Science Fiction: The 101 Best Novels 1985 – 2010

by Damien Broderick, Paul Di Filippo, David Pringle (Foreword)

Inspired by David Pringle's landmark 1985 work Science Fiction: The 100 Best Novels, this volume supplements the earlier selection with the present authors' choices for the best English-language science fiction novels during the past quarter century. Employing a critical slant, the book provides a discussion of the novels and the writers in the context of popular literature. Moreover, each entry features a cover image of the novel, a plot synopsis, and a mini review, making it an ideal go-to guide for anyone wanting to become reacquainted with an old favorite or to discover a previously unknown treasure. With a foreword by David Pringle, this invaluable reference is sure to provoke conversation and debates among sci-fi fans and devotees.

Genres: Science Fiction, Reference, Speculative Fiction, Books About Books, Criticism

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2012

About the author

Damien Francis Broderick was an Australian science fiction and popular science writer and editor of some 74 books. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction credits him with the first usage of the term "virtual reality" in science-fiction, in his 1982 novel The Judas Mandala.

Reviews

[Stuart · Rating 3 out of 5]

Science Fiction: The 101 Best Novels, 1985-2010: Interesting choices, but reviews inept
Originally published at Fantasy Literature
Even since high school I’ve used David Pringle’s Science Fiction: 100 Best Novels, 1949-1984 (1985), Modern Fantasy: 100 Best Novels, 1946-1987 (1988), and The Ultimate Guide to Science Fiction (1991) as excellent guides to some of the highest-quality, distinctive, and intelligent books in the SF and fantasy genres. By introducing me to many obscure and underappreciated titles and authors, including a number of UK writers unfamiliar to American fans, Pringle served to broaden my SF and fantasy horizons so much that I will always owe him a debt of gratitude. The only drawback was that he never followed up these volumes with a newer selection of titles, and after high school I became busy with college and work and family and couldn’t find the time to read SF much.

Two decades later, Damian Broderick and Paul di Filippo, both SF critics and published authors in their own right, saw an opportunity to fill the gap left by Pringle. Using essentially the same format, they made a selection of their choices for the best SF novels of the next 25 years, taking up the year after Pringle’s book ends. Purely by accident, I discovered Science Fiction: The 101 Best Novels, 1985-2010 and bought it on impulse. Since I had been away from the genre for about 20 years, many of the titles were completely unfamiliar to me. It was the perfect primer to catch up with the genre and get motivated to dive back in.

Each entry is 2-3 pages long, and describes the author’s background and body of work, importance in the genre (or not, in the case of some mainstream authors included here), and a synopsis of the book, complete with quotes, opinions, and unfortunately inexcusable spoilers of major plot points in some cases. I cannot fathom why they need to include spoilers when the book is designed to get people interested in new books to read. Both authors are regular reviewers of SF works, including in The New York Review of Science Fiction and Asimov’s Science Fiction, and there is no question that they have read very widely in the genre. Just imagine how many books you need to have read to narrow it down to ‘just’ 101 titles over a 25-year span. They are also extremely enthusiastic about their recommendations, and gleefully describe how special or underappreciated a given title is.

I too am a die-hard fan of speculative fiction, especially the more highbrow ‘literary’ SF that attempts to both entertain, enlighten, and challenge readers and deliver new insights and ideas about the world and what the future might hold. However, I found the writing style of these two reviewers to be way too clever, self-congratulatory, and more florid and purple than Barney. For example, I have never seen so much use of superfluous and pretentious terms in any book not labeled ‘literary criticism’: “mimetic, deracinated, limned, re-complicated, evergreen-deep tropes, or hieratic numerology" are thrown about with abandon, just to show how incredibly erudite and sophisticated our reviewers really are. Instead of impressing me, it just made me roll my eyes in disgust. One of the best things about the SF genre is that it can be unashamedly intelligent and mind-expanding without being as haughty and elitist as mainstream ‘literary’ writers and critics often are. So it’s a shame when two clearly well-read and enthusiastic promoters of the genre feel the need to impress by mimicking the worst excesses of ‘literary criticism’. The beauty of David Pringle’s books were his ability to describe in concise and clear terms what made a book worth reading, without throwing in too much of his own prejudices. There are dozens of examples of irritating writing that doesn’t belong in a review, and I found this in another review of the book which will give you an idea:

Lethem's beautifully balanced, metaphorically rich prose propels this blackly jolly fable to a surprising yet satisfying conclusion. By book's end, a sense that the author had accomplished his takeoff taxiing and was now fully in flight for more cosmopolitan cities pervades the pages.

In the end, I read through all the reviews but used Goodreads and Fantasy Literature as a filter to weed out books that I wasn’t sure were quite as amazing as the reviewers suggested. As we all know, no two readers will be able to agree on even a fraction of the books included in a “Best of” list, and in particular I am not sure about the recommendations in this book. However, although I have read at least half of Pringles’ SF picks, I have only read a paltry 13 of the 101 books listed below, so I really can’t judge how ‘on-target’ they are. That would depend entirely on each person’s individual taste and preferences. From the list, the following titles look attractive and I plan to read them sometime in my lifetime:

This Is the Way the World Ends, The Falling Woman, Soldiers of Paradise, Life During Wartime, The Sea and Summer, Cyteen, Neverness, Grass, Queen of Angels, Barrayar, Stations of the Tide, China Mountain Zhang, Red Mars, A Fire Upon the Deep, Aristoi, Doomsday Book, Parable of the Sower, Ammonite, Brittle Innings, Permutation City, Revelation Space, The Time Traveler’s Wife, River of Gods, Accelerando, Spin, Blindsight, The Yiddish Policeman’s Union, The Alchemy of Stone, Zoo City, and The Quantum Thief.

1. Handmaid’s Tale* by Margaret Atwood
2. Ender’s Game* by Orson Scott Card
3. Radio Free Albemuth* by Philip K. Dick
4. Always Coming Home by Ursula K. LeGuin
5. This Is the Way the World Ends by James Morrow
6. Galapagos* by Kurt Vonnegut
7. The Falling Woman by Pat Murphy
8. The Shore of Women by Pamela Sargent
9. A Door into Ocean by Joan Slonczewski
10. Soldiers of Paradise by Paul Park
11. Life During Wartime by Lucius Shepard
12. The Sea and Summer by George Turner
13. Cyteen by C. J. Cherryh
14. Neverness by David Zindell
15. The Steerswoman by Rosemary Kirstein
16. Grass by Sheri S. Tepper
17. Use of Weapons* by Iain M. Banks
18. Queen of Angels by Greg Bear
19. Barrayar by Lois McMaster Bujold
20. Synners by Pat Cadigan
21. Sarah Canary by Karen Joy Fowler
22. White Queen by Gwyneth Jones
23. Eternal Light by Paul McAuley
24. Stations of the Tide by Michael Swanwick
25. Timelike Infinity by Stephen Baxter
26. Dead Girls by Richard Calder
27. Jumper by Steven Gould
28. China Mountain Zhang by Maureen F. McHugh
29. Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson
30. A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge
31. Aristoi by Walter Jon Williams
32. Doomsday Book by Connie Willis
33. Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler
34. Ammonite by Nicola Griffith
35. Chimera by Mary Rosenblum
36. Nightside the Long Sun* by Gene Wolfe
37. Brittle Innings by Michael Bishop
38. Permutation City by Greg Egan
39. Blood: A Southern Fantasy by Michael Moorcock
40. Mother of Storms by John Barnes
41. Sailing Bright Eternity by Gregory Benford
42. Galatea 2.2 by Richard Powers
43. The Diamond Age* by Neal Stephenson
44. The Transmigration of Souls by William Barton
45. The Fortunate Fall by Raphael Carter
46. The Sparrow/Children of God by Mary Doria Russell
47. Holy Fire by Bruce Sterling
48. Night Lamp by Jack Vance
49. In the Garden of Iden by Kage Baker
50. Forever Peace* by Joe Haldeman
51. Glimmering by Elizabeth Hand
52. As She Climbed Across the Table by Jonathan Lethem
53. The Cassini Division by Ken MacLeod
54. Bloom by Wil McCarthy
55. Vast by Linda Nagata
56. The Golden Globe by John Varley
57. Headlong by Simon Ings
58. Cave of Stars by George Zebrowski
59. Genesis by Poul Anderson
60. Super-Cannes by J. G. Ballard
61. Under the Skin by Michael Faber
62. Perdido Street Station* by China Mieville
63. Distance Haze by Jamil Nasir
64. Revelation Space Trilogy by Alastair Reynolds
65. Salt by Adam Roberts
66. Ventus by Karl Schroeder
67. The Cassandra Complex by Brian Stableford
68. Light by M. John Harrison
69. Altered Carbon* by Richard Morgan
70. The Separation by Christopher Priest
71. The Golden Age by John C. Wright
72. The Time Traveler’s Wife by Audrey Niffenger
73. Natural History by Justina Robinson
74. The Labyrinth Key/Spears of God by Howard Hendrix
75. River of Gods by Ian McDonald
76. The Plot Against America by Philip Roth
77. Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro
78. The House of Storms by Ian R. MacLeod
79. Counting Heads by David Marusek
80. Air (Or, Have Not Have) by Geoff Ryman
81. Accelerando by Charles Stross
82. Spin by Robert Charles Wilson
83. My Dirty Little Book of Stolen Time by Liz Jensen
84. The Road* by Cormac McCarthy
85. Temeraire/His Majesty’s Dragon by Naomi Novik
86. Blindsight by Peter Watts
87. HARM by Brian Aldiss
88. The Yiddish Policeman’s Union by Michael Chabon
89. The Secret City by Carol Emshwiller
90. In War Times by Kathleen Ann Goonan
91. Postsingular by Rudy Rucker
92. Shadow of the Scorpion by Neal Asher
93. The Hunger Games* by Suzanne Collins
94. Little Brother by Cory Doctorow
95. The Alchemy of Stone by Ekaterina Sedia
96. The Windup Girl* by Paolo Bacigalupi
97. Steal Across the Sky by Nancy Kress
98. Boneshaker by Cherie Priest
99. Zoo City by Lauren Beukes
100. Zero History by William Gibson
101. The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rajaniemi

[Benjamin Kahn · Rating 1 out of 5]

I want to preface this review by stating that the reason I read (as do most people, I would think) a book like this is as a "what to read next." And in this it succeeded, as I have pulled several books or authors from this book to try, including Fuzzy Dice by Paul Di Filippo, an excellent book which I really enjoyed.

It's hard to believe that someone that wrote such a fun, witty book as Fuzzy Dice could be involved in such a dud as this. The book is excrutiating to try and read. Full of half-baked literary theories, author bios, recommendations of almost every other work by the author, comparisons of each book with mentions of several other authors and books, I gave up on reading the entries and turned to scanning them after awhile. Then I stopped doing that and simply grabbed the title of each book and looked up reviews on-line to get an idea of whether the book would interest me or not.

This book is intended as a sequel to David Pringle's Science Fiction: the 100 best novels. As a consequence, I went and sought out Pringle's book, a vastly superior work. Pringle keeps his reviews short and to the point. If an author has written more than one book that ranks as one of the best novels, Pringle gives them multiple entries. Not so with Damien Broderick and Di Filippo, who never give an author more than one listing, but then mention several of the author's works under that book's entry. In one book (which escapes me), the reader is told not to start with the book in question, but rather with an earlier book in the series. But that book doesn't make the list on its own. Many specific entries are meant to stand in for a whole series. The book does not read like the authors wanted to compile a list of the best sf books between 1985 and 2010 as much as give a literary overview to books of that period. It may not seem that different, but it is.

I also didn't like that fact that the table of contents included a list of the books, but not the authors. There was no index, either, which made it impossible to see who had written what without flipping through the whole book. I thought this was a huge omission.

Overall, I'd recommend this book for the list of recommendations, which the reader can then go elsewhere to find out about. Reading this book is just too painful.

[Liviu · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I discussed the list of titles (as it made its way online as a meme) in a FBC post here:

http://fantasybookcritic.blogspot.com...

and I even offered some other suggestions in another post here:

http://fantasybookcritic.blogspot.com...,

I finally got a copy of the book itself and a little to my surprise I found it very entertaining and the authors present a convincing case for most books (I still do not get Temeraire which is still mediocre fantasy with no place on either a sf list or a best of anything but how to churn endless sequels that go nowhere) and while I disagree in a lot of cases with the choices as noted in the post above, I felt the authors did a good selling job for most novels.

The style is generally jargon-free and the arguments to the point with a short overview of the author's work and a description of the novel in cause, sometimes (but not always) an argument for why it was chosen from among the author's work rather than why the author has been chosen.

As for content again imho it has several notable misses and it has a heavy "soft sf" orientation rather than the epic-sf - space opera and its cousins, mil-sf and epic alt-history which i tend to favor, so i think that it will be much less relevant 20-30 years from now since I would argue that in the 1985-2010 period, sf moved decisively towards the more epic form plus a strong post-apocalyptic branch (not that well represented in the book either), while the softer side moved into mainstream, thrillers, YA, urban fantasy (which is a misnomer to a large extent as its topic used to be sf once upon a time) and is much less prevalent today in what is packaged as sf

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book I have been eager to read for some years after finding the 100 best Modern Fantasy on one of my random travels. Now I will admit that back then the book was an amazing eye opener. Not only gave a wonderful mixture of titles covering an astounding array of sub-genres it also gave brief and tantalising ideas of what the story was all about.

At this point I must say that I love reading a book for the journey I can read the last page of a book and still get the same amount of enjoyment out of it simply because I want to see how the characters got there even if I do not enjoy what happens to them. So reading a brief preface of what happens if anything makes a book even more appealing to me that I started.

Anyway this book does not get the full rating for one reasons. Its NOT by David Pringle - now sitting here looking at it that is quite obvious but not every review or sales site confirms this - in fact he wrote the preface to the book and others did the section and reviewing.

Why the disappointment well simply because I love Mr Pringles style - who is clear and accessible and generally light in tone (after all if you want to dive in to a book thats great but that is for the book now the introduction) which sadly is not always the case with this book.

In fact there were several entries which I felt the author was almost trying to be too smart to show off their superior knowledge of the story and in the process making you feel inferior about what you thought of it. Now I am sure that was not the case intended but it did feel that way.

That said they were few and far between and there are some both amazing choices of titles and entries- this is one book which will be referred to time and time again although when I start reading it I may have to take a few deep breaths.

[Nicky · Rating 3 out of 5]

This isn't exactly filled with sparkling deathless prose, and if you're expecting something definitive or unassailable, I think you're a bit batty. If you think you're going to agree with every choice, I think you're more than a bit batty. It's basically a list with some commentary, comprising of a number of novels which the authors found notable in one way or another -- not necessarily literary merit, but sometimes just really cool ideas.

It's an interesting list, a little more diverse than I was expecting, and I'm planning to go through it reading all the books. Sometimes the commentary by the authors is useful, sometimes it amounts to little more than a plot summary, but either way it usually gives you a feel of what the book is about, at the very least.

[Gerhard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Any authors who dare to compile a list of ‘best’ SF novels do so at their peril. If there is anything more divisive to SF fans than what constitutes the genre itself, then it is what novels or authors are most representative of that genre. (For a genre supposedly based on inclusivity and universalism, SF is renowned for its rivalries and schisms, some petty and others quite epic; this book will no doubt fan some of those fires.)

Kudos then to Damien Broderick and Paul Di Filippo for defusing the critical minefield by making two very bold statements in their introduction: firstly, that SF is a mode of reading and, secondly, that the term itself is more of a marketing distinction than it is a literary one.

The latter point is best underlined by some notable inclusions in this list, namely The Road by Cormac McCarthy, The Plot Against America by Philip Roth, Galatea 2.2 by Richard Powers, The Yiddish Policeman’s Union by Michael Chabon and Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. These are authors not normally associated with SF, even though their books highlighted here share many of the techniques and tropes of the genre.

This, of course, is the 2012 sequel to David Pringle’s Science Fiction: The 100 Best Novels: 1949-1984, published in 1985. This means that the next instalment is due in 2035, which is a scary thought, given the momentous social, political and technological changes that the world has undergone in this 25-year period – as encapsulated by the SF genre itself.

Indeed, Pringle comments that “the world is different, but science fiction carries on vigorously, reflecting our times back to us in imaginative form.” Broderick and Di Filipo pick up on this point in their introduction: “Science fiction is the tool that allows us to master such change.”

Science fiction is the one type of literature that promotes, to use the phrase pioneered by the bloggers at Boing Boing, the creation of ‘happy mutants’. It’s the literature of cultural Darwinism, the sieve through which we pan for ideational gold.

The authors provide a sobering snapshot of the world (way back) in 1985, when a state-of-the-art cellphone was the Motorola DynaTAC and a state-of-the-art computer was the Commodore 64, cyberpunk was the ‘in’ thing (Bladerunner was released in 1982), and Ronald Reagan took up the reins for his second term as US president.

What is remarkable about this book, and which makes it such fun to read, is how diverse SF is as a genre (and perhaps even moreso as a socio-political and cultural movement). This is very much the sort of book you dip in and out of when the mood takes you. For seasoned SF readers such as myself, it offers some surprises – I have not read Linda Nagata, Jamil Nasir, William Barton, Raphael Carter, Rosemary Kirstein or Howard Hendrix, for example.

On the other hand, there are some baffling inclusions, such as Suzanne Collins and Audrey Niffenger, but I think this has more to do with illustrating the zeitgeist of the times than literary merit (one hopes).

Equally, there are notable exclusions: Samuel R. Delany’s Nova is in the Pringle book, but not Dhalgren. And Stars in my Pocket Like Grains of Sand (1984) is not, and neither is it squeezed into this second compendium. Let us hope that Delany’s Through the Valley of the Nest of Spiders (2012) makes the third volume at least.

Some prominent critics like Michael Moorcock have already referred to the lack of women writers and writers of colour on this list. However, given recent developments in the genre, the 2035 instalment will likely make for very interesting, and very different, reading. Here is to the next 25 years.

[Roddy Williams · Rating 1 out of 5]

I’ve only recently come across this book, having made it my mission back in the 80s to read all of the books in 100 Best SF Novels. (I still have about 5 to go.)
I am a little surprised and somewhat disappointed at some of the choices and would seriously question the selectors’ definition of the word ‘Best’. Pringle’s criteria I imagine would be that the novels would be both important in terms of influence within the SF world and also be great works of literature. Certainly that applies with a large percentage of this selection but Difillippo and Broderick were well off the mark with the remainder.
I suspect that some authors were included because of their prior reputations rather than the quality of that particular novel. Ballard and Vonnegut wrote far better years before and seem to have been included out of respect rather than merit. In some cases an arbitrary novel seems to have been picked out of a respected author’s canon where far better works could have been included. It does seem odd for instance that ‘Shadow of The Scorpion’ was the Asher choice rather than ‘Gridlinked‘ or Greg Bear’s ‘Queen of Angels‘ being the best thing he wrote in twenty five years. Louis McMaster Bujold, CJ Cherryh and Orson Scott Card write workmanlike SF novels, but they can’t surely be good enough to be listed in the best 101 since 1985. It is the omissions that are as surprising as the inclusions. Where is Dan Simmons’ ‘Hyperion‘ or Richard Paul Russo’s ‘Unto Leviathan‘, either of which would knock the Hunger Games into a cocked hat?
I’m not even going to get into the debate about whether ‘The Hunger Games’ should be on the list. That one selection undermines the validity of the entire enterprise. Where are Peter F Hamilton, Robert Reed, Ian Watson? It doesn’t strike me as a list that has been properly thought through and one which was designed to please the lowest common denominator rather than being a truly critical choice. ‘Most popular’ seldom equates with ‘Best’.

[Andreas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Vivid readers always welcome new recommendations. If you just need a raw list then you can go to Worlds without End and look up the different awards or compiled lists. Personally I enjoy it when someone writes a paragraph or two why a book has been selected and this is what Damien Broderick does.

I am familiar with many of the authors and have read about 20 books from the list. Some I really loved (The Road, The Golden Age, Use of Weapons) and others not so much (Night Lamp despite being a huge Jack Vance fan, Natural History) but every single one left a lasting impression. It's safe to say that Broderick favors grand ideas so if you look for speculative fiction with a spin then take a look at his Top 101.

Some people have complained that only one entry is allowed per author. In my opinion this is a good choice and encourages to take a good look at an article to find more recommendations.

[Robert Adam Gilmour · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the sequel to David Pringle's brilliant Science Fiction: The 100 Best Novels. Don't know why I delayed so much in getting this because I loved all the other similar genre guides. Main differences with Pringle's earlier guide is that it adds an extra book more, Pringle always used 2 pages per entry and this uses 2-3 pages (Gene Wolfe was the only one to get 4 pages if I remember correctly). No author gets more than one book (or book series), while Pringle was quite happy to choose multiple books by the same author. It could be said that Broderick and Di Filippo cheat by cramming in lots of other recommendations as tangents (Attanasio's Radix is given a strong recommendation in the entry for Zindell's Neverness, they lament that he was overlooked for the previous book) and career run-throughs for lesser known authors (Liz Jensen gets a bundle of her books profiled). Some reviewers disliked all this extra cramming but I really appreciated it.

Like other reviewers I sometimes suspected some books were included for being important and representative (perhaps to discuss developments in the genre) rather than the best, a surprising number of bestsellers are chosen and I wondered if this was a crowdpleasing move. Some later successes by the SF elders are chosen (including Poul Anderson, Vance, Vonnegut, Ballard, Moorcock, Le Guin, Aldiss) and many other reviewers felt these entries were just out of respect to the legends of the genre. Possibly some writers were chosen out of respect for their short fiction?
Since I haven't read a single one of these books and cant read the minds of Broderick & Di Filippo, I cant say how honest the choices were.

I normally welcome dense writing but when I read reviews, I rarely have the patience for it and sometimes feel like a traitor for this. But a lot of the descriptions are really confusing. They insist that science fiction rarely has much actual science in it but I was frequently lost with the mentions of singularity, quantum sciences and other such things. In a guide like this, which will probably attract newbies as much as huge SF fans, I felt they should have been more accessible like Pringle was. But I enjoyed the writing more than most people seemed to, I thought there was a glee to it.
My biggest complaint is that the type size is too small, making the book much more difficult. Even if you're not fond of ebooks you might want to consider the ebook version to save your eyes.

There was quite a lot of epic Hard SF and that's a hard sell for me despite my admiration for the scale of such stories, but Broderick and Filippo did quite a good job getting me to consider getting some of them. Half way through I was wondering how many women wrote this sort of thing and the entry on Linda Nagata answers that.

I never thought I'd be interested in Michael Chabon or Orson Scott Card's Ender series but they also sold me on those. I recently passed by Cherryh's Cyteen in a charity shop and assumed it must be one of her lesser works but according to this guide it's one of her best!

The book entries I was most excited by were...

James Morrow - This Is The Way The World Ends
Pamela Sargent - Shore Of Women
Joan Slonczewski - A Door Into Ocean
Paul Park - Sugar Festival
David Zindell - Neverness
Gwyneth Jones - Aleutian trilogy
Richard Calder - Dead Girls trilogy
Walter Jon Williams - Aristoi
Michael Moorcock - Second Ether trilogy
Christopher Priest - The Separation
John C Wright - The Golden Age (Strange to see him featured here considering what he done to his reputation since. 2012 was such a different time in the genre!)
Ian McDonald - River Of Gods
Ian R MacLeod - House Of Storms
David Marusek - Counting Heads
Geoff Ryman - Air
Liz Jensen - My Dirty Little Book of Stolen Time (along with a bunch of her other works discussed)
Carol Emshwiller - Secret City (the crazy sounding The Mount even moreso)
Ekaterina Sedia - Alchemy Of Stone
Hannu Rajaniemi - Quantum Thief series (seemed to do interesting things with the references)

Please don't be put off by some of the drawbacks of this guide. I cant verify how good the choices are but I haven't found many better ways to aquaint myself with what has been going on in science fiction during the period covered. Speculative fiction (and maybe other genres) are perhaps getting too big for anyone to cover comprehensively and perhaps people wont be able to do this kind of thing convincingly anymore. But I pray there will be more guides like this. Fantasy really needs more top 100 guides like this because the last really good ones were in the 80s.

[Peter Tillman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've had this out twice from the library, but really have only read most of it in the last few days. It's pretty interesting, with some books I love, a few that I hated, some I'd like to read, a few that I never will. TOC: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?3...

OK, some highlights (and low points), in reverse order (most recent first):
* The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rajaniemi (2010). His first novel, good but confusing. 4/5 stars
? Little Brother by Cory Doctorow (2009). I hated it, 1/5. Doctorow's best work is short-form.
* The Yiddish Policemen's Union by Michael Chabon (2007). Alt-history, where the Jews settled Alaska in 1948. 4/5 stars
* My Dirty Little Book of Stolen Time by Liz Jensen (2006). A cheerfully-bawdy romantic time-travel fantasy: 4/5 stars
* Accelerando by Charles Stross (2005). 4/5 stars now. It's kind of a mess, and the early parts aren't aging well, but what a story! 5/5 back then.
* Counting Heads by David Marusek (2005) Lots of Neat Stuff, but an interesting failure as a novel. 2.7/5 stars
? The Plot Against America by Philip Roth (2004). Nazi fantasies of a left-wing intellectual. Never read, never will.
* Natural History by Justina Robson (2003). (Then-) New Brit Space Opera. Impressive novel. 4.3/5 stars
* The Golden Age (omnibus) by John C. Wright (2002+). Astonishing book. 4.4/5 stars
* Ventus by Karl Schroeder (2001). Amazingly good first novel. 4/5 stars
* Bloom by Wil McCarthy (1998). Pretty near flawless. His masterwork. 5/5 stars
* The Cassini Division by Ken MacLeod (1998). He's done better, but this is good. 3.6/5 stars
* In the Garden of Iden by Kage Baker (The Company #1, 1997). Impressive start to the series. 4/5 stars
* Holy Fire by Bruce Sterling (1996). One of Stirling's strongest. Holds up well to rereading. 4.4/5 stars
* The Fortunate Fall by Raphael Carter (1996). "I am a Camera". Great stuff when new; hasn't aged well. 3.3/5 stars now
* The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson (1995). Arguably his masterwork, 5/5 stars
*A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge (1992). Wonderful space opera; his masterwork. 5/5 stars
* Stations of the Tide by Michael Swanwick (1991). “The bureaucarat fell from the sky." 5/5 stars
* Barrayar by Lois McMaster Bujold (Vorkosigan Saga #7 , 1991). Hugo winner, 4/5 stars
* Use of Weapons by Iain M. Banks (Culture #4, 1990). 4/5 stars
* Grass by Sheri S. Tepper (1989), her masterwork. 5/5 stars

So: 20 first choices (4 or 5 stars) and 2 duds. Plus a bunch of inexplicable-to-me choices, but hey, it's their list. Worth browsing. See if your library has a copy.

[Andrea · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting yet to my mind subjective selection of the "best 101". I definitely have missed out some (possibly) important works, but many of my absolute favourites are here (such as Air and Grass) plus all the obvious choices such as Ender's Game, Red Mars, Perdido Street Station, Use of Weapons. Also Natural History that I have only this week discovered.
But some glaring ommissions - Peter Hamilton? Dan Simmons? David Brin?

But overall, the authors intelligently present their reasons for each choice with detailed analysis of the novel.
It's a nice little reference, has given me some new ideas for my rapidly enlarging "to-read" list.

[Nicholas Whyte · Rating 3 out of 5]

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2251242.html[return][return]I'm not sure that it quite worked for me. For each book, the co-authors give a blurb of two pages or so explaining why it is good and why it is important in the trajectory both of the individual author and of the genre. But one thing I missed was snark: I'd much rather that they had included twenty bad books - or twenty books which they were prepared to admit were bad books - to make it clear that the praise they were lavishing was deserved in other cases. (This is why I'm fundamentally unsympathetic to the occasional efforts to set up sites that will only write positive reviews - you just can't trust them if they won't tell you what they don't like.) [return][return]I was also not convinced that individual novels are the right building blocks to construct a chronology of a quarter century of the genre. Quite apart from the facts that many of the choices are individually questionable, and single volumes may fairly not represent longer series (Bujold, Banks, etc), sf also includes short stories and other media. Sure, it's valid to look only at novels; but it's also a huge constraint.

[Norman Lee Madsen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Perhaps a more accurate title would be something like: S/F: 101 Eccentric Big Idea Novels 1985-2010.

I would think that a list of "Best Novels" would place more weight on novels that successfully balance plot, character, setting, theme and fine prose writing, culminating in novel that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Also, it feels as though the number 101 was a marketing decision; as a result the final list is diluted (and resulting shortened analysis and/or critique generally rather shallow) by the inclusion of some rather odd choices, included because of their Eccentric Big Ideas.

[Ebenmaessiger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quarantine's reverted me to some sort of juvenile state, happy just to wallow in the encyclopedic breadth of THINGS -- thus this read. It's par for the course at this point (see the Pringle and Burgess reviews for my basic take on the ins and outs of the genre), but there are interesting distinctions with this work here and two most visible idiosyncratic touches that distinguish these two pickers from the others: 1) their predilection for the -punks of the new sf world, neuro-, bio-, and, most significantly, cyber. These are here in spades, which is tempting, even if I find most of them unappealing. That said, what this interest does do, is make this an extremely science fictional book, which might not seem like much, but is, considering even the Pringle and other Reccy books, which give considerable space to the AltHist, fantastika, anthropological, or science fantasy subgenres (some might say soft science fiction). These are here, but much less so than books categorizable as Hard. This, all in all, is a good thing, as most popular(izing) lists tend to emphasis the former rather than the latter, for reasons of accessibility and cross-over appeal, and, as such, there are some unheard of works here for me, of both the lesser-known-work-by-known-author variety, as well as just the who-is-this? form. Nice. The personal challenge, though, is trying, when picking one to read, to separate the wheat from the chaff, an especially hard task, considering the second idiosyncratic point here; 2) some turgid prose, complimented by some of the strangest summarizing one could imagine. It's almost admirable, that one could get a two-page summary of a book and feel like they understand less what's going on than just looking at the cover. Partially, this is helpful -- even this prefacory reading masks some of the spoilers. Mostly it's a byproduct of their own writing style. Like a Clute without the red thread of genius. More broadly, their analysis is good (meaning, they pay attention to) at pulling out the philosophical quandries of works and placing things in broader sf historical perspective, and quite bad on style, composition, and such [save, strangely, the one Egan work -- doesn't seem like he would necessarily deserve it compared to others].

[Carol Chapin · Rating 2 out of 5]

A few months ago, I finished a book like to this one, one that summarized the 100 best science fiction novels from 1949 to 1984. This book purports to pick up where that one left off, but, oh, what a difference. The earlier book had easy to read two-page essays on each selection. I enjoyed reading them and was able to put together a list of SF classics I’d missed, ones that I’d like to read.

I wanted to do the same with this book. I finished the book, but what a chore! The essays for each book were 2-3 pages each, but they were so dense and overwritten that most were difficult to read. The authors seemed determined to impress me with their prodigious knowledge of science fiction. No way could I now ever claim to be knowledgeable about the genre. This wasn’t an enjoyable read but did give me ideas and a new reading list.

I stopped reading a lot of science fiction around the late ‘80’s and ‘90’s. So, I presumed there would be far fewer books that I’d read on this list than on the previous period’s list. Through 1984, I had read 25 of 100; this time it was 16 of 101. One reason is that this book included several selections that I would not have called science fiction since the authors were more mainstream (examples: “The Time Travelers Wife” and “The Yiddish Policemen’s Union” – but I’m fine with the SF label.)

Another interesting difference between the two books – the earlier selection had five authors with multiple books on the list, seven for Philip K. Dick alone. This book had NO repeat authors. But here is a partial reason: the authors here didn’t just recommend books for the list, but recommended series. Many of the entries were for series. Perhaps series became more the norm after 1984. This also complicated reading of each entry; in addition, for many of the books the authors presented a list of and comments on that author’s previous books, even those not in the same series.

But I learned a lot of names new to me, some of whom are important modern science fiction writers. I now have a separate (not on Goodreads) list of SF books to read.

[Ariadna73 · Rating 4 out of 5]

 This book is a guide for those who are interested in reading science fiction, but do not want to waste time finding their way around. They are a very reliable source, and I find the list accurate. I read a few of the books listed in the table of contents, and I agree they are very good.

This is the cover and editorial information of the book I read:

On the table of contents, I see familiar names: "Nightside the long soon", "Sarah Canary" and a few others. All of them beautiful stories. I really liked their selection.

In the foreword, the authors explain their fascination with SciFi:

And here is a fragment of the very interesting introduction:

But I was more interested on those that I do not know anything about, and they were thorough in their reviews. Here is an example: "The plot against America", a book I read recently, which I liked very much.

Here is a fragment of the review of "The handmaid's tale" Since it was set at the end of the XX century, the authors ask themselves if it continues to be SciFi:

I think this book is very interesting, and definitely a to-go resource if you ever wonder what to read next on the field.

I also have a blog! Here is the link: http://lunairereadings.blogspot.com

[Graham Vingoe · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have always been obsessed by David Pringle's book of the 100 best science fiction novels up to 1984 and have done as much as I could to read every book in the list - with one left to go even now!
I have skipped science fiction for much of the last 20 odd years but always had an interest in what Broderick and Defillipo had to say about this period given that a few of the listed titles I have read and hated passionately - Hannu Rajaniemi for example left me cold as did Charles Stross.
So, it turns out that the arguments in favour of these 101 titles are compelling enough to make me want to track down most of the rest. Guess that's a few more years of excellent science fiction to catch up on then!

[Jason St. Clair · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was excited to find that an updated version of David Pringle's book had been written to cover recent publications. However, even though I didn't really enjoy Pringle's style I found that Broderick and Di Filippo's was even worse.

The reviews in this volume are far too detailed, giving away too much of the plot of each book rather than just a quick summary. In entries for books from a series they would end up summarizing the entire series too! They also seemed incapable of describing a book without referencing other science fiction works.

Overall, the book was useful for providing titles of books but I wouldn't recommend reading the summaries as they aren't worth your time.

[Kris · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting sequel to Pringle's famous earlier work. Some of the selections already look a bit surprising 2018 (in particular the concentration on late career work of older writers over more new voices) but interesting to see the perspective and reasoning for these.

[Midas68 · Rating 1 out of 5]

There's a reason why the Handmaids Tale is 1st and Dan Simmons Hyperion is no where to be found.

Just look around ya if for whatever reasons, You do not know the answer.

Sad that some of the biggest pro-censorship people are ones who make their living off...Words.

[Francis Fabian · Rating 4 out of 5]

A follow up to David Pringle's Science Fiction: The 100 Best Novels. Different in style (2 different writers) but just as interesting as the previous volume.

[Tony · Rating 3 out of 5]

Conceived of as a sequel to David Pringle's Science Fiction: The 100 Best Novels - 1949-1984, this book serves as a genre menu of some of the tastiest morsels of the last 25 years. I don't consider myself to be much of a science-fiction reader, maybe a handful of titles a year, but I was surprised to see that I have read 12 of the 101 titles in the book. As with all such "Best" lists, I'm sure there is plenty of debate to be had about those that are on the list and those that aren't -- but I have zero qualifications to weigh in on that angle.

Presented chronologically by publication date, each book is given a two or three page critical appraisal, positioning it and its author within the context of earlier writers and themes within science fiction. This can sometimes get a little highbrow, with references to Lacan, Freud, Jung, Marx, Jameson, and other thinkers and theorists (surprisingly, Barthes and Derrida are MIA). There are also plot summaries, many of which can stray deep into spoiler territory -- so beware.

I can't say that I've earmarked very many of the selections to go find and read (so far, the two I have are Richard Calder's Dead Girls, Mary Rosenblum's Chimera, and Michael Faber's Under the Skin), but it is proving to be a good way to acquaint myself with a number of books and authors I've heard of, but know nothing about. Recommended for casual science-fiction readers like myself, looking for an overview of contemporary science fiction.

Note: The book has one huge flaw, which is that the type is minuscule, either 6 or 7 point I believe. It doesn't matter how old you are or what your eyesight is, this is inexcusable design and typesetting.

[Dave Newton · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 1985 David Pringle - writer, fan, reviewer & editor - published 'SF - The 100 Best Novels 1949-1984' [I'd love a copy]. This is the follow up. It is in chronological order and each book gets a 2-3 page review/overview, which may also briefly comment on its place in SF or the writer's career. It begins with Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' and ends with Hannu Rajaniemi's 'The Quantum Thief'. The authors haven't restricted themselves to straight or 'hard' SF either. Along the way are mentions for The Time Traveller's Wife and The Yiddish Policeman's Union, as well as the 'usual suspects' from authors such as Card, Robinson, Banks, Bujold, etc. {see full list posted by another reviewer]
I *thought* my SF reading was quite wide ranging. I recognised quite a few of the books and more of writers, but I have probably only read a third of the titles covered. What surprised me was not only how many of the books I didn't recognise, but how many author's names weren't familiar either. If you like reading science fiction in its broadest forms - i.e. also dabble around the borders of fantasy, alternate history, technothrillers or slipstream, then this is time/money well spent.
I keep it handy and randomly flip through it, rather than actually reading the whole thing cover-to-cover. The authors may miss some of your favourite books - they have mine - but based on what I have read that *is* in there, I'll trust their opinions on the rest. It is certainly giving me plenty of new books and writers to think about.

[Mhd · Rating 3 out of 5]

Here's very typical sentence for you: "Unless self-inflicted disaster inevitably reduces intelligence to ruin and global death--explaining the Fermi paradox of the absence of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations--history seems fated to pass through a Vingean Singularity, as we see in a number of other novels here, into a realm beyond our present imaginative capacity." (p. 173) My leisure reading was almost exclusively science fiction in the 1960's through 80's. I got this book because I've been wanting to see what's going on and good in 2016. I read this whole book even though I didn't like the writing nor the style of criticism. But, for 101 novels, I think it did give me an idea about whether or not I might actually try the book in question. It was obvious in many of the reviews that the language or sexual content or violence or general theme would be far outside my ballpark. I've flagged only about 2 dozen of the 101 and I'm only really hopeful about a couple. I doubt that my taste and the tastes of a reviewer who writes the way he does ever could match very often... but if it's award winning... we'll see. I am however most eager to see Pringle's book of the 101 best to 1985; the forward here is by Pringle.

[Vivian · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I like Science Fiction, I really, REALLY like Science Fiction. The Ender Saga (Orson Scott Card), the Foundation series (Isaac Asimov), almost anything by Ray Bradbury (borderline SciFi), "Never Let Me Go," by Ishiguro, and many others are among my very favorite books. Unfortunately, I've read a few clunkers along the way as well, which now leads me to dread starting a new (to me) Science Fiction novel. Will I love it as much as the raving fans, or will the merits of the book completely escape me? It's happened so often that a recommendation book like "Science Fiction: The 101 Best Novels" can be a huge help in choosing those few SciFi novels that really shine. The hitch being, is my taste in SciFi the same as the authors? Well, they do give short summaries, and a general feeling for the type of SciFi the novel falls into, so that is one way to whittle down the huge list of books to-read. Cyberpunk? No thanks. Space opera, with philosophical leanings? A definite maybe...you see the dilemma, I suppose. At least a book like this helps with the initial list; then reading the reviews on Goodreads can finalize the decision. Recommended for Science Fiction fans.

[Neil · Rating 2 out of 5]

What is it about science fiction critics that makes them feel the need to browbeat readers with overwritten reviews? I can't read stuff like this without feeling like the reviewers have a chip on their shoulder about being ghettoized as genre writers, so they're going to stuff their grad school education into every paragraph. The trouble is that in the process they make the books they're writing about, which are mostly good fun to read as well as full of ideas, sound ponderous and pompous. For that matter, the selection here, while interesting, is hardly representative of the field. More honestly, it would be called something like Damien Broderick and Paul DiFilippo's favorite novel by a selection of major science fiction novelists writing between 1985 and 2010.

I was skimming this by the end, and I suspect you'll have a time finding many honest readers who aren't driven to do the same.

[Ashley Lambert-Maberly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love these kinds of books, especially when the authors manage to make their selections sound vital and intriguing rather than tiresome and unpleasant (you'd be suprised how often a "here's a list of books you should read" book will do that!)

I was sufficiently motivated to put several—perhaps most—on my to-read list. Of the ones I had read already, I adored four, liked twelve a lot, and was meh about four, and really disliked one. I think those are really good odds, for someone else's list.

(The four I adored are Barrayar, Doomsday Book, The Diamond Age, and The Time Traveler's Wife.

(Note: I'm a writer, so I suffer when I offer fewer than five stars. But these aren't ratings of quality, they're a subjective account of how much I liked the book: 5* = an unalloyed pleasure from start to finish, 4* = really enjoyed it, 3* = readable but not thrilling, 2* = disappointing, and 1* = hated it.)

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating. I love these guide books to reading.

I didn't read much science fiction between 1985-1999 so much of this book covers unfamiliar ground. Looking through the best novel picks for those years, I've come to the conclusion that there's a reason I didn't read SF then. The SF from those years just never did appeal to me!

Science fiction has been much more interesting since 1999, once "Revelation Space" and some other titles started to hit the market. The section of the book covering these books is pretty spot on. I've read most of these novels.

One thing missing from this book is "Additional Recommendations" that other books like this one have had. I'm thinking the 100 Best Horror Novels. That book had pages of recommendations past the featured 100. I'd have like to have seen a long, meaty list of the runner ups that didn't get picked for full blown articles.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is a collection of SF book reviews of 2 SF authors. The reviews are not straight-forward explain what the books are about but the authors are giving references to other SF books that are about similar ideas or are somehow related to the reviewed and recommended book.

It started of very interesting and I got some good book hints out of it. However starting from the 20th book or so the lengthly reviews started to get kind of boring - especially because they were not straight forward but more like musings about the author, its live and its bibliography.

I ended up looking for the book reviews and ratings on good reads in order to finish this book.

In general it can be helpful. However today there are other ways of finding new books like social platforms as goodreads and you don't need a book like that to find interesting new book hints.

[Guy Salvidge · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I was 18 or so, I read David Pringle's The Ultimate Guide to Science Fiction, which contains mini reviews of thousands of SF books, virtually cover to cover. I never read his 'Best 101 SF Novels' though. Anyway, Broderick and Di Filippo have produced their follow up here, and it's an impressive volume. Turns out I'd only read about 15 of their best 101 novels since 1985, so I'm trying to rectify that now. I don't see how you can criticise this book - maybe you can criticise some of the selections. For instance, I'm reading Philip Roth's The Plot Against America now, on this book's recommendation, and I'm underwhelmed.