten best overall series to date that you have read?

For me it would be:
1. Honor Harrington
2. Dune
3. Foundation Trilogy 
4. Ender’s universe (first triology)
5. Cherryh’s Foreigner Series
6. Cherryh’s Merchanter Series
7. Jack Chalker’s "Four Lords of the Diamond"
8. Asimov’s "Robots"
9. Pohl’s "Gateway Series"

When I look at my list I am struck by the fact that C. J. Cherryh does not get anything like the credit or fame she deserves. Does she write too well and too deep for the average reader?


----------



## Pyan (Dec 26, 2006)

Parson said:


> When I look at my list I am struck by the fact that C. J. Cherryh does not get anything like the credit or fame she deserves. Does she write too well and too deep for the average reader?


 
Too political and not enough action for a lot of readers is my guess, Parson. I discovered her through _Cyteen,_ devoured the rest of her books, and think she's possibly the best author I've _ever_ read in the genre (and I've read a lot of books). The only one for me that runs her even close is L.M. Bujold.

(list of series to follow!)


----------



## Parson (Dec 26, 2006)

Ahh! Bujold. One of the finest books I've ever read was "Falling Free" unfortunately I don't think that the rest of her books especially the Miles Vorkosigan series comes close to that work.


----------



## Pyan (Dec 26, 2006)

Odd, that - I'd put it the other way around. I always felt that _Falling Free_ was just an explanatory prequel to explain Quaddies, and the Miles books, especially the later ones, were far richer. mind you, I do like the Cordelia books as well.


----------



## Parson (Dec 27, 2006)

> I do like the Cordelia books as well


 
Hmmm, yes. I liked them better too. If I had to pick my second fav. it would "Shards of Honor" but I would be hard put to decide if that was a Cordelia book or as you said a kind of prequil to the Miles universe. I remember I was so excited about Bujold after those two, and then came book after book about Miles, the last one I really liked was the one which explained his birth. I suppose that was Crodelia book.


----------



## Coops (Jan 9, 2007)

In no particular order

Asimov's Robots and Foundation series are really one series tied neatly together in his later books.
Niven - Known Space series (Inc. Ringworld books)
Hogan - Giants series
Farmer - Riverworld
Farmer - Dayworld
Herbert - Dune
Bear - Eon, Eternity, Legacy
Card - Ender
Pohl - Gateway


----------



## that old guy (Jan 9, 2007)

Parson said:


> In the past years it seems like most all of the SF books that come out are part of one series or another.


 
One thing that kind of bugs me is how an outstanding first book is followed up by one that is mediocre at best, often many years later. I'm thinking in particular of Joe Haldeman's _The Forever War_ which had two very flat, downright confusing sequels...I couldn't even bring myself to finish the third one. Ditto C.S. Friedman's sequel to _In Conquest Born_, _The Wilding_. Not too, too bad, but nowhere near as good as the original.  And please *don't* get me started on all that bilge put out by Asimov's estate.

In all honesty, I've kind of shyed away from Hard SF in recent years, not sure why. Nothing just seems to grab me at the bookstore or library. So perhaps it is my tastes that have changed when I do pick them up, on the rare occassions I do.


----------



## Parson (Jan 9, 2007)

> One thing that kind of bugs me is how an outstanding first book is followed up by one that is mediocre at best, often many years later. I'm thinking in particular of Joe Haldeman's _The Forever War_ which had two very flat, downright confusing sequels...I couldn't even bring myself to finish the third one. Ditto C.S. Friedman's sequel to _In Conquest Born_, _The Wilding_. Not too, too bad, but nowhere near as good as the original. And please *don't* get me started on all that bilge put out by Asimov's estate.


 
You are right on, and you point to two outstanding novels, *The Forever War* and *In Conquest Born* which were so good that almost any sequel would have been a come down, let alone the one's that did come along. To my way of thinking it's a "Follow the Money" plan of publishing or producing movies, as far as that goes. Any book or movie which does very well assures the publishers/producers that there is an audience out there which will support whatever comes along with the same name, at least once and perhaps more often no matter how poorly the sequel reflects the original. Witness the array of Star Trek movies whose plot often was no better than, and almost always worse then the series. 

They seemed to turn the show upside down. The original series was long on ideas and acting, while being woefully short on money and special effects. (I know we are talking about the sixties here for special effects, but still...) While the moives were long on money and nearly always short on ideas. It seems to me that only one or two of them were really worth the trouble.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 9, 2007)

For me, the "Honor Harrington" series was _conceived_ as a series (the parallels with Horatio Hornblower are too evident to mention) while the "Dune" books were follow ups to an original success, and their steadily reducing quality over time clearly indicated this. Riverworld started with a bang, but trickled away into anticlimax; Cherryh seems to square the circle remarcably well, with sub-series (Cyteen, Chanur) within an essentially consistent universe, with overlaps, but not sequels (I fear the "Foreigner" series is showing evidence of sequelitis)
I don't believe anything was a sequel to "The forever war" - he just reused the name as a sales gimmick.
But it does seem that publishers are looking for massive works, nowadays, and not all science fiction ideas require, or are even comfortable in such environments. Some of the greatest SF ideas have been in novellas, or short stories, and there's really very little outlet for these any more. It appears that now, when your first book comes out, it has to be first in a seven volume work (and you have to be able to show the outline for the next six volumes, too) before it can be taken seriously; which is a form of censorship in itself (no idea of less than epic proportions is worth even considering)
Oh, and I'll still put up Brin's "Uplift" trilogy (the first, of course)even if I did prefer his "Earth"


----------



## Parson (Jan 9, 2007)

chrispenycate said:


> For me, the "Honor Harrington" series was _conceived_ as a series (the parallels with Horatio Hornblower are too evident to mention) while the "Dune" books were follow ups to an original success, and their steadily reducing quality over time clearly indicated this. Riverworld started with a bang, but trickled away into anticlimax; Cherryh seems to square the circle remarcably well, with sub-series (Cyteen, Chanur) within an essentially consistent universe, with overlaps, but not sequels (I fear the "Foreigner" series is showing evidence of sequelitis)
> I don't believe anything was a sequel to "The forever war" - he just reused the name as a sales gimmick.
> But it does seem that publishers are looking for massive works, nowadays, and not all science fiction ideas require, or are even comfortable in such environments. Some of the greatest SF ideas have been in novellas, or short stories, and there's really very little outlet for these any more. It appears that now, when your first book comes out, it has to be first in a seven volume work (and you have to be able to show the outline for the next six volumes, too) before it can be taken seriously; which is a form of censorship in itself (no idea of less than epic proportions is worth even considering)
> Oh, and I'll still put up Brin's "Uplift" trilogy (the first, of course)even if I did prefer his "Earth"


 
As usual, right on. I agree with all that you've said here. I would maintain that this same sort of thing is also creeping into general popular literature. The series that was never meant to be a series and showed continual decline for me was "Clan of the Cave Bear." A brilliant first book, and each following book was less than the one which preceeded it.


----------



## Siazo (Jan 11, 2007)

For me I think Asimov's robot series were the best, especially I, Robot.

Another great book(soon to be series) is "The Sky People" by S.M. Stirling, I'm only halfway through but so far I'm really loving it.


----------



## manephelien (Jan 11, 2007)

Asimov's Robot and Foundation series
Clarke's Rama and Odyssey series
Robert A. Heinlein's Future History novels (most of them can be retconned into it, if they weren't written with it in mind)

I admit I haven't read much hard SF lately... I've been thinking about reading Cherryh, but haven't gotten round to doing so yet.


----------

