Best Speculative Fiction Ever Written

[Violanthe]

I'm an editor for a new online magazine, and I'm working on a feature article on the most influential novels in speculative fiction (i.e. scifi, fantasy, horror, historical, etc.). The article (set to be published in December) will be a ranked list of the top 10 speculative fiction novels ever written. In order to test the validity of the list, I'm going around to online speculative fiction communities like this one to solicit your opinions.

So, what do you think? What are the most important speculative fiction novels ever published? The best written? The most compelling stories? The most fascinating characters? The most revolutionary concepts? The most influential?

Thanks for your input!

-Violanthe


[admin edit by I, Brian - promo link removed]

 

[ravenus]

What's the name of this online magazine and who is behind it? Give us a website link as well.

 

[Jay]

As I mentioned in every other palce this is spa....posted.

Most infleuntial IMHO:


1. Paradise Lost - John Milton
2. The Divine Comdey - Dante Alighieri
3. Beowulf
4. The Canterbury Tales - Geoffrey Chaucer
5. The Hero with a Thousand Faces - Joseph Campbell
6. Metamorphoses - Ovid
7. In Search of Lost Time - Marcel Proust
8. Genji Monogatari (The Tale of the Genji) - Murasaki Shikibu
9. Aesop's Fables - Aesop
10. Dracula - Bram Stoker, or Frankenstein by Marry Shelley

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

The Canterbury Tales - Geoffrey Chaucer

Something's terribly at odds in our definitions of spec fic. Sure, it's vastly influential on literature at large, but spec fic??? In fact, the whole list smacks of an over-stated attempt to contextualise a genre which really began with pre-war pulp magazines in a broader, more 'respectable' literary framework. Shelley, I'll accept, but the rest, while often landmark works of the imagination, have little direct bearingon sff as it haas evolved in out last 100-odd years.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

I mean, simple fact: an SF writer is more likely to cite Heinlein, Wells or Doc Smith as an influence than Proust or Ovid.

 

[Jay]

Depends on how you view the question - and you alerted me to it - I viewed it as most influential novel to speculative fiction, and not most influential speculative novels.

mean, simple fact: an SF writer is more likely to cite Heinlein, Wells or Doc Smith as an influence than Proust or Ovid.

That may be true in the long run, but I guess it depends only who ask - I have heard in discussion I have had with authors Proust and Ovid a lot and never any of the ones you mentioned (which is no knock on them there influence, and quality is not challenged by me).

Pre-war? What War? Was Jules Verne not Speculative Fiction? We are not talking about when thw genre was formed, but books. Jack London's Iron Heel? Was Edgar Allan Poe not writing speculative fiction in his essays?

fact, the whole list smacks of an over-stated attempt to contextualise a genre which really began with pre-war pulp magazines in a broader, more 'respectable' literary framework

Frankly, that's argumentative BS - I certainly have no ulterior motives in making a list of books/works, guided by more than my own opinion and I resent the accusation.

 

[Jay]

For works of specualtive fiction that I think were influntial to other speculative fiction:

Dangerous Visions - Harlan Ellison
The Lord of the Rings - JRR. Tolkien
The Cornelius Quartet - Michael Moorcock
Martian Chronicles - Ray Bradbury
The Drowned World - JG Ballard
Conan - Robert Howard (although Leiber took it to the next level IMHO)
Tarzan - Edgar Rice Burroughs
Gormenghast - Mervyn Peake
The Man in the High Castle - Philip K. Dick
At the Mountains of Madness - HP Lovecraft

Lewis belongs, as does Poe, and Shelley from my prior list, I really should have a Hard SfFauthor up there so Asimov, Heinlen, as Knivesout mentions the good old Doc. ( I just can't think of a single work)

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Maybe if you'd elucidate specific cases as to why you chose the works in your first list, I'd see your point.

As it stands, it's easier to trace the influence of Howard and Tolkien on fantasy than Chaucer and Dante, and Heinlein and even gadgetgeek Gernsback on SF than Ovid or Milton. I just feel that while these works refelct signficant imaginative achievements, they are important in the overall context of the larger body of literature, and not especially so to spec fic.

 

[Jay]

Hmmm....Something just happened to my post - Knivesout did it get sent via Pm to you (as at first it was a PM before you took it public ), I pressend submit (to post here) and got that damn receit for message then my screen forze, so I'm hoping my reply was accidently being written as a PM and sent to you.

Can you confirm, or send it back to me for me to edit etc? With your reply if you want.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I have to admit, my understanding of "speculative fiction" as a genre is based on it focussing on speculative developments in science - ie, "hard sf". The original post broadens it to "scifi, fantasy, horror, historical" which means we're really talking about the general arena of science fiction and fantasy.

As with Knivesout's concerns, I'm not sure that the original list of literary works would ordinarily be classed under the traditional areas of SFF - not least because fantasy itself is very much a modern re-invention of mythology, so listing mythology as fantasy seems a little like forcing backward compatability.

However, on saying that, including derivative works such as Milton's Paradise Lost is actually a pretty inspired choice, due to it's contemporary treatment of mythological themes (if I'm allowed that statement as a part of literary comment ).

Oh - I've also delinked the original post as it was in essence a spam drop.

 

[GOLLUM]

What's the name of this online magazine and who is behind it? Give us a website link as well.

Yes I'd like to know this too.

I went to that link that was posted by Violanthe but there's no name, contact details, email address or anything else given. I think it would add greater cedibiltiy to this Ezine if we knew something more about the people behind it.

Also in their list of Top Ten Speculative authors (I assume in terms of influence as much as anything) of all time they have Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind and JK Rowling. Maybe I'm slow on the uptake but how the heck can you fit these three in this sort of a list.......

Authors like Zelazny and Frank Herbert appear in the top 20 list but much further down than these.

I appreciate that these lists are, as I understand it, compiled or based on fan's opinions but I'm slightly bemused by some of the results. Only my opinion of course as per our previous discussions on the merits or otherwise of having lists but if we're talking in terms of influence or significance on fiction speculative or otherwise I just can't see how this list holds much water in the end. Am I'm being unreasonable here or off the mark??

 

[GOLLUM]

Oh - I've also delinked the original post as it was in essence a spam drop.

AHA so maybe I wasn't going mad after all...

I tend to agree with Knivesout's interperation more in terms of what the post was requesting. At least how I took it
to mean anyway.

 

[Stalker]

We probably shoul have started from defining the subgenres of Speculative (science) Fiction affected by prominent literature works...
For example, if it's Gothic/Horror SF - these are Mary Shelley, E.A. Poe, Bram Stoker and Lovecraft
Fantasy: Beowulf, Both Older and Younger Edda, Canterbury stories by Geoffrey Chaucer and only after them - Howard, Dunsany and Tolkien.
Pure SF: I'd put my stake on Cyrano de Bergerac's States and Empires of the Moon
Humouristic SF:François Rabelais' Gargantua and Pantagruel
Etc.

 

[Jay]

First, Kniveout thanks - got my reply back Knives out in retrospect I don't feel like arguing, you saw my response, so you know where I stand on it. Must have been typing a PM when I thougth it was a post.

To make myself clear again however my first list didn't take into account whether my choices were actual works of specualtive fiction or not, only their influence on authors who are - my second list I think corresponds more with the intended spirit of the thread.

What had me confused is I saw this (the message) at a few sites already , and often it is worded differently thus I have different choices, marked (at different sites). The post itself ask several questions as if they quantify the same thing, and if not I don't think anyone is going to fill out lists in all the subjects (not to mention the logisitcs in counting them if you get several replies )

appreciate that these lists are, as I understand it, compiled or based on fan's opinions but I'm slightly bemused by some of the results. Only my opinion of course as per our previous discussions on the merits or otherwise of having lists but if we're talking in terms of influence or significance on fiction speculative or otherwise I just can't see how this list holds much water in the end. Am I'm being unreasonable here or off the mark??

Although I usually particpate in such polls I do so with little hope of it mirroring my own opinions (which I'm not implyign are correct). Public Polls almost always, no matter what the subject, will be turned into popularity contests, or of what is currently visible. I usually only vote to make sure in the end Mervyn Peake and Moorcock gets mentioned, because honestly and list (especially regarding fantasy) that doesn't include them is a joke IMHO.

A name that comes often honestly in conversation is Shakespeare (I left him off simply because I'm not a fan (shoot me ) - but at any rate while I reserve and defend my first list as an example that the majority of authors always seem to state "for influences read outside of the genre", but admit my second list is as said more in proper spirit, at least more applicable here.

The fact that Goodkind and Jordan are on a list that doesn't include Bradbury or PKD is disturbing (not to mention dozens and dozens of others).

 

[GOLLUM]

The fact that Goodkind and Jordan are on a list that doesn't include Bradbury or PKD is disturbing (not to mention dozens and dozens of others).

Well I think I can fairly safely say that Bradbury and PKD were nowhere on the horizon.

Their top 10 fantasy list included Terry Brooks at No. 5 along with Goodkind and Jordan, so I know you're likely to be impressed by that Jay...

 

[Jay]

Their top 10 fantasy list included Terry Brooks at No. 5 along with Goodkind and Jordan, so I know you're likely to be impressed by that Jay...

Perhaps I misread it, was it a top 10 most mindless fantasy list?

Actually I saw it at their site - and made a note most of the choices would look much more appropriate on what I would deem the worst fantasy list (again for the purposes of being politically correct, which has value you to some regarding books, only in my opinion)

 

[GOLLUM]

Perhaps I misread it, was it a top 10 most mindless fantasy list?

Dunno but they did have Gene Wolfe and GRRM listed too, two of the authors I do like.

Actually I don't mind Jordan, I enjoyed the earlier books in WOT but felt it tailed off after that...

Still, like we've discussed previously, they're only lists of people's personal opinions w/o the reveiw element, so each to their own is what I say and if specific authors write sucessfully to specific audiences who enjoy their efforts and the author makes a stash of cash along the way then good luck to them I suppose....

 

[Violanthe]

I have always seen the term "Speculative Fiction" used in context as a general category to encompass a variety of genres related by their appeal to similar audiences, and common uses of "otherworldly" settings and concepts. Not much reason to use it as a synonym for "science fiction" or "hard science fiction" since we already have terms for those.

I agree that sometimes we get "mindless" authors or books in the voting, and in the past when we didn't have a very large pool of voters from which to draw, we got a lot of these "mindless" picks in the final lists. But I'm trying to remedy this situation by inviting a larger pool of voters to pitch in.

 

[Jay]

Dunno but they did have Gene Wolfe and GRRM listed too, two of the authors I do like.

Gene Wolfe defintely deserving, I'm a huge fan of Martin, but I can't say I think he is one of the 10 most influential writers in the history of speculative fiction.

Actually I don't mind Jordan, I enjoyed the earlier books in WOT but felt it tailed off after that...

I think Jordan is mindless (without quotes) but I will agree it's a reputation he has earned from me for his last several recent efforts. I certainly am not ashamed to admit through 3 books I thought the series was definitely worth reading and had some instances of really groundbreaking ideas (from a world building perspective and scope), and his success unquestionable allowed authors superior to him to have the opportuntiy to write other fat fantasies, most of which I could have done without, but a few which are excellent.

Still, like we've discussed previously, they're only lists of people's personal opinions w/o the reveiw element,

See, this is where I took umbrage with that thread. Even if they left their reviews - and wrote the greatest review in history for say, The Sword of Shananra it wouldn't change the fact that it's still sub-par writing. To me it's not a question of whether the writing is sub-par or not, I think it's a fact, however, some people simply , and obviously enjoy sub-par writing, which is good for them - read what you enjoy, lets just not make something into something it's not. Hell, there are plenty of books I have enjoyed by writers I freely admit aren't exactly James Joyce (Gemmell, Rowling, Nix, Salvatore, hell I even enjoyed Lawrence Watt-Evans Obsidian Chronicles). This was not a case of me enjoying great work, it was a case of me finding something in average work I enjoyed.

I can write a review that makes Robert Newcomb's The Gates of Dawn sound like it's the best book in the last few years, it wouldn't change the fact that it's mindless (again no quotes).

 

[ravenus]

You people are the experts here, but I have a bit of doubt over considering stuff like Tolkien as "speculative fiction". Correct me if I'm wrong here but to my mind the term speculative refers to a kind of fiction where a "what if" possibility is brought into a credible ecosystem and the effects of that possibility on that system are observed. I am Legend may be an example of this, or some of Philip K. Dick's stuff.

Does fantasy fiction (be it medieval or futuristic) automatically qualify as being speculative?