Jack McDevitt's SF novels are fantastic. I read DEEPSIX this year, which is the alien ecology being destroyed yarn. What a wonderful video this was. I love your discussions that include writers/books I know, e.g. Wells, ROGUE MOON, HYPERION, and others who/that are unfamiliar. Bravo, gentlemen.
You cover some ground in this interesting Chat,lots of great authors and books, including some who are not so well known,and should be! When it comes to my classics,where to start.I shall retrict myself to half a dozen:- Ray Bradbury-the Silver Locusts Daniel Keyes-Flowers for Algernon Algiss Budrys-Rouge Moon David I Masson-The Caltraps Of Time Ian Watson-The Martian Inca Charles L Harness-The Rose & The Paradox man Thanks Stephen and Graham,more please!
Just caught this one--thanks for spotlighting Jack McDevitt. Both of his series are great (Pricilla Hutchins and Alex Benedict) though I haven't read the latest of them. You gave me a few authors to look up, and that deserves several rounds of kudos! For my "classic" author of post 1980 vintage, I'd have Gene Wolfe. I know lots of folks are now reading the New Sun, but the last scene of "Return to the Whorl" left me floored. But Fifth Head of Cerberus was a more concise 'classic.') Oh, and with Tacitus, Caesar's Battle for Gaul is great, but Heimskringla is my definitive millennial classic. Lee Hollander translation, or more recently, Finlay and Faulkes, are much better than the traditional 19th century translations...and Poul Anderson's 1960's/70's retelling of Heimskringla stories of Hrolf Kraki and Harald Hardrada (The Last Viking) were perfect!
During your conversation, it struck me that many of the acknowledged "classics" of science fiction are, to use a disparaging term, "fix-ups". Simak, Aldiss, Miller, Roberts, and many others. Perhaps the natural length for a good SF story the novella.
You mentioned Kafka as having elements of SF and dystopia, which I agree. Would you consider Doctor Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson as a SF classic? There are definite elements of SF in it, although it usually is classified as "horror", as is Frankenstein. I also seem to remember that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is considered an urtext of psychogeography.
Yes, it's undeniably SF. Horror is, in my opinion, not a genre, but a bricolage. Watch my video 'Why Horror is Not A Genre' in the 'Genre Theory' playlist.
The master sf series that takes me back! The mind of mr Soames by Charles Eric Maine. From 1961 my copy’s from77 when I was just a wee lad . Really enjoying catching up on your channel watched loads subscribed and ordered a bunch of books you have recommended thanks for all the hard work much appreciated mate
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I just heard that the Charlie Brooker series 'Black Mirror' has released 5 new episodes. It strikes me now, following your vids on the elements of SF, that BM is one of the places that 'classic SF', the cold bucket of water in the face stuff, the novum, paradigm shift, etc, lives on, albeit in a somewhat reduced, future-shock, form. It's hugely popular and possibly a topic that would get some RUclips traction, were one looking for it. Just a thought. I have not been watching your vids assiduously lately, hands full with baby (and books) More importantly, get well soon!
I had to split this into two just because of time. Interesting duologue with a lot of new books/authors. Look forward to the next one. May I request that you put a list of the books discussed in the description? Maybe you are fearful of doing that in case it stops some viewers from watching the whole video? Anyhow, I sure that 2023 will bring more content to entertain & inform us.
I loved this video and thought it was clear and interesting. I would like the chapters in youtube videos. Just so I can remember where I stopped . Also my husband stops the video so I can take a note of your recommendations and chapters make it easy to find the books that interested me most. I am going to find the science fiction source book. Imagine if you have a wall of books in a shop and no idea what to pick. I hope to avoid expensive mistakes with this guide. Think of it like a rainbow 🌈 which colours do I mix for the colour magenta. Easy if you know art not so easy if your trying to guess. A guide will help me deep dive into the world and not be discouraged by bad choices too complex for a beginner. Lovely grumpy old men who are enlightening my joy in science fiction. Expensive books in the video but it's exciting if you find one cheap. I found the baboons one for £3.00 on ebay so that's my first read..... keep up the good work can't wait fir the next one.
We will continue to aim to please - now, forgive me for being a pedant, but there's already a word for a discussion like this - dialogue (the prefix 'di' meaning two). Duologue is an unnecessary neologism as a perfectly good word already exists. No offense meant, but the language is already beautiful enough LOL! That's EXACTLY why I don't list books - you're so right. Having written a 'list book', people are only interested in 'the list' and how it fits their own assumptions of what is being discussed (hence the lengthy preamble about what actually are Classics and how publishers have used this word). When my book '100 Must Read Science Fiction Novels' came out, someone posted 'the list' of contents online, which lost me sales and also ensured that those who did not read the book did not get to discover its rationale- which is in the books' introduction - a thematic overview and history in 100 books, not a 'best of'. It's the most important part of the book. Very glad you liked this, thanks for the thoughtful comments, very pleased to have you onboard!
@@janeatkins5208 Thanks for this. I will look at the chapter thing. I'll admit to being a total klutz with tech, but I aim to make up for it with quality and authority of content. There are lots of immaculately presented SF videos on youtube, sadly by people with no real claim to any authority-why would you listen to opinions which are often under-informed? Some of these immaculate videos can of course be very good at times. Glad you found the Chad Oliver!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Appreciate the reply & your thoughts & kind compliment. I was trying to be clever with "duologue" & despite being a native speaker my facility of language has been a struggle. For a long time I thought "eclectic" meant the opposite of the actual definition. Yes, the internet has encouraged instant gratification & for some to try to get credit for others hard work. Onwards & upwards.
I agree about the immaculate videos. Your content is very rich and ful of wonderful incitful examples. The chapters will just help me get all the links to the books and extra notes on places books and connections. We fully intend to visit the places that you mentioned in walkabouts aswell. The full tapestry you weave around books is just lovely. You do for books what others do for Art and history. You make them come alive. I'm excited by books never thought I'd say that.!
Very good episode! I'm surprised I can't find some sort of behind-the-scenes article on the Masterworks selection process, I would love to see something like that. I am fairly confident that in 20 years (assuming the world is in decent enough shape) that most of the classics from this era will have been originally published by small presses and a bunch of them self-published.
It's very hard to predict what will become future 'Masterworks' or the like, I agree, so you may end up being right. One of the problems with terms like 'Classic' or 'Masterpiece' in the postmodern world is that for many decades, the media has allowed hype to reach excessive saturation - so books that are acclaimed as 'brilliant' on publication could actually end up in 'Classic' imprints - I am seeing this taking place, with minor books getting '10th Anniversary Editions' etc. Personally, I think we need critical distance and the test of time to settle in, rather than measures just based on popularity- interestingly, many of the Gollancz Masterworks of 1990s vintage (I think the most recent novels to enter MW is MJH's 'Light' and Priests' 'The Separation', my two favourite living writers) are by female authors and they were generally not massive sellers at the time, but did enjoy critical acclaim and lots of attention in hardcore fan circles. I can only assume that whomever makes editorial decisions for MW now works from a different critical criteria than that applied to their frontlist (i.e. new books) as Gollancz' new titles schedule is largely dominated by YA-like Fantasy which is formulaic either in content, structure and style and/or obeys the current mores of identity politics (i.e. having an excessive focus on gender and race). I think SF must reflect the world around it as much as the future, but young readers don't realise Identity Politics issues were raised in SF in a big way in the 1960s, so it all feels too mainstream to me. Anyway, I'm rambling! Glad you liked it, filming another topic with Graham soon I hope which will go online in a fortnight or so.
I'm sure I've seen it and will have to look it up to remind me. It's the Norman Rockwell via Hopper style of the Gollancz one that does it for me, works on several levels.
Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up To Me by Richard Fariña, I had a copy of it a long time ago, bit never got to read it completely. If I remember correctly it was a kind of road novel, a la Jack Kerouac.
I read 'Mission of Gravity' as a teenager. It was an ok hard SF I thought. It's even in the Masterworks series, I see. I'll have to read re-read it and see if it has any more depth to it. Also (again, when young) , I loved 'The Cycle of Fire' by Clement. Maybe he was more of an YA writer. Still puzzled why you think he's unreadable. Well, thanks for a great talk. I am into some "duty reading" I have to admit. And you've made me add books to my list in that category now. Some of those are a hard read. Cheers! PS never thought of our Tarjei Vesaas as being an SF writer. He's all about psychology and symbolism.
We don't claim Vesaas is an SF writer, we have both always read widely outside the genre and it seems to us that Vesaas is (1) important and worth reading anyway & (2) why shouldn't symbolism and psychology be subjects germane to SF? The vast majority of well written SF will have elements of both and the metaphoric nature of SF- that much of it is about the here and now in disguise - is pure symbolism. It's only the 'what you see is what you get' Hard SF writers and the literal minded reader who don't in theory employ these things and don't notice them. Virtually every important step in the development of genre SF from the early 1950s until the early 90s used psychology. The New Wave and Literary SF -and all good SF really- are about the effects of technology on the human mind. As for Clement, I find him 'unreadable' in the sense that his writing is so dull, literal and lacking in style that no matter how good his ideas, he doesn't grab my interest. Yes, he is in Masterworks - I have a copy in that edition,though it wasn't my first- but Masterworks covers a huge swathe of variety and pays fealty to books deemed by critics, fans and writers to be significant- but you won't find anyone who likes them all. Clement is, to me, typical of the Hard SF writer who you could say shies away from psychology and focuses on ideas, but then by doing this, he's saying something about his own psychology and that of the readers.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Thanks for your insights and extensive reply. I tend to agree with most of your views on SF. As a teenager I had the opposite view: Hard SF with plenty of machinery, aliens, space and robots was exciting . Great literarture was boring. Your work has only recently been suggested to me by the YT algorithm, so i have a lot to go through, which I look forward to. Thank you and cheers from Norway.
Hello. Your channel is great. I watch it regularly. I’m unable to find a copy of 100 Must Read Fantasy Books. Do you have any copies available for sale?
Glad you like the channel, thank you. Where in the world do you live, that may help me advise you on availability though a quick look on abebooks and amazon uk and usa seems to confirm it's currently unavailable. It only had one printing, back in 2009 and was a commercial failure due to the fact that my original publicist at Bloomsbury (the publisher) had been promoted and my new one failed to get us any publicity for the book, so unlike the SF one (which has had seven printings and is still going) once the initial printing sold through, that was it. There is a kindle ebook available from amazon and two types of ebook (including a PDF) are available from Bloomsbury -www.bloomsbury.com/uk/search/?q=nick%20rennison - search 'Nick Rennison' (my co-author) and it will come up. The book itself is now a scarce collectable.
I live in the USA and cannot find it anywhere in print or ebook. I’ll try with your recommendation and hope something will turn up. Again, great content on your channel and thank you.
Enjoyed part one thoroughly thanks, gentleman. *I wonder if the Handmaids Tale would be considered a classic if it wasn't for the series? Personally, I don't think it is... that's just me.
Totally agree. Attwood's dystopia is horribly crude in construction and overrated and not a pioneering work of Feminist SF, she was a decade behind the big wave ad 15 plus years behind LeGuin and Russ. Having said that, the series is irrelevant as the book has been a bestseller from first publication- prior to that she was acclaimed but not a huge seller- I remember her breaking through as it coincides with my first year in bookselling. What annoys me is the elevation of books like this through the work of mainstream critics who more often than not know nothing about genre fiction and then schools canonise such works by making kids study them.
As I've gotten older I've noticed how relative history changes. WWII felt like so long ago, but at the time of my birth it was closer in time than 9/11 is today. For younger people, the real targets of these marketing campaigns, anything pre-2000 is history/classic/classical. The stylistic gradations we appreciated in the 80s and 90s are largely as lost as everything from Jane Austen to Dickens was almost a wash when I was young. Look at the parallels in "Classical Music" where the pre-Baroque period covers centuries of development of polyphonic music. I'm reminded of a section of Donald Kingsbury's "Psychohistorical Crisis" (which riffs on Hari Seldon) set in the far future where people co-locate Nazis and pyramid building in their distant history.
Absolutely, Mike. I think the danger now is that the Modern period (which I characterise in philosophical-industrial terms as from around 1885 to 1985) showcased so much change -in every way - and at such a rapid rate - that it affected the consciousness of those of us living through it: we became used to adaptation, innovation and change at high pace, but with an historical awareness of what had gone before. In the Postmodern era, there is a kind of fake Modernity, where people still respond to what is marketed to them as 'new' when actually it's a kind of return to artisanship and what we get in cultural production is more of the same: much 'creativity' is craft now rather than art, as innovation has been exhausted and the areas where there could be advances (such as lyrics in popular music) have stagnated due to an audience that is increasingly unsophisticated and unknowing of context and history. I cover some of this in my Hauntlogy/Psychogeography videos on the channel (see the playlist) and there will be more coming on this with specific regard to SF.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal "...an audience that is increasingly unsophisticated and unknowing of context and history". Perfect assessment, Stephen. I'm reminded of the children and grandchildren of "Ish", in George R. Stewart's' "Earth Abides", insofar as they fit your description to the tee. It is surreal, is it not, to see what's happening and be at the same moment powerless (aside from your courageous efforts, and whatever we can as parents and grandparents do to educate our progeny to read between the lines and not become tools) to do anything substantial to dull the blade at our collective neck. Sorry to be such a Dismal Desmond, old chap, but I despair. Uplifting though, your diligence and unrelenting promotion of the golden age. Just saw this post during my weekly perusal of your archive. Cheers.
@@rickkearn7100 Yes, it's sad and I agree, plus the ironic parallel with Stewart is intensified by the number of new SF readers who don't dig into past classics beyond 'The Big Four'. I am pretty much in despair about it but doing what I can here!
Excellent. Look forward to the next one. From memory I would agree with the Kavan Ice rating - characterisation wasn't a major strength in the book, though it did feel fairly hallucinogenic so perhaps not of primary concern to the author...
Glad you liked it, SImon. It's interesting, I felt characterisation was strong in 'Ice', but in the sense that she sculpted characters in a way that met the needs of the narrative and its metaphors, rather than aiming for Realism, which would, as you imply, miss some of the points of the books. Thanks!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Interesting point - characterisation perhaps a relative notion, to be considered relative to the author's aims? Seems a bit murky. I would prefer to rate characterisation in terms of believability given the situation, and - again from memory! - I wasn't always sure or comvinced of the character's motives or that her actions made sense. But I really enjoyed the book none the less. Perhaps the four point dissection in the SF Source book is not always the best way to assess a novel.
@@SimonBostock-qv7oo -Maybe not, but it's an interesting approach and allows for a wider rating spectrum I think. Re the lead female character in 'Ice', her motives/actions don't have to make sense I'd say, as this is (1) fiction and (2) a reflection of the authors' experiences with adddicition and schizophrenia, so a fractured, disjointed character does make sense in this instance I'd say. Thanks for yr thoughtful observations.
An interesting discussion. The definition of classic I prefer is "anything cited as an example of its kind", which means of course, good or bad. I'm glad Robert Charles Wilson's name cropped up. To my mind he's one of the modern greats. If he'd continued to use the version of his name used for his earliest short stories, Bob Chuck Wilson, I'd probably never have read his books. As a fellow collector with circa 10,000 books I think I'd like Graham, doubly so if he enjoys good real ale.
Size. I discuss formats all the time and described them by showing examples in my SF shelf tour videos. Basically, A Format is the smaller format that was standard in mass-market paperback publishing from 1935 (and earflier) until the mid 80s. The B format is larger and was originally intended in the 1970s (and its late 1960s precursors) to indicate that a paperback was 'literary'. The UK imprint Picador established the B as the literary format in the early 1970s. By the mid 80s, most British publishers had launched B format imprints, copying Picador, as people would go into bookshops looking for 'the Picador stand'. The Gollancz Classic SF books in this video are B format. The SF Masters series are A format. Watch my 'Pan Lozenge SF' video and 'Nicholas Royle' video for more on this.
What reference books would you and Jules recommend? I’d like to pick up some but as they’re something that are meant to be a sort of authority it can be daunting to find which ones are generally trustworthy.
I can't speak for Jules, as he isn't in this clip and we've only discussed SF reference books briefly, but his judgement is sound. Personally, I recommend my book '100 Must Read Science Fiction Novels' for an overview of the genre in 100 key books but 'The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction' by Clute & Nicholls (2nd edition, early 90s) is the one book EVERY person seriously interested in the genre should own. It is out of print now and clearly out of date, but the revised edition is a website of the same name- however, I think having a finite, bounded book that covers the key period (to me SF really goes off the boil in the 90s and ceased to be (r)evolutionary in terms of forward development) is vital- you'll learn more by just picking this book up at random now and then than you will from the directed search you have to do on a website.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal excellent, thanks to this comment I have now purchased your book for my kindle. I’m sure it wasn’t available in kindle the previous time I looked.. Anyhow, now I have it and will be reading it before the year’s end. I’m very much looking forward to it. I’ll get the encyclopaedia you mention when I have a bit more money. I’ve put it on my wish list for the time being.
There was SO much crazy going on at Penguin in the late 80's early 90's! And on SO many fronts! There was the "We need more International tittles" people vs the "Modern Classics" people vs the"American Lit people" vs the "American Classics" people & some of the old British Higher Ups who thought "American Classics" were a conceptual blasphemy & needed to be kept on a short leash and the *other* higher ups who were like "Why is a tiny back water office in the UK telling us what to do when we represent more than 3x the money & more than 5x the market?" So, So Crazy.And in there SF was still the bastard step-child that EVERYONE would try to pull rank on & shoot down ideas for book lines. Obviously you triggered a flashback.
Yes, I remember it being fairly chaotic with different imprints/series coming and going like waves crashing onto the shore then receding...when Penguin took on Roc, that led to some high embarrassment with its mix of proper backlist with tragic D&D type fantasy...
@@outlawbookselleroriginal @Outlaw Bookseller I think I've got two Mary Gentle in ROC. Remember their Romace imprint? Topaz? And their answer to Fabio, "The Topaz Man"
Sorry to be so late in commenting on this one, but I had to watch in installments to avoid info overload. Provocative, thought provoking and illuminating as always. Too much content to comment on satisfactorily so I'll restrict myself to a solitary observation. Personally, I'm very wary of the term "instant classic". I don't accept there can be any such thing. Surely it is the prerogative of the future to judge what is a classic. Not the present. Yes, a book may meet with a consensus of critical regards. Just as it may meet with popularity. But neither are guaranteed to survive the test of time. Which for me is the crux of the matter. To which end I believe it apposite to adopt Wells's rationale from THE TIME MACHINE to the argument: for a book to be a classic it must possess the three contemporary critical dimensions of substance, breadth and literary quality. But, crucially, it also needs duration. One precursor of the Masterworks concept which you didn't mention is Corgi's SF Collector's Library which started up in the very early 70s (all with funky purple covers, if you recall). It promoted itself as a series of "standard classics, contemporary prizewinners and controversial fiction".
Hi Richard, good to hear from you. I think Graham believes in the concept of an 'instant classic' but I am less sure of this except in a very personal sense - I can think of many books that entered my personal canon on publicaction, but I think a 'Classic' is more objective as you suggest. I tend to use Classic only to refer to Classical Literature and Modern Classic to apply to paragons of Modernism, but beyond that, it's a term I avoid. I prefer 'masterpiece', which I think has an element of the subjective...and yes, we forgot the Corgis!
I have always found Asimov unreadable, I liked Clarke when I was very young, and still have a soft spot for old Heinlein despite his politics and much awful writing. I always thought that he attempted things even if they were way above his competence. However, none of them are classics. From the fifties I would say that Budrys, Kornbluth and Leiber might qualify. Of more contemporary writers, I can think of none from the last ten years, but I hope that some of the people from the late 20th century might be recognised as producing classic fiction in the future. I am thinking of Crowley, Wolfe, MJH, and Ballard, but have hopes that people like Michael Swanwick, Michael Bishop, Adam Roberts, Ian Watson and of course, Chris Priest, will get more recognition as time goes by. I do have a bit of a problem with Paul Park. I really like his style, his characters and his ideas, but somehow his books do not connect with me. I keep going back to them and I am sure that the fault is in me. His recent novel, All Those Vanished Engines, is a brilliant piece of writing, but I don't really understand it. I will go back and read it again. Maybe my brain is just not big enough. Perhaps a good definition of a classic is something that you have to return to in order to understand it. Keep up the good work. Your posts brighten cold winter's days.
Hi Allan, good to hear from you. I find early Asimov pretty unreadable, so I tend to advise people to start with the Robot novels, but I still struggle with 'Foundation'. With Clarke I keep finding awkward prose whenever I read him now and RAH either does it for me with some books or not at all with others. Have to say I don't think there are many true Classics being produced these days, sadly!
Instead of trying to pin down the definition of what a classic is; it would be interesting to see what 4 books you recommend (two from each of you per period) say, from the periods: 1900 - 1930; 1931 - 1950, 1950 - 1960, 1960 - 1970, 1970 - 1980, 1980 - 1990, and 2000 to date.
Ace in the 1960's published many of the reprints from the pulps, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Campbell, Hall, etc, as "Classic Science Fiction" on the spine. Not necessarily great works, just your dad's science fiction.
Was very interested to hear you ask what is Gollancz's criteria for inclusion in their SF Masterworks line. For instance a book listed as forthcoming for March 2023 is Arthur C. Clarke's "The Hammer of God". Seriously?! First published 30 years ago, the writer and critic John Clute summed it up perfectly at the time: 'It's not a novel, it's notes towards a novel.' It's slim, it's slight and it's utterly average and forgettable. I've a lot of respect for SF Masterworks.. but they've lost it now with this forthcoming release.
Yes, one does wonder. I think a lot of the time it's what they have the rights too from all those decades of publishing hardcover SF, so they retain the paperback licenses (from 62 with 'The Drowned World' - seen as the start of their SF yellowjacket line, though there were a few before this and most of their books had yellow livery then anyway - to 1986 when they started vertical publishing by launching Gollancz Classic SF, they picked the cream of SF from all subgenres). But there have been at least two waves of changes in the G team in recent years and my feeling now is that there are way, way too many young people in SF publishing without the background in reading needed - though obviously the amount of genre SF that's been published has swelled hugely since the heyday of the firm. These days, Titan and Solaris seem to do the best new SF in the UK, but they're patchy too, like everyone else.
That book rating the books was written by David Wingrove, wasn't it? His own novels weren't very well regarded though were they? The Chung Kuo series, wasn't it? So, can you really take his ratings as gospel? I've read the first couple of them, they were alright, but they weren't Clarke or Heinlein quality, authors he disparages.
I don't think either of us take it as 'Gospel', what we are doing here is examining the approach the book takes in rating books for the potential reader- I personally never used the SF sourcebook back in the day, and I'd say Graham used it as one of a number of entry points which led him to a wider appreciation of SF that is beyond the obvious. I've never read any of Wingrove's fiction, but his co-authorship with Aldiss on their history of SF was very sound. Sometimes writers are better at criticism and history than fiction. Having written a 'list book' myself that has had seven printings to date, I don't think good references books boil down to a 'hit list' or 'this is bad, that is good', they're gateways instead. Although my book generally focuses on authors most SF readers would recognise, my aim (as I said in the introductory material to the book) was to provide an overview of themes and history of Genre SF. Personally, I think that any reference book that leads readers to look beyond the obvious is a good thing. You'll notice that many of the books selected for 'Classic' series by publishers are not always by the Big Four, and I think this is important, as so many great books get missed if you stick to what is well known. Popular does often mean conservative, even in an 'outsider field' like SF.
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](/img/1.gif)
So pleased to hear Charles L. Grant's name being dropped! 👍 A wonderful short story writer and novelist.
The lengthy opening chapter of Soldiers of Paradise is absolutely brilliant and hallucinatory.
Jack McDevitt's SF novels are fantastic. I read DEEPSIX this year, which is the alien ecology being destroyed yarn. What a wonderful video this was. I love your discussions that include writers/books I know, e.g. Wells, ROGUE MOON, HYPERION, and others who/that are unfamiliar. Bravo, gentlemen.
This was a heavy hit on my credit card, and now I have a years worth of reading ahead of me... sigh. Thanks :)
You cover some ground in this interesting Chat,lots of great authors and books, including some who are not so well known,and should be!
When it comes to my classics,where to start.I shall retrict myself to half a dozen:-
Ray Bradbury-the Silver Locusts
Daniel Keyes-Flowers for Algernon
Algiss Budrys-Rouge Moon
David I Masson-The Caltraps Of Time
Ian Watson-The Martian Inca
Charles L Harness-The Rose & The Paradox man
Thanks Stephen and Graham,more please!
I'd say all of these are Classic SF, yep. Graham and I will be back with more soon!
Great talk. Could listen for hours but my wallet is crying cause I you keep giving me new books to buy
Take your time, there are always books being sold/donated to dealers, being reprinted etc...
Two days after watching this video I found a first edition hardcover of No Man Friday in a second-hand book store for $9, I was stoked.
Just caught this one--thanks for spotlighting Jack McDevitt. Both of his series are great (Pricilla Hutchins and Alex Benedict) though I haven't read the latest of them. You gave me a few authors to look up, and that deserves several rounds of kudos! For my "classic" author of post 1980 vintage, I'd have Gene Wolfe. I know lots of folks are now reading the New Sun, but the last scene of "Return to the Whorl" left me floored. But Fifth Head of Cerberus was a more concise 'classic.') Oh, and with Tacitus, Caesar's Battle for Gaul is great, but Heimskringla is my definitive millennial classic. Lee Hollander translation, or more recently, Finlay and Faulkes, are much better than the traditional 19th century translations...and Poul Anderson's 1960's/70's retelling of Heimskringla stories of Hrolf Kraki and Harald Hardrada (The Last Viking) were perfect!
Love Anderson's sword and sorcery and historical work.
During your conversation, it struck me that many of the acknowledged "classics" of science fiction are, to use a disparaging term, "fix-ups". Simak, Aldiss, Miller, Roberts, and many others. Perhaps the natural length for a good SF story the novella.
Yes, I think we'd both cleave to many short-form works. The genre at the moment could use some decent novellas, I must say!
You mentioned Kafka as having elements of SF and dystopia, which I agree. Would you consider Doctor Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson as a SF classic? There are definite elements of SF in it, although it usually is classified as "horror", as is Frankenstein. I also seem to remember that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is considered an urtext of psychogeography.
Yes, it's undeniably SF. Horror is, in my opinion, not a genre, but a bricolage. Watch my video 'Why Horror is Not A Genre' in the 'Genre Theory' playlist.
The master sf series that takes me back! The mind of mr Soames by Charles Eric Maine. From 1961 my copy’s from77 when I was just a wee lad . Really enjoying catching up on your channel watched loads subscribed and ordered a bunch of books you have recommended thanks for all the hard work much appreciated mate
Yes, good series those!
I remembered I had copy of "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction". Some of those authors could be found in it!
If you're speaking of the Clute & Nichols book, they are all in it. The BEST SF reference book ever.
Great discussion! Looking forward to more!
Glad you liked it, Matt. Graham and I will be shooting the s**t again before too long...
Love these chat-vids. Highly illuminating and not at all Victor Meldrew-esque. Ok, maybe a little bit, but I like it.
We hope to do another before too long, they're always fun.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I just heard that the Charlie Brooker series 'Black Mirror' has released 5 new episodes. It strikes me now, following your vids on the elements of SF, that BM is one of the places that 'classic SF', the cold bucket of water in the face stuff, the novum, paradigm shift, etc, lives on, albeit in a somewhat reduced, future-shock, form. It's hugely popular and possibly a topic that would get some RUclips traction, were one looking for it. Just a thought.
I have not been watching your vids assiduously lately, hands full with baby (and books)
More importantly, get well soon!
I had to split this into two just because of time. Interesting duologue with a lot of new books/authors. Look forward to the next one.
May I request that you put a list of the books discussed in the description? Maybe you are fearful of doing that in case it stops some viewers from watching the whole video?
Anyhow, I sure that 2023 will bring more content to entertain & inform us.
I loved this video and thought it was clear and interesting. I would like the chapters in youtube videos. Just so I can remember where I stopped . Also my husband stops the video so I can take a note of your recommendations and chapters make it easy to find the books that interested me most. I am going to find the science fiction source book. Imagine if you have a wall of books in a shop and no idea what to pick. I hope to avoid expensive mistakes with this guide. Think of it like a rainbow 🌈 which colours do I mix for the colour magenta. Easy if you know art not so easy if your trying to guess. A guide will help me deep dive into the world and not be discouraged by bad choices too complex for a beginner. Lovely grumpy old men who are enlightening my joy in science fiction. Expensive books in the video but it's exciting if you find one cheap. I found the baboons one for £3.00 on ebay so that's my first read..... keep up the good work can't wait fir the next one.
We will continue to aim to please - now, forgive me for being a pedant, but there's already a word for a discussion like this - dialogue (the prefix 'di' meaning two). Duologue is an unnecessary neologism as a perfectly good word already exists. No offense meant, but the language is already beautiful enough LOL!
That's EXACTLY why I don't list books - you're so right. Having written a 'list book', people are only interested in 'the list' and how it fits their own assumptions of what is being discussed (hence the lengthy preamble about what actually are Classics and how publishers have used this word). When my book '100 Must Read Science Fiction Novels' came out, someone posted 'the list' of contents online, which lost me sales and also ensured that those who did not read the book did not get to discover its rationale- which is in the books' introduction - a thematic overview and history in 100 books, not a 'best of'. It's the most important part of the book.
Very glad you liked this, thanks for the thoughtful comments, very pleased to have you onboard!
@@janeatkins5208 Thanks for this. I will look at the chapter thing. I'll admit to being a total klutz with tech, but I aim to make up for it with quality and authority of content. There are lots of immaculately presented SF videos on youtube, sadly by people with no real claim to any authority-why would you listen to opinions which are often under-informed? Some of these immaculate videos can of course be very good at times.
Glad you found the Chad Oliver!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Appreciate the reply & your thoughts & kind compliment. I was trying to be clever with "duologue" & despite being a native speaker my facility of language has been a struggle. For a long time I thought "eclectic" meant the opposite of the actual definition.
Yes, the internet has encouraged instant gratification & for some to try to get credit for others hard work.
Onwards & upwards.
I agree about the immaculate videos. Your content is very rich and ful of wonderful incitful examples. The chapters will just help me get all the links to the books and extra notes on places books and connections. We fully intend to visit the places that you mentioned in walkabouts aswell. The full tapestry you weave around books is just lovely. You do for books what others do for Art and history. You make them come alive. I'm excited by books never thought I'd say that.!
Very good episode! I'm surprised I can't find some sort of behind-the-scenes article on the Masterworks selection process, I would love to see something like that.
I am fairly confident that in 20 years (assuming the world is in decent enough shape) that most of the classics from this era will have been originally published by small presses and a bunch of them self-published.
It's very hard to predict what will become future 'Masterworks' or the like, I agree, so you may end up being right. One of the problems with terms like 'Classic' or 'Masterpiece' in the postmodern world is that for many decades, the media has allowed hype to reach excessive saturation - so books that are acclaimed as 'brilliant' on publication could actually end up in 'Classic' imprints - I am seeing this taking place, with minor books getting '10th Anniversary Editions' etc.
Personally, I think we need critical distance and the test of time to settle in, rather than measures just based on popularity- interestingly, many of the Gollancz Masterworks of 1990s vintage (I think the most recent novels to enter MW is MJH's 'Light' and Priests' 'The Separation', my two favourite living writers) are by female authors and they were generally not massive sellers at the time, but did enjoy critical acclaim and lots of attention in hardcore fan circles.
I can only assume that whomever makes editorial decisions for MW now works from a different critical criteria than that applied to their frontlist (i.e. new books) as Gollancz' new titles schedule is largely dominated by YA-like Fantasy which is formulaic either in content, structure and style and/or obeys the current mores of identity politics (i.e. having an excessive focus on gender and race). I think SF must reflect the world around it as much as the future, but young readers don't realise Identity Politics issues were raised in SF in a big way in the 1960s, so it all feels too mainstream to me.
Anyway, I'm rambling! Glad you liked it, filming another topic with Graham soon I hope which will go online in a fortnight or so.
Btw, the best cover for Bring the Jubilee was the Richard Powers cover for the Ballantine original in 1953.
I'm sure I've seen it and will have to look it up to remind me. It's the Norman Rockwell via Hopper style of the Gollancz one that does it for me, works on several levels.
Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up To Me by Richard Fariña, I had a copy of it a long time ago, bit never got to read it completely. If I remember correctly it was a kind of road novel, a la Jack Kerouac.
That's the one!
I'll just scroll up and delete *my* comment. . . ahem
@@salty-walt No need dear boy!
I read 'Mission of Gravity' as a teenager. It was an ok hard SF I thought.
It's even in the Masterworks series, I see.
I'll have to read re-read it and see if it has any more depth to it.
Also (again, when young) , I loved 'The Cycle of Fire' by Clement.
Maybe he was more of an YA writer.
Still puzzled why you think he's unreadable.
Well, thanks for a great talk.
I am into some "duty reading" I have to admit. And you've made me add books to my list in that category now.
Some of those are a hard read.
Cheers!
PS never thought of our Tarjei Vesaas as being an SF writer. He's all about psychology and symbolism.
We don't claim Vesaas is an SF writer, we have both always read widely outside the genre and it seems to us that Vesaas is (1) important and worth reading anyway & (2) why shouldn't symbolism and psychology be subjects germane to SF? The vast majority of well written SF will have elements of both and the metaphoric nature of SF- that much of it is about the here and now in disguise - is pure symbolism. It's only the 'what you see is what you get' Hard SF writers and the literal minded reader who don't in theory employ these things and don't notice them. Virtually every important step in the development of genre SF from the early 1950s until the early 90s used psychology. The New Wave and Literary SF -and all good SF really- are about the effects of technology on the human mind.
As for Clement, I find him 'unreadable' in the sense that his writing is so dull, literal and lacking in style that no matter how good his ideas, he doesn't grab my interest. Yes, he is in Masterworks - I have a copy in that edition,though it wasn't my first- but Masterworks covers a huge swathe of variety and pays fealty to books deemed by critics, fans and writers to be significant- but you won't find anyone who likes them all. Clement is, to me, typical of the Hard SF writer who you could say shies away from psychology and focuses on ideas, but then by doing this, he's saying something about his own psychology and that of the readers.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Thanks for your insights and extensive reply. I tend to agree with most of your views on SF. As a teenager I had the opposite view:
Hard SF with plenty of machinery, aliens, space and robots was exciting . Great literarture was boring.
Your work has only recently been suggested to me by the YT algorithm, so i have a lot to go through, which I look forward to.
Thank you and cheers from Norway.
@@northof-62 My pleasure!
Hello. Your channel is great. I watch it regularly. I’m unable to find a copy of 100 Must Read Fantasy Books. Do you have any copies available for sale?
Glad you like the channel, thank you. Where in the world do you live, that may help me advise you on availability though a quick look on abebooks and amazon uk and usa seems to confirm it's currently unavailable. It only had one printing, back in 2009 and was a commercial failure due to the fact that my original publicist at Bloomsbury (the publisher) had been promoted and my new one failed to get us any publicity for the book, so unlike the SF one (which has had seven printings and is still going) once the initial printing sold through, that was it.
There is a kindle ebook available from amazon and two types of ebook (including a PDF) are available from Bloomsbury -www.bloomsbury.com/uk/search/?q=nick%20rennison - search 'Nick Rennison' (my co-author) and it will come up. The book itself is now a scarce collectable.
I live in the USA and cannot find it anywhere in print or ebook. I’ll try with your recommendation and hope something will turn up. Again, great content on your channel and thank you.
You got me with The Engines of God. I put a copy on order thanks to the two of you!
Enjoyed part one thoroughly thanks, gentleman.
*I wonder if the Handmaids Tale would be considered a classic if it wasn't for the series?
Personally, I don't think it is... that's just me.
Totally agree. Attwood's dystopia is horribly crude in construction and overrated and not a pioneering work of Feminist SF, she was a decade behind the big wave ad 15 plus years behind LeGuin and Russ. Having said that, the series is irrelevant as the book has been a bestseller from first publication- prior to that she was acclaimed but not a huge seller- I remember her breaking through as it coincides with my first year in bookselling. What annoys me is the elevation of books like this through the work of mainstream critics who more often than not know nothing about genre fiction and then schools canonise such works by making kids study them.
As I've gotten older I've noticed how relative history changes. WWII felt like so long ago, but at the time of my birth it was closer in time than 9/11 is today. For younger people, the real targets of these marketing campaigns, anything pre-2000 is history/classic/classical. The stylistic gradations we appreciated in the 80s and 90s are largely as lost as everything from Jane Austen to Dickens was almost a wash when I was young.
Look at the parallels in "Classical Music" where the pre-Baroque period covers centuries of development of polyphonic music.
I'm reminded of a section of Donald Kingsbury's "Psychohistorical Crisis" (which riffs on Hari Seldon) set in the far future where people co-locate Nazis and pyramid building in their distant history.
Absolutely, Mike. I think the danger now is that the Modern period (which I characterise in philosophical-industrial terms as from around 1885 to 1985) showcased so much change -in every way - and at such a rapid rate - that it affected the consciousness of those of us living through it: we became used to adaptation, innovation and change at high pace, but with an historical awareness of what had gone before. In the Postmodern era, there is a kind of fake Modernity, where people still respond to what is marketed to them as 'new' when actually it's a kind of return to artisanship and what we get in cultural production is more of the same: much 'creativity' is craft now rather than art, as innovation has been exhausted and the areas where there could be advances (such as lyrics in popular music) have stagnated due to an audience that is increasingly unsophisticated and unknowing of context and history. I cover some of this in my Hauntlogy/Psychogeography videos on the channel (see the playlist) and there will be more coming on this with specific regard to SF.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal "...an audience that is increasingly unsophisticated and unknowing of context and history". Perfect assessment, Stephen. I'm reminded of the children and grandchildren of "Ish", in George R. Stewart's' "Earth Abides", insofar as they fit your description to the tee. It is surreal, is it not, to see what's happening and be at the same moment powerless (aside from your courageous efforts, and whatever we can as parents and grandparents do to educate our progeny to read between the lines and not become tools) to do anything substantial to dull the blade at our collective neck. Sorry to be such a Dismal Desmond, old chap, but I despair. Uplifting though, your diligence and unrelenting promotion of the golden age. Just saw this post during my weekly perusal of your archive. Cheers.
@@rickkearn7100 Yes, it's sad and I agree, plus the ironic parallel with Stewart is intensified by the number of new SF readers who don't dig into past classics beyond 'The Big Four'. I am pretty much in despair about it but doing what I can here!
Excellent. Look forward to the next one. From memory I would agree with the Kavan Ice rating - characterisation wasn't a major strength in the book, though it did feel fairly hallucinogenic so perhaps not of primary concern to the author...
Glad you liked it, SImon. It's interesting, I felt characterisation was strong in 'Ice', but in the sense that she sculpted characters in a way that met the needs of the narrative and its metaphors, rather than aiming for Realism, which would, as you imply, miss some of the points of the books. Thanks!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Interesting point - characterisation perhaps a relative notion, to be considered relative to the author's aims? Seems a bit murky. I would prefer to rate characterisation in terms of believability given the situation, and - again from memory! - I wasn't always sure or comvinced of the character's motives or that her actions made sense. But I really enjoyed the book none the less. Perhaps the four point dissection in the SF Source book is not always the best way to assess a novel.
@@SimonBostock-qv7oo -Maybe not, but it's an interesting approach and allows for a wider rating spectrum I think. Re the lead female character in 'Ice', her motives/actions don't have to make sense I'd say, as this is (1) fiction and (2) a reflection of the authors' experiences with adddicition and schizophrenia, so a fractured, disjointed character does make sense in this instance I'd say. Thanks for yr thoughtful observations.
An interesting discussion. The definition of classic I prefer is "anything cited as an example of its kind", which means of course, good or bad.
I'm glad Robert Charles Wilson's name cropped up. To my mind he's one of the modern greats. If he'd continued to use the version of his name used for his earliest short stories, Bob Chuck Wilson, I'd probably never have read his books.
As a fellow collector with circa 10,000 books I think I'd like Graham, doubly so if he enjoys good real ale.
I think you'd like GB. He's not really a drinker, but does go for beer shandy with a RA base!
What’s the difference between an “A format” and a “B format”?
Size.
I discuss formats all the time and described them by showing examples in my SF shelf tour videos. Basically, A Format is the smaller format that was standard in mass-market paperback publishing from 1935 (and earflier) until the mid 80s. The B format is larger and was originally intended in the 1970s (and its late 1960s precursors) to indicate that a paperback was 'literary'. The UK imprint Picador established the B as the literary format in the early 1970s. By the mid 80s, most British publishers had launched B format imprints, copying Picador, as people would go into bookshops looking for 'the Picador stand'.
The Gollancz Classic SF books in this video are B format. The SF Masters series are A format. Watch my 'Pan Lozenge SF' video and 'Nicholas Royle' video for more on this.
Been Down So Long it Looks Like Up To Me, by Richard Farina.
That's the one. Had a couple of reminders of this already!
I usually love your recommendations so these are great videos :) lots added to the tbr. Do you have some space horror to recommend?
Yes - 'Voyage of the Space Beagle' by A E Van Vogt, the basis for 'Alien' - there's a video about it on the channel.
What reference books would you and Jules recommend? I’d like to pick up some but as they’re something that are meant to be a sort of authority it can be daunting to find which ones are generally trustworthy.
I can't speak for Jules, as he isn't in this clip and we've only discussed SF reference books briefly, but his judgement is sound. Personally, I recommend my book '100 Must Read Science Fiction Novels' for an overview of the genre in 100 key books but 'The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction' by Clute & Nicholls (2nd edition, early 90s) is the one book EVERY person seriously interested in the genre should own. It is out of print now and clearly out of date, but the revised edition is a website of the same name- however, I think having a finite, bounded book that covers the key period (to me SF really goes off the boil in the 90s and ceased to be (r)evolutionary in terms of forward development) is vital- you'll learn more by just picking this book up at random now and then than you will from the directed search you have to do on a website.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal excellent, thanks to this comment I have now purchased your book for my kindle. I’m sure it wasn’t available in kindle the previous time I looked.. Anyhow, now I have it and will be reading it before the year’s end. I’m very much looking forward to it.
I’ll get the encyclopaedia you mention when I have a bit more money. I’ve put it on my wish list for the time being.
@@GypsyRoSesx Thanks very much for buying one of my books, hope you like it!
One hour twenty four 👏 I’ll stick the kettle on
There was SO much crazy going on at Penguin in the late 80's early 90's! And on SO many fronts! There was the "We need more International tittles" people vs the "Modern Classics" people vs the"American Lit people" vs the "American Classics" people & some of the old British Higher Ups who thought "American Classics" were a conceptual blasphemy & needed to be kept on a short leash and the *other* higher ups who were like "Why is a tiny back water office in the UK telling us what to do when we represent more than 3x the money & more than 5x the market?" So, So Crazy.And in there SF was still the bastard step-child that EVERYONE would try to pull rank on & shoot down ideas for book lines.
Obviously you triggered a flashback.
Yes, I remember it being fairly chaotic with different imprints/series coming and going like waves crashing onto the shore then receding...when Penguin took on Roc, that led to some high embarrassment with its mix of proper backlist with tragic D&D type fantasy...
@@outlawbookselleroriginal @Outlaw Bookseller I think I've got two Mary Gentle in ROC. Remember their Romace imprint? Topaz? And their answer to Fabio, "The Topaz Man"
@@salty-walt Scary, man...LOLS
Sorry to be so late in commenting on this one, but I had to watch in installments to avoid info overload. Provocative, thought provoking and illuminating as always. Too much content to comment on satisfactorily so I'll restrict myself to a solitary observation.
Personally, I'm very wary of the term "instant classic". I don't accept there can be any such thing. Surely it is the prerogative of the future to judge what is a classic. Not the present. Yes, a book may meet with a consensus of critical regards. Just as it may meet with popularity. But neither are guaranteed to survive the test of time. Which for me is the crux of the matter. To which end I believe it apposite to adopt Wells's rationale from THE TIME MACHINE to the argument: for a book to be a classic it must possess the three contemporary critical dimensions of substance, breadth and literary quality. But, crucially, it also needs duration.
One precursor of the Masterworks concept which you didn't mention is Corgi's SF Collector's Library which started up in the very early 70s (all with funky purple covers, if you recall). It promoted itself as a series of "standard classics, contemporary prizewinners and controversial fiction".
Hi Richard, good to hear from you. I think Graham believes in the concept of an 'instant classic' but I am less sure of this except in a very personal sense - I can think of many books that entered my personal canon on publicaction, but I think a 'Classic' is more objective as you suggest. I tend to use Classic only to refer to Classical Literature and Modern Classic to apply to paragons of Modernism, but beyond that, it's a term I avoid. I prefer 'masterpiece', which I think has an element of the subjective...and yes, we forgot the Corgis!
I have always found Asimov unreadable, I liked Clarke when I was very young, and still have a soft spot for old Heinlein despite his politics and much awful writing. I always thought that he attempted things even if they were way above his competence. However, none of them are classics. From the fifties I would say that Budrys, Kornbluth and Leiber might qualify.
Of more contemporary writers, I can think of none from the last ten years, but I hope that some of the people from the late 20th century might be recognised as producing classic fiction in the future. I am thinking of Crowley, Wolfe, MJH, and Ballard, but have hopes that people like Michael Swanwick, Michael Bishop, Adam Roberts, Ian Watson and of course, Chris Priest, will get more recognition as time goes by.
I do have a bit of a problem with Paul Park. I really like his style, his characters and his ideas, but somehow his books do not connect with me. I keep going back to them and I am sure that the fault is in me. His recent novel, All Those Vanished Engines, is a brilliant piece of writing, but I don't really understand it. I will go back and read it again. Maybe my brain is just not big enough. Perhaps a good definition of a classic is something that you have to return to in order to understand it.
Keep up the good work. Your posts brighten cold winter's days.
Hi Allan, good to hear from you. I find early Asimov pretty unreadable, so I tend to advise people to start with the Robot novels, but I still struggle with 'Foundation'. With Clarke I keep finding awkward prose whenever I read him now and RAH either does it for me with some books or not at all with others.
Have to say I don't think there are many true Classics being produced these days, sadly!
Instead of trying to pin down the definition of what a classic is; it would be interesting to see what 4 books you recommend (two from each of you per period) say, from the periods: 1900 - 1930; 1931 - 1950, 1950 - 1960, 1960 - 1970, 1970 - 1980, 1980 - 1990, and 2000 to date.
Well, a 'Decades' series will start in the Spring which will cover this.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Wonderful!
Ace in the 1960's published many of the reprints from the pulps, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Campbell, Hall, etc, as "Classic Science Fiction" on the spine. Not necessarily great works, just your dad's science fiction.
Was very interested to hear you ask what is Gollancz's criteria for inclusion in their SF Masterworks line. For instance a book listed as forthcoming for March 2023 is Arthur C. Clarke's "The Hammer of God". Seriously?! First published 30 years ago, the writer and critic John Clute summed it up perfectly at the time: 'It's not a novel, it's notes towards a novel.' It's slim, it's slight and it's utterly average and forgettable. I've a lot of respect for SF Masterworks.. but they've lost it now with this forthcoming release.
Yes, one does wonder. I think a lot of the time it's what they have the rights too from all those decades of publishing hardcover SF, so they retain the paperback licenses (from 62 with 'The Drowned World' - seen as the start of their SF yellowjacket line, though there were a few before this and most of their books had yellow livery then anyway - to 1986 when they started vertical publishing by launching Gollancz Classic SF, they picked the cream of SF from all subgenres). But there have been at least two waves of changes in the G team in recent years and my feeling now is that there are way, way too many young people in SF publishing without the background in reading needed - though obviously the amount of genre SF that's been published has swelled hugely since the heyday of the firm. These days, Titan and Solaris seem to do the best new SF in the UK, but they're patchy too, like everyone else.
I loved it
That book rating the books was written by David Wingrove, wasn't it? His own novels weren't very well regarded though were they? The Chung Kuo series, wasn't it? So, can you really take his ratings as gospel? I've read the first couple of them, they were alright, but they weren't Clarke or Heinlein quality, authors he disparages.
I don't think either of us take it as 'Gospel', what we are doing here is examining the approach the book takes in rating books for the potential reader- I personally never used the SF sourcebook back in the day, and I'd say Graham used it as one of a number of entry points which led him to a wider appreciation of SF that is beyond the obvious. I've never read any of Wingrove's fiction, but his co-authorship with Aldiss on their history of SF was very sound. Sometimes writers are better at criticism and history than fiction.
Having written a 'list book' myself that has had seven printings to date, I don't think good references books boil down to a 'hit list' or 'this is bad, that is good', they're gateways instead. Although my book generally focuses on authors most SF readers would recognise, my aim (as I said in the introductory material to the book) was to provide an overview of themes and history of Genre SF. Personally, I think that any reference book that leads readers to look beyond the obvious is a good thing. You'll notice that many of the books selected for 'Classic' series by publishers are not always by the Big Four, and I think this is important, as so many great books get missed if you stick to what is well known. Popular does often mean conservative, even in an 'outsider field' like SF.
"The Snob-appeal is strong in this one!" 😉