Science Fiction: The 100 Best Novels

by David Pringle

From one of the best-known editors in modern science fiction, this lively and authoritative guide will appeal to both newcomers and connoisseurs of the genre alike. Informative and readable, David Pringle's choices focus on landmark works by the likes of Ray Bradbury, Alfred Bester and J.G. Ballard, unearth less prominent talents such as Ian Watson, Octavia Butler and Joanna Russ, and highlight breakthrough novels by William Gibson and Philip K. Dick. An essential guide to science fiction literature.

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

224 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1985

Reviews

[Stuart · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was such a great guide for me growing up in Hawaii. Without any real SF fan community, conventions, or the Internet, there really weren’t many places to get good SF reading tips. Of course I knew every bookstore in town, both new and used. So I didn’t have trouble finding the big names like Clarke, Heinlein, Asimov, etc. And then I found a list of all the Hugo and Nebula winners for Best Novel, and made it my mission to track down every one of these books in the used stacks. But I didn’t really have a good way to choose lesser-known older titles until I discovered Science Fiction: 100 Best Novels, in which David Pringle, the Scottish SF editor of Interzone magazine, selected his favorite 100 SF novels published in English between 1949-1985.

David Pringle had a clear mission: he wanted to introduce a lot of relatively obscure SF novels, with a healthy weighting of UK writers, that many American SF fans may have never heard of. He also choose a very wide range of book types, ranging from the dystopian classic 1984, Golden Age space operas from the 1950s, post-apocalytic stories like A Canticle for Leibowitz, New Wave writers from the 60s and 70s like Samuel L. Delany, Roger Zelazny, Phillip K Dick, J.G. Ballard, Thomas M. Disch, Michael Moorcock, Norman Spinrad, Ursula K. LeGuin, Robert Silverberg, and ending with William Gibson’s cyberpunk classic Neuromancer. He also highlights books that many fans might not consider crowd-favorites, but really underscore the incredible variety of stories and settings that only the SF field can deliver. I guarantee that you will encounter dozens of books you will love, but almost as many that you’ve not heard of, and quite a few that will have you asking, “What was Pringle thinking? That was terrible!” Instead of just choosing popular titles, he delved deeper into the genre than many others would have. There are many unusual choices, like William S. Burroughs, Barry N. Malzberg, Angela Carter, Kingsley Amis, Joanna Russ, and Marge Piercy, literary writers at the fringe of the genre, but that’s what makes his selections unique and daring.

Each entry is two pages long – they are written succinctly and give the all-important historical and literary context for each book, along with a basic outline of the plot. Occasionally he will include some spoilers, so be careful! But his reviews are surprisingly entertaining to read. He is also very honest is describing what type of books they are, so you can immediately eliminate books that don’t fit your taste. I really took away a better understanding of the history and evolution of the genre, something that informs my reviews and reading today. It’s amazing how broadly and deeply he’s read in the genre.

For many years I used this book as a guide to track down the more obscure titles in various used bookstores. I managed to get most of them, but even 30 years later I’ve only read around half of them! It may never come true, but I really want to read all of them someday. Here is the list in chronological order – how many of them have you read already? I’ve put an asterisk next to those I’ve read.

1. Nineteen Eighty-Four* by George Orwell
2. Earth Abides* by George R. Stewart
3. The Martian Chronicles* by Ray Bradbury
4. The Puppet Masters* by Robert A. Heinlein
5. The Day of the Triffids* by John Wyndham
6. Limbo by Bernard Wolfe
7. The Demolished Man* by Alfred Bester
8. Fahrenheit 451* by Ray Bradbury
9. Childhood's End* by Arthur C. Clarke
10. The Paradox Men by Charles L. Harnes
11. Bring the Jubilee* by Ward Moore
12. The Space Merchants* by Frederik Pohl & C.M. Kornbluth
13. Ring Around the Sun by Clifford D. Simak
14. More than Human* by Theodore Sturgeon
15. Mission of Gravity by Hal Clement
16. A Mirror for Observers* by Edgar Pangborn
17. The End of Eternity by Isaac Asimov
18. The Long Tomorrow by Leigh Brackett
19. The Inheritors by William Golding
20. The Stars My Destination* by Alfred Bester
21. The Death of Grass by John Christopher
22. The City and the Stars* by Arthur C. Clarke
23. The Door Into Summer* by Robert A. Heinlein
24. The Midwich Cuckoos* by John Wyndham
25. Non-Stop* by Brian W. Aldiss
26. A Case of Conscience* by James Blish
27. Have Space-Suit -- Will Travel by Robert A. Heinlein
28. Time Out of Joint* by Philip K. Dick
29. Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank
30. A Canticle for Leibowitz* by Walter M. Miller
31. The Sirens of Titan* by Kurt Vonnegut
32. Rogue Moon by Algis Budrys
33. Venus Plus X by Theodore Sturgeon
34. Hothouse* by Brian W. Aldiss
35. The Drowned World* by J.G. Ballard
36. A Clockwork Orange* by Anthony Burgess
37. The Man in the High Castle* by Philip K. Dick
38. Journey Beyond Tomorrow by Robert Sheckley
39. Way Station* by Clifford D. Simak
40. Cat's Cradle* by Kurt Vonnegut
41. Greybeard by Brian W. Aldiss
42. Nova Express by William S. Burroughs
43. Martian Time-Slip* by Philip K. Dick
44. The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch* by Philip K. Dick
45. The Wanderer by Fritz Leiber
46. Nostrilia* by Cordwainer Smith
47. Dr Bloodmoney* by Philip K. Dick
48. Dune* by Frank Herbert
49. The Crystal World* by J.G. Ballard
50. Make Room! Make Room! By Harry Harrison
51. Flowers for Algernon* by Daniel Keyes
52. The Dream Master by Roger Zelazny
53. Stand on Zanzibar* by John Brunner
54. Nova* by Samuel L. Delany
55. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? * by Philip K. Dick
56. Camp Concentration by Thomas M. Disch
57. The Final Programme by Michael Moorcock
58. Pavane* by Keith Roberts
59. Heroes and Villains by Angela Carter
60. The Left Hand of Darkness* by Ursula K. LeGuin
61. The Palace of Eternity by Bob Shaw
62. Bug Jack Barron by Norman Spinrad
63. Tau Zero by Poul Anderson
64. Downward to the Earth* by Robert Silverberg
65. The Year of the Quiet Sun by Wilson Tucker
66. 334 by Thomas M. Disch
67. The Fifth Head of Cerberus* by Gene Wolfe
68. The Dancers at the End of Time by Michael Moorcock
69. Crash by J.G. Ballard
70. Looking Backward from the Year 2000 by Mack Reynolds
71. The Embedding by Ian Watson
72. Walk to the End of the World by Suzy McKee Charnas
73. The Centauri Device by M. John Harrison
74. The Dispossessed* by Ursula K. LeGuin
75. Inverted World by Christopher Priest
76. High-Rise* by J.G. Ballard
77. Galaxies by Barry N. Malzberg
78. The Female Man by Joanna Russ
79. Orbitsville by Bob Shaw
80. The Alteration by Kingsley Amis
81. Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy
82. Man Plus by Frederik Pohl
83. Michaelmas by Algis Budrys
84. The Ophiuchi Hotline by John Varley
85. Miracle Visitors by Ian Watson
86. Engine Summer by John Crowley
87. On Wings of Song by Thomas M. Disch
88. The Walking Shadow by Brian Stableford
89. Juniper Time by Kate Wilhelm
90. Timescape* by Gregory Benford
91. The Dreaming Dragons by Damien Broderick
92. Wild Seed* by Octavia Butler
93. Riddley Walker by Russell Hoban
94. Roderick and Roderick at Random by John Sladek
95. The Book of the New Sun* by Gene Wolfe
96. The Unreasoning Mask by Philip Jose Farmer
97. Oath of Fealty* by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle
98. No Enemy but Time* by Michael Bishop
99. The Birth of the People's Republic of Antarctica by John Calvin Batchelor
100. Neuromancer* by William Gibson

[Two Envelopes And A Phone · Rating 5 out of 5]

So, as of not too long ago, I have read ALL one hundred books listed in this recommended-reading guide...David Pringle's notion of what the best was, in SF, as of 1984. I've knocked off every book on the list, if we include a catch: I have read the original, shorter version of Flowers for Algernon (which I have heard is better, anyway). It's a pity that that last book I needed to conquer off this list was a 1-star read for me - Nova Express - but that's the way the cookie slides into entropy.

I bought this when I spotted it on the front counter of a local SF/Fantasy bookstore, back in 1985. I was then the same age as I am now: 17. It was not an instant sell; I didn't just grab it up and add it to my purchases. I thought to myself "If Orbitsville is on the list, I will be dazzled enough to buy this book...". Then, I perused the innards of Pringle's publication, saw what I was not really expecting to see, truth be told, and bought the book. I think I pursued titles off the list almost immediately - sometimes reading the 2-page essays on the books in question, but mostly saving that for after reading a certain 'Best' novel (or short story collection), so that I would not have to deal with spoilers.

This book got me to read Bug Jack Barron, The Dancers at the End of Time, Wild Seed, Ring Around the Sun, No Enemy But Time, Rogue Moon, The Female Man, Woman on the Edge of Time, Man Plus, Dr. Bloodmoney, and on and on and on. Truth be told, I of course did not love all the books - Michaelmas by Budrys did not do for me what Rogue Moon did; The Inheritors by Golding could never come near topping the non-SF Lord of the Flies; Malzberg's Galaxies would always be replaced by Beyond Apollo on my own 'Best' List if I had one - but my goodness did I read a lot of great SF thanks to this old guide. Now it is totally out of date, in terms of a so-called '100 Best SF Books', and that's a good thing as less white men would be represented. It serves these days as a terrific roster of 'classic' or 'hidden gem' SF.

[Jersy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Provided exactly what I wanted from it: Some great book recommendations both more and less well known with a good variety of styles and topics. The books discussed were published between 1949 and the 80's.
It was also interesting to read the authors discriptions and opinions on the books I've already read.
There are some repeat authors and for the most part that wasn't a bad thing, since the books discribed were different enough, but there is so much Philip K. Dick that surely some page time could have gone to some other author. Also, there sometimes are spoilers, which I don't mind, but might turn people away from books they otherwise would have wanted to read because of this.

[Jay · Rating 4 out of 5]

A strong collection of essays on various genre classics, but there are a couple of issues here. First, the absence of short story collections and anthologies makes this feel incomplete. Their inclusion may have also ameliorated another issue, the varying tone: there are a fair few books discussed here that the author, frankly, dislikes. As such, some of the entries are, at best, begrudging. On the whole, though, Pringle is an engaging, enthusiastic guide through the best of the genre.
Science fiction often ages worse than most genres, either because of breakthroughs irl or often juvenile prose. SF fans and writers often argued that it was a parallel literature, not subject to the same stylistic expectations as other writings because it served ideas, not aesthetics. This argument, and much of the fiction represented by it, has not stood the test of time. Pringle wrote this book as that argument was dying, and was aware of it. He does include many of the "ideas over style" works, with little enthusiasm, because that was, for a long time, the best the genre had to offer.
In the end, this works better as a history than a reading list. There are many books here to appeal, no doubt, but many are now more important than enjoyable, better read about than actually read. And this book serves that purpose admirably.

[Laura L. Van Dam · Rating 2 out of 5]

El libro está bastante desactualizado, llega sólo hasta 1984 y la novela Neuromancer- pero muchos de los libros recomendados son algo ignotos y deja de lado libros que a mi juicio son más relevantes (aunque algunos no sean de mi gusto personal). Mayormente lo que hace es dedicar 2 o 3 páginas a cada novela, hablar un poquito del autor, explicar porqué cree que es importante y a continuación contar toda la historia. Sí, incluyendo varios finales que hubiera sido mejor leerlos en vez de que me los contase.
En resumidas cuentas, no me aportó mucho, y me arruinó varios libros antes de leerlos; después de leer varias veces el mismo tipo de explicación se me mezclan todas las tramas de los libros que no leí. Siento que perdí mi tiempo.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

First of all I will say that I am sure there is another set of my comments running around somewhere in Goodreads as I have owned and read this book before.

However here we go - this book was bought off the back of a similar (I cannot find reference it is a sister volume or a different project) book on the best 100 Fantasy novels. That book was an eye opener which helped me delve in to the world of fantasy novels.

So you imagine the eagerness I had to get and read this book about science fiction - ideally to see if it would open the same set doors. Well it sort of did.

You see I think I came to this book about 10 years too late - many of the books that are mentioned in this book are either already in my collection or are known to me. You see it appears I stumbled across (come on nothing is planned in my collection) these titles.

Now apparently there is a second volume out there with a second 100 titles since this book ends in the mid 80s but that too contains many titles I already own. However I will say that the entries it does contain are interesting and informative and I no doubt will be returning to this book again in the future.

[Carol Chapin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book covers books - not stories – published between 1949 and 1984. Definitions of science fiction are subjective, but the one proposed and explained by the author sounds good to me. “Science fiction is a form of fantastic fiction which exploits the imaginative perspectives of modern science.” For me, the science in a work of science fiction must be plausible, and the author agrees; even if the science is manufactured or not correct, as long as it sounds plausible, it’s good.

The book has an excellent introduction and 100 two-page essays on each book. These would be difficult to just sit down and read through, so I read it in snatches. I have read a lot of science fiction over the years; I did a spreadsheet of the books listed here and listed noted which ones I’d read. I have read 25 of these 100, which I consider to be lot, since these were the early days of science fiction. Most of these I’d read many years ago.

The author admits that the basis for his selections in this book are his personal choice – but are impacted by his overall involvement in the science fiction “world”. He ignored Hugo or Nebula awards. A more apt title for the book would be “100 good to brilliant”; there simply aren’t 100 masterpieces out there. He includes books that he thinks are important, but for selected reasons. For example: “Mission of Gravity” by Hal Clement: hard SF, great world-building, but “wooden characters”.

The author with the most books on this list (seven) is Philip K. Dick – so, he’s a PDK fan. J.D. Ballard rates four picks, while Heinlein, Aldiss, and Disch have three each. He doesn’t like Asimov and admitted as much. He included only one Asimov book, one I’d never heard of.

This was a fun exercise. I noted eleven books from this list that I really would like to read. I have a similar book covering later years queued up to read, and my “to read” list will probably become even more impossibly long than it already is.

[Brown Robin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've always enjoyed books about books, more than books about themselves, to be honest, and I encountered this one at a propitious--or perhaps importune--time in my life. It has become a life-long on-again off-again concern for no reason I can discern except that it is so inadequate in my estimation, yet compulsively engagable.

The time frame is arbitrary, there are too few writers included, there are too many non-novels, there are too many non-sf works, it is limited to works in English, it excludes so many types of sf in favor of too much of a few types of sf, it includes too many male writers (though it has a better ratio than most other works of its time, sadly) and expresses what I would call genre shame, namely that few fan favorites are included.

Pringle's greatest sin is judging a genre of literature by imposing a standard on it, namely that it produce fine novels. Science fiction, until after this book appeared, was a short-fiction medium. All the production outlets were headed to churn out short stories, all the foundational texts and outstanding examples were novelets or shorter. So Pringle decides novels are more important and criticizes sf for not having more good novels. I mean, thanks for being a friend, Dave. Pull out all our memory chips whydoncha?

The importance of such a work is to provide an argument on the importance of the field it covers. I happen to regard sf as of supreme importance to modern humanity. I cannot conceive a technology-dependent species without a artform which mediates that relationship. Science fiction is that artform. Any book proposing to promulgate SF for the masses has a responsibility. I feel Pringle was too cynical and pessimistic a personality to deliver a proper introduction. All those post-apocalyptic books! Cheer up, David!

On the other hand, it induced me to read some novels I would not otherwise have read, some of which I am glad I read. Maybe that's all there is. Maybe I should express my gratitude and shut up.

Anyway. The precís herein are solid work, and Pringle brings brío and panache to the proceedings. I would read other books about sf first, or--to be honest--try the popular websites and 'blogs. In our sfnal world, the books about the sf of yore are fossils.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ok I am biased - now I am not agreeing with David Pringles comments completely ( he does come down with some damming comments on some of my longest loved Authors) but I love how this book is laid out and its content. Yes its FULL of SPOILERS - since it gives a couple of pages overview to the entire storyline of the books mentioned. I love that ok - I love to read a book even when I know the ending - for me its the ride not just the destination - so shoot me! But there are numerous books I had read that are listed here - so I get that smug feeling that my tastes are worthy - but there are also numerous titles here I have heard of but not read and more still I have never heard of but now want to read. All in all its a great source of information and I wish I had tracked it down years ago. Its a book you will find yourself going back to time and time again,

[Robert Adam Gilmour · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read several of these speculative fiction list guides and this is probably the best one and that's largely due to Pringle's passion for the genre.

The foreward and introduction are VERY important in giving you an idea of what is missed in this list of 100. A bunch of short fiction recommendations are given as a supplement along with some authors before the period that the list confines itself to, some other authors that nearly made the list are named and Pringle is up front that he doesn't have much love for planetary romance.
One glaring shortcoming of the introduction is that although he states that he is restricting himself to English language works, he hardly names any authors outside that language restriction. I wish Pringle hadn't put so many restrictions on and maybe even boosted the list to 150.

After you've read this you can track down...

David Pringle - Modern Fantasy: The Hundred Best Novels
Broderick & Di Filippo - Science Fiction: The 101 Best Novels 1985-2010
Cawthorn & Moorcock - Fantasy: The 100 Best Books
Andrews & Rennison - 100 Must Read Science Fiction Novels
Andrews & Rennison - 100 Must Read Fantasy Novels
Jones & Newman - Horror: 100 Best Books
Jones & Newman - Horror: Another 100 Best Books

Each of these books has something important the others lack, but of course we still need more of them.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this would inspire me to Read more science fiction, but to be honest I now feel the opposite. As most readers probably already know, science fiction is quite intellectually demanding, and I now realise that I'm not actually prepared for that journey; it all seems far too serious for a leisurely read.

[Nat · Rating 4 out of 5]

at its worst just plot descriptions, and it's best very critical and insightful - especially good when recommending things that Pringle clearly disagreed with but still finds value in eg right wing SF

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best book of its kind (perhaps the only one of its kind. Covers the classic era of SF. Belongs on every SF fans bookcase.

[Williwaw]

The bulk of Pringle's book lists and describes 100 SF novels written between 1949 and 1984. The list is tremendously inspiring, and I have half a mind to use it as a reading guide and a goal-setting project. I have to admit, however, that I'm not a very disciplined reader and it's unlikely that I'll make it through all of the books.

That said, I've already read about one third of the books listed, so if I exclude those I might actually make it through! But some of those call for a re-read. For example, Orwell's 1984 (the first book on the list, which I read once, back in 1980 so I don't have a clear memory of it).

Aldiss defines SF as "a form of fantastic fiction which exploits the imaginative perspectives of modern science." He excludes two other forms of FF: supernatural horror and heroic fantasy. At that same time, Pringle admits that many sf writers are "eccentric individualists" whose work is sui generis and cannot be pigeonholed into a narrowly defined genre.

As best as I can tell, the authors who appear with most frequency herein are: 1. Philip K. Dick (6 books); 2. J.G. Ballard (4 books); 3. Brian Aldiss (3 books); and 4. Robert Heinlein (3 books). Pringle admits that his list is largely driven by personal preference and that he used the word "best" in the title only to advertise the book. "There cannot be a hundred 'best' of anything," he writes.

Nevertheless, the rising reputations of Dick and Ballard and the perennial love of Heinlein seem to validate Pringle's personal tastes. I'm mostly unfamiliar with Aldiss, so it's hard for me to question his frequency within the 100. (I've read one Aldiss novel and a few short stories.) Several well-loved authors are included twice, including Vonnegut, Simak, Bester, Clarke, Sturgeon, Wyndham, Shaw, Disch, and LeGuin.

In sum, this appears to be an excellent list of suggestions for the post-WW II era of sf novels. It stops at 1984 (the last book on the list is Neuromancer, by Gibson), so if you are looking for anything more current this book isn't for you. Di Filippo did a follow-up book, covering 1985-2010, to which Pringle offered an appreciative Foreward. Title: Science Fiction: the 101 Bet Novels, 1985-2010 (Damien Broderick and Paul Di Filippo). We'll need another update around 2040, at which point I'll either be on death's doorstep or won't be around anymore.

And so it goes.

[Darnoc Leadburger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wise people say that to understand [literary] science fiction, you can't just read the literature; you also have to read texts *about* the literature. While the sounds kind of pompous, I agree with it, so I'm trying to read a little more nonfiction about my favorite genre this year. David Pringle's list here is often cited as the definitive SF listicle by people in the know, and it's easy to see why; while contemporary readers may initially turn their noses up at it since it stops citing books at 1984 (and doesn't cite anything from before *Nineteen Eight-Four*), it's a wide ranging list of recommendations which will give both newcomers and veterans of science fiction new things to look out for.

The introduction makes it hard to tell if this is really a list of the hundred best science fiction novels or just an overview of 100 science fiction novels which sum up the genre's breadth and qualitive peaks. Unlike one of this book's spiritual successors, Stephen E. Andrews *100 Must-Read Science Fiction Novels*, which is very clear about it not being simply the hundred best but the hundred best to get a rounded view of the genre, Pringle plays a little bit more coyly. He says that only thirty of the books covered here are real masterpieces; does he believe that there were really only thirty masterpieces in the genre in this time span (surely he'd credit the likes of Wells with at least one masterpiece if he fell into the scope here) or did he prioritize including other authors like Asimov and Bradbury in order to make sure that well-rounded conception of the science fiction field could be gleaned by this? He admitted that some of these books were personal favorites... and that others were other peoples' favorites. The exact methodology for choosing all these books was not clear, but there were a lot of winners contained within.

It starts of with *Nineteen Eighty-Four*, the standard dystopian novel. It has earned its place here. *Earth Abides*? One of the archetypical post-apocalyptic works - I support. Then we get to *The Martian Chronicles*, which is where we first see Pringle's tendency to offer somewhat begrudging praise. "It now seems dated, its poetry at times rather precious, its wistfulness more than a little sentimental"... he seems to have included it for historical reasons. That may be his reason for including *The Puppet Masters* by Heinlein as well. At spot #6 he introduced the first book I wasn't in the know about, *Limbo* by Bernard Wolf, about amputees, for lack of a better was of putting it... then he shouts out *The Demolished Man*, one of my favorite 50s novels. So is *Childhood's End*. And he keeps going, talking about books ranging from *Bring the Jubilee* to Edgar Pangborn's lesser known work. He submits to a little hard SF in *Mission of Gravity* by Hal Clement (not a masterpiece with flat prose and wooden characters but an impressive adventure story nonetheless) and gives into Asimov with *End of Eternity*. He actually writes about Simak's works here (which I haven't read) in a way that made me start comparing him to Bob Shaw in the way that both of their writing styles tend to cram a wide variety of too much into various works. In slot thirty he talks about *A Canticle for Leibowitz* as if it's a masterpiece, which I agree with; it's one of my favorite SF novels. Little things like that were signs that I could trust Pringle's opinions in that they often line up with mine. He has very good things to say about Theodore Sturgeon's *Venus Plus X* and *More Than Human*, which I have to read. He also includes a lot of Philip K Dick - six of them. This seems a little overkill and I can't really get behind *Time Out of Joint* compared to his later works, but I do wonder if this was an indirect way of saying that the majority of SF writers weren't really up to literary snuff. Not that Dick's every been the most literary writer... there's also a fair amount of Ballard, including novels which may not even be SF like *Crash* and *High Rise*. This betrays Pringle's tastes in New Wave, which becomes more apparent about halfway through the book.

He writes about Disch (he includes three of his novels, and while I haven't read Disch before, but the fact that he's putting such a weight on him is intriguing and hopefully a good sign), Moorcock, Spinrad, and more. He stays away from the Aldiss "new wave" works, Ellison (probably because he's only talking novels here), and some other British New Wavers. He does get into Robert Silverberg in here, and I'm quite pleased to see that he rated *Downward to the Earth* at the top of Silverberg's books; of the four novels of his that I've read, that's my favorite. He has a weird curveball thrown towards Mack Reynolds which was kind of funny to see, and he shouts out Ian Watson twice; he just passed away recetn from when I'm writing this review, so that's a bit interesting. He mentioned someone I've never heard of before - Suzy McKee Charness - before getting to a couple of my favorites, M. John Harrison and Christopher Priest (of course, he selects works that I've [criminally] not yet read). Malzberg and Joanna Russ get shoutouts in the late seventies as well as some authors which don't fare too well with critics nowadays (Fredrick Pohl and John Varley - I've not read either of the works in question here, but I generally like what they do). The last eleven selections, the ones from the 80s, draw out this feeling that the different realms of SF are stretching and falling apart under each other; the books at the beginning of the novel all had this certain feel, but that feel gradually spun out into nothing by the end of this book. I wonder if that says something about how SF because less homogenized as it grew or if this says something about quality; regardless, the last few books feature Benford, Broderick (someone I'm not too familiar with), Hoban (see the last note), Octavia E. Butler (for a lesser known work), John Sladek, Gene Wolfe because Book of the New Sun has always been well-regarded, Philip Jose Farmer (despite being "rather dry"), Niven and Pournelle (for a now-forgotten work), Michael Bishop (I just read *No Enemy But Time* earlier this month and it's really good), a forgotten work by John Calvin Batchelor, and *Neuromancer* by William Gibson. There's a certain streak of poetry in this book ending in *Neuromancer*, as there hasn't been a work of science fiction that has caused such a wave of conceptual breakthrough to crash through in its wake. It's the end of an era of invention, and it's a fitting note.

Pringle's bits about each book are rather plot and concept heavy. He spends more time telling you what a book is about than its relevance or what he critically thinks about it. And yet, that content is still there towards the end of every section and Pringle is remarkably good at summing up what he wants to say about a book in a short amount of time - it's fleet and insightful, and as someone who writes a lot of book reviews (as you can tell here), that's kind of impressive to pull off. He often gives begrudging praise, and as someone who has critiques for even my favorites works of any kind (books, movies, music, etc.), I can relate. I can relate to a lot of his choices - for reading somewhere round 500-550 science fiction novels I may only have read 25 of these 100 (although I'd heard of and knew something about over 90% of them), but I like a lot of his choices. Some of my favorites are on here, and some of mine (from the likes of Egan or Reynolds or Wells) weren't eligible for this list anyways. If I were him (and I'm not, for I'm obviously not as well-read yet), I would've included a few different choices. I would've put on *The Godwhale* by T. J. Bass for being fun and singular and colorful, used the Brian Stableford slot for *The Halcyon Drift* to pull in the Hooded Swan series (of which *The Paradise Planet* is an awesome, slim example of what exploratory space opera should be), threw in one of James White's Sector General novels, used *Involution Ocean* for being a perfectly proportioned planetary adventure novel, and found a way to highlight Robinson's *The Wild Shore* as more of a personal than a critical favorite. Still, I don't have the grounds to argue with these choices. I do think it's notable that there was virtually no military science fiction on this list - *The Forever War* is very notably absent, and other big ones like *Starship Troopers* aren't there. He used a second-rate Niven novel instead of *Ringworld*; he snubs Jack Vance. Still, this is a point in time from a well-read guy, and I'm happy with the bulk of work he chose to highlight.

Something else this book taught me is that I need to spend some more time reading so that I can say that I've read all of these books. So... I should probably wrap this review up. I'm going to give it an 8/10 - it's pretty dang good, and I'd put it on the same level as that Andrews list I mentioned earlier. It's well written, and it serves its purpose very well in a style (and selections) I can approve of. I have the Fillipo/Broderick 101 best novels from 1985 and onwards to read later this year which I'm looking forward to, but first, I've got Adam Roberts' history of the genre. But that'll come with time - after some real science fiction. Thanks for reading this, and here's hoping you can find some selections from this book and start chipping away at some new personal classics...

[Roddy Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a valuable resource for anyone interested in the history of literary SF. Pringle has selected 100 novels which, for one reason or another, are considered classics and provides an in depth review of each.
Of course, no one is ever going to choose the same 100 novels for such a purpose and there are bound to be eyebrows raised from some quarters at some of the choices. (I would have left out the Asimov selection for instance which Pringle admits in the review was only included out of respect for Asimov's status within the genre.)
Over the last thirty years or so I have ticked off around 96 of these books, many of which have become personal favourites and have broadened my horizons.
Like a fellow reviewer here I would gladly welcome an updated version perhaps selecting another 100 novels from 1985 to date.
One of my bookshelves here by the way (100 best novels) contains books listed in this volume.

[Britty Kitty · Rating 2 out of 5]

The writer was very obviously a British snob which was annoying the whole way through the book. Some stories he either sucked at explaining a summary of them, or they are just terrible stories with stupid plots.

He did open my eyes to some books I probably wouldn't have stumbled upon otherwise which is good.

I'm not going to lie, I definitely knew I was going to have a beef with many of the author's opinions when I read that he basically only included an Asimov story because he "had to". Ugh!

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

SF Overview

I enjoyed reading about many high points in the realm of Science Fiction, with a British twist. Looking forward to readings some of the reviewed books.

[Paul Barnes · Rating 2 out of 5]

[Xanadu] (1985). SB. 1/1. 224 Pages. Purchased from Deep Neutral Books.

Michael Moorcock contributes a short and uninspiring Foreword.

“It would be a good sign, I think, if the next list of 100 best sf novels (from 1985) contained a predominance of books by women, and by black people…”

Why would that be ‘good’ or, for that matter, ‘bad’?

It appears to me, though it is not explicitly stated, that catchment is entirely confined to novels which were originally published in English. Out go Boris and Arkady Strugatsky, for example.

Pringle’s introduction then embarks upon the usual, boring discourse on “science fiction” versus “sci-fi” versus “sf”. He largely settles upon the latter but interprets it, along with the term “novel”, rather loosely.

Indexed.

The titles selected are a curious collection, including several works of which I was unaware.

The 1.5-2 page articles are quite well-written, in certain respects, but are laced with tedious and absurd observations.

We’re informed that “Nineteen Eighty-Four” (1949), for instance, “…did not have ‘science fiction’ printed on its cover.” Oh really? So what? He goes on to make the ridiculous claim that - being written in a ‘good plain style’ - the book is more accessible and thus prevents its own “dark predictions” from coming to fruition.

Many entries, more than 75%, are described in such a way as to firmly deter me from reading them.

“The End of Eternity” (1955), for example, sounds diabolical. I wonder how it made the cut. He says of Asimov: “…I confess I have little enthusiasm for his work.” Why include it then? The book’s supposedly geared to catalogue the “best” science fiction, not the most highly regarded or influential… feels like ‘box ticking’…

Similarly, “Ring Around the Sun” (1953) and “Way Station” (1963) are included. The former is said to be “…too complicated for its own good…”, written with a “…prose style which is plain (in fact simple to the point of banality)…” and suffering from “…complexity and confusion”. Yet further on, we see “The Palace of Eternity” (1969), which he claims elevated the “dependable” Bob Shaw to “…the second rank in British sf…” but a “…better writer than Simak…”!

Similarly, re: Hal Clement’s “Mission of Gravity” (1954), he says: “Of course the psychology is minimal, the characters wooden, the prose flat.” Fairly hefty flaws, one might think?

Too much so for this survey to stand up.

[Steve LaForest · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very highly recommended! How should you go about finding out what you "should" read. Why - let David Pringle tell you, of course!

I must admit that I am a great fan of books "about" science fiction. I have read so many of the general ones that it does become quite predictable, what will they say as they wander through the history of the genre.

Pringle avoids all of this predictable stuff. He jumps straight to the actual "best" books themselves, and dispenses with all of that historical analysis. He does limit himself to the years 1949 to 1984, which does make the whole approach somewhat more manageable. If you like an author, or have heard of a particular book you want to check out, this is the book for you.

If you enjoy this approach, and you like fantasy, you will want to check out his Fantasy: The best 100 novels.

And if you really really like David Pringle's analysis - look for The Ultimate Guide to Science Fiction. Unfortunately, that book has not yet made the cut to be listed on this website. The Guide lists 3,000 books of SF, including both novels and collections, with a rating from zero stars to 4 stars. Hmm - zero stars - what a great idea for warning poor unsuspecting readers from unreadable schlock! I'm afraid I got a bit obsessed with the Guide, etc. and bought a lot of SF & F that I will probably never find time to read.

My rating system:
Since Goodreads only allows 1 to 5 stars (no half-stars), you have no option but to be ruthless. I reserve one star for a book that is a BOMB - or poor (equivalent to a letter grade of F, E, or at most D). Progressing upwards, 2 stars is equivalent to C (C -, C or C+), 3 stars (equals to B - or B), 4 stars (equals B+ or A -), and 5 stars (equals A or A+). As a result, I maximize my rating space for good books, and don't waste half or more of that rating space on books that are of marginal quality.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Following my looks at 100 Must-Read SF Novels (2006) by Andrews + Rennison, and Pringle's companion Modern Fantasy covering the same time-span (1988), this brief survey's inspired by Anthony Burgess' 99 Novels; it tends towards British and American, largely male, authors. A limit Michael Moorcock in his preface predictably laments, but after all, it was only around 1949, Pringle explains, that publishers turned from the story-magazine model dominant (and thus accounting for some noteworthy SF authors' absence here, such as James Tiptree, Jr.) for most of the last century.

Certainly, many of the earlier inclusions feel quite dated in style (in the examples Pringle wisely shares to show their relative merit or lack, however, the pulp fictioneers tried their best) and he cautions that ten or a dozen entries out of the hundred endure as to their own literary excellence. What matters, of course, is whether as in the near-future post-apocalyptic plots, the quality of the imagination can outlive the expiration date...Lots of the space opera Golden Age stuff seems stilted.

Few made my cut that I hadn't finished long ago. Tucker's Year of the Quiet Son sounds to me creaky but promising even, if like 1984, we've long survived the dreaded calendar. It was the sole novel I hadn't heard of before that I jotted down. A couple to be re-reads: 334 by Disch, The Embedding by Ian Watson. A reminder to hunt down: Death of Grass by John Christopher (whose great proto-Y/A dystopian tales could have been nodded to by Pringle). Yet, that was it. While I'm not a steady reader of SF, I'd already known many listed here from digging in decades ago. The tone of critiques packs a sharper sense of what doesn't succeed than the fantasy companion volume's content and quickens the pace of sampling what can be uneven narratives chosen for influence rather than enduring qualities.

[Ebenmaessiger · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s what it says it is, and hurrah for that. Short précis of 100 books, personally chosen (and notably so — there’s a true curatorial presence behind the scenes here, and not simply a replay of SF’s Recent Hits), half capsule summary and quarter intelligent personal opinion and quarter insightful analysis (he’s especially good, for sf critics, at discussing actual prose and Style [rather than devoting much at all to pedantic “this can’t work” asides or plot quibblings (the Budrys MICHAELMAS being the exception proving the rule)] and where these elements can elevate none-to-original narratives or leaden what would otherwise seem to be enthralling stuff [see all the Disch entries for the former, and Watson’s MIRACLE VISITORS for the latter, to take two examples]). These types of Lets-Talk-About-Stuff-We-Like books aren’t necessarily a dime a dozen (although I’d be okay with that), but they aren’t rare either. And if you’re gonna wade into these waters—flowing between straight encyclopedic cataloguing and more scholarly, concentrated criticism—you could do worse than starting here.

[Robert Stout · Rating 3 out of 5]

David Pringle's Science Fiction, The 100 Best Novels kicks off with a bang with George Orwell's 1984. Pringle spends a great deal of time covering new wave authors such as Philip K Dick, Samuel L. Delany, Ursula K LeGuin and the book ends with William Gibson's classic Neuromancer. The problem with an over emphasis on new wave writers is that the stories are depressing. Book's such as John Brunner's Stand on Zanibar covers dystopias with elements such as feminism (in its extreme form), overpopulation and nihilism. Many authors on this list if they talk about religion at all, it's often in a negative light where the male clergy is always oppressing someone. Pringle, seems to be in pain if there is not an author that carries a left-wing viewpoint. Authors such as Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Asimov and Heinlein are put down in the book. There are a few titles such as Crash by J.G. Ballard that I don't consider to be sci-fi. The list is flawed but it's a decent list.

[Julio The Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank you, David Pringle, for bringing me back to earth. When I needed relaxation and intelligent conversation with a good book is precisely when I discovered this critical guide to the best sci-fi novels after 1949, starting with George Orwell's 1984 and finishing with William Gibson's NEUROMANCER. Along the way Diamond Dave turned me on to CAMP CONCENTRATION by Thomas Disch, where a 1970s authoritarian America is run by President Robert McNamara, Ian Watson's THE EMBEDDING, a triple tale of linguistics joining Bangladeshi children in a British laboratory, Amazon tribes stoned on psychotropic drugs, and UFOs hovering over San Francisco, and THE IRON DREAM by Norman Spinrad, meta-science fiction written by Adolf Hitler. Dave Pringle has strong opinions. He prefers Harry Harrison's novel MAKE ROOM! MAKE ROOM! to "the mediocre film version, SOYLENT GREEN". I think it's the other way around. Nor am I convinced that 1984 really is science fiction; technology does not define sci-fi, and besides, from television, already present in 1930s Britain, it is just a hop-skip to television surveillance screens. But, it's precisely these argument that make this selection and collection fun.

[Tristan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Albeit a limited review (from 1949 to 1985), this is an interesting review of (English language) science fiction with thoughtful commentary on the books and their context, with some strong views and surprising opinions that make necessary a revaluation of earlier readings of the books concerned. It is also a door opener to further reading. Sometimes earlier works are mentioned too, as well as contemporary works which had not made the list in their own right.

Here’s a list to keep track of my exploration of the genre.

* George Orwell - 1984 (1949): TBR on Kindle
* George Stewart - Earth Abides (1949): TBR on Kindle
* Ray Bradbury - The Martian Chronicles (1950): read and reviewed
* Robert Heinlein - The Puppet Masters (1951):
* John Wyndham - The Day Of The Triffids (1951): read and reviewed
* Bernard Wolfe - Limbo (1952):
* Alfred Bester - The Demolished Man (1953):
* Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451 (1953): read and reviewed
* Arthur Clarke - Childhood’s End (1953): read and reviewed
* Charles Harness - The Paradox Men (1953):
* Ward Moore - Bring The Jubilee (1953):
* Pohl & Kornbluth - The Space Merchants (1953):
* Clifford Simak - Ring Around The Sun (1953):
* Theodore Sturgeon - More Than Human (1953): TBR on Kindle
* Hal Clement - Mission Of Gravity (1954):
* Edgar Pangborn - A Mirror For Observers (1954):
* Isaac Asimov - The End Of Eternity (1955):
* Leigh Brackett - The Long Tomorrow (1955):
* William Golding - The Inheritors (1955): TBR on Kindle
* Alfred Bester - The Stars My Destination (1955): read and reviewed
* John Christopher - The Death Of Grass (1955): read and reviewed
* Arthur Clarke - The City And The Stars (1956):
* Robert Heinlein - The Door Into Summer (1957): TBR on Kindle
* John Wyndham - The Midwich Cuckoos (1957): read and reviewed
* Brian Aldiss - Non-Stop (1958): TBR on Kindle
* James Blish - A Case Of Conscience (1958): TBR on Kindle
* Robert Heinlein - Have Space-suit - Will Travel (1958):
* Philip Dick - Time Out Of Joint (1959):
* Pat Frank - Alas, Babylon (1959):
* Walter Miller - A Canticle For Leibowitz (1959): TBR on Kindle
* Kurt Vonnegut - The Sirens Of Titan (1959): read and reviewed
* Algis Budrys - Rogue Moon (1960):
* Theodore Sturgeon - Venus Plus X (1960):
* Brian Aldiss - Hothouse (1962):
* J G Ballard - The Drowned World (1962):
* Anthony Burgess - A Clockwork Orange (1962): TBR tsundoku
* Philip Dick - The Man In The High Castle (1962): TBR on Kindle
* Robert Sheckley - Journey Beyond Tomorrow (1963):
* Clifford Simak - Way Station (1963):
* Kurt Vonnegut - Cat’s Cradle (1963):
* Brian Aldiss - Greybeard (1964): read and reviewed
* William Burroughs - Nova Express (1964):
* Phillip Dick - Martian Time-slip (1964):
* Phillip Dick - The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch (1964):
* Fritz Leiber - The Wanderer (1964): TBR on Kindle
* Cordwainer Smith - Norstrilia (1964/1968):
* Philip Dick - Dr Bloodmoney (1965):
* Frank Herbert - Dune (1965): read and reviewed
* J G Ballard - The Crystal World (1966):
* Harry Harrison - Make Room! Make Room! (1966):
* Daniel Keyes - Flowers For Algernon (1966): TBR on Kindle
* Roger Zelazny - The Dream Master (1966):
* John Brunner - Stand on Zanzibar (1966):
* Samuel Delaney - Nova (1968): read and reviewed
* Philip Dick - Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep (1968): read and reviewed
* Thomas Disch - Camp Concentration (1968):
* Michael Moorcock - The Final Programme (1968):
* Keith Roberts - Pavane (1968):
* Angela Carter - Heroes And Villains (1969):
* Ursula Le Guin - The Left Hand Of Darkness (1969): TBR on Kindle
* Bob Shaw - The Palace Of Eternity (1969):
* Norman Spinrad - Bug Jack Barron (1969):
* Poul Anderson - Tau Zero (1970): read and reviewed
* Robert Silverberg - Downward To The Earth (1970): TBR on Kindle
* Wilson Tucker - The Year Of The Quiet Sun (1970):
* Thomas Disch - 334 (1972):
* Gene Wolfe - The Fifth Head Of Cerberus (1972):
* Michael Moorcock - The Dancers At The End Of Time (1972-1976):
* J G Ballard - Crash (1973):
* Mack Reynolds - Looking Backward, From The Year 2000 (1973):
* Ian Watson - The Embedding (1973):
* Suzy Charnas - Walk To The End Of The World (1974):
* John Harrison - The Centauri Device (1974):
* Ursula Le Guin - The Dispossessed (1974): TBR on Kindle
* Christopher Priest - Inverted World (1974): TBR on Kindle
* J G Ballard - High Rise (1975):
* Barry Malzberg - Galaxies (1975):
* Joanna Russ - The Female Man (1975): TBR tsundoku
* Bob Shaw - Orbitsville (1975):
* Kingsley Amis - The Alteration (1976):
* Marge Piercy - Woman On The Edge Of Time (1976): TBR on Kindle
* Frederik Pohl - Man Plus (1976):
* Algis Budrys - Michaelmas (1977):
* John Varley - The Ophiuchi Hotline (1977):
* Ian Watson - Miracle Visitors (1978):
* John Crowley - Engine Summer (1979): TBR on Kindle
* Thomas Disch - On Wings Of Song (1979):
* Brian Stableford - The Walking Shadow (1979):
* Kate Wilhelm - Juniper Time (1979):
* Gregory Benford - Timescape (1980):
* Damien Broderick - The Dreaming Dragons (1980):
* Octavia Butler - Wild Seed (1980): TBR on Kindle
* Russell Hoban - Riddley Walker (1989): TBR on Kindle
* John Sladek - Roderick and Roderick At Random (1980-1983):
* Gene Wolfe - The Book Of The New Sun (1980-1983): read and reviewed (books 1 and 2), TBR on Kindle (books 3 and 4)
* Philip Farmer - The Unreasoning Mask (1981):
* Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle - Oath Of Fealty (1981):
* Michael Bishop - No Enemy But Time (1982):
* John Batchelor - The Birth Of The People’s Republic Of Antarctica (1983): TBR tsundoku
* William Gibson - Neuromancer (1984): TBR on Kindle

This book is a pleasant read in its own right. I don’t think I’ll read it from cover to cover again, hence a score of three stars, but I think I’ll dip into it as a resource more than once in future. In which case it is likely to gain another star.

[Toni Cifuentes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro interesante para conocer algunas novelas de ciencia ficción que se escapan un poco de las lecturas obligadas y clásicas de costumbre. Hay muchas novelas que en su día no estaban traducidas y es evidente que abarca un periodo determinado. Hubiera molado mucho que Pringle hubiese sido capaz de adelantarse a su tiempo y resumir novelas que ni siquiera estaban escritas cuando publicó su libro. Que hablara, por ejemplo, de Ready Player One o The Martian, y así me hubiera ahorrado perder el tiempo intentando leerlas en su día. Es alucinante cómo algunos resúmenes de algunas historias te quita por completo las ganas de leer según qué cosas. En pocas reseñas me han dado ganas de ir en busca del libro y empezar. En fin, que guay y tal.

[Thomas Rose-Masters · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good introduction into some of the most significant writers and novels withing the genre. However, for me the essays on each particular chosen novel were compromised by too much retelling (and i even avoid reading blurbs as i feel i need to walk into a novel totally virginal). Still, when deciding where to start with your reading, and trying to figure out what it is exactly within the genre that would be most suitable for one's personal tastes, quite useful.

[Taldragon · Rating 3 out of 5]

From one of the best editors in science fiction, this lively and authoritative guide will appeal to both newcomers and connoisseurs of the genre. Informative and readable, Pringle's choices focus on landmarks by Ray Bradbury, Alfred Bester, and J. G. Ballard, unearth such lesser-known talents as Ian Watson, Octavia Butler, and Joanna Russ, and highlight breakthrough novels by William Gibson and Philip K. Dick.

wasnt keen on the choices

[Pamela · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting selection of novels 1940 through 1985. Somewhat british-centric opinion of the writer-reviewer. But a good overview of how to view science-fiction as literature. I have a list of a few novels I’ve missed along the way. And I’m curious to see if there is an update volume of the most recent 40 years ? This book ends with the « brand new » Neuromancer by William Gibson :)

[Viktor · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pretty good sourcebook in a "what might good to read next?" kind of way. The selections are arranged chronologically. Whether one agrees with the choices is not the point. Some of these books I hadn't even heard of, and I'll give them a chance now.