What's your favourite science fiction book?

[wafflycat]

There is some brilliant Fantasy, but...is it just me, or is the jewels-to-dunghill ratio really small?

True of all genres of books I would have thought.

 

[User482]

Does 1984 count as SF? That would be top of my list.

I enjoyed the SF classics as a child - Wyndham, Wells, Verne, Clarke, Heinlein, but they don't hold any appeal for me these days.

 

[Yellow Fang]

I suppose if Brave New World is science fiction then 1984 is.

I always liked the film Zardoz. I assume it was based on a book. I may have to get it out one day.

 

[NickM]

...(in the adult section where I wasn't really allowed to go, but I had special permission...).

I had pink kid's tickets and blue adult's tickets.

Three of each, and every one of them perpetually in use...

 

[jimboalee]

Reading fiction books.

"Life's bad enough as it is without trying to invent any more of it."

 

[Shaun]

Used to love all the TV sci-fi stuff as a kid, and whilst I haven't read much specific s/f as a growed-up, I did pick up Asimov's GOLD collection at a charity shop and really enjoyed it.

I particularly like the rather clever Cal - that one has stuck with me over the years.

Cheers,
Shaun

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I had pink kid's tickets and blue adult's tickets.

Three of each, and every one of them perpetually in use...

Yeah, me too - it took some negotiation from what I can recall!

Pavane is superb, and I also like The Gold Coast (in fact the whole Orange County trilogy) a lot. Richard Cowper is still underrated even by SF readers... it's such a shame.

Jimboalee - not quite sure what point you are trying to make, but Gilgamesh is religion/myth not SF. There's a big difference and superficial comparisons don't really say much. Some SF certainly draws on myth or mythic tropes and archetypes - as does a lot more Fantasy, and more explicitly so - but if you want a definition of SF? I'd say it was a new form of literature responds to the increased pace of scientific and technological change that started after the industrial revolution. There are some fictional precursors, but not everything that looks like SF is SF (whether the 'S' stands for 'Science' or 'Speculative').

And life without fiction is a poorer one IMHO. Telling stories is one of humankind's oldest and greatest achievements.

 

[Night Train]

I have two epic favorites at the moment.
Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Red Mars', 'Green Mars', 'Blue Mars'.
Arthur C Clarke's 'Rendezvous With Rama', 'Rama II', 'Gardens Of Rama', 'Rama Revealed'.

I can read those back to back over and over.

 

[2Loose]

Another vote for any of the books in Julian May's Many Coloured Lands saga.
Read the entire series at least four times with some books being dug out from time to time and they still don't seem stale.

 

[MacB]

I have two epic favorites at the moment.
Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Red Mars', 'Green Mars', 'Blue Mars'.
Arthur C Clarke's 'Rendezvous With Rama', 'Rama II', 'Gardens Of Rama', 'Rama Revealed'.

I can read those back to back over and over.

I thought the Rama series had some superb ideas and started off well. Felt it lost its way a bit in the middle, too much focus on the vagaries of 'human nature'. Quite liked the ending though, which is fairly rare in SF.

I do have a weakness for 'found' technology, there's been some great stuff around the attempts to interpret and use it. Gateway by Fredrick Pohl is a good example.

 

[XmisterIS]

Out of the Silent Planet by C. S. Lewis.

I have yet to read Perelandra and That Hideous Strength.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

I don't read a lot of SF these days - one I enjoyed very much was Dying Inside by Robert Silverberg. Some may say it's not true SF, good though IMHO.

 

[jimboalee]

Yeah, me too - it took some negotiation from what I can recall!

Pavane is superb, and I also like The Gold Coast (in fact the whole Orange County trilogy) a lot. Richard Cowper is still underrated even by SF readers... it's such a shame.

Jimboalee - not quite sure what point you are trying to make, but Gilgamesh is religion/myth not SF. There's a big difference and superficial comparisons don't really say much. Some SF certainly draws on myth or mythic tropes and archetypes - as does a lot more Fantasy, and more explicitly so - but if you want a definition of SF? I'd say it was a new form of literature responds to the increased pace of scientific and technological change that started after the industrial revolution. There are some fictional precursors, but not everything that looks like SF is SF (whether the 'S' stands for 'Science' or 'Speculative').

And life without fiction is a poorer one IMHO. Telling stories is one of humankind's oldest and greatest achievements.

My definition of Science Fiction :-

"A fantasy story based on speculative scientific and technological developments"

Let's look back at what I wrote.

The old stuff I quoted from referred to technologies that were NOT everyday knowledge for the periodical setting.

In my mind, describing a sword, a METAL instrument of violence, when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden is a reference to a technology mankind did not have. And what is a sword doing there if not made by man and God is a God of peace?

Why is this not Science Fiction?

 

[just jim]

I like Richard Morgan's work - I enjoyed Altered Carbon and Market Forces for it's more o.t.t film- like qualities (it started off as a film script).

If I'm feeling brave I'll tackle a Peter F. Hamilton novel, but they're pretty hefty and require good bit of time and patience to get through to an extent that I've become a bit wary of them.

I liked Harry Harrison's "The Stainless Steel Rat" series and Bob Shaw's books - "Who Goes Here" was a favourite of mine - something about his humour and ideas about space travel appealed.

Fred Pohl's "Man Plus" about an astronaut undergoing extensive surgery/ augmentation/ training to be able to survive on Mar's was a good one - futuristic and melancholic at the same time.

ummm - the first "proper" S.F book I read post "Dr. Who book collection" was " Have Space Suit, Will Travel" by Heinlein about a boy who wins a used spacesuit in a soap competition. Great book!

 

[Flying_Monkey]

In my mind, describing a sword, a METAL instrument of violence, when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden is a reference to a technology mankind did not have. And what is a sword doing there if not made by man and God is a God of peace?

Why is this not Science Fiction?

1. they did have metal swords when the book was written;
2. the god of the Old Testament is not a god of peace;
3. references to powers beyond people's comprehension are to divine powers not technological ones.

It's mythology / religion - stories of origin and the relationship of humankind with the unseen powers that supposedly created us. Some SF is mythic, but mythology is not SF. Religion and myth also serve as cultural unifiers - they are believed and form a shared basis for social norms; they are not just creative writing. When you confuse this you get Scientology - which really is SF as religion...

Again, you are just making the mistake of comparing things that look superficially similar, rather like the people who think that ancient pictorgrams represent aliens because they look a bit like common contemporary depictions of space-men.