Scan barcode
Reviews
Science Fiction: The 101 Best Novels 1985 – 2010 by Paul Di Filippo, David Pringle, Damien Broderick
nwhyte's review
3.0
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.
bent's review
1.0
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.
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.
rosseroo's review
3.0
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.
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.
gerhard's review
3.0
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.
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.
hammard's review
3.0
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.
More...