48 odpowiedzi

1. So where do you draw the line?

   Does science fiction need:
   🔬 Hard science and future tech?
   🚀 Space, aliens, or advanced worlds?
   🧠 Or just a speculative “what if” about humanity?

   Comment with STILL SF or WHERE’S THE SCIENCE and tell me which books on the list made you question the label most 👇

2. Can't speak for the writing, but that's easily the worst collection of (hypothetically) scifi book covers I've ever seen in my life. Seriously, who's even going to pick any of these off a shelf to look at the back cover blurb with front cover "art" like that? Not one that I can even clearly define as belonging to any genre, much less scifi. Most of them look more like some vaguely comforting self-help book than anything, and I defy any book store worker to figure out where to shelve them without a bar code reader in hand.

   I know physical book store sales don't mean much these days, but these are just pathetic when it comes to drawing the eye. Game Designers' Workshop managed to sell their Traveller RPG books as being scifi more effectively in the 1970s – and their covers were nothing but plain black with some title text, the logo for the line, and a single stripe of color.

   Yes, I will judge a book by its cover when that cover is bad enough, and these stink.

3. Automatic Noodle was so bad, worst book I read in 2025 (I read 100 books).

4. WHERES THE SCIENCE? Seems like most of new sci fi and fantasy is poorly written YA with no real substance. I dont like most of it. I liked Jemisin, Aliette de Bodard and a couple more, the rest is meh. Im from Argentina and there were a couple interesting titles by local authors published here as well

5. The more vintage sci-fi I read, the more I love vintage sci-fi; the more modern sci-fi I read, the more I love vintage sci-fi!

6. I am only reading The Shroud from that list, but might pick up something next year if recommended. I prefer Hard science in my fiction and fantasy. It seems there are less people who understand science and nature who have the time to write SciFi books. If you don't then you write speculative fiction.

7. No way I'd bother watching a video made by anyone else that takes GR ratings of sci-fi/fantasy books seriously, but I enjoy your deadpan Brit humor enough to slog through this one. 😀

8. I've read Hammajang Luck. It is a fun breezy sort of book not all that deep really.

9. Fun and useful video. Whatever one may think of the writing the covers of these books are bad (except for that Scalzi one with the SPACESHIP ON THE COVER, MORE OF THIS PLEASE PUBLISHERS).

10. Not SF, but it's been watered down by Fantasy which itself has been heavily watered down to pop culture plots. They're playing to the majority like they have already done in music and movies, leaving us dorks behind.

    I enjoy space operas as much as the rest of us, but even that's weak sci-fi compared to something like 2001, Dragon's Egg or Children of Time. Thankfully we have channels like yours to find the diamonds in the rough, but they seem to be getting more and more rare.

11. While much of it is still SF, I'm generally not impressed with the state of SF publishing today. I'm torn between how much of this is due to the "woke" trend in publishing, how much of it is due to the fantasy novels, especially romantasy, eating the publishing budget and limiting what SF even comes out, and how much of it is just a general decline in the quality of writing, as we are in a general decline in literacy in at least the US. I'm looking forward to not reading any of the titles mentioned, except the ones you read, review, and I find said review makes me want to read them.

12. Scalzi is bad enough when he tries to write "serious" sci fi.

13. it doesn't seem like you're interested in whimsy, some of these sound really fun

14. They sound like sf to me, working with a Damon Knight-ish definition about the human consequences of a scientific or technical development. This does open the door to an extremely boring argument about whether The Right Stuff is sf, and I’m far too sick after some cardiac surgery to even begin to care.

15. I wrote 2 manuscripts. I worked with a pro editor (respected, award winning) to re-write, reshape, and improve them for 5 years before I had 2 polished novels. Had my editor do final line edits ($$$) and we were both proud of the final products. Sent out over 120 queries to agents over the following 2 years. Got 1 request for 'full', 2 for 'partial', and a couple of 'this sounds great, but . . . '. Then nothing. Asked editor if I should change my query style, but she insisted it's exactly what the agents look for. Nothing. Finally caved and self-pubbed on KDP. Sold 5 copies. Never writing (or reading) again. The 'industry' has failed us all.

16. Not everything in the future is sci-fi. But at the same isnt? Is maze runner sci-fi or just a dystopia YA..imagine 1984 writen in 1948 and set on the future..was it sci-fi back then? Or just a dystopia? But since we are in 2025 the book now is not considered sci-fi. Space opera are all sci-fi. But not all books in the future are sci-fi.

17. I'd urge you to give "When the Moon Hits Your Eye" a go. It was one of my favourite reads this year. Funny. political, compelling,, unexpectedly insightful and emotional too.

18. Besides Tchaikovsky and the book of lost hours, nothing else interested me. Many stretch the definition of sci fi: more speculative fiction I suppose. Overall this list proves my hatred of goodreads is valid and I am entirely reasonable to avoid it like the plague.

19. The Scalzi effort, WTMHYEs is, if you could credit it, even more awful than it sounds. I loathe his glib prose, as evinced in horrors such as Redshirts. The whole caboodle is a hack written pile of arrogant, unseemly, witless, hippo dung. Save yourself a few hours and do something else, imo.

20. The state of speculative fiction is rough

21. I have negative faith in online popularity contests. The results here did not change that!

22. Currently reading The Shattering Peace, really excellent, hope it's maintains the excitement til the end, makes me want to go back and read the series again, sure I have missed one!

23. Just finished a Scalzi “Starter Villain”. Very light, mostly dialogue, fun enough but forgettable.

24. All in all – meh…

25. 13:20 – Well, none of the great Ursula K. Le Guin's works featured much science, did they now? Or even Lem's. But we still consider tham (att least I do) the pinnacle of SciFi. Perhaps that's why people increasingly prefer the term "speculative fiction".

    Don't get me wrong, I do like a good old (or new) space opera as the next guy, but let's not limit ourselves.

26. Yeah, no, apart from books like Shroud, most of these seem to be genre grifts, like SF, but not SF. Where's the novum?

27. Does there have to be any science in sci-fi? I think that there is basically no science in Handmaid's Tale, Left Hand of Darkness, Lathe of Heaven, The Dispossed, Annihilation, Under the Skin, The Road, The City and the City, First 15 lives of Harry August, 1984, Roadside Picnic…(I could go on) unless you make the 'science' bit incredibly broad (aliens,time-travel,the study of societies). Maybe these are speculative fiction instead – but they do make up a chunk of the top lists on this channel this year.

28. The Good reads audience are way ahead of me on very recent publications. I've only just catching up with Reynolds, AT and Hamilton!

29. I'm happy to name them all sf but most look to belong in the sub-genre speculative fiction. I don't know what goes on with Good Reads but their lists seem to miss obvious contenders, e.g. Lake of Darkness, and include all sorts of YA and ideologically driven novels. Not a bad list but not great either.

30. Yeah, some are so far away from the SF genre that I have no idea why they are labeled SF. They really didn't have any other books to choose from?

31. Saltcrop sounds like the game Raft, and I loved that game. So that premise grabbed me pretty quick.

32. 20 books with maybe one having a post apocalyptic world as its central theme seems like a bit of a shift in the direction of modern sci fi.

33. I've read Shroud (I guess it deserves a top twenty spot considering the sad state of what's pushed as new Science Fiction), the majority of the rest sound meh. IMO too much estrogen in today's so-called Science Fiction. I avoid books having to do with time-travel, dystopian futures (the bogus climate change disaster cult that a majority of today's Science Fiction hyped authors appear to buy into), ludicrous imaginings (don't mix fantasy with true Science Fiction), and obvious retreads of prior plot lines.

34. For me personally the line between Science Fiction and 'Speculative' fiction comes down to what are the ideas and how are they explored? All Science Fiction explores what if questions, but if the speculation itself becomes more of a backdrop to a story that could be told in a relatively normal world then you could say it is speculative or sci-fi lite – it could be argued that the dystopian subgenre of sci-fi is merely speculative, for example virus decimates population, story is set in a world of few people struggling to survive…its not exactly something you'd imagine Greg Egan penning – but you could point to many entertaining books like that! For that matter 1984 is an absolute classic and is definitely Science Fiction but no one in the novel is flying about on hoverbikes, its completely devoid of robots and you don't need a basic understanding of Quantum Physics to understand it so its really not an easily answerable question.
    As for the list, the majority of these books almost seem to be authors 'trying their hand' at science fiction or books that have been recommended by some pretentious book clubs that see science fiction as the latest fad, probably unfair on my part but that's the impression I get, Shroud by Adrian Tchaikovsky is the only one on the list that has my interest. Great video Jon.

35. I recently listened to Of Monsters and Mainframes on Audible. I couldn’t find a print or e-book edition. It as OK and I sort of liked it. If you like cozy, found family stories you are likely to enjoy reading it. I found it a tad twee for my liking.
    I have heard of some of the others but to be honest none of the others grab my bones. Possibly the blurbs are misdirections but I am becoming wary of blurbs that make the book sound like a cozy, found family, queer and straight romance stories. I’m glad that these novels are now found within science fiction and an occasional one is fine but the proliferation of that style of book is boring me to tears. I’m beginning to feel like women and queers did in the 50s and 60s. I loved he stories of the New Wave in the 70s and couldn’t understand the fuss that the ‘old timers’ made back then. Which makes me think am I an old timers now?

36. Most of these novels seem to reflect current events. Nothing wrong with that of course, but what ever happened to the off-planet story in SF…or the alien…I bought a copy of The Shroud, by Ardian T……..kovsy, because it sounds great. But most of the other books seem to be too much alike IMO…

37. I read When the Moon Hits Your Eye and I really liked it, but I don't think I would call it scifi exactly, More of multiple POVs on how people would act when a bizar and dangerous thing happens. And kind of the different stages of that (disbelief, fear, acceptance etc). I think the book's highlight was it's characters and what it said about humanity, more than the actual premise of a moon made of cheese.

38. The "problem" with these lists are that they are dominated by celebrity book club picks. The Compound was one, so was Dream Hotel, so was Nikki Erlick's previous book. Those "clubs" are huge drivers of publicity (and library hold lists), and what most fans of 'sf' would consider "real" hasn't got a chance to either be picked to be in a celebrity book club, or win in a popularity contest in a book that had thousands of more readers, only because of those book clubs (Bradley's the Ministry of Time from last year was a rare exception).

    Luminois (which was not a book club pick) was the only one of those I read at the time of voting, and I quite liked it!

39. "These Memories Do Not Belong To Us" sounds like a slightly different version of Ready Player Two.
    I read "Of Monsters and Mainframes" with my book club in October. It's a pastiche of "The Voyage of the Demeter" chapter of the original Dracula and the Universal Monster Movies where they team up the mummy, the wolfman, etc. For what it was it was decently done but if you're not a fan of cheesy monster movies it's probably not for you.

40. I'll probably read Luminous just because it's set in Seoul, the city I've been living in the past 5 years. I'm curious to find out if the author uses actual locations in the story (like they did in the movie K-Pop Demon Hunters, which added to the entertainment value for me personally). By the way, up to 76% of active reviewers on Goodreads are female, mostly Caucasian between the ages of 25-34. I'm sure that influenced the selections in this list. I think the authors of these books aren't much interested in science fiction, but they're willing to hijack some of the tropes to spice up plots that are mostly focused on interpersonal relationships—romantic subplots, family drama, personal trauma—rather than engaging with the speculative ideas that make SF distinctive. I've mentioned some of these books in my "This Month in SF" episodes when they were first released. I certainly share your skepticism, Jon!

41. what happened to space opera??

42. It probably says nothing good about me that I vibe with your humour. I certainly enjoyed this tour of books you haven't read and have no intention of reading. 

    I wish I could say that this was a WAGS to riches experience for me but none of these books appealed. I guess the Goodreads demographic is a little different to the SF community I know, but as long as some of those migraine-inducing book covers aren't prominently displayed in bookshops near me, I'm happy to celebrate diversity in publishing. 

    It's well above my competence to police the boundaries of SF but, that said, if you were to arm me with a 'REJECTED – WHERE'S THE SCIENCE?' stamp, preferably in red ink, I would undoubtedly be a happy and efficient little jobsworth on the SF quality and control line.

43. STILL SCIFI. Robots, end of the world, other worlds, eco disasters, and so on. Is it sci-fi that I'm interested in? Mostly not. It's almost like someone gathered up a lot consisting of sci-fi books that I typically pass on. Numer one is a nightmare as far as I'm concerned. Personally, Shroud is the only one I'm very interested in. To each their own I suppose.

44. I put two of these on my 'keep watch list' through the year. Hammajang Luck and Automatic Noodle. They both sounded like a fun romp through their different worlds. However, it turned out that the Kindle price was so high it was ridiculous and I've gone no further. I think one of them was nearly $30 AUD.
    Mostly I read older stuff from the great writers of the 20th C. In that regard I've just finished three Silverbergs and deal with some of the 'mind stuff' of some of these listed. Dying Inside, The Book of Skulls, and The Second Trip. They were all good reads but without the science we might expect from a Sci-Fi author.

45. It feels like there's been a decided shift away from a focus on outer space toward that of inner space, following the current trends of research into consciousness, memory, dreams, and the experience of reality. Having read The Dream Hotel, I think it is safe to skip. A contemporary take on a Kafkaesque theme, but not much new ground to tread upon.

46. Great discussion. Personally, I think all the awards have become just silly. But to a great extent, that's a result of genre blurring that's been happening for some 20 years or so now. When i was a young reader in the late 70's early 80's, there were perhaps 6 genres. That being said, as a lifelong SciFi fan, I tend to wax orthodox in thinking that there are indeed distinct lines that can be drawn. SciFi must contain an element that supersedes the current state of scientific understanding. I'm reminded of an argument I got into where i was arguing that Liu's The Three Body Problem isn't SciFi, but rather a mystery novel. The only speck of SciFi in the whole book shows up in the last chapter…

47. John Scalzi seems to have hit an absurdist phase in his career. Seriously? The Moon turns into CHEESE?! That's the plot for a Wallace and Gromit claymation feature, not an actual book. 😂🤣🙄

48. I read Ascension by Nicholas Binge and loved it, Dissolution is on my tbr mountain (pun intended). I got a free copy of Hammajang Luck as a giveaway but it does not sound my kind of thing at all. Of the 20 I was intrigued by pretty much the same few as your goodself.