Hi /lit/, I want to make a graph of recommended sf works by era

>>9082503

the dispossessed was published in '74 you retard

Roadside Picnic

>>9082503

1. You're cancer. You've deigned yourself worthy enough to make a half assed chart, but you haven't read half the works you name dropped. And you clearly have no expertise and therefore no business attempting this in the first place.
2. Stop trying to make charts, period, but especially if you need /lit/ as a think tank.
3. I'm going back to afking in Lol, hopefully all my accounts will be banned by the end of this year, and I'll devote my time to being even more of a sociopath.

File: 756980[1].jpg (18KB, 257x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 257x400px

>>9082503
1967

Also, wtf are you doing? Better state your criteria for recommendation, along with that graph, because to me it looks, at best, incomplete.

File: sffg_crashcourse.jpg (2MB, 3000x3416px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x3416px

>>9082503
Here you go.

>>9084487
>Dune
>Good
LMAO

>>9082574
I have read all of those works which is why I am confident to recommend them.
You are the one that is the cancer you fedora tipping edge lord faggot.

>>9084487
Those golden age recommendations are absolutely garbage
Look at what OP suggested
And the Clarke book was written in the 70s
There's no such thing as post-cyberpunk and the recommendations are random
And John C. Wright? Come on.

>>9083687
Well now I can say my criteria is a better list than this >>9084487

The Seeds of Time by John Wyndham, 1959