Science Fiction Recommendations
I have never read very much Science Fiction, unlike some of the people here on Less Wrong, and I think I would like to. At least, the few books I have read I enjoyed. I’ve read a couple of books from Asimov’s Foundation Series, two Michael Crichton books, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne, and an anthology of SciFi short stories (no really famous authors) that my dad owned.
That list looks very short. I just finished reading a fiction book, and am looking to start another. Recommendations? What are the two or three books I simply must read?
What is your purpose in reading SF?
Do you want to be better able to understand the sort of references someone on Less Wrong might make?
Then I’d suggest The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, A Fire Upon the Deep and Accelerondo.
Do you want to be exposed to a lot of futurism ideas?
Then I’d suggest Permutation City, Blindsight and Rainbows End.
Do you want to read something that’s just fun?
Then I’d suggest A Civil Campaign, On Basilisk Station and Ender’s Game.
All of these books are written by people who have written multiple books, if you find you like them, you can easily read their other titles.
I missed this, sorry for that. If I had to pick 3 books:
Blindsight, by Peter Watts
Permutation City, by Greg Egan
Rainbows End, by Vernor Vinge
There are others but they are part of a series so I had to pick those stand-alone novels.
I was going to post Blindsight. I read a lot of sci-fi, and I have read no other work containing more genuinely mindblowing ideas per page.
This is one of the few fictional works that significantly and permanently changed my perspective.
curiosity is bugging me on those series since I read those 3 and love them.
First you might want to read another stand-alone novel called Ventus that I didn’t mention. I talked to some people who have stopped reading it because it seemed too much like fantasy, but that isn’t true, it is part of the story. If you keep reading you’ll see what I mean, it is definitely worth it.
Other stand alone novels that are must-reads are Accelerando by Charles Stross, Pushing Ice by Alastair Reynolds and Diaspora by Greg Egan.
Regarding series I recommend you to start with Alastair Reynolds and the Revelation Space series. Here the same applies, it will become clear once you have read a few books that the story is much deeper than one would initially guess. The second book, Chasm City (one of my favorite books) is not directly connected to the series but is taking place in the same universe.
The next series of novels is definitely the Culture universe by Iain M. Banks. I would love to live in it!
And here comes a more subjective recommendation as many people won’t like it. I recommend the Takeshi Kovacs novels by Richard Morgan. It is hard, dirty and the hero is not one of the good guys. The novels feature explicit and brutal torture scenarios that are only possible given advanced technology. One of the very benign scenarios is to leave someone in an unchanging and simple simulation without the need to eat and the ability to die and then hide the substrate somewhere where nobody will find it for a very long time. So you are warned.
There is much more but that should be enough for some time ;-)
This is curious. I was attracted by this line. I bet some other people also were. Are there reasons we (Less Wrong/SF fandom folks) are interested in torture beyond S/M and sexual gratification? And beyond the reasons horror movies are popular in general, too, etc. That is, are there some explicitly geek reasons for being interested in torture?
[Also: Why on earth would anyone downvote this, unless they’re karmassassinating me for recent below-average comments? Not angry or annoyed, just surprised.]
I don’t like horror or reading about torture. I don’t have any explanation for why geeks may like it.
I would tend to self-identify as a geek, and I love science fiction, but while I like actual horror (suspense) movies, I hate “horror” movies (i.e. the slasher films that have mostly supplanted actual horror films in the desire to take the lowest common denominator’s money).
To put it more concretely, an actual horror movie would be something like (the original version of) The Thing, for example.
A “horror” movie would be crap like the Friday the 13th and Saw franchises.
Uh-huh. What constitutes “authenticity” in horror movies is kind of blurry for me though; say, I’m one of the very few people who like the critically panned 2002 film Ghost Ship a lot. It’s one of the few genuine hellfire-and-brimstone Puritan-flavoured stories you’re likely to see in modern days. (There’s also Drag Me To Hell)
What about violence? It seems that humans demand violence: Total Recall—All The Deaths
Love it. And occasionally my love of protagonists being ruthless badasses overcomes my aversion to torture—for example I liked seeing Liam Neeson torturing the kidnapper then killing him. And Jack Bauer torturing people just seems so natural that I couldn’t possibly object.
(slightly edited my comment, I’m curious about torture alone here, as there are in fact lots of explanations for horror’s popularity)
I guess that we are just more comfortable to admit it and probably also a bit naive about the social perception of doing so.
There is a very broad spectrum of what humans like. I am pretty sure that some people would be shocked if the different tastes and attitudes would be revealed, let alone extrapolated.
Anonymity provides some examples of how quite a few people tick.
Reddit is not anonymous. Unless you mean the upvotes.
well sure, everyone would love to live in the culture. thanks for the extended reply. Ventus wasn’t on my radar, and the others will get bumped up nearer the top of the pile.
Try some Stanislaw Lem for something different. His Master’s Voice is about trying to decode an alien radio transmission, and I remember the characters resembling actual mathematicians pretty convincingly. Solaris is also good, and a nice counterpoint to the overly straightforward can-do attitude English-language SF from the same era. The Cyberiad and The Futurological Congress are absurdist humor. From stuff I haven’t read, Tales of Pirx the Pilot gets mentioned a lot, and Golem XIV is about a self-improving military AI.
Bruce Sterling on Lem. Lem on SF.
Lem strongly seconded. I just listed him in my own comment because no one had mentioned him yet, and alas, three minutes later you bring him up.
Thirded. I recommend “The Chain of Chance” to LW readers—not SF, but a detective novel with a fascinating take on probability, rationality and reasoning.
Aside: “The Chain of Chance” is an awful title… the original title was “Hay Fever” (“Katar” in Polish). “The Chain of Chance” is a spoiler for an idea that creeps up like a mouse and hits like Mike Tyson.
Aside #2: I was a big fan of Lem from my teens, read his books, and met him in person. Lem lived near my uncle’s house in Krakow. I visited my uncle in 1992 and we had tea and biscuits with Lem at his house. He was very charming, but gave me an impression of being resigned to never being able to talk to anyone on level terms. My uncle is a professor of physics, and I’m considered pretty bright (by my mom at least...), however we both felt in awe at Lem’s intellect and the depth of his thinking, even in social conversation. I think he was a philosopher mainly, using science fiction as a medium for his ideas… a bit like EY and HPMOR!
I agree with many of the recommendations offered already. If you like Greg Egan, you may also like Ted Chiang. For a free taste of Egan, try Crystal Nights. For a free taste of Chiang, try Exhalation.
Since there seems to be quite a bit of overlap here already I’d just like to list three authors who haven’t been mentioned yet. Extremely highly recommended.
Stanislaw Lem: pretty much everything, but you should start with Cyberiad and His Master’s Voice.
Arkady and Boris Strugatsky: First and foremost I recommend Roadside Picnic. (later adapted to the Stalker movie and the Stalker games). Their other books range from decent to great.
Jorge Louis Borges: everything. He was not strictly a sci-fi author but was actually marketed in the Soviet bloc as sci-fi, and justifiably so. I would call him a writer of “philosophy fiction”.
Also don’t miss out on Orion’s Arm:
Hard Science
Plausible Technology
Realistic Cultural Development
A vast Setting
10,000+ years of historical development Realistic Exobiology
See here. Especially here.
John Brunner’s Stand on Zanzibar, The Sheep Look Up and The Shockwave Rider are classic dystopian SF.
I was quite shocked to see futarchy pop up in shockwave rider sort of as an aside.
I recommend The Golden Age by John C Wright. It is about the closest thing to a genuine post-singularity utopia I’ve ever read in Sci Fi.
The main character is a (kind of) rationalist hero, but he lives in a world where some humans have chosen radically different “neuromorphologies”. Some people live in Hive Minds, some in dreamy, emotional, intuition-based “covens”, etc.
Anything by Neal Stephenson is good, especially Snow Crash and The Diamond Age. His work is characterized by very detailed, interesting settings.
For sheer scale and mind-bendingness, I haven’t seen anything better than City at the End of Time, by Greg Bear. It’s got a 100 trillion year old civilization with very alien culture, in a disturbingly weird universe.
I’m gonna come out and say that Snow Crash is fun, and fairly short.
Cryptonomicon is indeed a masterpiece; the author’s arrogant and pushy but I like how humanist he is.
Stephenson remains one of my favorites, even though I failed at several attempts to enjoy his Baroque Cycle series. Anathem is as good as his pre-Baroque-Cycle work.
I have not attempted the Baroque Cycle. I enjoyed Anathem, and am hoping to read Cryptonomicon next.
Cryptonomicon was awesome.
I liked the Baroque Cycle, but sometimes it seems like I was the only one who did. Stephenson’s thing of doing science fiction style storytelling in a historical context worked for me both here and in Cryptonomicon.
You’re not the only one. It’s a masterpiece.
Philip K. Dick was pretty much the third classic SF guy after Clarke and Asimov in SF translated to Finnish, with Heinlein being almost unknown here. Dick’s stuff is clever and consistently off-kilter in some way, and often somehow tied to the 60′s counterculture. A big theme is identity and reality breaking down in some way. The Man in the High Castle, Ubik, A Scanner Darkly and VALIS are good. The short stories are also full of all sorts of weirdness.
Stanislaw Lem on Dick
There have been extensive discussions of this, but I’ll throw in my two cents.
Read because they were recommended on LW: “A Fire Upon the Deep” and “A Deepness in the Sky” by Vernor Vinge
Recent favorites: “Red Mars” by Kim Stanley Robinson
Windup Girl—Paolo Bacigalupi
This is the most enjoyable book I read last year, and I believe it won the 2009 Hugo. After you’re done reading you have a few fridge moments (“wait… that probably couldn’t work”) but while you’re reading it it’s pure enjoyment and it’s really easy to overlook those for the sake of the story. Set in a post oil-crash world, focusing on working class characters trying to make a living while still doing something bigger with their lives. Great action, great plotting, really interesting characters, and a really unique society (from an American point of view anyway).
Click here for a comment thread containing many sci-fi recommendations, from the open thread in January 2010. This includes a long list of recs that I posted in January 2011, having failed to read the date of the thread.
I, Robot by Isaac Asimov
Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card
The Mote in God’s Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
Part of the answer must depend on your own tastes, at least as they are right now. What did you like or dislike about the works on your list? For that matter, what do you hope to get out of reading science fiction?
Mostly I read fiction for the entertainment value. I enjoy the stories. The science fiction stories I have read, I’ve enjoyed because the stories were imaginative.
Entertainment value is good, but I must press you to be much more specific. Let me just say a lot of science fiction is “imaginative,” and there’s a lot of science fiction. You don’t have all the time in the world, and there’s plenty of writing that’s imaginative, but will still seem like crap to you—or at least not as good as some other stuff you might be reading. Anyway, what do you mean by “imaginative?”
I can highly recommend everything I have read by Niven. Many of his works are really well done fairly “hard” Sci-fi, particularly the Ringworld series (the titular object is related to Dyson spheres, and has been called a “Niven ring” in his honor). I just finished Destiny’s Road, and I couldn’t put it down. The Mote In Gods Eye is an amazing collaboration with Pournelle, and a classic to boot. The last is the only one I saw mentioned elsewhere, but if you enjoy any of these, you’ll likely enjoy the rest too.
Just finished the Mote. Nice twist on evo-psych
I just recently found out about and obtained the sequels, and I have high hopes for them too.
Anything by Ian McDonald should be worth a read. I remember liking Hearts, Hands and Voices. A lot of people seem to have liked the more recent River of Gods and Brasyl.
Quite a classic collection here..
Douglas Adams—The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Also try Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land and don’t miss Sagan’s Contact.
Authors that I recommend:
Iain M. Banks
Greg Egan
Vernor Vinge
Alastair Reynolds
Karl Schroeder
Richard Morgan (keep care, a lot of torture etc.)
Charles Stross
Stephen Baxter
Hannu Rajaniemi
Peter Watts (Blindsight)
take care, not keep care
I would suggest looking through the Baen free library. Most of the content is high quality, also it’s free so you can easily sample the first chapter or two of different books to see what you like. If you like alternate history I would particularly recommend the 1632 books. They are one of my favorite series in terms of entertainment value and also have some interesting rationality realted themes. Specifically they involve a lot of plaining and decision making both of which tend to succeed or fail in realistic ways. For example serval characters fail at their goals because they add unnecessary complications to their plans. http://www.baen.com/library/defaultTitles.htm
Start with early science fiction.
Read We by Yevgeny Zamyatin from 1921
This book influenced some of the greatest writers of the 20th century.
Here is a good blog post about We: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20110405
Also read Frankenstein, one of the first science fiction books ever published − 1869
It is a free eBook on Google: http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=2Zc3AAAAYAAJ&dq=we&as_brr=4&printsec=frontcover&output=reader
I really liked Bruce Sterling’s Schismatrix when I read it in high school. It’s set in Sterling’s Shaper/Mechanist universe, where humanity is expanding into the solar system and modifying itself with cybernetics and biological engineering, slowly evolving into something posthuman. Sterling’s Holy Fire was a bit more down-to-earth later transhuman novel I also liked.
Dan Simmons is a bit hit and miss, but his Hyperion might be a pretty good choice to read if you’re going to read exactly one SF novel. It’s basically a Canterbury Tales style framing story, with the protagonists’ stories being pastiches that span the history of written SF from pulp-era planetary romance to post-cyberpunk. There are three sequels that are ok, but don’t measure up to the first book.
Simmons’ more recent Ilium/Olympos duology drives a mountain of literary references that threaten to drown any internal coherence in the rest of the story into post-9/11 crazy right-winger bat country. Still pretty entertaining on the account of Simmons really knowing how to write stuff, but more just weird than good weird.
I’m sure these have already come up, but I’ll add my voice in enthusiastically recommending the following -
The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson
Accelerando by Charles Stross
City at the End of Time by Greg Bear
Neuromancer by William Gibson
Accelerando will have rather familiar themes and ideas to anyone who’s spent significant time on LW, in particular, although that goes for the others to a slightly lesser extent. City at the End of Time was probably the most “work” for me to read out of the four—I enjoyed it greatly, but it’s a book best savored slowly. Neuromancer is pretty much the grand icon of cyberpunk, and Gibson’s facility with densely evocative language makes me jealous. The Diamond Age is probably the one I had the most lighthearted fun in reading, the easiest to follow, even though it’s a very thought-provoking story.