The History of Science Fiction [Paperback]

I've already been familiar with Robert's previous book on SF (an introduction to the genre published in 2000), so when I found out he's written a survey of the history of the genre, I was at once interested. Having read most of it (I skipped the early history), I've found it fully satisfactory. It's very readable, at once academic and entertaining, with brilliant occasional flashes of ironic British humour (e.g. when he expresses his disgust with the cheesy Ewoks of the Return of the Jedi - we're in full agreement there). He clearly has a concept to follow, a kind of personal view on the development of the genre, which is not too idiosyncratic but still contains a healthy dose of subjective opinions. On the other hand, he is very generous about most authors, not playing a game of eulogizing some and denigrating others. His tastes seem to be quite close to me, accidentally - I was often nodding enthusiastically while reading his comments.

While being an excellent survey of the history and also an introduction to the genre, it can also be used as a reference if someone wants to find new and interesting authors to read. Roberts has read a truly astonishing amount of SF, including non-English works (although his most obvious weakness is in that area; for instance, even though he praises Stanislaw Lem as the greatest European SF author of the late 20th century, I suspect he's never read anything by him except Solaris, which is a big miss), and he gives more than a laundry list of titles, making his preferences and recommendations clear.

All in all, a book well worth its price!

This books is bad news, especially since it should have been such good news. Science fiction is in need of a good historical survey, but this isn't it. The writing is choppy and labored. The author endlessly uses phrases close to "this x reflects science fiction's central dialectic," but in neither the preface nor the postscript does he do an adequate job of explaining this dialectic. At times, the factors in contradiction within the dialectic seem to be as simple as the tension between technology and mysticism. At other times, Roberts has a more complex theory involving the interplay between Catholicism and Protestantism, which, believe me, don't ask. The narrative aspect of the history is awkward and lacks flow. The only primary sources used in the text is the science fiction itself; the author has apparently visited no archives. The bulk of the book is taken up by plot summaries. This is a synthetic history, and barely professional.

At several points, the author fails to cite the sources that guide his thinking. For instance, from 297-299, Roberts discusses how Thomas Pynchon's _Gravity's Rainbow_ lost out on the Nebula Award to Arthur C. Clarke's _Rendezvous with Rama_, but he never cites Jonathan Lethem's essay "The Squandered Promise of Science Fiction," which appeared in the _Voice Literary Supplement_ in 1998, nor does he cite Lethem's later exchange with Ray Davis, which appeared in the _New York Review of Science Fiction_. Yet, these pieces are obviously the origin of the Pynchon-Clarke comparison. Robert's work isn't plagiarism, but it comes damn close at times. It certainly isn't careful scholarship.

Finally, anyone who is well-read in the secondary literature on science fiction, including Darko Suvin, James Blish's work as William Atheling, and Thomas M. Disch's reminiscent _The Dreams Our Stuff is Made Of_ , will find that Roberts has virtually no new insights into the genre.

I will probably use this book as an occasional reference work because it is comprehensive. This comprehensivity, however, and its too long time span (400 AD-present? why?) makes the work thin. It's a lemon, folks.

The History of Science Fiction is a somewhat misleading title. Perhaps A History of Science Fiction would be more appropriate as this book is not an exhaustive survey of science fiction literature as much as it is using aspects of that literature to articulate a thesis about the nature of science fiction itself. That is: science fiction emerged out of a set of theological problems presented by the Copernican Revolution and the multitude of worlds, that the investigation of these questions contained a Protestant/Catholic materialist/mystic dichotomy, and that these questions where increasingly framed in a technological and secular worldview that occasionally reveals its roots in religious theology. (That's the Amazon Review version, the much more nuanced version is in the book).

Roberts' book is generally effective at mediating the line between popular and academic literature, though in a few places that becomes difficult. Starting around chapter 8 and in earnest with chapter 11 there is a lot of discussion post-modernism, Derrida, and reading "meta-texts". It can be hard to follow unless you happen to be one of his students. But on the whole the book is accessible to a wide audience of people who would usually be locked out of books assuming an academic quality. That accessibility of tone is mirrored in his extension of science fiction in diverse mediums including taking seriously what is produced by science fiction fandom itself.

Another reviewer used the phrase "even-handed" when describing Roberts' discussion of opinions that differ from his own. I found that to be an apt description. He presents his thesis clearly and presents, at least in my mind, a credible and well reasoned defense based on evidence in science fiction literature. In addition he is also very clear about what it is he is arguing for and what his opinions are biases are. I find that kind of honesty refreshing because it gives the reader a wide latitude to disagree and ways to articulate disagreement. In that sense, the book is almost conversational in a way many academic books are not. Also there is a great deal of dry humor mixed in with some of this critical judgements that liven up the text.

So in short, I heartily recommend this book. Not because you will be persuaded necessarily of its premise, but because it is engaging, thought provoking, and amusing. You will think a lot and probably disagree much, but ultimately I believe it will be time well spent whether you are an academic or a fan.