The Essential Sci-fi?

[Ahriman238]

A conversation I was having with my brother, on an unrelated topic, sparked this. What would you say is the essential science fiction? What captures the spirit(s) of the genre best? If you were to put together a list of "you have to read/watch this" to introduce someone to the genre cold, what would it look like?

I'll get this started.


Star Wars IV: A New Hope- a no-brainer, particularly on this site. It's got adventure, action, and all the feeling of a cinema classic, even if you could strip the plot to a paint-by-numbers Joseph Campbell sort of thing.

Mutineer's Moon by David Weber- The moon as an ancient starship, humanity as the descendants of it's crew. the sheer sense of wonder and discovery in the first act, and the ingenuity of the biotechnic enhancement make this one a favorite of mine.

Nightfall short story by Isaac Asimov- on a world that sees an eclipse, and true night, only once in a thousand years, a group of scientists prepare to record the end of their civilization in the millennial hysteria and record the soul-stealing/madness inducing stars for the benefit of the next cycle.

Superiority by Arthur C. Clarke- a response to the misguided notion that superior technology always wins.

Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegurt- the classic dystopian what-if? story of an overly benevolent government enforcing absolute equality on everyone.

1984 by George Orwell (Eric Blair)- pretty much the sci-fi dystopia.

[FaxModem1]

From the Earth to the Moon by Jules Verne. The roots of science fiction, and showing was what fiction back then is fact now. Well, aside from us using a rocket instead of a giant cannon.

The Time Machine by H.G. Wells. A classic novel about the eponymous time machine. The strange world of the future, and the philosophical symbolism about the classes therein.

The Twilight Zone by Rod Serling. This is a must watch for anyone new to science fiction, as it is a great science fiction TV series, and almost every episode was a solid science fiction story.

[Iroscato]

I'd add War of the Worlds by H.G Wells to the pile as well - it more or less invented the modern-day alien invasion scenario, and still holds up as a surprisingly entertaining read to this day, 117 years later.

[Elheru Aran]

Cyberpunk: Snow Crash. This, along with Neuromancer (which I haven't read. Need to get on to that) defined the genre, as far as I know.

I would also throw a slightly fantastical wild-card into the mix and call out Planetary, the comics by Warren Ellis.

Ex Machina is also a great SF comic, although human drama is a big part of it as well.

Dune, the books actually written by Frank Herbert-- the first one at least.

Starship Troopers by Heinlein. Cheesy libertarian-fascist propaganda? Check. Armoured soldiers in space? Check! (This one may not be as 'essential' as others though)

2001 by Clarke. 2010 also good, but optional. Definitely the Kubrick film as well.

Old Man's War, Joe Scalzi. Great book.

Some TOS, TNG, DS9-- the better episodes. Definitely Star Trek II-IV, possibly also ST VI and First Contact. Forget about the rest of it.

While I never watched much of it, I would say some B5 is a must.

Ooh. Any of E.E. Smith's books. Only ones I read were from the Skylark series, but they were great old-school SF.

Seriously, you're gonna end up with a huge list here...

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the thing about E. E. Smith's works is that they're just not very good as literature. If you've read a ton of science fiction and like a good pew-pew lasers story, they can be very entertaining. Otherwise they are of historical interest only, and people don't read fiction novels just because of their historical importance. Or if they do, they have NO fun at all doing so and forget the whole thing within a week or two.

[Darmalus]

Well, the thing about E. E. Smith's works is that they're just not very good as literature. If you've read a ton of science fiction and like a good pew-pew lasers story, they can be very entertaining. Otherwise they are of historical interest only, and people don't read fiction novels just because of their historical importance. Or if they do, they have NO fun at all doing so and forget the whole thing within a week or two.

What do you mean by good literature? If a story sets out to entertain the reader and succeeds, isn't that good?

[FTeik]

Movies:
The Terminator,
Disney's "The Black Hole",
2001 - A Space-Odyssey
Blade Runner

Novels:
1984
Fahrenheit 451
War of the Worlds
Almost anything by Jules Verne
Frankenstein

[Iroscato]

If I might suggest a modification to the original premise. How about choosing up to five sci-fi works to show to somebody who's never touched the genre? If there was a phaser to your head and you had to choose, what would you pick and why?
My personal five:

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back - Quite possibly the defining sci-fi blockbuster. A sequel that expands and improves on its predecessor in every way. As much as I love ANH and ROTJ, Empire is rightly considered the high point of the franchise.

Alien - Single-handedly created the sci-fi horror genre, and masterfully so. It's a diamond-crappingly tense and atmospheric film even after repeated viewings, and the original chest-burster scene still fucks with my head to this day.

War of the Worlds (novel) - As mentioned before, this helped create many of the modern alien invasion tropes that we see today in movies (sudden, shocking appearance of the invaders, futile military resistance, societal collapse in aftermath) and was hugely ahead of its time. It's still a damn good read as well.

Star Trek: The Original Series - It may have aged in places, but at its core it remains a wonderfully optimistic, imaginative and intelligent vision of the future. Very much a product of its time, but created with a timeless desire to see humanity reach the stars.

Firefly - In my humble opinion, the closest thing to pure magic I've ever seen in terms of TV. The list of adjectives and superlatives I could use to describe this show would probably break the character limit of my post, so I'll just say I'm a massive Browncoat now and forever, and that's why this makes the list of essential sci-fi.

[Simon_Jester]

First of all, let me just say that Smith is one of a handful of authors who can claim to have singlehandedly brought about a revolution in science fiction.

Well, the thing about E. E. Smith's works is that they're just not very good as literature. If you've read a ton of science fiction and like a good pew-pew lasers story, they can be very entertaining. Otherwise they are of historical interest only, and people don't read fiction novels just because of their historical importance. Or if they do, they have NO fun at all doing so and forget the whole thing within a week or two.

What do you mean by good literature? If a story sets out to entertain the reader and succeeds, isn't that good?

The characterization is relatively flat. The dialogue is dated, in ways that even most other classic fiction from the 1920s, '30s, and '40s is not. The plots rely heavily on coincidence, and typically on one side or the other scoring very lopsided, sacrifice-less victories through superior technology. Both sets of novels* make rather hamhanded use of 'intellectually superior' races as tools for delivering author tracts.**

Even compared to some of his contemporaries in the SF field (i.e. Stanley Weinbaum or Catherine Moore) his stories do not work well as literature.

They are spectacularly entertaining for the "explosions in space" angle, the well-imagined alien lifeforms, the sense of broad scale and high stakes, and, if you're into that, the super-noble and super-duper protagonists. For all these reasons and a few more, they are basically the defining foundation of the 'space opera' subgenre.

But Smith accomplished this more through his skill at worldbuilding and the depth of his imagination than he did through his skill as a writer of literature.
__________________________

*Smith wrote a number of other novels, quite a few of which I've read, but the Skylark and Galactic Patrol series are the ones for which he has earned renown.

**Also, two criticisms specific to the Skylark novels, and which arguably are NOT about their merits as literature: One, they show worrying side-orders of eugenicism although this is not a criticism of their literary merit per se and is arguably just a consequence of the fact that they predate the rise of Adolf Hitler. Two, while they're imaginative and even thrilling if you can slip into the mindset of a 1930 pulp reader, they're blatantly innumerate about the relationship between acceleration, velocity, and what humans can survive... so much so that even the author felt a little sickened about it in retrospect. Scientific plausibility in the Skylark stories is pretty darn low.

[Elheru Aran]

A fair enough observation about Smith. It's good popcorn reading and if you're interested in space opera I would consider him fairly essential reading, but you're right that from a literary standpoint his work doesn't stand up terribly well. Related sidenote: Heinlein knew him personally and there are some echoes of Smith's notions in his work, especially later on from approximately 'Time Enough for Love'.

I would consider a number of authors to be fairly essential SF reading in general, honestly. Asimov and Clarke for the hard SF; Heinlein and Scalzi for pulp; and... I really haven't read much SF in the past few years /hangs head in shame/ Steakley's Armor would be a good counterpart to Starship Troopers, but I wouldn't consider it terribly essential as it's very similar, just a different take on the story.

Film wise, I would agree with Alien and add Aliens and Predator (first one). TV, besides Star Trek and B5, add some nu-Galactica, Stargate, and Farscape. Robocop (first one) would also be an interesting addition for that semi-cyberpunkish, modern dystopian SF kinda thing. Total Recall (Schwarzenegger) for the mind-bending lulz. Terminator and Terminator 2.

[TOSDOC]

Film:

Nigel Kneale's Quatermass and the Pit (Five Million Years To Earth): I admire sci-fi films that help to explain our many ancient superstitions and legends. Tobe Hooper's Lifeforce came close to this too.

Literature:

Most of my top pics are already mentioned, but I recommend including H.P. Lovecraft's The Colour Out Of Space and At The Mountains Of Madness for sheer alienness of the beings that most of today's sci-fi is lacking in their humanoid depictions, something Lovecraft despised as extremely unlikely.

[Simon_Jester]

A fair enough observation about Smith. It's good popcorn reading and if you're interested in space opera I would consider him fairly essential reading, but you're right that from a literary standpoint his work doesn't stand up terribly well. Related sidenote: Heinlein knew him personally and there are some echoes of Smith's notions in his work, especially later on from approximately 'Time Enough for Love'.

The only ones I can think of are sexual mores.

And those are echoes of the notions of later Smith, in my opinion. Most of his later novels do suggest that he was on some level aware of and approving of the Sexual Revolution, even if he was in his sixties and seventies by the time it happened.

I mean, it's very striking in the Skylark novels, where the first one was written in the '20s and every major character is a cleancut, clean-living, schoolboy, a ruthless but still tightly controlled criminal mastermind, or a demure proto-housewife. But in the last of the Skylark novels, which was written in the early '60s, sexual promiscuity starts showing up and one of the minor characters introduced in that novel is a stripper.

Honestly, I think Smith and Heinlein just underwent a degree of parallel evolution in this respect- in their earlier years they wrote more restrained stories because that was what was in demand, but in the 1960s when they sensed the times opening up, they started opening up themselves.

I would consider a number of authors to be fairly essential SF reading in general, honestly. Asimov and Clarke for the hard SF;

I question Asimov's inclusion in hard SF, off the top of my head I can't think of a lot of really good hard SF written by him.

In general, one should read Asimov if one likes logic puzzles. Most of his stories boil down to logic puzzles, heroes usually triumph by creating a situation where their opponent's success is logically impossible, his characters use very logical dialogue.

Honestly, while Asimov was quite extroverted in his later years, he was also the nerd's nerd, and it shows in his writing style and dialogue.

Heinlein and Scalzi for pulp; and...

Wait what? Heinlein wrote, if anything, more hard SF than Asimov did, and all but his earliest stories were written after the genre had transcended the standards we call 'pulp.'

I really haven't read much SF in the past few years...

Typically, stuff published in the last few years can't be classed as "essential" to the genre.

[Nephtys]

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is still my favorite scifi book of all time. It hits so many things at the same time, from colonialism, to authority, to family and societal structures, to sentient AIs and revolution. Really, an amazing book.

Likewise, I adore Neuromancer and Snowcrash, having started a genre and full of great worldbuilding. Still, they're much more 'modern' styled, in the sense that you could imagine them being made into movies.

Dune as mentioned before.

I'd like to bring up a totally random one too: Jarowalski's The Metabarons, a french comic/graphic novel/whatever, that was pretty much the manifestation of Jarowalski's Dune, in a crazy multigenerational greek tragedy. It's very unique, and utterly crazy. It makes Herbert's Dune look ordinary in terms of crazy concepts.

[Elheru Aran]

The only ones I can think of are sexual mores.
[snip for length]

Honestly, I think Smith and Heinlein just underwent a degree of parallel evolution in this respect- in their earlier years they wrote more restrained stories because that was what was in demand, but in the 1960s when they sensed the times opening up, they started opening up themselves.

Possibly, parallel evolution is one way to look at it. There is certainly an element of eugenics in Heinlein's work starting with books like "Time Enough for Love" and the "Future History" though, with the Howard Families and later on with elements such as voluntary incest. Smith died in 65-- his publication history is a little confusing as a lot of his writing first came out as serials and weren't actually bound into novel form until later. This is one of those things which it's hard to really nail down, though, so I won't worry too much about it.

I question Asimov's inclusion in hard SF, off the top of my head I can't think of a lot of really good hard SF written by him.

In general, one should read Asimov if one likes logic puzzles. Most of his stories boil down to logic puzzles, heroes usually triumph by creating a situation where their opponent's success is logically impossible, his characters use very logical dialogue.

Honestly, while Asimov was quite extroverted in his later years, he was also the nerd's nerd, and it shows in his writing style and dialogue.

I mostly include Asimov in hard SF given his background, but I can understand why his writing style may not fit what one would think of when they consider 'hard' SF. It certainly has elements of space opera, especially in the Foundation series. The Robot books tend to be more predicated towards the logic stuff.

Heinlein and Scalzi for pulp; and...

Wait what? Heinlein wrote, if anything, more hard SF than Asimov did, and all but his earliest stories were written after the genre had transcended the standards we call 'pulp.'

I'm thinking primarily of Heinlein's earlier work here-- books such as The Star Beast, Starman Jones, The Puppet Masters, etc. And, yes, his stuff is 'hard' in the sense that there's a lot of "gentlemen! to the slide rules!" type things, but it comes off as more 'pulp' in that it tends to be slightly more florid and adventurous. Asimov and Clarke are the gentlemen with smoking jackets and brandies; Heinlein is the one with the swords (or ray-guns if you like) and damsels. That falls into 'pulp', IMO. That's a subjective judgement though and certainly his later work is a little more classic SF, less cheesy. It's pretty easy to imagine, say, The Number of the Beast in serial form...

I really haven't read much SF in the past few years...

Typically, stuff published in the last few years can't be classed as "essential" to the genre.

I mean I haven't read much SF, period. Not just the latest work.

I'd be happy to discuss this further by PM or starting a new topic if it interests you, as I feel like I'm sidetracking this conversation somewhat...

[Kingmaker]

Funnily enough, a lot of really great sci-fi would not show up on my list of stuff to introduce people to SF with, simply because it's going to be off-putting if you're not already accustomed to some of the weird premises of SF or the peculiarities of their authors.

Neuromancer and Starship Troopers would both make the list. Foundation as well. I know a lot of people's opinion of it has soured, but I think Ender's Game is a pretty good piece of "introductory" sci-fi.

Of course, "SF" is ludicrously broad, ranging from stuff that's literally educational material disguised as fiction (e.g. Mr. Tompkins stories) to [insert here] IN SPACE! Picking essential works depends on what sort of SF you are trying to introduce.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Most of the ones that first came to mind have already been mentioned. So I'm just going to throw some curveballs out there, without veering too much into "well, I also like this..." territory.

Primer (film)- It isn't a classic in the way these other suggestions are. It can also be a very difficult and inaccessible film for a wider audience. That said, it is hands-down the most intelligent, "realistic", and thought-provoking story involving time travel ever. I don't think you could even come close to making an argument.

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (novel)- This may be stretching the limits of "sci-fi" as a genre. But this is pretty much the archetype for the plot structure where "hero goes back in time and uses knowledge of the future/technology to shape the past".

La Jetee (film)- Another time travel story. A really beautiful (and short-only 20 minutes) film about time travel that is told entirely through still images and a voiceover.

A Canticle for Leibowitz (novel)- This is a bona fide classic. Honestly surprised it hadn't been mentioned, yet. Its a seminal post-apocalyptic narrative that essentially sparked the modern genre (it wasn't the FIRST, the genre really goes back to the 19th century, but it jump-started the post-World War II variant that has persisted off and on until today. All around a great read, with fantastic imagery and some beautifully "cinematic" moments.

By the Waters of Babylon (short story)- An even earlier post-apocalyptic story then the above. It is extremely short and moving in a peculiar way. It is an almost minimalist story; incredibly sparse, and essentially nothing happens. Basically just a young man wandering the ruins of a city (that is hinted to be New York, but it is never explicitly stated).

The Machine Stops (short story)- Came very close to predicting the Internet in 1909. Metaphors about our dependence on technology. This was back in the day when sci-fi wasn't even really considered a genre, so this appears in other short story collections of E.M. Forster's work.

A Sound of Thunder (short story)- Another time travel story. Honestly, don't take the number of these on this list with being indicative of the fact that I like time travel more than other sci-fis (I don't), but only because Heinlein, Clark, and Asimov have already been mentioned so I have to dig down a bit. This literally invented the "Butterfly Effect".

Then, some novel by Philip K. Dick Just choose one. You may argue he is more important historically (as he is mostly known for the film adaptations of his works like Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report, and others). However, his novels are wonderful, and his is a very hallucinogenic and almost psychotic type of sci-fi. As I said, his main interest is the way he influenced the genre rather than his own work per se, but even so it is one of the most fascinating and unique bodies of work out there. Choose any of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, The Man in the High Castle, Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said, A Scanner Darkly, or Ubik.

[Batman]

Of course, "SF" is ludicrously broad, ranging from stuff that's literally educational material disguised as fiction (e.g. Mr. Tompkins stories) to [insert here] IN SPACE! Picking essential works depends on what sort of SF you are trying to introduce.

This. I consider 'Dune' (the novel, I love the Lynch movie) and '2001' to be nerve-wrackingly boring yet they're hailed as great achievements of the genre. There is no 'one' essential list of SCiFi because everybody likes different aspects of it. Some of us like the pew-pews, some others like the political intrigue, another group likes the worldbuilding, and probably some just read it for the occasional porn (mid-to-late Heinlein comes to mind).

And when did Asimov ever write 'hard' SciFi? The terms that come to mind when I think 'Asimov and SciFi' are 'positronic brain, hyperatomic motors, force shields' and so on.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah. It helps a lot to know what aspects of SF your friend might be into.

[The Romulan Republic]

Probably the following:

Books: 1984 and The War of the Worlds.
Films: Forbidden Planet and the original Star Wars Trilogy.
TV: Star Trek and TNG. Choose the episodes carefully though.

Their might be some other stuff, but that's a start.

[Simon_Jester]

Possibly, parallel evolution is one way to look at it. There is certainly an element of eugenics in Heinlein's work starting with books like "Time Enough for Love" and the "Future History" though, with the Howard Families and later on with elements such as voluntary incest.

The Skylark novels are a lot more explicit with the eugenics than anything Heinlein ever wrote, with the possible exception of Beyond This Horizon.

Smith died in 65-- his publication history is a little confusing as a lot of his writing first came out as serials and weren't actually bound into novel form until later. This is one of those things which it's hard to really nail down, though, so I won't worry too much about it.

Well, there are a number of novels he unambiguously wrote and published in the late '50s and early '60s; he was active as a writer up until quite shortly before his death.

I question Asimov's inclusion in hard SF, off the top of my head I can't think of a lot of really good hard SF written by him.

In general, one should read Asimov if one likes logic puzzles. Most of his stories boil down to logic puzzles, heroes usually triumph by creating a situation where their opponent's success is logically impossible, his characters use very logical dialogue.

Honestly, while Asimov was quite extroverted in his later years, he was also the nerd's nerd, and it shows in his writing style and dialogue.

I mostly include Asimov in hard SF given his background, but I can understand why his writing style may not fit what one would think of when they consider 'hard' SF. It certainly has elements of space opera, especially in the Foundation series. The Robot books tend to be more predicated towards the logic stuff.

What I don't understand is how your definition of "hard SF," which is traditionally interpreted to mean "physically plausible technology" would apply to the works of Asimov.

What do you think "hard SF" means, that causes you to describe Asimov as having written it.

I'm thinking primarily of Heinlein's earlier work here-- books such as The Star Beast, Starman Jones, The Puppet Masters, etc. And, yes, his stuff is 'hard' in the sense that there's a lot of "gentlemen! to the slide rules!" type things, but it comes off as more 'pulp' in that it tends to be slightly more florid and adventurous. Asimov and Clarke are the gentlemen with smoking jackets and brandies; Heinlein is the one with the swords (or ray-guns if you like) and damsels. That falls into 'pulp', IMO. That's a subjective judgement though and certainly his later work is a little more classic SF, less cheesy. It's pretty easy to imagine, say, The Number of the Beast in serial form...

Ah. I think I understand.

Well, you can have hard SF that is 'pulp,' and soft SF that isn't. Sure.

I really haven't read much SF in the past few years...

Typically, stuff published in the last few years can't be classed as "essential" to the genre.

I mean I haven't read much SF, period. Not just the latest work.

I'd be happy to discuss this further by PM or starting a new topic if it interests you, as I feel like I'm sidetracking this conversation somewhat...

I'd rather not go to PMs as my PM cache is chronically stuffed full, but I think this is on topic because it ties into our discussion of what kind of SF to give to what people, and which authors play what role in the genre.

[darth_timon]

I'd introduce people to the Lost Fleet books by John Gemry. Brilliant books that transcend the genre if you ask me.

[biostem]

My $0.02:

The 1951 version of The Day the Earth Stood Still

Aliens

The Terminator

The Thing (1982 version)

Short Circuit

One of several Godzilla films, (I'm partial to Destroy All Monsters)

Ghost Busters

[Zor]

Foundation and War of the Worlds.

Zor

[madd0ct0r]

the mars trilogy by kim stanely robinson

[Gaidin]

Dune, the books actually written by Frank Herbert-- the first one at least.

Hell, those books grow on you. Read them again a few years ago, a helluva lot better than when I was in high school. I think God Emperor was the 2nd best.