Dangerous Visions and New Worlds: Radical Science Fiction, 1950 to 1985

by Andrew Nette (Editor/Contributor), Iain McIntyre (Editor/Contributor), Rjurik Davidson

Much has been written about the “long Sixties,” the era of the late 1950s through the early 1970s. It was a period of major social change, most graphically illustrated by the emergence of liberatory and resistance movements focused on inequalities of class, race, gender, sexuality, and beyond, whose challenge represented a major shock to the political and social status quo. With its focus on speculation, alternate worlds and the future, science fiction became an ideal vessel for this upsurge of radical protest.

Dangerous Visions and New Worlds: Radical Science Fiction, 1950 to 1985 details, celebrates, and evaluates how science fiction novels and authors depicted, interacted with, and were inspired by these cultural and political movements in America and Great Britain. It starts with progressive authors who rose to prominence in the conservative 1950s, challenging the so-called Golden Age of science fiction and its linear narratives of technological breakthroughs and space-conquering male heroes. The book then moves through the 1960s, when writers, including those in what has been termed the New Wave, shattered existing writing conventions and incorporated contemporary themes such as modern mass media culture, corporate control, growing state surveillance, the Vietnam War, and rising currents of counterculture, ecological awareness, feminism, sexual liberation, and Black Power. The 1970s, when the genre reflected the end of various dreams of the long Sixties and the faltering of the postwar boom, is also explored along with the first half of the 1980s, which gave rise to new subgenres, such as cyberpunk.

Dangerous Visions and New Worlds contains over twenty chapters written by contemporary authors and critics, and hundreds of full-color cover images, including thirteen thematically organised cover selections. New perspectives on key novels and authors, such as Octavia Butler, Ursula K. Le Guin, Philip K. Dick, John Wyndham, Samuel Delany, J.G. Ballard, John Brunner, Judith Merril, Barry Malzberg, Johanna Russ, and many others are presented alongside excavations of topics, works, and writers who have been largely forgotten or undeservedly ignored.

Genres: Science Fiction, Books About Books, Essays, Literary Criticism, Fiction, Science Fiction Fantasy, Social Commentary

224 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2021

About the author

Andrew Nette is an award winning writer of fiction and non-fiction, pulp scholar, bibliophile, noir aficionado.

He is the author of three novels, Ghost Money, a crime story set in Cambodia in the mid 1990, Gunshine State and Orphan Road. His short fiction has appeared in a number of print and online publications, including Phnom Penh Noir and The Obama Inheritance: Fifteen Stories of Conspiracy Noir , which won the prestigious Anthony Award in the US for best crime anthology in 2018.

He is co-editor of three books on the history of midcentury pulp and paperback publishing for PM Press, Girl Gangs, Biker Boys, and Real Cool Cats: Pulp Fiction and Youth Culture, 1950 to 1980, Sticking it to the Man: Revolution and Counterculture in Pulp and Popular Fiction, 1956 to 1980, and Dangerous Visions and New Worlds: Radical Science Fiction, 1950-1980. Dangerous Visions and New Worlds won the 2022 Aurealis Convenors Award for Excellence and the Locus Magazine award for non-fiction, and was been nominated for a Hugo award for non-fiction.

His scholarly works are Rollerball (Liverpool University Press, 2018), a monograph about Norman Jewison’s 1975 dystopian classic, and Horwitz Publications, Pulp Fiction and the Rise of Australian Paperback (Anthem Press, 2022).

His latest non-fiction book, co-edited with New York critic Samm Deighan, is Revolution in 35mm: Political Violence and Resistance in Cinema, from the Arthouse to the Grindhouse, 1960-1990 .

He writes a regular newsletter under his name on Substack.

Reviews

[David Agranoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Let me start by saying I think this is an amazing book and anyone with an interest in the history of Science Fiction, radical fiction, or (Proto) bizarro should read this book. I like this book tons and intend to have Andrew Nettie on Dickheads. Anything critical is simply because this is a topic I feel very strongly about and most readers will not have the same nitpicks as me. As some who studies and reads books about this era constantly, I am almost too close to the subject.

So, I should say I think this is a really valuable book for anyone interested in Science Fiction, radical fiction, and weird fiction in general. I am stoked that the book has a focus on the years 1950 to 1985. That is the sweet spot for the genre. Don’t get me wrong I enjoy some Golden age stuff and certainly, Judith Merill who is profiled here was starting to write radical fiction as early as the late 40s right out of the gate of her career. Some of the really transitional radical speculative works come from the decades of the 50s. If you asked Philip K Dick he would have told you that no one wanted anything different or mold-breaking.

This book is the story of this transformation. In doing so the book has articles, profiles, and biographies of some of the radical voices. There are excellent profiles on Judith Merill, J.G. Ballard, and Octavia Butler. Perhaps the most interesting to me was the R.A. Lafferty article by Nick Mamatas that was the only author that I had never heard of before. I also enjoyed the one on Sam Delany and his commune years which gave me some added context to his classic Dhalgren.

I know it would be impossible to write them all, but there is a very short piece of Malzberg, better than nothing but I would like more on him. No Harlan Ellison profile? I know he could be a prick but it seems missing. Norman Spinrad and John Brunner's cover art are all over the book, their novels get mentioned but they are two of my favorites so I am going to be disappointed. That might not be a problem for most readers.

There are also lots of great essays on various topics. I found the essays on the Speculative fuckbooks and the black radical novels to be the most enlightening. The comparison between Leguin and Heinlein’s classic novels was cool. Sure there are topics I wish were a little expanded like eco-radical fiction of the era and proto Cyberpunk like John Brunner’s Shockwave Rider and John Shirley’s City Come-A-Walkin felt missing. That said I was constantly looking up books on Goodreads and adding them to my want-to-read shelves and that is a mark of a great genre history book.

Some of the essays were more academic, some were more pictures with a short text. The whole book looks cool at times it has a coffee table look with all the awesome cover art, combined with all the great articles it is really a cool thing to have. The book could have been three times the length and still felt like it was touching the surface I think Nettie and McIntyre did a fantastic job.
Anyone who is a student of the genre and this exciting period should check this book out!

[Dan Trefethen · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a peculiar book.

After a serviceable overview of science fiction in the 1950s and 60s, it dives into separate themed chapters written by different people. This results in some people covering the same ground as others (especially in regards to Michael Moorcock and the magazine 'New Worlds'), but especially some questionable choices on what to focus on.

There are two chapters on different obscure books extolling race revolution in America. While this relates to racial tensions of the time, these books seemed to have admittedly no impact on the genre. All I can tell is that the authors wanted to raise the level of awareness of these books sixty years later. There are some good chapters on important Black writers Samuel Delany and Octavia Butler, however.

While there were rapid changes in sexual mores during that time, a chapter focusing on pornographic books that had a thin veneer of science fiction seems out of place. Again, these books didn't have a huge impact on the field except where written by SF authors (such as Philip Jose Farmer) who were widely read anyhow.

A chaper on Roger Zelazny focuses on his post-apocalyptic road trip novel 'Damnation Alley', its media treatments and its influence on other writers, while ignoring the impact of Zelazny's other writings.

All in all, a curious and unbalanced selection of choices. Not recommended.

[Corvus · Rating 4 out of 5]

I discovered the existence of Dangerous Visions and New Worlds when a friend of mine forwarded me an email for the related "all star radical science fiction symposium" of the same name. I have loved the multitude of ways that countless science fiction authors have used their craft to raise awareness, create understanding, envision newer better (or worse) worlds, or to just shake up the status quo. I am less familiar with older science fiction of the era highlighted in this book than I would like to be, so this seemed like a great place to find ways to include more of it.

Part of my reasoning for being less familiar is that I often associated older popular scifi with random (white straight) dudes fighting mythical monsters and rescuing damsels in distress which to me was too much like a lot of older (and current) fantasy as well. This is referred to by authors in the book as the "golden age/old guard" of science fiction. While there were definitely authors creating works outside of those tropes, they were not as common, popular, or given much attention due to heavy censorship from conservative pulp magazines among other things. Following this was the "new wave" which is the focus of this book. The new wave was full of talented authors seeking to honor or motivate people to participate in or support leftist political movements along with the entertainment that comes from enjoying their stories. I was hoping to discover some new names and titles from this book and it definitely delivered (which you can likely see in my goodreads feed full of recent to-read list editions.)

It is a strange task to review literary criticism and analysis when the texts are discussing books and stories that I have not read. I was born in '82 and grew up with SF reading parents- especially my
dad- and books throughout the house, but didn't get into SF heavily myself much
until college. I would say I have read about 5% of the stuff included in this book, if that. Some entries managed discussion without spoilers while others had to include the whole story in order for their analysis to make the most sense. I found it interesting that another reviewer disliked some of the entries that I liked most- though I see his point that focusing on obscure texts with little influence on wider society may not have been what some readers were looking for. This fits into the whole hit or miss world of anthologies where one person's hit is another's miss. That can be a weakness or strength, but I think it works for this book.

One of the lovely things about this book that really sets it apart from many academic and adjacent anthologies is its inclusion of vintage book covers of the books and stories discussed. It was a great choice to add this visual element and draw the reader into the time period. Some entries are more academic in style than others, so fantastical illustrations breaking that up was nice. It also reminded me of when I was a child artist and one of the jobs I wanted was to draw book covers or comic book cards because, at the time, that and museum art were the only jobs I thought the fine arts provided.

My favorite entries in the book were (without subtitles for brevity:) Flying Saucers and Black Power, 'We Change and the Whole World Changes,' Speculative Fuckbooks, Eco-Death, Stepford Wives and Supercomputers, The Stars my Destination, A New Wave in the East, Performative Gender and SF, The Moons of Leguin and Heinlein, and Black Star. There's a tie for first place between Performative Gender and SF: The Strange but True Case of Alice Sheldon and James Tiptree Jr and The Moons of Leguin and Heinlein which have both kept me
thinking since I put the book down days ago. I actually did my high school senior reading project on Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land because it was the only SF book on the school's list that I hadn't heard of an my mom told me it had weird sexuality in it. My only other exposure to him was the Starship Troopers movie that I saw as a parody of militaristic authoritarianism. I actually didn't know how conservative he was until a class in college.


There were a couple things I was disappointed with. One is that Harlan Ellison is spoken about with great praise and no criticism by many authors. I admit, there were a few sections I skipped over either due to lack of interest or because there was a novel I didn't want spoiled, but for the majority that I read, this was the case. Ellison's legacy includes great creativity and strides in SF, but also misconduct and abuse. The other thing that bothered me was a section on animals. I was excited by the premise then disappointed by the length and content. I'm left wondering why it was even included. The worst part is that the author discusses animals as "space explorers" creating the same narrative of those who abused them that makes them seem like willing participants. There are a lot of heinous things about animal exploitation that haunt me, but one of the ones that does the most is the idea of someone being sent into infinite terrifying blackness through massive horrifying explosions, left alone to die surrounded by nothing but space. We should never discuss these abuses of dogs, rats, chimps, guinea pigs, and even fishes in ways that make them seem like a Disney fairytales or heroic space faring legends- especially not in a book about the liberatory nature of science fiction.

This book (and the rad online symposium) did a good job of combining interests in artistic entertainment, analysis, and social justice. I was introduced to some great history and now I have a whole new intimidating reading list that I will never complete in my lifetime. But, it's still fun to try.

This was also posted to my blog.

[Michael Ritchie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I started reading sci-fi in 1967 so this book should have been right up my alley. I've read several of the books and anthologies covered (Dangerous Visions and England Swings SF were important works in my development as an SF fan), and I still prefer the term "SF" which can refer to either science fiction or speculative fiction, though no one seems to use it anymore. But rather than being a history of the era, this is a scattershot collection of essays on aspects of "radical" Sf of the time. The coverage of Octavia Butler, James Tiptree Jr., and Norman Spinrad is good; the coverage of Harlan Ellison, Michael Moorcock, Judith Merrill and Samuel Delany could use beefing up (there is a whole chapter on Delany but it focuses an autobiographical book about his time in a commune and doesn't talk as much about his SF work as it should). Errors crop up here and there: I was working in bookstores when Robert McCammon's Swan Song came out (not really of the 'radical' era)and it was most definitely not marketed as a Young Adult novel. Also, Stephen King? Really? I liked the pictorial aspect of the book--lot of full-color book covers, but otherwise strictly a library loan, not for purchasing.

[Rick Keeney · Rating 5 out of 5]

Recommended specifically to those readers-both new, and time worn-interested in the evolution of this impactful genre. This is a valuable critical and biographical artifact. Important writers, editors, and two landmark publications are presented in interesting and informative essays. It’s a beautiful work. Full color cover art and author photos jump off the page. There’s something here for fans and pros alike. A truly worthwhile investment. Very highly recommended.

[Emma Goldman · Rating 5 out of 5]

I backed this book, and it was money well invested. Although some writers of the period are omitted or only briefly mentioned, it covers in great detail the major names. In some cases, exhaustively. Others, exhaustingly. I was personally most interested in the female authors, which I have read widely, from Herland through Native Tongue to all of Le Guin's work. Even The Wanderground got a photo of its cover, from the republication by The Women's Press, although I had bought an original US copy from the sadly lost Silver Moon bookshop in London. The detailed piece on Woman on the Edge of Time, and on Le Guin's Dispossessed, as contrasted with Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, were very absorbing. The beautiful collection of book covers, showing the changing styles over time for the same book, are particularly valuable.
All I want now is a similar treatment of fantasy books!

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the third of three fascinating, lushly-illustrated books about vintage mid-20th Century paperbacks edited by Andrew Nette and Iain McIntyre and, like the other two, I consider it a must-have for pulp fiction fans. In the case of DANGEROUS VISIONS AND NEW WORLDS, it’s also a must-have for fans of science fiction. I was an avid reader of science fiction magazines and paperbacks during the years covered by this book and I still vividly remember the key cultural changes that were happening in those decades. The articles, written by more than twenty knowledgeable commentators, shed new light on how science fiction stories, periodicals and novels evolved from and reflected those changes in general. They also include great information about both some of the most notable writers who were in the vanguard of that evolution, such as Philip K. Dick, Roger Zelazny, J.G. Ballard, Harlan Ellison and John Wyndham — and, about some of the now nearly forgotten ones who deserve greater recognition, such as Elizabeth Holden, Mick Farren and William Bloom. Each of the different contributors have their own views about the authors, books and social changes they discuss. Every article is well-researched and chock full of facts. Since some also delve into literary criticism and social commentary, you may not agree with all of their opinions. But, if you are a somewhat knowledgeable fan of mid-20th Century science fiction and history, that’s part of the fun of reading this book. For example, I understand the reasons for, but don’t totally agree with, some of the commentators’ views about ASTOUNDING/ANALOG Editor John Campbell, who has fallen out of favor in recent years for not supporting the socially progressive “New Wave” trend in science fiction. However, I found the commentary about him fascinating and thought-provoking. In fact, the commentary about the social context of the stories, magazines, books, writers and editors discussed is one of the things that elevates DANGEROUS VISIONS AND NEW WORLDS above simply a collection of short reviews. Another is the fact that the book is illuminated with hundreds of high-quality, full-color cover scans. It gets 5-stars and an enthusiastic recommendation from me – as did the first two books in this series, GIRL GANGS, BIKER BOYS, AND REAL COOL CATS: PULP FICTION AND YOUTH CULTURE, 1950 TO 1980 and REVOLUTION AND COUNTERCULTURE IN PULP AND POPULAR FICTION, 1950 TO 1980.

[Alvaro Zinos-Amaro · Rating 5 out of 5]

My full review: https://locusmag.com/2021/10/alvaro-z...

[Skjam! · Rating 5 out of 5]

Subtitled “Radical Science Fiction, 1950-1985” this book is a collection of essays about how science fiction (or perhaps “speculative fiction” is a better phrase) changed and adapted to reflect the changing issues and social concerns of the Cold War period, and in particular, the “New Wave” of writers and books of the time. It is largely confined to American and British SF of the time, with the exception of an essay on the Soviet Union’s Strugatsky brothers.

The book is named after two of the iconic publications of the time: Dangerous Visions. an anthology of taboo-breaking stories edited by Harlan Ellison, and New Worlds, a British science fiction magazine edited by Michael Moorcock, which featured the first publication of many New Wave authors and stories. The latter has its own essay, but the first does not, though it’s often mentioned due to many authors being represented in it.

After the general introduction, the essays start with how the Vietnam War and reactions to it caused and exemplified the differences between the older style and New Wave science fiction and shifted the way war was depicted in the genre. The final essay is about “The Women’s Press”, a short-lived publisher that specialized in books by women, including numerous works of science fiction. In between, subjects vary from two novels about black revolution, through drugs and their effect on/depiction in fiction of the time, to dystopias.

There are essays about important authors like Octavia Butler, James Tiptree, Jr. and John Wyndham. Books very familiar to me, like Bug Jack Barron by Norman Spinrad, and ones I’ve never heard of, like the Phenix line of gay science fiction porn.

Almost all the illustrations are the covers of books related to the various essays. Many are rare editions, so a lot of fun to look at. The essay about The Green Death, a Doctor Who novelization, seems to be mostly an excuse to print a bunch of Doctor Who covers, but if you thought being political was only a “New Who” thing, you’re sorely mistaken.

One of my favorites in this volume is a compare and contrast between The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein and The Dispossessed by Ursula K. LeGuin. There’s a lot of surface similarity, but very different philosophies.

There are acknowledgements, author bios, and an index.

This is a fine book for science fiction fans, especially those interested in the New Wave movement. It would do especially well as a gift for a relative or friend you know is into this sort of thing. And in the spirit of the thing, consider purchasing this either directly from PM Press or a local independent bookstore.

[Norman Cook · Rating 2 out of 5]

2022 Hugo Award finalist - Best Related Work

I wanted to like this book, but in the end it was just ok. The book is a series of essays by various authors on various subjects relating to science fiction from the late 1950s through the 1970s, the so-called New Wave era. This overview is a nice introduction to the period, with some excellent essays that really delve into their subject matters. Other chapters are much more superficial or cover topics that are mostly inconsequential. Some of this is due to each essay only being about 10 pages, not really long enough to do deep dives before the next essay comes along. For example, there are chapters on Philip K. Dick, Michael Moorcock, Barry Malzberg, James Tiptree Jr. (Alice Sheldon), and Octavia Butler, to name a few famous writers covered, but most of these only skim the surfaces of their lives and sf outputs. There are certainly whole books about these authors and a survey like this can't get into all their detailed lives, but I just kept wanting more. For example, the essay on Roger Zelazny focuses almost entirely on his novel Damnation Alley and glosses over his much more influential work. There are chapters devoted to single, obscure books (The Black Commandos by Joseph Denis Jackson, Afro-6 by Hank Lopez, Andra by Louise Lawrence, Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy) alongside chapters crammed with one or two line reviews of much better known and influential works by authors such as R. A. Lafferty, the Stugatsky Brothers, and J. G. Ballard. The essays on porn and gay influences in sf are full of obscure references to books that I can't imagine had much, if any, real influence on mainstream sf. The book is filled with thumbnail cover art from many of the subject books. There are some proofreading errors (not too many, but noticeable). The idea for this book is excellent; I wish it was more in-depth.

[D J Rout · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book covers the advent of i>New Worlds magazine and the era in which it flourished, and in which Harlan Ellison's Dangerous Visions came out, and to some extent covers their influence, but talks more about authors who influenced the magazine and book.

The quality of criticism is very up and down. The articles on Barry N. Malzberg and Essex House Press were interesting as I knew little about the former and nothing about the latter, but the article on J G Ballard damns him with faint praise and the article on John Wyndham contains so many errors it was probably written by a thirteen-year-old using hints from ChatGPT.

Many of the articles are focussed on the sexuality of the authors or the sexuality covered in their stories, so there are references to Samuel R Delaney ad nauseam. If you're the sort of person who is still impressed by authors being gay, you might give this more stars than I have. Fair enough, but skip the article on Wyndham if you have ever read any Wyndham.

[Matthew Lloyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of thirty-seven essays on the era of science fiction incorporating the 'New Wave', Dangerous Visions and New Worlds covers a vast array of subjects, authors, and ideas from a vibrant period of science fiction. There are two kinds of essay here: the more discursive, sometime quite academic, essays on authors, novels, or themes; and the shorter, catalogue-type essays by the editors which briefly describe a bunch of novels on certain themes. Overall, one is left with a sense of the great variety of themes and ideas on display in the science fiction of the period.

As this volume is a multi-author collection, there is quite a large degree of repetition between chapters. This is especially true of pivotal events in the history of science fiction in the era, such as Michael Moorcock's editorship of New Worlds magazine and the various newsworthy happenings that accompanied his tenure at the magazine. At times, I wondered if I would have preferred to read a more straightforward history of the New Wave. But such a book would be quite different to what is on display here: many glimpses, some deeper than others, of a significant and varied period.

I read this book mostly on my very old kindle 3, which is from before the age of colour in ebooks. As such, the great number of very interesting covers were not displayed well. Even in the desktop and phone apps, which I used extensively to look at these covers, are less impressive than I imagine the coffee table version of this book to be. If you're interested, and a hardcopy is possible for you, I recommend it.

[boocia]

this was a bit more of a coffee table book than i expected, both in implementation (oversized, two column articles, lots of pictures w captions) and sort of in depth.

the essays were less critical and more just snippets of biographical and historical information than i guess i had hoped for, but for what it was trying to do it was fun and fine! i definitely feel like i have a stronger understandable of the historical throughlines and waves within this era than i had before, and i am v appreciative of that fact. i think after gleaning that though, the more analytical or topical ones (on women in SF, on homosexuals in SF) felt pretty chill and uncomplicated (negative) and all blurred together in a mush of almost-nothingness.

anyway my fav takeaway was just getting the impression that the people writing 'new wave' science fiction were also: in the UK underground punk scene, wanted to be 60s musicians, were tied with the pulp erotica of the era because it paid well, and tied with indie/underground publications in general where they could write more erotic or edgy work because of the nature of obscenity laws at the time; sort of intrinsically had to work for and participate in a community of likeminded people to get their work published, not just as science fiction writers, but sort of as advant-garde makers generally. i also just loved learning that two men were invited to a women and SF symposium; james tiptree (pseudonym for alice sheldon) and delaney. just fun !

anyway this is pretty skippable imo but alright, cute.

[Benjamin Fasching-Gray · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of short essays by various authors is bound to be uneven, and personally I am more interested in some subjects than others, so it might have been better to just read the essays that look interesting and to read this out of order. Instead, I read it cover to cover and was annoyed when context needed in one essay repeated something from a previous essay. The organization is more or less chronological, and I found the late 70s through the 80s essays towards the back of the book included more works and references that I want to read or am curious about. Left leaning or experimental male authors in the 1960s were either already familiar to me, or too macho, or too hippy to get me excited, although interesting. Most of the artwork here are book covers, which of course saves a lot of copyright permission work, but I would have preferred captions that name the artists. These covers are great works of art that are an integral part of this book, and deserve more credit. Especially if this book is aimed at collectors. It sure felt that way, with kind of fanzine writing occasionally giving way to more academic work. As things get more afrofuturist and feminist, I got more interested and frequently had to add titles to my to-read list. I think younger people will get more out of this than I did. I would also recommend it to older fans of asimov and heinlein who haven’t read more recent SF. I am glad PM Press put this together, thanks!

[Ed Erwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A mixed bag of writings about various SF from the 50s to 80s. There are multiple authors and each approaches their subject of interest in very different ways. It is definitely not a complete and coherent account of the period.

Some articles have a frustratingly narrow focus. The chapter on Samuel Delany talks mostly about his memoirs, not much about his SF. The chapter on Zelazny is only about one book: "Damnation Alley" and its influence. And so forth.

The tone is a bit academic, though not so much that you need to know current academic "Theory" to understand it.

There were interesting parts and I learned some stuff, so I can still recommend it, lukewarmly. I enjoyed learning about "Speculative F*ckbooks". I wish I could find some of the sexy gay SF books of Peter Tuesday Hughes. They are out-of-print and hard to find. Probably not really worth my time, but now I'm curious!

[I.D. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This felt like the weakest of the three books in this series so far mostly because of the scattered focus and curious over emphasis on ultra obscure books by “minorities.” I totally get the desire to champion under represented authors and groups, but if you forgot to talk about the major players of the time, then you’ve majorly missed out. I understand the distaste some of the contributors have to people like Heinlein but you can’t (mostly) ignore him (apart from comparing one book of his to Le Guin). Ditto Harry Harrison etc. Heck Harlan Ellison is only mentioned as an editor and champion of people when he deserves an entire chapter.
Oh yeah calling Robert McCammon’s Swan Song YA is just ???
Overall not a bad book, but hardly authoritative.

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Completely brilliant analysis of classic RADICAL scifi, that basically explains that ALL GREAT sci-fi is essentially radical.

I am already well versed in the likes of the Strugatsky Bros, Octavia Butler, Mick Farren, JG Ballard, JOhn Brunner and all the Mirrorshade cyberpunks from the 80s (Bruce Sterling, John Shirley, K.W Jeter, Lew Shiner, Willam Gibson, Stephenson etc..), but writers like Delany, Ira Levin (!?), Zelazny and Hank Lopez were all revelations for this reader!!

Essential stuff!

[RDax Adams · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful collection of articles covering the SF from 1950 to 1985. Brought back many memories, and I have repurchased some old favourites I have forgotten and books I somehow missed.

The book is lovingly illustrated, and the articles though provoking. If you are interested in the history of SF and are not a raging Nazi this is the book for you.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this would be my favorite of the three volumes in this ‘series,’ but I didn’t think that it went in depth as the other two volumes did or cover as many titles/authors in depth which was a bit sad. For the authors it did cover, it did an excellent job, I especially enjoyed the pieces in Leguin, Butler, and the comparisons between Leguin and Heinlein, but I would have liked a bit more.

[Drew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A “coffee table” book that has amazing photos of great SF paperbacks. But, it also includes some very insightful essays and analysis of the great era of SF known as the New Wave, an era I’ve been deeply engrossed in during the past year or so.

[Lori · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 stars. Like most books of collected works, this had its high and low points. Some of the essays are very informative, well written, concise, and interesting. Some...are not. I feel like it suffered from the inclusion of everything including the kitchen sink, whether it was interesting or not.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is essentially a collection of essays so the quality of "chapters" can be mixed and it's far from being a year by year cataloging of the genre, but I still found some interesting stuff in here. I particularly liked the photographs of various editions of the books discussed.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good point of entry to histories of a particular period. The essays cover a wide range of topics and personalities, some better than others, in an attempt to bring order out of chaos. Enertaining. One thing, it reminded me that I'm not as well read as I th0ught I was.

[Shaun · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent introduction to this section of the science fiction genre. I would like to say it blew up my TBR list, but many of the books discussed in it are out of print, and hard to come by in some cases.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Features some very strange science fiction, some of which I had never heard of.

And this is science fiction, so it was already strange in the first place.

Well worth reading.

[Siobhan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Collection of essays, some of which are repetitive.

[Tanya]

Wonderfully academic in its approach. I dabbled with this book.

[John Randolph · Rating 5 out of 5]

On page 77.