Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Forums

I have to say I'm really disappointed in this list.  There is so much confusion over the method and qualifications.  It seems really disorganized.  There are a few too many new books that have not stood the test of time for my tastes and they've included trilogies that are not even complete yet!  There are too many books on this list that, while entertaining reads, just don't strike me as "best of" material.

I was really looking forward to this list too.

htaccess - 2011-08-06 11:17 PM Likewise, very amateur, it does seem popular though ... It will also be a pain to add to wwend if some of the series "win". All in all a disappointment. Surprised John Clute is willing to be associated with such a shoddy effort. Also it quite funny to laugh at oneself in this situation. "Getting upset about an online poll of favorite SF books? You need to get out more!"

Well, I'm not suicidal over it or anything but I'm certain I do need to get out more!  Perhaps the final list will be decent.

I think Emil has it right.  The title is what's putting me off an otherwise, as it turned out, decent "fan favorite" list of books.  There are a lot of quality books in the list to be sure but the omissions are hard to ignore for a "best of" list.  I can't get behind any list that leaves out Alfred Bester and so many others but includes Shanarra, Xanth and The Thrawn Trilogy.  This list includes 4 Neil Gaiman books but only one by Philip K. Dick?  Then there is the weirdness of including series too.  It's just too un-balanced for my tastes.  On the positive side, I think we have 90% of these books in our database already so it will be an easy addition.

I much prefer the Guardian list which I think is a much better barrometer of the "best" the genre has to offer.

In case you missed it, I just posted this awesome flowcart on the blog:

First, let me say, I'm glad you discovered WWEnd and the lists!  We're having a great time introducing these lists because they give us lots to talk about.  In fact we just added our first Horror list: Horror Writers Association Reading List.

As you've already pointed out, these lists can be difficult to make if you're setting out to define the "best" in an entire genre.  Of course, that will never stop anybody from trying which is what makes these so fun.  They are a great way to express your opinions about the genre we all love whether you are declaring your personal favorite from our list of lists or making your own list.  (By the way, custom member lists are a feature we're working on...

I tend to agree with you assessment that a novel should stand the test of time, though perhaps not necessarily generations, before it should be counted in a best list.  The NPR list is too heavily a list of the new for my tastes even though I do agree with a good many selections in it.  I prefer something with a little more weight to it that's been more rigorously conceived and executed but that's just me.  I'm sure there are many fans of this list though.  I'd like to sit down and have a beer with those folks so I can tell them where they went wrong

Of course, in the end it's all about finding great books to read so the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

ThomasBa2 - 2011-10-25 8:24 PM I thought the NPR list was a freakin' abomination. What it contained was either false, trite or just plain drekty. All the books that make SF and Fanatasy appear to be the province of geeks, nerds and simpletons rather than a complex and challenging literature.

Yeah, it's not the most cogent list on the site, that's for sure.  The NPR list is the geeky little brother to the Guardian list.

I found it to be rather disappointing overall even though it does contain some great books.  It seems to be quite popular and it certainly has stirred many a conversation.