What works of Speculative Fiction do you recommend?

[Ixtab]

Note: Speculative fiction = Science Fiction and Fantasy

Below are a few titles which immediately spring to mind - I will exclude, however, such works as nearly everyone has read, such as Shelley's Frankenstein or Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, for they need no especial recommendation. I will edit this post, to add more titles as they occur to me.

Science Fiction
Star-Maker by Olaf Stapledon
Last and First Men: A Story of the Near and Far Future by Olaf Stapledon
Star-begotten: A Biological Fantasia by H.G. Wells

Fantasy
The Well at the World's End by William Morris
The Titus trilogy of Mervyn Peake
Lilith by George MacDonald
Phantastes: A Faerie Romance for Men and Women by George MacDonald

[sugartits]

Michael Moorcock's Elric Saga.

[ironweed]

Of the two works Ix cites I've read:

Last and First Men: A Story of the Near and Far Future by Olaf Stapledon

This didn't seem all that interesting, though I suspect it was somewhat revolutionary for its time. The writing style was certainly cumbersome and clumsy.

The Titus trilogy of Mervyn Peake

Funny, I've usually heard this referred to as Gormenghast or the Gormenghast books. In any event I loathed these books, though I think I only read the first two. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. A lot of people love them, I know that. I'm just not one of them.

My list:

SF:
The Forever War - Joe Haldeman (but stay away from the awful sequels)
In Conquest Born - C.S. Friedman
The Ophiuchi Hotline - John Varley

Fantasy:
Illusion - Paula Volsky (though there's a painfully stupid love story in this)
The Last Unicorn - Peter S. Beagle
THE MALACIA TAPESTRY - Brian Aldiss

[Ixtab]

The descriptive power of Olaf Stapledon's prose is almost without parallel in science fiction. The only science fiction writer with a superior writing style is Mary Shelley, in my opinion. H.G. Wells comes close.

[ironweed]

The descriptive power of Olaf Stapledon's prose is almost without parallel in science fiction.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, certainly. However, I think why Stapeldon remains a favorite is for his plots, not his prose.

The only science fiction writer with a superior writing style is Mary Shelley, in my opinion. H.G. Wells comes close.

Been too many years since I've read Frankenstein to comment, but Wells also had an unfortunate tendency to bombast. I'm thinking particularly of The Day of the Comet, even The Food of the Gods. Not that these defects loom particularly large in Wells' writing in my view, but they're there, in the form of an obtrusive narrator.

Oh, and I thank you for those other fantasy titles. I'll try looking them up after my busy season is over.

[Ixtab]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, certainly. However, I think why Stapeldon remains a favorite is for his plots, not his prose.There isn't much plot in Star Maker, actually. The same can be said of H.G. Wells' Star-Begotten. I generally don't read science fiction for the plot as such, though I do like a good story. Plotless quasi-scientific speculation almost suffices for me. I read science fiction for ideas, and the poetic power of the prose - not story. Stapledon excels at both, in my opinion. But when he wants to be, he is also a good story teller. His Sirius is a superb story - another s.f. book, by the way, which I strongly recommend.

Been too many years since I've read Frankenstein to comment, but Wells also had an unfortunate tendency to bombast.I am not seeing it. What you call bombast is, in the case of Wells at least, just good writing. Judging from your list, you prefer that colloquial contemporary style of writing which I detest.

but they're there, in the form of an obtrusive narrator.It's called exposition.

[WFHermans]

The only two writers worth considering are H.P. Lovecraft and Jack Vance, because their works are the crowns upon centuries of literature, instead of worthless fads. Both are detested by the jews.

Because he passed away in 1937, H.P. Lovecraft's works are copyright free now, I think, and are easy to find on the net. When forced to pick his best work I would choose "The Dream-World of Unknown Kadath".

Jack Vance is 90 years old and still very much alive. Whatever you choose to read from him, you can't go wrong. Online is Green Magic (http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/green.htm).

[A Flickering]

Erikson's Malazan series, Bakker's Prince of Nothing, Miéville's Perdido Street Station and Herbert's Dune stand at the summit of speculative fiction, but generally don't transcend its boundaries. There are however a few exceptional works which stand as great pieces of literature, rather than merely great pieces of speculative fiction.

Stephen Donaldson's The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is almost certainly the greatest work of fantasy ever written, and renders virtually everything that came afterwards in the genre redundant. Walter Miller Jr.'s A Canticle for Leibowitz is also wonderful. Lovecraft tends to polarise readers but is definitely worth trying - I suggest starting with one of his longer works as I did. David Lindsay's A Voyage to Arcturus is a bizarre philosophical tale that's also worth reading.

I've heard that Dan Simmons is interesting - one of his more recent series has its roots in The Iliad, The Tempest and other great literature. Patricia McKillip is widely regarded as an incredible prose writer, though again, I've read nothing of her work. I've also heard good things about Jack Vance and Roger Zelazny from respectable sources.

Ignore all recommendations for George R Martin, who's the latest fad among fantasy fans. The A Song of Ice and Fire series has very little going for it.

[HELLSTAR_trek]

I don't have any recommendations, but someone somewhere recommend two books by Christopher Anvil: Pandora's Planet and Pandora's Legions. I haven't read either of them. Has anyone here read one or both of them?

[Brechun]

One of the few contemporary SF writers that can actually create realistic, likable characters is Robert J. Sawyer. Practically all of his works are among the best today, but avoid the Neanderthal Parallax. Although the first in the triology won a Hugo award for best novel, the entire series is pure, ultra-liberal social commentary. Complete trash.

[Delmac]

I think I have read elsewhere that you dislike Stephen Baxter's work. This seems odd as he is very much in the Wells/Stapledon/Clarke tradition with a certain admixture of Niven, who I gather you also like. The collection of short stories "Resplendent" is pretty good in my opinion if you ever feel like sampling him again, particularly "Riding the Rock".

Naturally I agree with you about Stapledon's brilliance. Have you read "Odd John"? More in the "Sirius" vein than the "Star Maker" one but nonetheless very good.

Since you like jews now, have you read Charles Stross's "Accelerando"?

In the pure scientific speculation vein have you read Hal Clement's "Mission of Gravity", Robert Forward's "Dragon's Egg" or Dewdney's "Planiverse"?

Rereading the above I realise that practically nothing I have mentioned is non-obvious... to continue in the same plonking vein then, of course I have to reccomend Gene Wolfe. Just to be perverse, I prefer his YA effort "The Wizard Knight" to the acknowledged classic "Book of the New Sun".

Also pretty much anything by John Crowley; my personal favourite is "Beasts"

[Ixtab]

I think I have read elsewhere that you dislike Stephen Baxter's work. This seems odd as he is very much in the Wells/Stapledon/Clarke tradition with a certain admixture of Niven, who I gather you also like.His prose is unbearable.

Naturally I agree with you about Stapledon's brilliance. Have you read "Odd John"?No, but I have it. I am going to read it soon.

Since you like jews now, have you read Charles Stross's "Accelerando"?No.

In the pure scientific speculation vein have you read Hal Clement's "Mission of Gravity", Robert Forward's "Dragon's Egg" or Dewdney's "Planiverse"?No.

I have to reccomend Gene Wolfe. I am pretty sure I read something by him, but I cannot remember what it was. I think it was a novelette.

[il ragno]

Gene Wolfe's "Fifth Head of Cerberus" is a classic short novel.

[Delmac]

"His prose is unbearable."

I always found that it at least had the virtue of unobtrusiveness. I tend to notice really bad prose; his seems simply bland, which is not always a fault in an sf writer in my opinion. Certainly he is no JG Ballard, tho ...

[il ragno]

Certainly he is no JG Ballard, tho ...

Dunno if it's still in print, but his Complete Stories is tremendous. Same goes for Cordwainer Smith's Rediscovery of Man.

[Delmac]

I love "The game of rat and dragon" which I first read in Kingsley Amis's excellent collection of goldenage sf, of which I've forgotten the title ... Phillip Latham's "Xi Effect" is also in the same collection, one of the most profoundly disturbing stories I've ever read - the quasiscientific understated tone just adds to the existential horror...

[BoloMK30]

The only two writers worth considering are H.P. Lovecraft and Jack Vance, because their works are the crowns upon centuries of literature, instead of worthless fads. Both are detested by the jews.

Because he passed away in 1937, H.P. Lovecraft's works are copyright free now, I think, and are easy to find on the net. When forced to pick his best work I would choose "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath".

I've read everything by H.P. Lovecraft. I especially liked At the Mountains
of Madness and The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. The Call of
Cthulhu was good, too. My all-time favorite short story was The Rats
In The Walls; I read this story aloud to my shipmates one night in the
barracks at Treasure Island Naval Schools Command and freaked them right
out when I showed them a monkey-skull right at the end! That was in 1969.

I like the works of Julian May; Many-Coloured Land, and all of the
Galactic Milieu books that followed.

I collect the books and artwork of Mike Mignola, especially HellBoy.
I also collect anything I can get of Groo the Wanderer by Sergio
Aragones. :bbbat: :whip: :viking:

[A Flickering]

At the Mountains of Madness was where I started and I really enjoyed it, and The Case... was arguably even better. The Rats in the Walls never really clicked with me though, I have to say.

[BoloMK30]

At the Mountains of Madness was where I started and I really enjoyed it, and The Case... was arguably even better. The Rats in the Walls never really clicked with me though, I have to say.

Good short-stories are hard to write. I thought of The Rats In The Walls
as a good yarn about the horrors of ancestral memory.

[littlewhitelies]

I'm suprised that noone mentioned "The Dune Chronicles" by Frank Herbert. Do avoid his son's work... it sucks.

[Jake Featherston]

Stephen Donaldson's The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is almost certainly the greatest work of fantasy ever written

I'm inclined to agree, although I really only liked the first Chronicles, not the second, which is to say I loved Lord Foul's Bane, The Illearth War, and The Power That Preserves. The Wounded Land and White Gold Wielder were both pretty good, but not up to the standard of the first chronicle. The One Tree was just plain boring as Hell.

Ignore all recommendations for George R Martin, who's the latest fad among fantasy fans. The A Song of Ice and Fire series has very little going for it.

George R.R. Martin does seem a bit over-rated, although he wrote a sci-fi novella called "The Sandkings," originally serialized in Omni magazine during the late 1970s, which is very good indeed. My dad read it to me as a bed time story about the time I was getting too old for bed time stories, and I've read it twice since then. Very creepy.

[Jake Featherston]

One of the few contemporary SF writers that can actually create realistic, likable characters is Robert J. Sawyer. Practically all of his works are among the best today, but avoid the Neanderthal Parallax. Although the first in the triology won a Hugo award for best novel, the entire series is pure, ultra-liberal social commentary. Complete trash.

I read one of his novels, Starplex; it was mediocre.

[Jake Featherston]

I've read everything by H.P. Lovecraft. I especially liked At the Mountains
of Madness and The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. The Call of
Cthulhu was good, too. My all-time favorite short story was The Rats
In The Walls

I've read everything fictional Lovecraft has written at least three times, and in many cases over ten times; its safe to say I'm a fan (and have been since I was 11 years old). My favorite is "The Shadow Over Innsmouth."

[A Flickering]

I'm inclined to agree, although I really only liked the first Chronicles, not the second, which is to say I loved Lord Foul's Bane, The Illearth War, and The Power That Preserves. The Wounded Land and White Gold Wielder were both pretty good, but not up to the standard of the first chronicle. The One Tree was just plain boring as Hell.

You're not alone. Personally though, I really enjoyed The One Tree.

George R.R. Martin does seem a bit over-rated, although he wrote a sci-fi novella called "The Sandkings," originally serialized in Omni magazine during the late 1970s, which is very good indeed. My dad read it to me as a bed time story about the time I was getting too old for bed time stories, and I've read it twice since then. Very creepy.

Aye, I've only ever read A Game of Thrones. Some of his other works may well be much better.

As for The Rats in the Walls... I think it epitomises Lovecraft's style in many ways: the detailed historical background; the tension gradually building as the presence of unseen, lurking horrors becomes more and more potent; the venturing into the unknown out of a morbid desire to learn more; the process of discovering more and more vile remnants; the intense resolution where the horror becomes suffocating; all things mirrored in works such as AtMoM for example, and as ever pulled off to great effect. I found the character's reversion to his ancestral tongue and mindset particularly disturbing, and the nature of the climax was actually rather unexpected in general, which made it more effective in my view.

Having said all that, like I say, it didn't click with me. Firstly, I don't on the whole find rats even vaguely horrifying. On the other hand, Lovecraft is able to attach a quality of ancient evil to just about anything - probably even a carrot or a hair-dryer if he gave it his best shot. I do feel that the idea of something being in the walls would've been more horrifying had it been kept a little more ambiguous rather than being rats - maybe that's just me.

Secondly, it didn't have an especially lasting effect on my imagination. I doubt this is actually much to do with the story's content but rather its length - short stories on the whole don't possess the same lasting power as longer pieces for me (I suppose the reason for this is obvious - not as much time to lose myself in them). Then again, I enjoyed The Call of Cthulhu, and even shorter stuff like The Festival moreso - there's something more poetic about those stories, for me.