Science fiction novels you pretend you've read...

[Steerpike]

...and why you should actually read them.

Anyone read these? I've read 4. I've started Gravity's Rainbow. Maybe I'll give it another shot.

10 Science Fiction Novels You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Actually Read Them)

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Of those, I've read Cryptonomicon, Jonathan Strange, and 1984.

I read the first third of Dune and then got bored. I'll try again eventually.

Read the first chapter or two of Foundation once but it wasn't my copy and I never got around to it again. I do want to read it, though.

I can't stand reading postmodern fiction of any genre.

For my money, Dan Simmons' Hyperion series, and Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky should be on that list. I've never read anything greater or more emotional than those three books.

 

[Reaver]

Dune is one of my all time favorites. I've read 1984, but I don't see that as science fiction.

I don't like Asimov..to pretentious in my opinion. Haven't even heard of anyone else on that list, but I want to know why the author of that article didn't list Robert Heinlein, Phillip K. Dick, Piers Anthony, Dan Abnett, Douglas Adams, Brian Aldiss, Arthur C. Clarke, Poul Anderson, Ray Bradbury...and so on...

These are all great sci-fi writers whose work many of us have pretended to read.

 

[Penpilot]

I've been reading Cryptonomicon for like 10 yrs. I can't seem to make it past the first 100-150 pages. I've read all Stephensons shorter books and loved them, but this one doesn't seem to grip me as tightly as his earlier works. As for the other books on the list, they're all in my iphone waiting to be read. I just seem to always find something else I want to get into before.

 

[Steerpike]

I've read Cryptonomicon, Dune, Foundation, and 1984. I need to read the Samuel Delany novel. He was good.

Benjamin - I agree re: Hyperion and A Deepness in the Sky. Those are great (A Fire Upon the Deep was also great).

Reaver - Those are all great authors. One bad thing about a list of ten things, it always leaves out some great stuff.

 

[Ravana]

I have read:

• Dune—more times than I can count. I can't understand why anyone would find this novel "difficult"—and "reading around it" is pointless.
• The Foundation Trilogy—more than once. The first book is the best; it fades off from there.
• 1984 (and Brave New World, and Animal Farm… two others that might easily have appeared).
• Dhalgren—repeatedly. Just finished re-reading it last month, in fact.
• Cryptonomicon—once was probably enough here. For the most part, I enjoyed it. I rank it well above Quicksilver—the first volume of his "Baroque Cycle," which follows the same themes and is a sort of prequel to Cryptonomicon; I managed to finish it, but was not inspired to pursue the balance of the series. Pity, because half of Quicksilver I loved. It's so thoroughly intermixed with the half I hated that I'm unwilling to go to the trouble of sorting them out in the rest of the series.

My spouse has read Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, and highly recommends it; I'll get to it some day. The only question I'd have is whether it ought to be placed on a SF list or a fantasy one.

I am on my third attempt at Gravity's Rainbow, and have made it considerably farther than past attempts, mostly due to an obstinate and somewhat irrational desire not to be defeated by a book, no matter what I think of it. Whether or not I succeed, I will never start it again.

The other three books on the list I'd never heard of before… whatever that indicates about me, or them. I was at least aware of all the authors.

I was a bit surprised C. S. Lewis' "Space Trilogy" didn't make the list. I guess no one is even interested in pretending they've read those. Which should be enough of a review for anybody.

As for The Hyperion Cantos: I'm guessing it didn't make the list because people actually have read it… and those who haven't don't know they ought to be pretending they have. And, yes, it will kick your emotional aß.

For the authors Reaver mentions: again, I imagine that for the most part they aren't on the list for the same reasons: most who are aware of them at all have read the books, the rest don't know they should have. Though I could easily see Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land making the "pretend to have read it" list; possibly Bradbury's Martian Chronicles. Clarke's 2001 might, as well… here, I'd have to disagree with the notion that people ought to want to have read it. See the movie. It came first anyway.

The list was, of course, focused on science fiction, because that was the question asked. But I'd bet I could name four that would top a list of fantasy works people pretend they've read. In no special order:

• The Chronicles of Narnia, C. S. Lewis: the first one, sure… but all seven?
• Titus Groan, Mervyn Peake: yeah, Steerpike, you and me. Who else? I'm not even asking about all three of the Gormenghast books here—anyone who made it through the first probably kept going.
• The Worm Ouroboros, E. R. Eddison: I know there are people on this site who liked this. Well, I know there's one. I finished it. So I know there are two people here who have read it.
• The Lord of the Rings, J. R. R. Tolkien: no, I'm not kidding. Look at the threads on this site where it comes up, and see all the people who've said they haven't read this. And this is a fantasy site, for crying out loud.

 

[Steerpike]

Ravana:

Yes, I thought Peake's books were excellent. I've read them twice, and while I was reading them I was each time consumed by reading those books such that I was reading nothing else. Usually I have four or five books going at a time. But no one I've recommended them to has made it far into the first one.

I've read all seven Narnia books. Read them all as a kid. I've also read all of the Lord of the Rings books. I actually have The Worm Ouroboros, but haven't read it. I may have to give it a try. I also have Ivanhoe, and have not read that yet.

Another one might be Beowulf. I have read that (Seamus Heaney's translation), and I enjoyed it.

 

[Ravana]

For Worm, don't be thrown by the lame framing lead-in: it makes no appearance throughout the balance of the book. Once that's about thirty pages in the rear view mirror, if the book hasn't captured your interest, don't bother forcing yourself: it remains remarkably consistent throughout. You might like it… most get thrown by the prose style. My objections lie only partly there, but I won't try to ruin it for you by stating them. My tastes are far from definitive, after all.

I've re-read the first two of Peake's novels. Probably I'll get around to re-reading the third at some point—you have to admit it's a pretty major departure thematically.

•

I have read at least most of Beowulf—likely all of it, though never all of a single version, for some reason: that's one I've tended to crack open randomly. Not sure how many people would put that under fantasy, as opposed to mythology… along with the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Aeneid, which I'm confident do equally good jobs of going unread on most people's shelves. (Yes, I've read at least one translation of each of these.)

A better candidate, if looking at anything written before the 20th century, would be The Faerie Queene—which I admit I haven't finished, in spite of talking it up from time to time. Or Inferno: I'm sure many have read it, but I'm also sure even more pretend to have. (Anybody who claims to have read the entire Divine Comedy is going to have to prove it to me. ) Faust—Goethe's, or even Marlowe's? Le Morte d'Arthur? (Me: both Fausts, plus Inferno… and perhaps a double dozen pages of Purgatorio. Ugh. Maybe some day. I know I never read straight through the Malory, but I've read so many other Arthur treatments I can't even be sure what parts I missed.)

The major works of Verne and Wells, plus Frankenstein, could be added to the SF list; Dracula could go… wherever it goes. Fantasy, I guess: not sure it's worth trying to work up a list of "pretend-to-have-reads" for horror. The last two in particular I know quite well people claim to have read, but haven't, given the misconceptions or omissions I often catch them on.

Ivanhoe would probably end up on a separate list with The Three Musketeers and similar books, as historical fiction: they make good fantasy, too, but tend to lack major elements people regard as "fantastic," so some might quibble about putting them there. I don't.

Adding to a list like this tricky: there are an amazing number of good texts people haven't read, but don't pretend to have… often, which it next to impossible to pretend to have read, if it hasn't been made into a movie and doesn't have Cliff's Notes. Who pretends to have read The Left Hand of Darkness, or The Demolished Man, or Stand on Zanzibar, or Solaris, or Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said, or Startide Rising? Just as well, I guess: I'd rather have someone honestly admit he's never looked at something than try to impress me by pretending he has.

 

[nlough]

I have a copy of Ivanhoe and have been trying to read for a while now, but every time I try I get buried in school work and actual work. But hopefully this summer I can get through it. I forgot where I made it to so I'm just going to start from the beginning. I have also read 1984 and Animal Farm and I love them both.

 

[Steerpike]

For Worm, don't be thrown by the lame framing lead-in: it makes no appearance throughout the balance of the book. Once that's about thirty pages in the rear view mirror, if the book hasn't captured your interest, don't bother forcing yourself: it remains remarkably consistent throughout. You might like it… most get thrown by the prose style. My objections lie only partly there, but I won't try to ruin it for you by stating them. My tastes are far from definitive, after all.

I've re-read the first two of Peake's novels. Probably I'll get around to re-reading the third at some point—you have to admit it's a pretty major departure thematically.

I'll give Worm a try next. I am reading a Joseph Conrad novel right now; it predates Worm by less than a decade. I don't know if the styles will be similar at all, but I like a wide variety.

I agree regarding Peake. To me, the first two Gormenghast books tell a complete story. The third is an odd fit, and Peake's death probably didn't help matters as from what I understand the book was incomplete.

I think I've read everything else you mention, with the exception of The Faerie Queene. I'll have to look into that one.

 

[Steerpike]

I have a copy of Ivanhoe and have been trying to read for a while now, but every time I try I get buried in school work and actual work. But hopefully this summer I can get through it. I forgot where I made it to so I'm just going to start from the beginning. I have also read 1984 and Animal Farm and I love them both.

It seems like the sort of thing I'd like. I'll have to give it a shot and see how it goes.

 

[Ravana]

I'll give Worm a try next. I am reading a Joseph Conrad novel right now; it predates Worm by less than a decade. I don't know if the styles will be similar at all, but I like a wide variety.

Good… 'cause they aren't. You'll see.

I think I've read everything else you mention, with the exception of The Faerie Queene. I'll have to look into that one.

One of the earliest examples of "high fantasy"–more particularly, one of the earliest to be written specifically as high fantasy, as opposed to being presented as quasi-historical or mythical. Published in the 1590s, with a few deliberate archaisms in diction; most people don't bother with it because either (1) they don't like Elizabethan English; (2) they don't like poetry; or (3) both.

 

[ShortHair]

Hmmm, five out of ten, not bad I guess. Most of the ones I hadn't read I've never heard of.

For those who've started books and can't finish them, a word of advice. Don't waste your time.