Sci-Fi book recommendations for 11 yo

Eragon (Inheritance, Book 1) -- by Christopher Paolini

"just me" wrote in message . com...
"Howard Sage" wrote in message
om...
What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might
enjoy?
Thanks in advance.


I'd suggest some of the Asimov books, Frank Herbert books, Arthur C Clark
books, Ray Bradbury books, and some of the more science science fiction by
Andre Norton, for the science fiction stuff. For the more fantasy stuff why
not start with the Hobbit, some of the Anne McCaffrey like the Dragon Rider
of Pern series [but stay away from the ones about the Rowan as sex gets
serious play in some of those].

I'll also point out that Dragonquest and The White Dragon(the second &
third of the Dragon Rider series) are also a bit racy, at least when I
read them in high school. The parallel Dragonsinger series is less
racy, but may not appeal to boys as much.

Not to reply to every message here - in junior high, I loved the
Douglas Adams Hitchhiker series. I had already read the Lord of the
Rings by then, as well as Madeleine L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time series.
(In spring of 5th grade, we were assigned The Hobbit & A Wrinkle in
Time in class - I then read the entire LOTR series over the summer.) I
also liked the Heinlein juveniles at that age, though I will agree
that many are sexist.

Piers Anthony's Xanth series and Robert Asprin's books might also be
worthwhile to check out.

I'm not sure if it counts as SF, but I just bought Coraline by Neil
Gaiman for my 9 yo niece, who likes "scary stuff" and Harry Potter. I
haven't read it, but I've read all of his grown-up stuff and love
them, especially American Gods. I wish I had more other current ideas
for you.

Irene

dragonlady wrote in :
[snip]
i would definitely add Podkayne of Mars to that list, since it is one
of the few with a female role model. Some of his books (Farmer in the
Sky) tend to be a bit sexist.

That's one of the problems I have with some of the "classics"; I know
they were a product of their times, but many of them ARE sexist -- there
are so few with decent female characters. Women are too often defined
by their relationship to a man (wife/mother/daughter), and too seldom
are interesting characters in themelves. I think these things DO affect
how boys and girls this age see themselves and their possiblilities.
So it could be important to make sure you offer a balance of more recent
stories with decent female leads.
[snip]

That is true, even if they were written by women.

I read one of the early Darkover books by Marion Zimmer Bradley, and it
was basically a "boy's own adventure" story, with about three women
mentioned in the entire book. It was a complete contrast to her later
Darkover books.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

(Howard Sage) writes:

What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might enjoy?
Thanks in advance.
Howard


Diane Duane's Wizard books -- they are, frankly, much better than the
Harry Potter ones.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
(Reverse disclaimer: actually, everything I do or say is utterly
supported by Ellegon, Inc., my employer. Even when I'm wrong.)

"dragonlady" wrote

That's one of the problems I have with some of the "classics"; I know
they were a product of their times, but many of them ARE sexist -- there
are so few with decent female characters. Women are too often defined
by their relationship to a man (wife/mother/daughter), and too seldom
are interesting characters in themelves.

How about A Wrinkle in Time and the rest of the books in that series, then?
My DH and DS read it together; both LOVED it, and DH noted that it was full
of interesting female characters.

Also, try Nancy Farmer's The Ear, the Eye, and the Arm. To quote from the
Booklist review: "In Zimbabwe in the year 2194, the military ruler's
13-year-old son and his younger brother and sister leave their
technologically overcontrolled home and find themselves on a series of
perilous adventures. [They] encounter mile-high buildings and other miracles
of scientific advance; they also find fetid slums and toxic waste dumps. As
they're kidnapped by gangsters, forced to slave in a plastic mine, and
accused of witchcraft, they're pursued by mutant detectives, who are both
bumbling and sensitive and who always seem to be just one step behind
rescuing the children. In the best section, the siblings find themselves in
a traditional Shona village that at first seems idyllic but turns out to
also encompass fierce sexism, ignorance, and disease. Throughout the story,
it's the thrilling adventure that will grab readers, who will also like the
comic, tender characterizations, not only of the brave, defiant trio and the
absurd detectives, but also of nearly every one the kids meet, . . "

"dragonlady" wrote

That's one of the problems I have with some of the "classics"; I know
they were a product of their times, but many of them ARE sexist -- there
are so few with decent female characters. Women are too often defined
by their relationship to a man (wife/mother/daughter), and too seldom
are interesting characters in themelves.

How about A Wrinkle in Time and the rest of the books in that series, then?

It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but the
mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she
doesn't seem to do ANYTHING else, her husband does all the scientific stuff.
She doesn't seem anything like the girl she started out as.

--Helen

In ,
H Schinske wrote: in response to someone else
asking...

*How about A Wrinkle in Time and the rest of the books in that series, then?

I loved those!

*It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but the
*mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she

!!!
pregnant pause

OK, well, I have to say I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that.
Nothing but the mother of a big family? Because.... what? Being the mother
of a big family is bupkes? Doing nothing else except mothering a large
family means you aren't contributing to society, or aren't fulfilled by
definition, or...???

*doesn't seem to do ANYTHING else, her husband does all the scientific stuff.
*She doesn't seem anything like the girl she started out as.

Gosh. I better not quit my piddling 12-15 hours/week as a practicing
veterinarian, as I've been contemplating doing for a little while (seems
to me that right now I'd do better to simply focus on family and stuff and
go back in 2-3 years, but nothing is decided yet). Then people might start
saying that about me, except my family isn't so big...

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In ,
H Schinske wrote: in response to someone else
asking...

*How about A Wrinkle in Time and the rest of the books in that series,
then?

I loved those!

*It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but
the
*mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she

!!!
pregnant pause

OK, well, I have to say I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that.
Nothing but the mother of a big family? Because.... what? Being the mother
of a big family is bupkes? Doing nothing else except mothering a large
family means you aren't contributing to society, or aren't fulfilled by
definition, or...???
[]

Thanks for writing this, Hilary. That was exactly my reaction and I was
wondering if I was being over-sensitive because I am nothing but the mother
of a big family. I very much relate to the character of Meg, both the
misunderstood sensitive child and the happy adult. I suppose that I tick
people off too by staying home to look after my children instead of having
an important job and living up to my potential.

Jayne

In ,
H Schinske wrote:
*It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but the
*mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she

and responded:

!!!
pregnant pause

OK, well, I have to say I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that.
Nothing but the mother of a big family? Because.... what? Being the mother
of a big family is bupkes? Doing nothing else except mothering a large
family means you aren't contributing to society, or aren't fulfilled by
definition, or...???

I wasn't speaking in general terms. I was talking about the particular case of
Meg Murry, who is presented in the first couple of books as a girl with the
potential to do math or science work at the Nobel Prize level. It just isn't
reasonable to suppose that she could suppress all that side of herself just
because she has kids. She might not have been able to work in as singleminded a
fashion, but there should be some indication that she is still basically the
same person, in the way that Calvin is obviously still himself only older.

I would be just as upset if she had suppressed all the warm, human,
family-loving side of herself to be a great physicist and nothing but a great
physicist. (Note: not saying she would have *had* to have kids to maintain this
side of herself, either.)

My grandmother got her BA in math at a time when very few women were math
majors (or even went to college). I don't feel upset that she then married a
doctor and settled down to be a small-town wife and mother, because she was
happy with that and didn't appear stifled at all. But the difference is that
while she was a gifted woman, and in these days might well have made a career
in the sciences, I very much doubt that she was headed for earthshattering
discoveries. She didn't have to change who she was.

My mother had six kids, and naturally raising us was one of her greatest life
accomplishments, but she was always a doctor, and always a writer, and that was
just the way it was. And that's how Meg Murry's mother is presented (remember
the stew on the Bunsen burner and all that), so it seems strange to me that Meg
would do something so different.

--Helen

In article ,
(H Schinske) wrote:

In ,
H Schinske wrote:
*It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but the
*mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she

and responded:

!!!
pregnant pause

OK, well, I have to say I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that.
Nothing but the mother of a big family? Because.... what? Being the mother
of a big family is bupkes? Doing nothing else except mothering a large
family means you aren't contributing to society, or aren't fulfilled by
definition, or...???

I wasn't speaking in general terms. I was talking about the particular case
of
Meg Murry, who is presented in the first couple of books as a girl with the
potential to do math or science work at the Nobel Prize level. It just isn't
reasonable to suppose that she could suppress all that side of herself just
because she has kids. She might not have been able to work in as singleminded
a
fashion, but there should be some indication that she is still basically the
same person, in the way that Calvin is obviously still himself only older.


Actually, I was surprised that Calvin ended up a scientist--IIRC he was
initially presented as a much more literary type, in contrast to Meg's
math genius persona. And so much was made of Meg's parents working as a
professional team, so I do think it's a little strange that Calvin and
Meg didn't go for the same sort of arrangement. Remember, guys, this is
a book and not Real Life, and the author can make her characters
represent whatever she wants.