What do you think?
Rate this book
In Search of Wonder: Essays on Modern Science Fiction
Very Good; see scans and description. Advent Publishers, 1967. 'In Search of Wonder', by Damon Knight, in the 1967 Advent Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged. Berkley edition. Octavo, printed perfect-bound wraps, 318 pp.(xii + 306). Several full-page b&w cartoons by J.L. Patterson. Very Good; small abrasions at front cover (scan), corners touched, toning to the white background of the rear cover. See scans. Outstanding sci-fi analysis and scholarly critique by Knight, including treatments of Robert Heinlein, Ray Bradbury, A.E. Van Vogt, Theodore Sturgeon, and others. Ships in a new, sturdy, protective box, not a bag. L71
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1956
20 people are currently reading
112 people want to read
About the author
Damon Knight
580 books97 followersDamon Francis Knight was an American science fiction author, editor, and critic.
Knight's first professional sale was a cartoon drawing to a science-fiction magazine, Amazing Stories. His first story, "Resilience", was published in 1941. He is best known as the author of "To Serve Man", which was adapted for The Twilight Zone. He was a recipient of the Hugo Award, founder of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA), cofounder of the National Fantasy Fan Federation, cofounder of the Milford Writer's Workshop, and cofounder of the Clarion Writers Workshop. Knight lived in Eugene, Oregon, with his wife Kate Wilhelm.
Knight's first professional sale was a cartoon drawing to a science-fiction magazine, Amazing Stories. His first story, "Resilience", was published in 1941. He is best known as the author of "To Serve Man", which was adapted for The Twilight Zone. He was a recipient of the Hugo Award, founder of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA), cofounder of the National Fantasy Fan Federation, cofounder of the Milford Writer's Workshop, and cofounder of the Clarion Writers Workshop. Knight lived in Eugene, Oregon, with his wife Kate Wilhelm.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
September 11, 2017
‘In Search of Wonder’ is one of those books, along with the likes of Fred Pohl’s ‘The Way The Future Was’ and ‘Hell’s Cartographers’ by Brian Aldiss and Harry Harrison, that all SF fans interested in the history of the genre are told are ‘Must Reads’. Not so much.
First published in 1956 by author, editor and renowned critic Damon Knight, this collection of his reviews and essays was a bit of a disappointment. As one of the first critics to apply the same standards of criticism to SF as to so-called ‘literary fiction’, I was expecting incisive and insightful examinations of the works covered, but most of the reviews in this volume just seem like bog-standard reviews that can be found in a hundred-and-one places today. Now, this may just be because I am used to reading modern reviews — at the time these reviews were written, they may have been mind-blowing stuff.
Each chapter begins with a few lines of introduction and then we are into the reviews or essays. I would have preferred to see some comment from the author, either before or after each review, explaining why that particular work had been selected and what we could learn from the review, but no… we just get the text of the reviews, and that’s it.
The book contains chapters on bad sf, classic sf, good sf, and half-bad sf, along with individual chapters for some of the big names, such as Heinlein, Sturgeon, Asimov, Bradbury and van Vogt. There are also separate chapters for anthologies, new writers (new at the time, anyway) and British authors. The third edition has also been expanded with chapters on the Milford and Clarion writers workshops, what is sf? and writing sf, along with a brief biographical section about the author when young.
All in all, not a waste of reading time (some of the barbed comments in some of the reviews are quite amusing), but not a ‘Must Read’ by any means.
First published in 1956 by author, editor and renowned critic Damon Knight, this collection of his reviews and essays was a bit of a disappointment. As one of the first critics to apply the same standards of criticism to SF as to so-called ‘literary fiction’, I was expecting incisive and insightful examinations of the works covered, but most of the reviews in this volume just seem like bog-standard reviews that can be found in a hundred-and-one places today. Now, this may just be because I am used to reading modern reviews — at the time these reviews were written, they may have been mind-blowing stuff.
Each chapter begins with a few lines of introduction and then we are into the reviews or essays. I would have preferred to see some comment from the author, either before or after each review, explaining why that particular work had been selected and what we could learn from the review, but no… we just get the text of the reviews, and that’s it.
The book contains chapters on bad sf, classic sf, good sf, and half-bad sf, along with individual chapters for some of the big names, such as Heinlein, Sturgeon, Asimov, Bradbury and van Vogt. There are also separate chapters for anthologies, new writers (new at the time, anyway) and British authors. The third edition has also been expanded with chapters on the Milford and Clarion writers workshops, what is sf? and writing sf, along with a brief biographical section about the author when young.
All in all, not a waste of reading time (some of the barbed comments in some of the reviews are quite amusing), but not a ‘Must Read’ by any means.
April 1, 2020
One major effect of doing the Dickheads podcast is that I have become much more serious about being a scholar of the genre. While the title of the book suggests that it covers "modern" sci-fi you have to realize that the first edition of this book was published in 1955 and despite editions in 1967 and 2014 the books in the genre it covers is far from modern. This book first got on my radar because I was looking for background info on Editor/Author Tony Boucher (who wrote the introduction)for an upcoming tribute episode. When I saw what this book was I knew I had to read it.
The concept of this book is simple. In the early days of the genre, I am talking the 30s right after Hugo Gernsback coined the term Scientific Fiction that later got shorten to Science Fiction and eventually Sci-fi deep critical analysis of the genre didn't exist. There were short reviews in the Amazing Stories and fanzines of the time but most came off like catalog entries more than thoughtful reviews. Enter Oregon writer Damon Knight whose most famous work is the short story "To Serve Man" which was turned into a Twilight Zone episode with the famous "It's a cookbook!" twist.
While that is the only time Knight's work penetrated the mainstream he was a titan in the genre from the early 40s until his death in 2002. He was the founder of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA), cofounder of the Milford Writer's Workshop with author Judith Merrill and his wife Author Kate Wilham., and co-founder of the Clarion Writers Workshop. While he wrote hundreds of short stories and a dozen novels it is his criticism and non-fiction history of the early New York writers The Futurians (Reviewed here three months ago)that are most exciting to me.
While this book is clearly not a complete history of the early 20th century Science Fiction that is the purpose it will serve at this point. While heavily colored by Knight's very strong opinions, this book taught me of several dozen important works from that era that I had never heard of. Several I am excited to read. These are not just works of standard genre titans, although the works of Heinlein, Asimov and Bradbury are all covered. That is great but what excited me more was learning about mainstream novels of the era with speculative elements and titles that came from Russian authors. That is just two examples. Knight has the genre of the era covered in detail. I don't know how else I would have ever heard about We by Eugene Zamiatin which sounds like a Russian 1984, but it predates the Orwell novel having been banned by the Russians in the late 20s.
Some of the highpoints of this book include autobiographical chapters that explain how Knight joined and interacted with famous editors and writers, help to found some of the genre's most famous workshops and his method of writing his own stories. His breakdowns of novels from genre classics to lost novels are brutally honest and times came off too harsh to me. While I agreed with some of his critiques there were moments I found myself shaking my head as he tore classics to shreds. Knight respected Bradbury for example as a writer but thought he was a joke as a science fiction writer. He hated novels like Matheson's I Am Legend and was not a fan of the author who I consider to be one of the best use a typewriter.
His takedown of Van Vogt's World of Null-A (The last book I read before this) is almost as much of a classic as the novel he ripped shreds. Indeed he devotes an entire chapter to the absolute homicide of Van Vogt's novel that becomes a brutally harsh takedown of tropes and themes the author used over and over. This chapter is the best example of what Knight does as a critic. He dissects plot holes, studies what works and doesn't about the characters and clearly was not impressed by the science. This kinda cracked me up because Philip K Dick always listed this novel as one of his biggest influences. Knight is really picking Van Vogt apart for many of the things Dick did constantly, like random plotting, think characters and random directions of the narrative. That said Knight enjoyed PKD's first novel the Solar Lottery as was not as hard on him as some.
"This is architectural plotting, a rare and inhumanly difficult thing; and who in blazes ever expected Dick to turn up as one of the few masters of it." (67 edition)
So Knight devotes entire chapters to Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, Sturgeon, Fort, Kuttner and Moore, Blish, and Dick. Histories and backgrounds on the editors are there and valuable. Essays about writing workshops, symbolism, using science defining Science Fiction, writing Science Fiction(really great essay!) and how he saw the genre going.
I loved this book. I think as I work through the two dozen titles I added to my good reads 'Want To Read' shelf I think the impact of this book will continue long after I finished it. I think this will be a valuable book that will remain on my shelf for reference. I don't think this is a must-read but for fans of the genre but for scholars or writers serious about the craft this book is pretty goddamn valuable.
The concept of this book is simple. In the early days of the genre, I am talking the 30s right after Hugo Gernsback coined the term Scientific Fiction that later got shorten to Science Fiction and eventually Sci-fi deep critical analysis of the genre didn't exist. There were short reviews in the Amazing Stories and fanzines of the time but most came off like catalog entries more than thoughtful reviews. Enter Oregon writer Damon Knight whose most famous work is the short story "To Serve Man" which was turned into a Twilight Zone episode with the famous "It's a cookbook!" twist.
While that is the only time Knight's work penetrated the mainstream he was a titan in the genre from the early 40s until his death in 2002. He was the founder of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA), cofounder of the Milford Writer's Workshop with author Judith Merrill and his wife Author Kate Wilham., and co-founder of the Clarion Writers Workshop. While he wrote hundreds of short stories and a dozen novels it is his criticism and non-fiction history of the early New York writers The Futurians (Reviewed here three months ago)that are most exciting to me.
While this book is clearly not a complete history of the early 20th century Science Fiction that is the purpose it will serve at this point. While heavily colored by Knight's very strong opinions, this book taught me of several dozen important works from that era that I had never heard of. Several I am excited to read. These are not just works of standard genre titans, although the works of Heinlein, Asimov and Bradbury are all covered. That is great but what excited me more was learning about mainstream novels of the era with speculative elements and titles that came from Russian authors. That is just two examples. Knight has the genre of the era covered in detail. I don't know how else I would have ever heard about We by Eugene Zamiatin which sounds like a Russian 1984, but it predates the Orwell novel having been banned by the Russians in the late 20s.
Some of the highpoints of this book include autobiographical chapters that explain how Knight joined and interacted with famous editors and writers, help to found some of the genre's most famous workshops and his method of writing his own stories. His breakdowns of novels from genre classics to lost novels are brutally honest and times came off too harsh to me. While I agreed with some of his critiques there were moments I found myself shaking my head as he tore classics to shreds. Knight respected Bradbury for example as a writer but thought he was a joke as a science fiction writer. He hated novels like Matheson's I Am Legend and was not a fan of the author who I consider to be one of the best use a typewriter.
His takedown of Van Vogt's World of Null-A (The last book I read before this) is almost as much of a classic as the novel he ripped shreds. Indeed he devotes an entire chapter to the absolute homicide of Van Vogt's novel that becomes a brutally harsh takedown of tropes and themes the author used over and over. This chapter is the best example of what Knight does as a critic. He dissects plot holes, studies what works and doesn't about the characters and clearly was not impressed by the science. This kinda cracked me up because Philip K Dick always listed this novel as one of his biggest influences. Knight is really picking Van Vogt apart for many of the things Dick did constantly, like random plotting, think characters and random directions of the narrative. That said Knight enjoyed PKD's first novel the Solar Lottery as was not as hard on him as some.
"This is architectural plotting, a rare and inhumanly difficult thing; and who in blazes ever expected Dick to turn up as one of the few masters of it." (67 edition)
So Knight devotes entire chapters to Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, Sturgeon, Fort, Kuttner and Moore, Blish, and Dick. Histories and backgrounds on the editors are there and valuable. Essays about writing workshops, symbolism, using science defining Science Fiction, writing Science Fiction(really great essay!) and how he saw the genre going.
I loved this book. I think as I work through the two dozen titles I added to my good reads 'Want To Read' shelf I think the impact of this book will continue long after I finished it. I think this will be a valuable book that will remain on my shelf for reference. I don't think this is a must-read but for fans of the genre but for scholars or writers serious about the craft this book is pretty goddamn valuable.
January 22, 2009
The first edition of this book, which came out in 1956, was made up of non-fiction articles and columns Knight wrote for pulp science fiction magazines of the 1950s. The second and third editions, in 1967 and 1995 have some additional texts.
What I find the most stunning is that even the early material, written in the 1950s, is still relevant today, and even fresh in a way, even though the field of science fiction has changed thoroughly since then. Everything Damon Knight wrote down, fifty years ago, about the nature of science fiction is still as interesting, and maybe even more interesting as it was in those "ancient" times.
This book, this collection of essays should be read along with the four short lectures printed up in "The Science Fiction Novel" in the 1950s, to serve as a contrast. The four lectures, given by noted science fiction authors of the time (Heinlein, Kornbluth, Bester and Bloch) also try to define the nature of science fiction, while giving a critical view of the sciecne fiction novels available at that time.
I think it's crucial to note that neither Knight's book (or collection of essays) or the four lectures mentioned above, constitute a "basic" introduction to science fiction and the craft of science fiction criticism. They are for advanced readers who have already gone through several classic science fiction novels and short stories of the 1950s and the 1960s, (in addition to current titles) and who have already taken a look at critical studies of science fiction, or at the very least, histories of the literature of science fiction. You need context to make something out of these two publicatons.
What I find the most stunning is that even the early material, written in the 1950s, is still relevant today, and even fresh in a way, even though the field of science fiction has changed thoroughly since then. Everything Damon Knight wrote down, fifty years ago, about the nature of science fiction is still as interesting, and maybe even more interesting as it was in those "ancient" times.
This book, this collection of essays should be read along with the four short lectures printed up in "The Science Fiction Novel" in the 1950s, to serve as a contrast. The four lectures, given by noted science fiction authors of the time (Heinlein, Kornbluth, Bester and Bloch) also try to define the nature of science fiction, while giving a critical view of the sciecne fiction novels available at that time.
I think it's crucial to note that neither Knight's book (or collection of essays) or the four lectures mentioned above, constitute a "basic" introduction to science fiction and the craft of science fiction criticism. They are for advanced readers who have already gone through several classic science fiction novels and short stories of the 1950s and the 1960s, (in addition to current titles) and who have already taken a look at critical studies of science fiction, or at the very least, histories of the literature of science fiction. You need context to make something out of these two publicatons.
May 18, 2025
Damon Knight is the most vivid contemporary critic of Golden Age science fiction. He was a pal who crashed on the couches of some of the writers that an organization he founded would later celebrate as Grandmasters. He knew precisely the nature of their talent, but from his1945 devastating takedown of A.E. van Vogt to his qualified appreciations of Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, and Clarke, he was quite willing to tell his friends when they tripped over their shoelaces.
Here are some highlights.
As a young man in 1945, he was undaunted by the reputation of A. E. van Vogt. He finds egregious errors in his science. He finds the plot of The World of Null-A full of “contradictions, misleading clues and irrelevant action.” Its characters do not act consistently with the qualities they are supposed to have. Knight says van Vogt’s sentence and diction are “fumbling and insensitive.” Nor can he build a scene or create a believable character.
He notes that a year after becoming a best seller, L. Ron Hubbard vanished “trailing a cloud of lawsuits.” His scamming and role-playing led him to waste his talent.
At times, Knight slips in the knife with faint praise: Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend “is full of good ideas, every other one of which is immediately dropped and kicked out of sight.” In Double Star, Knight says Heinlein “demonstrates again that the boobs cannot put so many greasy fingerprints on an idea that a good writer cannot lift it out shining and new.”
Asimov said his Galactic empire was “simply the Roman … Empire written large.” Knight calls that phrase “an absolutely devastating criticism of any science fiction story.”
Knight agrees with those purists who say that Bradbury does not write science fiction and that his technology is a joke. He writes, Knight says, about a remembered Midwestern childhood “seen through the wrong end of a rose-colored glass.”
Finally, Knight would not be the last to note that Arthur C. Clarke writes fiction in which gadgets are more important than people.
He makes a good case for two writers, Theodore Sturgeon and Jack Williamson, whose reputations have unjustly slipped. But he certainly overpraises Curme Gray, the author of only one novel of any note.
Most of these essays were originally published in small circulation pulps, and we are lucky to have them rescued from oblivion in this book.
Here are some highlights.
As a young man in 1945, he was undaunted by the reputation of A. E. van Vogt. He finds egregious errors in his science. He finds the plot of The World of Null-A full of “contradictions, misleading clues and irrelevant action.” Its characters do not act consistently with the qualities they are supposed to have. Knight says van Vogt’s sentence and diction are “fumbling and insensitive.” Nor can he build a scene or create a believable character.
He notes that a year after becoming a best seller, L. Ron Hubbard vanished “trailing a cloud of lawsuits.” His scamming and role-playing led him to waste his talent.
At times, Knight slips in the knife with faint praise: Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend “is full of good ideas, every other one of which is immediately dropped and kicked out of sight.” In Double Star, Knight says Heinlein “demonstrates again that the boobs cannot put so many greasy fingerprints on an idea that a good writer cannot lift it out shining and new.”
Asimov said his Galactic empire was “simply the Roman … Empire written large.” Knight calls that phrase “an absolutely devastating criticism of any science fiction story.”
Knight agrees with those purists who say that Bradbury does not write science fiction and that his technology is a joke. He writes, Knight says, about a remembered Midwestern childhood “seen through the wrong end of a rose-colored glass.”
Finally, Knight would not be the last to note that Arthur C. Clarke writes fiction in which gadgets are more important than people.
He makes a good case for two writers, Theodore Sturgeon and Jack Williamson, whose reputations have unjustly slipped. But he certainly overpraises Curme Gray, the author of only one novel of any note.
Most of these essays were originally published in small circulation pulps, and we are lucky to have them rescued from oblivion in this book.
April 20, 2018
I read the 2nd edition from the mid-60's.
Definitely a time capsule of where SF criticism was back in the day, when whether or not a certain story was SF or fantasy was Real Important. Much time is spent on that topic and on bashing A. E. van Vogt about the head and shoulders. Richard Matheson and Judith Merrill take more than a few shots too. A story's biggest sin is often one of not being SF the way the reviewer thinks SF should be. A little of this argument goes a long way with me, and there's quite a lot of it herein. He has much love for Heinlein and reviews several of his juveniles. He often makes negative comments about an author's physical appearance. These are particularly of the pot-calling-the-kettle-black variety. Go ahead and google pics of Mr. Knight.
All-in-all, Damon Knight has his likes -- oops! I mean damon knight (yes he used to use the small letters in his name) -- and dislikes like any other critic. Unfortunately, his opinions make him come off as a very bitter and small-minded man.
Definitely a time capsule of where SF criticism was back in the day, when whether or not a certain story was SF or fantasy was Real Important. Much time is spent on that topic and on bashing A. E. van Vogt about the head and shoulders. Richard Matheson and Judith Merrill take more than a few shots too. A story's biggest sin is often one of not being SF the way the reviewer thinks SF should be. A little of this argument goes a long way with me, and there's quite a lot of it herein. He has much love for Heinlein and reviews several of his juveniles. He often makes negative comments about an author's physical appearance. These are particularly of the pot-calling-the-kettle-black variety. Go ahead and google pics of Mr. Knight.
All-in-all, Damon Knight has his likes -- oops! I mean damon knight (yes he used to use the small letters in his name) -- and dislikes like any other critic. Unfortunately, his opinions make him come off as a very bitter and small-minded man.
February 27, 2021
Найт задает правильные вопросы (что такое научная фантастика? это литература? как отличить хорошую НФ от плохой? какие книги войдут в историю?), но не предлагает на них интересные ответы.
В этом сборнике несвязных эссе он упражняется в остроумии, придираясь к сюжетам книг примерно в том же ключе, что Bad Comedian песочит фильмы. Вот только Найт делает это просто зло и совсем не смешно. В итоге получается и критика слабая (так, записки фанбоя) и комедия никудышная (панчлайны Найт писать не умеет).
Самые интересные главы про фандом и про то, как Найт тусил с другими писателями. Самая жуткая глава, где Найт включает на полную катушку синдром поиска глубинного смысла на примере книги Блиша (прям отвратительно было читать).
Короч, прикольная книга как артефакт НФ 50х, но плохая как просто книга.
В этом сборнике несвязных эссе он упражняется в остроумии, придираясь к сюжетам книг примерно в том же ключе, что Bad Comedian песочит фильмы. Вот только Найт делает это просто зло и совсем не смешно. В итоге получается и критика слабая (так, записки фанбоя) и комедия никудышная (панчлайны Найт писать не умеет).
Самые интересные главы про фандом и про то, как Найт тусил с другими писателями. Самая жуткая глава, где Найт включает на полную катушку синдром поиска глубинного смысла на примере книги Блиша (прям отвратительно было читать).
Короч, прикольная книга как артефакт НФ 50х, но плохая как просто книга.
January 8, 2014
Very interesting read and I liked it very much. It has a bit of a time-capsule feel to it. The reviews and analysis were written back in the day and it is interesting to hear, for example, how there were two camps at one time - one that thought only SF written before 1935 was any good and the other that thought only SF written after that was any good. From where we sit now it is almost a "what's the difference?" kind of thing.
Anyway, if nothing else it a great source for finding some very forgotten works that shouldn't be. I am walking away with a list of titles to try and track down, many by authors I know well but that these titles slipped by me.
This book is for the serious golden age SF reader. If names like Leiber, van Vogt, Kornbluth, Blish, and Pratt don't ring a bell, then you may quickly get lost. Other more famous names (with serious staying power) like Heinlein, Bradbury,and Sturgeon get their own chapters as well.
Come to think of it, if you can't name Damon Knight's most famous story, then this may not be the book for you.
Anyway, if nothing else it a great source for finding some very forgotten works that shouldn't be. I am walking away with a list of titles to try and track down, many by authors I know well but that these titles slipped by me.
This book is for the serious golden age SF reader. If names like Leiber, van Vogt, Kornbluth, Blish, and Pratt don't ring a bell, then you may quickly get lost. Other more famous names (with serious staying power) like Heinlein, Bradbury,and Sturgeon get their own chapters as well.
Come to think of it, if you can't name Damon Knight's most famous story, then this may not be the book for you.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews