In the middle of my journey through this literary life, I decided without warning or good reason to begin reading science fiction. What’s worse, I decided to write about my adventures, heedless of ridicule (even if I draw a long embarrassing blank and have to chirp “Oops!” publicly). The multiple universes of science fiction are vast and expanding. Only now am I beginning my explorations. Finding the best and most authoritative criticism is easy, but knowing what novels to choose is harder.
And so a bleg to readers of Literary Commentary. If you were compiling a reading list for an introductory survey course in SF, what would you include? In his address to the 2010 World Science Fiction Convention (reprinted in The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow), Cory Doctorow said that “Science fiction had its heyday as short stories in the 1930s and 1940s — the pulp days, when the magazines were paying one to two cents a word.” I’m looking for the most essential works of SF since then, I mean; since its heyday.
As part of its “1000 Novels Everyone Must Read” series two years ago, the Guardian strung together a back-breakingly unselective three-part list of over a hundred books, and then, for good measure, tacked on twelve more titles they’d “missed” on the first go ’round. Their list included everything from familiar masterpieces (Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland) to 18th-century Gothics, 19th-century ghost stories, 20th-century political dystopias, and “genre-bending” exercises by “literary” literati like Paul Auster and Michael Chabon. The list wasn’t very helpful: if Toni Morrison’s Beloved is science fiction then nothing is.
A decade ago, Martin Wisse drew up some “Notes toward a Literary Canon of Science Fiction.” Wisse proposed four criteria:
(1.) Popularity.
(2.) Longevity (by which he meant whether a book had stood the famous test of time).
(3.) Critical success.
(4.) Influence.
Fantasy is intentionally excluded from this canon. For our purposes, SF may be provisionally defined (as I quoted Andrew Fox the other day) as “extrapolations of theoretically possible developments in technology, the sciences, or society”; or as the great Robert A. Heinlein defined it: “[R]ealistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method.”
My own first nominations might include these. (Readers’ recommendations are in red.)
• Brian W. Aldiss, Non-Stop (1958).
• —————, Greybeard (1964).
• Isaac Asimov, Foundation (1951).
• Ray Bradbury, The Martian Chronicles (1950).
• Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange (1962).
• Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood’s End (1953).
• —————, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).
• —————, Rendezvous with Rama (1972).
• Samuel R. Delany, Babel-17 (1966).
• Philip K. Dick, The Man in the High Castle (1962).
• —————, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch (1965).
• —————, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968).
• Thomas M. Disch, Camp Concentration (1968).
• Philip José Farmer, To Your Scattered Bodies Go (1971).
• William Gibson, Neuromancer (1984).
• Joe Haldeman, The Forever War (1974).
• Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land (1961).
• —————, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (1966).
• Frank Herbert, Dune (1965). [Fails test of “theoretical possibility” — Amateur Reader]
• Russell Hoban, Riddley Walker (1980).
• Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness (1969).
• Stanisław Lem, Solaris [Polish, 1962], trans. (from a French translation) Joanna Kilmartin and Steve Cox (1970).
• —————, The Cyberiad [Polish, 1965], trans. Michael Kandel (1974).
• Walter M. Miller, Jr., A Canticle for Leibowitz (1960).
• Larry Niven, Ringworld (1970).
• ————— and Jerry Pournelle, The Mote in God’s Eye (1974).
• Frederik Pohl and Cyril M. Kornbluth, The Space Merchants (1953).
• Robert Silverberg, The Book of Skulls (1973).
• Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash (1992).
• Gene Wolfe, The Book of the New Sun, 4 vols. (1980–1983).
• Roger Zelazny, Lord of Light (1967).
What else?