The Ultimate Guide to Science Fiction

by David Pringle

Describes and evaluates more than 3,000 science fiction works, including novels, short story collections by individual authors, and anthologies

Genres: Science Fiction, Reference, Books About Books, Fantasy

407 pages, Hardcover

First published November 8, 1990

Reviews

[Robert Adam Gilmour · Rating 5 out of 5]

Note: the first edition is from 1990 and the second from 1995, there was a third edition planned but it never happened. Pringle written several guides and encyclopedias so make sure you get the titles and editions right.

I really admired Pringle's books in the 100 Best Books series, and this is surprisingly fun for a book arranged like an encyclopedia. Pringle made it an A-Z by book titles because he thought (or maybe he knows?) that people are more likely to recall a book title than an author's name (the authors are indexed at the back). I wish he hadn't done this because a large chunk of the book is entries (for alternate titles, sequels and supposedly minor books) referring you to other entries with a proper overview. I wish he trusted readers to use an index for book titles and arranged the main text by author name, it would have been so much more streamlined. But still, it's surprisingly fun, though I might not recommend it to someone who doesn't know at least a quarter of the authors in the book.

The ratings go from no stars to four stars, if my memory serves me right, it seems like there was less than 40 books to get 4 stars. Pringle quotes other critics extensively, I tend not to like mocking reviews but David Langford, Christopher Priest and some others had a real talent for putdowns, I'm kind of amazed that back when the genre was smaller and everyone knew everyone it didn't stop them from writing these insults. I get the impression gore was a turnoff for Pringle.

Some minor disappointments: Jo Clayton is nowhere to be seen. No Dave Duncan (not to be confused with the earlier David Duncan who is in here), admittedly he written more fantasy at this time. Sharon Webb and Sharon Baker didn't have a huge following but I wish they had been in here too. I don't know why he gave Edgar Allan Poe's science fiction collection full marks, I consider a lot of that his worst work. David Drake gets rated lower than I expected. One of the major additions of the second edition is film/tv novelizations, the overwhelming majority seem to be the dull hackwork you would expect so I don't think this was a great use of space, I wish he had just featured the exceptional ones. I'm amazed by how many film adaptations I've never heard of.

I'm really dismayed by the frequent difference in contents between USA and UK short story collections, this is a collecting nightmare. Ian Watson's body of work sounds more fascinating than ever. George Alec Effinger comes off looking really well too. Larry Niven seems to be a much better short story writer than a novelist? Leo Szilard wrote science fiction! It's speculated that Stuart Gordon changed his name from Richard because he didn't want to be confused with another writer, but now he's overshadowed by a film director of the same name. Greg Bear's Queen Of Angels gets a rave review that suggests it's one of his best works (never heard of it before). Uncensored Man by Arthur Sellings and Web Of Angels by John M. Ford also sound great. I'm on the lookout for James Kahn too.

James Grazier's Runts Of 61 Cygni C is called "Hilariously bad, one of the prime contenders for the title of Worst SF Novel Ever Published". It seems to be about a garden of cyclops people having "endless games of sex" as the cover boasts. Hope I can find this one. Thankyou again to David Pringle.

[Jlawrence · Rating 3 out of 5]

Capsule reviews and rankings of over three thousand science fiction titles, each given a rating from zero to four stars. Very fun to browse. Pringle obviously couldn't be familiar with *all* these titles, so he wisely quotes from published reviews a fair amount. Unfortunately, sometimes it's painfully apparent he's relying on a secondary source even when he doesn't use a quote. For instance, his "plot summary" for Frank Herbert's "Destination: Void" is actually a description of what happens on the very last page of that book! This made me wonder how much of that goes on for books I'm completely unfamiliar with. That's why I dock one star from what would otherwise be a 4-star rating.

Nonetheless, I had fun making a to-read list out of things that sounded interesting (I often did cross-checking with Goodreads and Amazon reviews for titles that sounded intriguing). I'm only importing that to-read list piecemeal to Goodreads, as it's rather huge.

Also note it was published in 1990, so it's missing the most recent two decades of science fiction writing.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Terrific guide to SF novels. Printed in 1991. This one could use an up-to-date companion.

[Becky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great guide to sci-fi novels, short story collections, and anthologies. The star ratings were very helpful and accurate. Published in 1990 so obviously it’s dated. Would have been 5 stars had it not been missing the past 35 years.

[Graham Vingoe · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is now outdated and little more than a listing of 3000 sf works up to 1990, but when you try JUST looking at one or 2 entires it soon becomes addictive, and you end up reading the whole thing and enjoying every minute.

[Stuart · Rating 5 out of 5]

A massive collection of SF book reviews with 5-star scale ratings. Probably only for hard-core SF fans, but what a great assemblage of reviews of over 3,000 books, more than anyone can possibly read in a lifetime. Unfortunately ends at 1990, so is a bit dated now.

[Gilles · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un ouvrage de référence :

Un survol de 3 000 livres de science-fiction, du début du genre à l'année 1990 (date de publication), avec le titre, l'auteur, la date de publication, les titres alternatifs, un bref résumé, une très brève critique et une cote de 0 à 4 étoiles.
Pour la cote, et la critique,, il faut pondérer, car l'auteur adore la nouvelle vague (new wave) et a souvent tendance à prioriser le style avant l'histoire, alors que je préfère, de loin, l'histoire, et les idées, au style. Ce qui fait que, pour moi, certains livres d'auteurs, comme Asimov, Herbert, Clarke, Bear, etc. sont sous-cotés, alors que c'est le contraire pour des livres d'auteurs comme Malzberg et Sladek. Mais l'écart n'est pas trop grand en général.
Donc, j'ai bien aimé et je vais le garder proche, pour consultation, avant certains de mes futurs achats et lectures.

[Forked Radish · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you're more interested in eroticism than science this book for you. But at least the synopses are good, though he sometimes gives away a book's ending. Two stars may seem parsimonious, but it's the same the author gave Card's "Ender's Game", which he describes as "morally disquieting". A statement revealing the author's bias as to the proper morality of fiction, which I find morally disquieting. He also gave only three stars to Herbert's "Dune", the same that he gave to Niven's "Ringworld" rubbish.

[Janne Järvinen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Starting to get dated (1990), but for the classics, this really might be the ultimate guide.

This guide provides short descriptions and a star rating for over three thousand books. The books are sorted in alphabetical order by title.

[Carol]

useful information on books and authors