Caveat: "Starship Troppers" was published in 1959. "The Forever War" was published in 1974. Any influence is the reverse order. How Haldeman's book wound up on a 1950s list is inexplicable.
Of the list, I only read the 2 works it seems people will like the least. "Childhood's End" and "Atlas Shrugged." Atlas Shrugged has a couple high points. In particular, the tunnel disaster is a great short story on its own. The rest of the book can be summed up as 50 Shades of Grey, but the girl is an economist and harlot.
Any time I see someone suggest an Ayn Rand work, I assume they never read her. She's only fitfully entertaining, and her moral lessons are all "politics and ethics by way of economics", and is simply the amoral opposite of communism. Hers isn't a doctrine of conservatism, common sense, or right reasoning; she's an atheist who uses objectivism as a filter to support a pro-selfishness message. She has more in common with Nietzsche than Aristotle or Adam Smith.
What's the definition of important? Why is it a "Must Read"?
It's hard to agree with a list that excludes Andre Norton, Jack Vance, or Williamson, or Asimov.
On the other hand, the limiter of 1950-9, might mean most important window into the decade, the which I am unqualified to address. But obviously it should have included "They'd Rather Be Right" a Hugo Winner from the era when it reflected both readers and writers, and which is unlikely to appeal to anyone anymore, making it a valuable window into another time.
In the case of the original publication, a decade ago, by the inimitable Gene Wolfe, it meant classic, which means, "a selection, which if you read it, will introduce you the the best science fiction-ating lights from 1950-9, and you'll be glad you did. Because they're still enjoyable and interesting now."
The article to which this in an answer, is a critique of those selections by Mr. Wolfe, from a man who sneers at 1950s American predecessors, without acknowledging the greatness of Golden Age of SF was in its short stories as much as its novels. The valuation of "important" as defined (by the writer) seems to be based on "sophistication" which is in opposition to the understanding he has of craftsmanship and at least some of the genre tropes.
Maybe "important" isn't nearly as useful as Classic.
Honestly, I prefer an entertaining read over anything else. Atlas Shrugged maybe important, but I can safely say that I will never re-read it and will only recommend it to someone who is looking for a moralizing slog.
The 50's is my favorite period for Norton. She was very prolific with a number of series like the Solar Queen, Time Traders, Crosstime and the first Beast Master.
Other authors active in the 50's that I enjoy that who are almost never mentioned include; Alan E. Nourse an M.D. who specialized in medical SF, Hugo winner Murray Leinster, Grand Master A.E. Van Vogt and Grand Master Poul Anderson.
Wolfe's own "Sun" series of books is mind-blowing. I've read a lot of science fiction from all eras, and I've never read anything like the first four books in that series.
City is either 1944 or sometime in the 1960s. 1950-49 is a funny decade! But I agree, if it had been published then it would be a contender. Jack Vance is a tough pick. He has to be on any list of representative Early Age SF greats, but which one of his?
Caveat: "Starship Troppers" was published in 1959. "The Forever War" was published in 1974. Any influence is the reverse order. How Haldeman's book wound up on a 1950s list is inexplicable.
Yep. Take Forever War off and add Foundation.
Of the list, I only read the 2 works it seems people will like the least. "Childhood's End" and "Atlas Shrugged." Atlas Shrugged has a couple high points. In particular, the tunnel disaster is a great short story on its own. The rest of the book can be summed up as 50 Shades of Grey, but the girl is an economist and harlot.
Any time I see someone suggest an Ayn Rand work, I assume they never read her. She's only fitfully entertaining, and her moral lessons are all "politics and ethics by way of economics", and is simply the amoral opposite of communism. Hers isn't a doctrine of conservatism, common sense, or right reasoning; she's an atheist who uses objectivism as a filter to support a pro-selfishness message. She has more in common with Nietzsche than Aristotle or Adam Smith.
You should definitely skip 'Childhood's End'. Its not a good book to absorb into your heart or mind.
I liked it when I was a Godless atheist. Pretty sure I'd hate it now.
What's the definition of important? Why is it a "Must Read"?
It's hard to agree with a list that excludes Andre Norton, Jack Vance, or Williamson, or Asimov.
On the other hand, the limiter of 1950-9, might mean most important window into the decade, the which I am unqualified to address. But obviously it should have included "They'd Rather Be Right" a Hugo Winner from the era when it reflected both readers and writers, and which is unlikely to appeal to anyone anymore, making it a valuable window into another time.
In the case of the original publication, a decade ago, by the inimitable Gene Wolfe, it meant classic, which means, "a selection, which if you read it, will introduce you the the best science fiction-ating lights from 1950-9, and you'll be glad you did. Because they're still enjoyable and interesting now."
The article to which this in an answer, is a critique of those selections by Mr. Wolfe, from a man who sneers at 1950s American predecessors, without acknowledging the greatness of Golden Age of SF was in its short stories as much as its novels. The valuation of "important" as defined (by the writer) seems to be based on "sophistication" which is in opposition to the understanding he has of craftsmanship and at least some of the genre tropes.
Maybe "important" isn't nearly as useful as Classic.
Honestly, I prefer an entertaining read over anything else. Atlas Shrugged maybe important, but I can safely say that I will never re-read it and will only recommend it to someone who is looking for a moralizing slog.
The 50's is my favorite period for Norton. She was very prolific with a number of series like the Solar Queen, Time Traders, Crosstime and the first Beast Master.
Other authors active in the 50's that I enjoy that who are almost never mentioned include; Alan E. Nourse an M.D. who specialized in medical SF, Hugo winner Murray Leinster, Grand Master A.E. Van Vogt and Grand Master Poul Anderson.
Wolfe's own "Sun" series of books is mind-blowing. I've read a lot of science fiction from all eras, and I've never read anything like the first four books in that series.
I would round that out to 10 Novels:
City - Clifford D Simak
The Dying Earth - Jack Vance
The Foundation Trilogy - Isaac Asimov (a cheat I know)
City is either 1944 or sometime in the 1960s. 1950-49 is a funny decade! But I agree, if it had been published then it would be a contender. Jack Vance is a tough pick. He has to be on any list of representative Early Age SF greats, but which one of his?
Although I never read any of his works I went to college with the nephew of Heinlein! ha, ha.