What do you think?
Rate this book
Science Fiction: History-Science-Vision
GREAT CLASSIC SCI-FI NOVEL
268 pages, Paperback
First published May 19, 1977
4 people are currently reading
80 people want to read
About the author
Robert Scholes
82 books17 followersRobert E. Scholes was an American literary critic and theorist. He is known for his ideas on fabulation and metafiction.
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
May 21, 2014
As the subtitle suggests, this book is divided into three parts. First, and comprising about half of the book, is a history of science fiction, up to the publication date of 1977. This focuses primarily on literature, but also spends some time on SF movies, TV, and comics. As is often the case when people who care deeply about a field undertake to write a history of that field, the authors' opinions are far more entertaining than the recitation of names, dates, and plot synopses. Some examples:
On A.E.van Vogt:
"He is a careless and forgetful writer, who plunges on with the story, hoping to drag the careless and forgetful reader along with him. [...] Given sufficient room, van Vogt destroys the basis of his own story, and is forced to provide increasingly preposterous explanations for increasingly absurd behavior. This is not fiction for adults."
On Isaac Asimov:
"In some ways his work fits the stereotype of science fiction in the minds of the 'literati' -- in that his robots are as interesting as his people, and the depths of human feeling are closed to him."
On Theodore Sturgeon:
"Sturgeon, of course, made one other contribution that helped to gild the Golden Age. He made language itself important. He made style count. [...]This kind of care for the patterning of language itself was new to science fiction when Sturgeon began to practise it."
On Ray Bradbury:
"He specializes in ordinary landscapes, especially those of the Norman Rockwell, Saturday Evening Post Midwest -- which change into sites of nameless horror. He has borrowed the externals of science fiction to disguise and make more convincing his magical preoccupations. Though much acclaimed, his books have worn less well than others [...]. The sentimentality, the too easy liberal moralizing, have been overtaken by events."
The middle section of the book, which discusses science as it relates to SF, is by far the weakest part. Not only is the material largely out of date (unsurprising in a 1977 book), but it's rife with errors that were errors even by the knowledge of 1977. Only rarely does this section have anything to say that's interesting or enlightening.
The final section of the book, "Visions," is further divided into two parts, "Forms and Themes" and "Ten Representative Novels." The first of these looks at some of the recurring themes of SF, and is reasonably interesting. But it's in the final section that the book really shines. The commentary and analysis of ten classic novels of SF included some of the best, most interesting, and most insightful writing on those novels I've seen anywhere. The "Ten Representative Novels" includes Frankenstein, The Time Machine, Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, Stapledon's Star Maker, A Canticle for Leibowitz, and The Left Hand of Darkness. Again and again as I read this section I was struck by the depth and sensitivity of Scholes' and Rabkin's critical comments. Even when I disagreed with some of their interpretations, I felt enriched by the reading.
On A.E.van Vogt:
"He is a careless and forgetful writer, who plunges on with the story, hoping to drag the careless and forgetful reader along with him. [...] Given sufficient room, van Vogt destroys the basis of his own story, and is forced to provide increasingly preposterous explanations for increasingly absurd behavior. This is not fiction for adults."
On Isaac Asimov:
"In some ways his work fits the stereotype of science fiction in the minds of the 'literati' -- in that his robots are as interesting as his people, and the depths of human feeling are closed to him."
On Theodore Sturgeon:
"Sturgeon, of course, made one other contribution that helped to gild the Golden Age. He made language itself important. He made style count. [...]This kind of care for the patterning of language itself was new to science fiction when Sturgeon began to practise it."
On Ray Bradbury:
"He specializes in ordinary landscapes, especially those of the Norman Rockwell, Saturday Evening Post Midwest -- which change into sites of nameless horror. He has borrowed the externals of science fiction to disguise and make more convincing his magical preoccupations. Though much acclaimed, his books have worn less well than others [...]. The sentimentality, the too easy liberal moralizing, have been overtaken by events."
The middle section of the book, which discusses science as it relates to SF, is by far the weakest part. Not only is the material largely out of date (unsurprising in a 1977 book), but it's rife with errors that were errors even by the knowledge of 1977. Only rarely does this section have anything to say that's interesting or enlightening.
The final section of the book, "Visions," is further divided into two parts, "Forms and Themes" and "Ten Representative Novels." The first of these looks at some of the recurring themes of SF, and is reasonably interesting. But it's in the final section that the book really shines. The commentary and analysis of ten classic novels of SF included some of the best, most interesting, and most insightful writing on those novels I've seen anywhere. The "Ten Representative Novels" includes Frankenstein, The Time Machine, Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, Stapledon's Star Maker, A Canticle for Leibowitz, and The Left Hand of Darkness. Again and again as I read this section I was struck by the depth and sensitivity of Scholes' and Rabkin's critical comments. Even when I disagreed with some of their interpretations, I felt enriched by the reading.
April 6, 2018
A genuinely interesting read.
March 23, 2020
Un llibre imprescindible per a qualsevol aficionat de la ciència-ficció. Explica la història i les temàtiques de forma didàctica i instructiva. Els únics però és que potser de vegades fa massa judicis de valor (que també està bé, perquè et permet veure els autors de manera crítica) i que és un llibre antic que només arriba fins als anys 70.
October 20, 2025
Has some genuinely great insight into the history of science fiction but as the book goes on it did less and less to justify the time spend reading it. If you are interested in Sci-Fi it could be a good introduction into the history and the critical reads of pre-1970s, but the first section of the book is the only part I would recommend putting time into.
Read
March 13, 2022Read for dissertation
Read
November 5, 2017اشتريته أثناء وجودي بمحافظة الأقصر، عندما كنت أعمل هناك لمدة عام.
يتميز الكتاب بأنه يضم مقالات على لسان متخصصين في الخيال العلمي، عاشوا في النصف الثاني من القرن العشرين.
تحمل هذه النقطة ميزة وعيبًا.
الميزة، أنك تسمع أراء عن تلك الحقبة، بصوت متخصصين يعيشون فيها، ولا يزالوا معجونون بـ "تقلب حالاتها".
العيب: أنها لا تقارن بشمولية كتابات المؤلفين الذين تبعوهم، حيث تصير مهمة اللاحقين أسهل دائمًا في التأريخ، بحكم أنهم يروا الماضي بنظرة أوسع، من الأعلى، بعد أن يهدأ الغبار.
المشكلة الأكبر لهذا الكتاب، أنني قرأته -مباشرة- بعد (دليل كامبريدج للخيال العلمي).
بالتالي.. فرضت المقارنة الظالمة نفسها.
يتميز الكتاب بأنه يضم مقالات على لسان متخصصين في الخيال العلمي، عاشوا في النصف الثاني من القرن العشرين.
تحمل هذه النقطة ميزة وعيبًا.
الميزة، أنك تسمع أراء عن تلك الحقبة، بصوت متخصصين يعيشون فيها، ولا يزالوا معجونون بـ "تقلب حالاتها".
العيب: أنها لا تقارن بشمولية كتابات المؤلفين الذين تبعوهم، حيث تصير مهمة اللاحقين أسهل دائمًا في التأريخ، بحكم أنهم يروا الماضي بنظرة أوسع، من الأعلى، بعد أن يهدأ الغبار.
المشكلة الأكبر لهذا الكتاب، أنني قرأته -مباشرة- بعد (دليل كامبريدج للخيال العلمي).
بالتالي.. فرضت المقارنة الظالمة نفسها.
May 16, 2014
9: Great lecture series about the history of science-fiction.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews