What do you think?
Rate this book
Science Fiction: What It's All About
I denna bok ges för första gången en översikt över science fiction: från begynnelsen till dagens avancerade framtidsvisioner, över skräckromantiken, utopierna, seriebranchen, filmerna och science fiction-rörelsen.
Det är en roande och kunnig bok, skriven av Sam J Lundwall, en av Sveriges främsta science fiction-kännare, och fylld med illustrationer ur äldre och nyare science fiction.
Der är en viktig bok, som placerar in science fiction i dess rätta historiska och litterära perspektiv - en lättläst och stimulerande handledning till en intressant men komplicerad genre.
Ingen vän av science fiction har råd att undvara den.
Det är en roande och kunnig bok, skriven av Sam J Lundwall, en av Sveriges främsta science fiction-kännare, och fylld med illustrationer ur äldre och nyare science fiction.
Der är en viktig bok, som placerar in science fiction i dess rätta historiska och litterära perspektiv - en lättläst och stimulerande handledning till en intressant men komplicerad genre.
Ingen vän av science fiction har råd att undvara den.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1969
1 person is currently reading
40 people want to read
About the author
Sam J. Lundwall
254 books14 followersSam Thore Jerrie Lundwall (born 24 February 1941), published as Sam J. Lundwall, is a Swedish science fiction writer, translator, publisher and singer. He translated a number of science-fiction-related articles and works from Swedish into English.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
November 17, 2015
I picked this up because I thought it'd be an interesting artifact - what people thought, theoretically speaking, about SF in the 70s. And it started out as a fairly standard exploration of subgenres and themes, with a few mentions of books I hadn't heard of that I might want to pick up. There were some good parts - some theory about utopia & dystopia, some books I hadn't heard of - and some parts that annoyed me, like the dismissal of HP Lovecraft's craft.
So it should've gotten an unexceptional 3 stars, probably. But then he decided to spend a whole chapter on fantasy literature in which he is both highly negative and highly out of his depth. When he got to Tolkien I gave up. He starts with the standard Mieville/Moorcock criticism of Tolkien not being a Marxist, which I'm fine with to some extent though I think it oversimplifies the book(s) and ignores much of their attraction, such as the humane character work, the extensive worldbuilding, and the praise of natural beauty, by enlisting them in a political culture war. No, the real reason I gave the book one star and immediately stopped reading is that Lundwall doesn't appear to have read Tolkien before insulting him and his fans. Here are some bits from the esteemed critic's criticism:
* He refers to The Lord of the Rings exclusively as "the trilogy The Fellowship of the Ring." That takes a special kind of ignorance, even in the 70s.
* Tolkien "is far from unique." LotR is just a stereotypical fairytale.
* Citing with approval the hilariously oxymoronic statement that Tolkien "is a most intolerant and conservative man, as the English are, in the end." Nothing says tolerance like tarring an entire nation with intolerance!
* "Galdalf [sic - GALDALF], the secure old father-figure, is always present somewhere." Except of course that whole minor part in which he DIES AND LEAVES THEM ALL ON THEIR OWN.
* "Sauron's army of the living dead" - I'm sure he read the book and just meant to write Aragorn, the only commander of an actual living dead army.
* Lundwall's description of the Scouring of the Shire: "Frodo returns to his peaceful village, defeats the remainder of the revolting lower classes (aptly described as some kind of sub-human creatures) and later leaves for a place more fit for a gentleman." Cue eye-rolling. Yes, defeating the lower class like Saruman (a wizard), Grima (a nobleman from Rohan), and Lotho (Frodo's own cousin, presumably of the same class). Again, Tolkien's no Marxist, so you shouldn't have to make up idiotic exaggerations to criticize him on that front. But Lundwall does, and so I hate his stupid little book.
* "It is a beautiful description of the upper class's inability to face change, and the efforts of the same to fight evolution, although I am sure Tolkien never consciously meant it that way." Let's get this clear. Tolkien is smarter than you are. Tolkien's books evince a thematic clarity which you've been criticizing this whole time, and yet you think that somehow he missed what those themes mean. Tolkien well knows he's fighting for a world that no longer exists - primarily, a world in which the engines of progress and industrialization wouldn't have killed most of his friends in World War I. For a much better critical work, I recommend John Garth's Tolkien and the Great War.
Of course, all of this supposed defense of the lower class against Tolkien's evil oppression comes right after bashing the beloved pulp writers Edgar Rice Burrows and Robert E. Howard - so once again we have that special type of fool who wants to save the "lower class" but doesn't respect anything about them.
So it should've gotten an unexceptional 3 stars, probably. But then he decided to spend a whole chapter on fantasy literature in which he is both highly negative and highly out of his depth. When he got to Tolkien I gave up. He starts with the standard Mieville/Moorcock criticism of Tolkien not being a Marxist, which I'm fine with to some extent though I think it oversimplifies the book(s) and ignores much of their attraction, such as the humane character work, the extensive worldbuilding, and the praise of natural beauty, by enlisting them in a political culture war. No, the real reason I gave the book one star and immediately stopped reading is that Lundwall doesn't appear to have read Tolkien before insulting him and his fans. Here are some bits from the esteemed critic's criticism:
* He refers to The Lord of the Rings exclusively as "the trilogy The Fellowship of the Ring." That takes a special kind of ignorance, even in the 70s.
* Tolkien "is far from unique." LotR is just a stereotypical fairytale.
* Citing with approval the hilariously oxymoronic statement that Tolkien "is a most intolerant and conservative man, as the English are, in the end." Nothing says tolerance like tarring an entire nation with intolerance!
* "Galdalf [sic - GALDALF], the secure old father-figure, is always present somewhere." Except of course that whole minor part in which he DIES AND LEAVES THEM ALL ON THEIR OWN.
* "Sauron's army of the living dead" - I'm sure he read the book and just meant to write Aragorn, the only commander of an actual living dead army.
* Lundwall's description of the Scouring of the Shire: "Frodo returns to his peaceful village, defeats the remainder of the revolting lower classes (aptly described as some kind of sub-human creatures) and later leaves for a place more fit for a gentleman." Cue eye-rolling. Yes, defeating the lower class like Saruman (a wizard), Grima (a nobleman from Rohan), and Lotho (Frodo's own cousin, presumably of the same class). Again, Tolkien's no Marxist, so you shouldn't have to make up idiotic exaggerations to criticize him on that front. But Lundwall does, and so I hate his stupid little book.
* "It is a beautiful description of the upper class's inability to face change, and the efforts of the same to fight evolution, although I am sure Tolkien never consciously meant it that way." Let's get this clear. Tolkien is smarter than you are. Tolkien's books evince a thematic clarity which you've been criticizing this whole time, and yet you think that somehow he missed what those themes mean. Tolkien well knows he's fighting for a world that no longer exists - primarily, a world in which the engines of progress and industrialization wouldn't have killed most of his friends in World War I. For a much better critical work, I recommend John Garth's Tolkien and the Great War.
Of course, all of this supposed defense of the lower class against Tolkien's evil oppression comes right after bashing the beloved pulp writers Edgar Rice Burrows and Robert E. Howard - so once again we have that special type of fool who wants to save the "lower class" but doesn't respect anything about them.
July 31, 2024
Science Fiction - history & overview.
March 10, 2018
Well, this was a surprise and a delight. Against Lester Del Rey's somewhat dry THE WORLD OF SCIENCE FICTION, 1926–1976 we have what is essentially a long-form fan critique of the sf genre. As fellow ascended-fan Donald Wollheim notes in the introduction, author Sam Lundwall occupies a unique position, being at a safe observational distance in his native Sweden, to judge the world sf scene fairly. And he does: the U.S. gets its due praise for birthing sf in its modern form as a primarily writer-and-fan-driven enterprise, but he also chides us America's for being provincial in our thinking (the genre roots of sf are European!) and puritanical in our sensibilities.
It also helped that I (surprising, for a nearly 50 year old commentary!) agreed with almost all his options about books or stories I was familiar with. I do think he sold FRANKENSTEIN and H. P. Lovecraft a bit short, though.
The biggest head-scratcher, for me, was Lundwall's comments about women in sf: he rightly tears the genre a new one for treating women challenges as "appendages" when they appear at all, but only mentions a single woman *author* (Anne McCaffrey) at any length, and very few (mostly European) by name alone. That's rather strange.
Overall, this turned out to be a thought provoking historical-critical look at the sf scene pre-STAR WARS, a simpler and less commercialized time. 3.5 stars, rounded up to 4: a good choice for diving into the older end of sf.
It also helped that I (surprising, for a nearly 50 year old commentary!) agreed with almost all his options about books or stories I was familiar with. I do think he sold FRANKENSTEIN and H. P. Lovecraft a bit short, though.
The biggest head-scratcher, for me, was Lundwall's comments about women in sf: he rightly tears the genre a new one for treating women challenges as "appendages" when they appear at all, but only mentions a single woman *author* (Anne McCaffrey) at any length, and very few (mostly European) by name alone. That's rather strange.
Overall, this turned out to be a thought provoking historical-critical look at the sf scene pre-STAR WARS, a simpler and less commercialized time. 3.5 stars, rounded up to 4: a good choice for diving into the older end of sf.
September 6, 2022
This book was first written in Swedish in 1969 than translated and revised in 1971. The author is very outspoken and pulls no punches, sometimes ignoring what may be positive and going full strength with the negative. At first reading this will bother many readers, but over the years one may appreciate a completely different view of a fave sci-fi book or it’s author. The intro by Donald A. Wollheim is excellent. This history of sci-fi also touches on magazines, TV and films. Most readers will increase their knowledge of very early sci-fi. A good asset is the inclusion of many paragraphs from the sci-fi books themselves along with illustrations. Fun to just browse through now and then. It’s easy to see that Lundwall has a pretty good knowledge of the genre and one is bound to learn something new. The book was probably started in 1965 and Dune was just beginning to gain popularity then so it’s a shame it wasn’t included. Who knows what radical review Sam would have had with that one! An index (some mistakes with Jules Verne titles mentioned) and bibliography are included. Original price $1.50, good quality paper. It would be helpful if someone found the title for the Russian novel cover pictured on page 238!
December 27, 2024
picked this one up at a used book store, I really enjoyed reading about mid-century sf from an author contemporary to the time. the text itself reads like a somewhat dry, somewhat catty blog post, which was a tone I really enjoyed to be honest.
can definitely see myself using the index of this book as a reference point the next time I dive into early sf. on a personal note: for some reason, this is the first book I've finished in like, ten years- so I see myself being fond of it for a long time.
can definitely see myself using the index of this book as a reference point the next time I dive into early sf. on a personal note: for some reason, this is the first book I've finished in like, ten years- so I see myself being fond of it for a long time.
August 18, 2022
Het boek doet te veel aan als een droge opsomming van feiten. Een aantal citaten voorkomt dat er niet doorheen te komen is. De inhoud is nu, 2022, enigszins gedateerd. Een dergelijk boek zou nu niet meer uitgegeven worden, daarvoor is de interesse van de boekhandel in science fiction inmiddels te klein.
October 3, 2018
I read this book a few years ago so don't recall much about it. It is an old study of science fiction. Contrary to the book description for this and the other 'Ace' edition, it is not in German, but is published in American English!
July 12, 2023
Para los que recién comienzan en en el tema.
July 26, 2010
This was a heavy book to go through, especially when riding a stationary bike, but it was interesting. Mr. Lundwall went through (and thoroughly) the beginnings of Sci/Fi including those writers now acknowledged as the beginning to the authors and magazines and critics and fans that were recognized as the beginning when they started.
I liked reading about old friends and enjoyed the thoroughness of the work, but I didn't like the US bashing. Mr. Lundwall seems to feel that while the US obviously is the leader in the amount we are certainly not the best. I respectfully disagree, we invented Sci/Fi and we know best what it is. I am glad so many other countries like it, but I do believe we set the definition. Mr. Lundwall admits that classic literature is not what SciFi is about, but he seems to want to put some of the tenants into it.
The other problem was the dated opinion. A rather long treatise on the state of women in SciFi criticized some of my favorite work. I think the viewpoint is skewed and a lack of understanding as to what was being said. While it is true that the Bug Eyed Monster set often put women in very 2-dimensional roles, it must be appreciated that the group is made up of stereotypes and as the BEM evolved so did the women.
The criticism of Anne McCaffrey was weird. While she is not a screaming feminist, I always felt her female characters (as well as her male) were well developed, respected and interesting. Always going a little farther than we were used to. Good SciFi!
So, while it was well researched (and I would like to get a hold of an up to date analysis, I think Mr. Lundwall missed on his analysis of the US and of women in SciFi.
I liked reading about old friends and enjoyed the thoroughness of the work, but I didn't like the US bashing. Mr. Lundwall seems to feel that while the US obviously is the leader in the amount we are certainly not the best. I respectfully disagree, we invented Sci/Fi and we know best what it is. I am glad so many other countries like it, but I do believe we set the definition. Mr. Lundwall admits that classic literature is not what SciFi is about, but he seems to want to put some of the tenants into it.
The other problem was the dated opinion. A rather long treatise on the state of women in SciFi criticized some of my favorite work. I think the viewpoint is skewed and a lack of understanding as to what was being said. While it is true that the Bug Eyed Monster set often put women in very 2-dimensional roles, it must be appreciated that the group is made up of stereotypes and as the BEM evolved so did the women.
The criticism of Anne McCaffrey was weird. While she is not a screaming feminist, I always felt her female characters (as well as her male) were well developed, respected and interesting. Always going a little farther than we were used to. Good SciFi!
So, while it was well researched (and I would like to get a hold of an up to date analysis, I think Mr. Lundwall missed on his analysis of the US and of women in SciFi.
June 27, 2015
A very informative, if dated (copyright 1971), book which offers a detailed analysis of the Science Fiction genre. Lundwall offers not only an in-depth review of the history of science fiction, but also gives a (at the time) contemporary sketch of the state of science fiction not only in the USA, which is the genre's most prominent market, but from countries from all across the globe.
April 24, 2010
A good disertation on SF's origins.
July 2, 2017
I picked this up in slightly tattered paperbook form for $4.95 at an awesome bookstore I happened into while exploring LA - the perfect and only way to pick up such a book. As an overview of Science Fiction I doubt it would have been great even in it's day, and now it is decidedly out of date and small in scope some 50 years after its release. But, the out-of-datedness lends it written-in-and-about-past-ages vibe, and the author does not take things seriously and keeps things moving at a brisk pace. It jumps around and has to many shoddy off-the-cuff analysis for me to really like it, but as a quick not overly close read I quite enjoyed it.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews