BoTNS makes the Guardian's Top 1000

The Urth list — 3 messages, 2 voices, 23 Jan 2009
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5322

Tim Walters23 Jan 2009, 03:24
The Guardian (UK) has published a list of 1000 "books that everyone should read," and BoTNS made the SF section: http://tinyurl.com/dfk9dz The list is a bit Anglocentric, and (perhaps for that reason) leaves off some writers (Disch, Crowley, Le Guin) that I would consider to be no-brainers; but at least most of the books on it are, in fact, quite good, which isn't always the case with such lists.
Tim Walters | http://doubtfulpalace.com
Matthew Keeley23 Jan 2009, 04:58

↳ in reply to Tim Walters

10 quoted lines
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Tim Walters <walters at doubtfulpalace.com> wrote: The Guardian (UK) has published a list of 1000 "books that everyone should read," and BoTNS made the SF section: http://tinyurl.com/dfk9dz The list is a bit Anglocentric, and (perhaps for that reason) leaves off some writers (Disch, Crowley, Le Guin) that I would consider to be no-brainers; but at least most of the books on it are, in fact, quite good, which isn't always the case with such lists. -- Tim Walters | http://doubtfulpalace.com
Disch makes Moorcock's list of dystopias, while Le Guin makes Susanna Clarke's segment on "imagined worlds". http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jan/22/1000-novels-fiction-fantasy-dystopias http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jan/22/o-novels-science-fiction-fantasy-books -Matt
Tim Walters23 Jan 2009, 06:45

↳ in reply to Matthew Keeley

2 quoted lines
Matthew Keeley wrote: Disch makes Moorcock's list of dystopias, while Le Guin makes Susanna Clarke's segment on "imagined worlds".
I don't think those are part of the 1000, though, are they? Actually, it's hard to tell if they're extras or pulled out for special attention. Maybe it will be clearer when the list is complete.
Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com

Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.