Skip to main content

List rage

Stuck in a Starbucks, waiting to pick up one of the daughters last night, I made one of my occasional purchases of the Guardian newspaper. I was delighted to see it contained the Science Fiction and Fantasy part of a "1000 novels everyone must read" series. I should have known better. Such lists are designed to get you hot under the collar and irritated. 'They' are bound to get it wrong - and they did.

First, though, the good news. I'm pretty hot on SF up to the 1980s, but there my knowledge trails off, so it was good to have some more recent recommendations, which I'll pursue. But for the rest, I have two lists of my own. The 'why the heck did they include this?' list and the 'how could they miss that?' list.

WHY THE HECK DID THEY INCLUDE THIS?

Even by my loose definitions some of the books they included aren't really SF & fantasy. Lord of the Flies, for instance. Yes, it's a great book, but the fact there's a nuclear war in the background doesn't make it SF. And to call Thomas Love Peacock's Nightmare Abbey good fantasy is just silly. Yes, Peacock is important because he was partly responsible for the establishment of the novel, but that doesn't make this tedious tripe good. There was also much too much space given to arty, aren't-I-clever, unreadable, boring Literature-with-a-capital-L SF. These tend to be either obscure novels written in 1909 by a non-entity, or the output of the New Wave bores. I mean, three J G Ballard books listed when there's only one Asimov? Come on.

HOW COULD THEY MISS THAT?

Where to start? Where to start. This is a list that includes Anthony Burgess twice and Rabelais (yawn, aren't we clever, arty list choosers?) - but there's no James Blish (what???), no John Brunner, no Harry Harrison, no Clifford Simak, no Bruce Stirling and no Robert Rankin. They list the wrong Heinlein (Stranger in a Strange Land rather than The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.) The good news is Gene Wolfe is there - but it's so wrong to include his Urth of the New Sun stuff, which I find a little cold and is probably his weakest writing, and leave out his stunning 'real world' fantasies like There are Doors or Castleview.

But the thing that really makes it clear this list is rubbish - neither Ray Bradbury nor Roger Zelazny are on it. And that's just plain stupid.

Comments

  1. And why is The Wasp Factory in there? Can't be SF - no M. in the author's name.

    There seems to be an absence of J.R.R. Tolkien too. I guess he's not important enough compared to giants such as Thomas Love Peacock and Robert Walser.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There has been similar annoyance expressed in the crime fiction quarter of the blogosphere about the Guardian's crime fiction list. Shots lists loads of omissions - but they managed to include To Kill a Mockingbird, Jurassic Park and various similar titles.....as crime fiction!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob - to be fair, Tolkien was in (both The Hobbit and LOTR), but in a side box titled 'Imagined Worlds'.

    Maxine - very strange. It makes you wonder where they get their 'experts' from.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, what do you expect from the Grauniad anyway? I know what I expect - trendy lefty poseur Islingtonista shite. Funny how I am never proven wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh for the good old days when it was trendy lefty poseur Mancunian instead.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Brian,

    Your "why did they include" and "how could they miss" lists are dead on. I too had a huh? reaction at Lord of the Flies and Wasp Factory. And their crime fiction list was bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I suppose you could say this kind of thing has done its job if it causes discussion. But they didn't have to be quite so silly!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense