I thought that this Sci-Fi/Fantasy flowchart was pretty neat. It isn't perfect, but it is more than decent. I even found a few books to put on the short list of books to read.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/a6omcl ... sn3o8m.jpg

I thought I would see what everyone else thinks on the matter.

Really not bad. Found myself some SF books to buy in the next future. thanks!

I'm surprised to find the Silmarillion on the chart.
Many claimed to have read the Lord of the Rings, but if you would like to know how EPIC Tolkiens story really is...

navigating to the subterraneans is funny
and "who shall we fight" >> "everyone" is the best

I don't like that chart....

I've read almost everything on there for the Fantasy side (missing 3 I think, and those will be corrected soon) and I've hit a good number of the SciFi ones in the last year.

So it's obviously not big enough.... I need some more options.

Thanks for the flowchart! I'm a very fast reader, unfortunately, so I go through books at a high rate. The list is giving me good ideas, and putting a few books I was planning to read anyway in context.

Well, then let's expand or replace the classic titles.

I go for
- Frank Schatzing's THE SWARM instead of The Mote In God's Eye
- Neal Asher's COWL instead of Slaughterhouse 5
- Hal Clement's MISSION OF GRAVITY instead of Ringworld
- Robert L. Forward's DRAGON'S EGG instead of Childhood's End
- David Brin's STARTIDE RISING instead of Contact

I enjoyed perusing that chart as well. I think they did a good job of keeping the paths interesting and funny. I'm a little confused that certain titles that have been HUGE sellers or are fantasy classics aren't on there, though. (like the Harry Potter series) I'm also confused by certain series being listed, like Steven Erickson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series. I read the first one in that series and it was painful to get through. I've heard the other books in the series are better, but why anyone would bother to read past the first one is beyond me.

Ah. I had never seen the original post of it, just a re-posting of the graphic. That explains it. I think it's kinda sad that they excluded certain books just because of a relatively arbitrary classification of certain books, though.

Well, they have to draw the line somewhere, I guess.