Slashdot Mirror


Locus 2003 Recommended Reading List

Embedded Geek writes "Locus magazine has published its 2003 Recommended Reading List of science fiction, fantasy, and related titles. With nearly 300 entries, it's a safe bet that even the most voracious reader will find something new. Personally, I was delighted to see Hitchhiker: A Biography of Douglas Adams under non-fiction and the great listing of short fiction (so I can mine my old magazines for the gems). If you're more of a completist, check out Locus'es exhaustive listings (continued here and here). Definitely worth downloading to your PDA for your next trip to the bookstore."

3 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. I dunno... by cujo_1111 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As a self confessed nerd, I have never been able to really get into all these science fiction novels that are mentioned on slashdot. I try reading them but never finish them as I find the stories trite on the most part. 2001 is the ultimate piece of science fiction for me. I also liked Robinson's Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars.

    Can anyone recommend an interesting and thought provoking piece of science fiction? The Locus list is 300 long and I want a narrower target than that.

    --
    If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
  2. I Wish by dupper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have 5 one foot high piles of unread novels on my bedside table from my last few trips to the bookstore. Reading's like crack.

  3. Re:Asimov's, F&FS, and Analog by st.+augustine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stan Schmidt (the editor of Analog), Gardner Dozois (Asimov's), and Gordon van Gelder (F&SF) have fairly different tastes. If you're into "hard SF" -- something really defined by style as much as by content -- you're going to get more of that from Analog than you are from either of the other two.

    I do get the feeling the Locus staff's tastes don't run that way, though; if yours do, you might find a reviews site like Tangent Online more useful -- not that all their reviewers are into Analog-style stuff, but some of them are, and most of the time their reviewers' biases are fairly clear.

    --

    -- Some things are to be believed, though not susceptible to rational proof.