>>7618248
Didn't this thread just get deleted?

How about you name five worth reading?

dick, gibson, and ballard

probably the only answers you'll get from anyone

>>7618258
u wot m8

less than 10 pct of this board even knows who ballard is and gibson is trashed 24/7 here

gene wolfe
gene wolfe
gene wolfe
gene wolfe
gene wolfe
(^:

>>7618258
>Not Wolfe, Sammons, Asimov, Ursula, or Banks

>>7618274
>asimov
you're not on reddit anymore, pal

>>7618276
>Asimov
>Reddit-tier
6/10 ruse.
I think you should leave.

>>7618248
Lem, Wolfe, Miller Jr., Martinson, Delany.
>>7618258
Those authors generally have solid works, for the most part, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that they're top tier.

>>7618248
PKD, Arthur C. Clarke, Asimov, Heinlen, Ursula le Guin.

I have not read Gene Wolf yet.

>>7618293
Gene Wolfe*

Anyone name some classic Sci-fi authors like Poe, H.G. Wells please…

aHey guys, I have a question. I recently read Dying Inside by Robert Silverberg, and I was amazed that he had essentially managed to smuggle a modernist novel through by pretending it was sci-fi. It got really deep into the character's head and didn't have much of a conventional narrative structure either. It was basically about the ennui of some lonely guy and the genre stuff was only on the cake. Are there any other science fiction novels that are literary in this same way? And no, batshit insane sci-fi written on a ton of drugs like Dahlgren doesn't kind as literary, okay. Weirdness doesn't make something literary.

how has everyone enjoyed three body problem so far?
> on zuckerberg's book list of the year

lem you fucking faggots

Dan Simmons, Phillip K Dick, Asimov i Guess...

>Philip K. Dick
>Arthur C. Clarke
>H. P. Lovecraft
>Alan Moore
>Douglas Adams