What do you think?
Rate this book
The World of Science Fiction, 1926-1976: The History of a Subculture
Ballantine//Del Rey #25452, 1979. Stated First Ballantine printing in near fine condition. Rubs to the book's spine tips and corners. Mild toning to the page margins.
- GenresScience FictionReference
416 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1975
2 people are currently reading
58 people want to read
About the author
Lester del Rey
634 books118 followersLester del Rey was an American science fiction author and editor. Del Rey is especially famous for his juvenile novels such as those which are part of the Winston Science Fiction series, and for Del Rey Books, the fantasy and science fiction branch of Ballantine Books edited by Lester del Rey and his fourth wife Judy-Lynn del Rey.
Also published as:
Philip St. John
Eric van Lihn
Erik van Lhin
Kenneth Wright
Edson McCann (with Frederik Pohl)
Also published as:
Philip St. John
Eric van Lihn
Erik van Lhin
Kenneth Wright
Edson McCann (with Frederik Pohl)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
February 1, 2016
This was a very pleasant surprise used-bookstore buy. Written in the late Seventies, and so just after the premiere of "Star Wars" (but before the sea-change in pop culture that Star Wars inspired could take full effect), Lester del Rey gives a mostly-objective historical account of science fiction, which he divides into four "ages" spanning (then) fifty years. Though some of the material can be quite dry, del Rey's writing style is congenial and makes for an entertaining and enlightening read overall.
Del Rey sets down the genesis of science fiction as a true category to be 1926, when Hugo Gernsback (the namesake of the Hugo Awards) published a pulp magazine specifically for what he then called "scientifiction." From there we have the era of John W. Campbell, who almost single-handedly elevated sf to a higher standard, the bust of the Fifties, and the rise of the "New Wave" and fracturing of the category into various disparate sensibilities. Throughout, del Rey highlights authors and stories that he considers particularly meritorious or significant to the development of sf; while his tastes are strongly stated, he's mostly careful about noting when a story appeals to him personally or is significant to the category as a whole. There's a consolidated list of recommended reading in the appendices, with helpful notation marking whether a work is notable primarily for historical value.
As the growth of sf for most of its first fifty years was almost entirely in magazines, del Rey goes through a lot of timeline-esque publication listings. That may have more merit to scholars of science fiction than to the casual reader; however, it's often notable just how many acknowledged masters of the field were discovered by a single magazine editor, or how many seminal stories were published in the same year.
Del Rey also gives a running history of science fiction fandom, which is especially interesting when compared to the pop-culture domination of science fiction tropes in modern fandoms today. Many of the conflicts that launched a thousand think-pieces have historical analogues from back when hardcore science fiction fans numbered in the mere hundreds! But of particular interest is the knowledge that sf has always been a category of several interests, not always in agreement—for example, it grew out of pulp adventure stories and tinkerer science-enthusiast fiction, which until 1926 were quite separate entities, and cared differently about the relative importance of scientific plausibility and strong plotting to a story.
Del Rey's editorial distance declines quite a bit as the history becomes more contemporary; his remarks on the so-called "New Wave" of sf were hilarious to me, if a bit strident. Still, I think his comments there, and then his recommendations towards a proper critical theory of science fiction, are instructive even for modern readers; certainly there's no lack of controversy over genre norms in modern science fiction and fantasy.
Overall this is a fine history of sf literature. Del Rey makes a good case for the seminal works in the field, and his recommendations should make for a nice introduction to the "deep norms" of sf as a literary category. I'm not sure how much I believe the conjecture that "you can't write science fiction unless you've read lots of its background material," but it certainly wouldn't hurt!
Del Rey sets down the genesis of science fiction as a true category to be 1926, when Hugo Gernsback (the namesake of the Hugo Awards) published a pulp magazine specifically for what he then called "scientifiction." From there we have the era of John W. Campbell, who almost single-handedly elevated sf to a higher standard, the bust of the Fifties, and the rise of the "New Wave" and fracturing of the category into various disparate sensibilities. Throughout, del Rey highlights authors and stories that he considers particularly meritorious or significant to the development of sf; while his tastes are strongly stated, he's mostly careful about noting when a story appeals to him personally or is significant to the category as a whole. There's a consolidated list of recommended reading in the appendices, with helpful notation marking whether a work is notable primarily for historical value.
As the growth of sf for most of its first fifty years was almost entirely in magazines, del Rey goes through a lot of timeline-esque publication listings. That may have more merit to scholars of science fiction than to the casual reader; however, it's often notable just how many acknowledged masters of the field were discovered by a single magazine editor, or how many seminal stories were published in the same year.
Del Rey also gives a running history of science fiction fandom, which is especially interesting when compared to the pop-culture domination of science fiction tropes in modern fandoms today. Many of the conflicts that launched a thousand think-pieces have historical analogues from back when hardcore science fiction fans numbered in the mere hundreds! But of particular interest is the knowledge that sf has always been a category of several interests, not always in agreement—for example, it grew out of pulp adventure stories and tinkerer science-enthusiast fiction, which until 1926 were quite separate entities, and cared differently about the relative importance of scientific plausibility and strong plotting to a story.
Del Rey's editorial distance declines quite a bit as the history becomes more contemporary; his remarks on the so-called "New Wave" of sf were hilarious to me, if a bit strident. Still, I think his comments there, and then his recommendations towards a proper critical theory of science fiction, are instructive even for modern readers; certainly there's no lack of controversy over genre norms in modern science fiction and fantasy.
Overall this is a fine history of sf literature. Del Rey makes a good case for the seminal works in the field, and his recommendations should make for a nice introduction to the "deep norms" of sf as a literary category. I'm not sure how much I believe the conjecture that "you can't write science fiction unless you've read lots of its background material," but it certainly wouldn't hurt!
December 8, 2014
Although outdated by a mere 35 years, this overview of the first 50 years of the development of science fiction is still fascinating, coming from an author who witnessed much of the history of SF's evolution from pulp magazine fodder to the popularity of Star Wars.
I disagree with several points Mr. del Rey has, but I hesitate at voicing these clearly as I must take into account the fact that this was written such a long time ago-- I'm curious what the author thought of the later developments in SF throughout the 80's and up to his death soon after. What would he have thought of e-readers, cyberpunk (and steampunk) and queer SF etc etc??? Did his view of the limited role of Star Trek fans change as the movies and further TV series continued?
Overall, a good introduction and general history of SF for the student of 20th century pop culture.
I disagree with several points Mr. del Rey has, but I hesitate at voicing these clearly as I must take into account the fact that this was written such a long time ago-- I'm curious what the author thought of the later developments in SF throughout the 80's and up to his death soon after. What would he have thought of e-readers, cyberpunk (and steampunk) and queer SF etc etc??? Did his view of the limited role of Star Trek fans change as the movies and further TV series continued?
Overall, a good introduction and general history of SF for the student of 20th century pop culture.
February 24, 2017
A few years ago on my last visit to my high school library, I found this book on the shelf. It is volume 1 in the Garland Library of Science Fiction. I had read many of the 46 volumes in the collection. The have a dark cover which reminds one of black denim. I'd found them based on simply scanning the shelves and finding them based on their distinctive covers. The volume by Del Rey must have been shelved with literary criticism, while I'd been going through the library's shelves of fiction. As it was my last visit to the library before graduating, I was not able to check it out.
The few Garland volumes I've found since high school have been badly beaten up. The Garland Library was meant for and sold to only the library market. So when I've seen these in book shelves of used book stores, they are ex-library and show it. However, I found this particular book in a second-hand bookshop in Seattle in NEW condition. I was quite pleased to find and purchase it!
In general I enjoyed this history and commentary by Del Rey. We have similar tastes in science fiction, for the most part. Looking across his list of recommended reading, I've already gotten to at least 75% of it. One does get the feeling he purposely overlooks some noteworthy writers, perhaps because of professional or personal conflicts.
Certainly the book’s one great failing is Del Rey’s insistence that the popularization of the science fiction books is divorced from comic books, television, and Star Wars. More than once Del Rey claims Star Trek had no effect on written science fiction, but comparing the 1960’s to the 1970’s, the number of SF books published annually exploded. There were three or four publishers whose annual output was double the number of SF books published by all firms in annually in the 1960’s. Del Rey enjoys recounting the number of SF magazines issued by year and publisher, and acknowledges that in the 70’s paperbacks have eclipsed the magazines, but for him it’s just a trend divorced from science fiction in other media.
The few Garland volumes I've found since high school have been badly beaten up. The Garland Library was meant for and sold to only the library market. So when I've seen these in book shelves of used book stores, they are ex-library and show it. However, I found this particular book in a second-hand bookshop in Seattle in NEW condition. I was quite pleased to find and purchase it!
In general I enjoyed this history and commentary by Del Rey. We have similar tastes in science fiction, for the most part. Looking across his list of recommended reading, I've already gotten to at least 75% of it. One does get the feeling he purposely overlooks some noteworthy writers, perhaps because of professional or personal conflicts.
Certainly the book’s one great failing is Del Rey’s insistence that the popularization of the science fiction books is divorced from comic books, television, and Star Wars. More than once Del Rey claims Star Trek had no effect on written science fiction, but comparing the 1960’s to the 1970’s, the number of SF books published annually exploded. There were three or four publishers whose annual output was double the number of SF books published by all firms in annually in the 1960’s. Del Rey enjoys recounting the number of SF magazines issued by year and publisher, and acknowledges that in the 70’s paperbacks have eclipsed the magazines, but for him it’s just a trend divorced from science fiction in other media.
November 15, 2013
Provides more of a nuts-and-bolts history of twentieth century SF than the more memoir-ish -- and much better -- "The Way the Future Was" (Fred Pohl) or "The Futurians" (Damon Knight). Even though the book is targeted to people who don't have much familiarity with science fiction, he spends a fair amount of space discussing individual issues of SF magazines from the 1930s, '40s, and '50s. I can't imagine anyone except hard-core fans of SF history would find that very interesting. The book's also fairly dated -- no cyberpunk, no New space opera, no the-rest-of-the-world-outside-the-U.S. except England, a little bit -- although del Rey's speculations on how the (then) recently inaugurated "Star Wars" phenomenon might affect SF are pretty interesting. But overall, for fans of the genre the book's of historical interest only, and for anyone not familiar with the genre, they'd be better served reading a few best-of-the-year collections.
December 30, 2012
Very readable trip through the history of science fiction, at least from 1926-1976. In a book such as this, the author can't go into much detail, but I particularly enjoyed being introduced or reintroduced to many golden age and pre-golden age SF writers that have been forgotten. I also didn't realize how much early SF was affected (in terms of quality, respect, and freedom) by being largely restricted to magazines until the early 60's. Not as deep as the excellent "Billion Year Spree" by Brian Aldiss, but more focused than "Astounding Days" by Arthur C. Clarke. A good introduction to early and classic SF history.
May 16, 2019
The World of Science Fiction by Lester del Rey
Though I would agree that this is not a good source of in-depth analysis of the writing of science fiction I think that it does do what it set out to do and expecting any more is truly expecting too much. The History of a Subculture does not imply that it means to analyze the books or the work of that history in great depth; and if it had the book would have had to have taken up much more room on the shelve by the time the ten volumes were finished.
This is a generalized history of the first fifty years of science fiction starting with the age of magazines and short stories. I highly recommend this book when I run across people bemoaning the fact that short stories have slipped in quality, because they seem to be abandoned by many of the authors that were the backbone of science fiction.
The close analysis and the author's own participation in much of the process lends to a comprehensive examination of what happened in the industry throughout that fifty years and how it gradually led to the acceptance of more novels in science fiction; which in fact did draw many authors away from the short story venue. But far from outright abandonment, this book helps detail many of the problems and struggles of the magazine industry to try to create a proper demand and retain that demand while the growing industry became a hydra-like creature that then falls upon itself like an Ouroborus. More than anything; the industry itself, with its ups and downs was the largest factor in losing the more skilled and prolific authors.
If I have one disappointment about this book it would be that it may have failed in recognizing some of the most prodigious works that stand out as milestones in the industry. In particular I can cite a novel that did not get a mention in this history. That novel was important enough that I felt the possibility exists that, because of the omission, even some pivotal short stories might have been missed. I might have let the novel slide if the whole work were devoted entirely to short stories; but the second half does go into detail concerning novels.
What was conspicuously missing was Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle. This is a book that many say was Philip's greatest achievement and it even garnered a Hugo. Had this been mentioned only, though there were others that had brief summaries and sometimes a limited analysis, I would have been happy. But this wasn't even mentioned despite the mention of Philip K. Dick in the short story section. Because of that I realized there might be several other works by other short story writers that could bear mentioning and were passed up. I'm not sure why that is; but that still makes me wonder about whether all the more important short stories were covered, since short stories are not something I ever read in large amounts.
Still this book, despite that one misgiving, stands well as a window into the industry and the people (editors) who figured prominently in creating the consistent feel and encouraged writers to hone their writing skills. It also shows how in the boom times they had to deal with other less stringent publishers and editors who were trying to get a piece of the pie without the work. It carefully details how these late comers consistently destroyed themselves and often a few of the established magazines in the process before recovery was possible.
This book goes on the shelf right next to my two volumes Robert Heinlein biography.
This is a great reference piece that might even have a few good suggestions in reading for die hard SFF fans.
J.L. Dobias
Though I would agree that this is not a good source of in-depth analysis of the writing of science fiction I think that it does do what it set out to do and expecting any more is truly expecting too much. The History of a Subculture does not imply that it means to analyze the books or the work of that history in great depth; and if it had the book would have had to have taken up much more room on the shelve by the time the ten volumes were finished.
This is a generalized history of the first fifty years of science fiction starting with the age of magazines and short stories. I highly recommend this book when I run across people bemoaning the fact that short stories have slipped in quality, because they seem to be abandoned by many of the authors that were the backbone of science fiction.
The close analysis and the author's own participation in much of the process lends to a comprehensive examination of what happened in the industry throughout that fifty years and how it gradually led to the acceptance of more novels in science fiction; which in fact did draw many authors away from the short story venue. But far from outright abandonment, this book helps detail many of the problems and struggles of the magazine industry to try to create a proper demand and retain that demand while the growing industry became a hydra-like creature that then falls upon itself like an Ouroborus. More than anything; the industry itself, with its ups and downs was the largest factor in losing the more skilled and prolific authors.
If I have one disappointment about this book it would be that it may have failed in recognizing some of the most prodigious works that stand out as milestones in the industry. In particular I can cite a novel that did not get a mention in this history. That novel was important enough that I felt the possibility exists that, because of the omission, even some pivotal short stories might have been missed. I might have let the novel slide if the whole work were devoted entirely to short stories; but the second half does go into detail concerning novels.
What was conspicuously missing was Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle. This is a book that many say was Philip's greatest achievement and it even garnered a Hugo. Had this been mentioned only, though there were others that had brief summaries and sometimes a limited analysis, I would have been happy. But this wasn't even mentioned despite the mention of Philip K. Dick in the short story section. Because of that I realized there might be several other works by other short story writers that could bear mentioning and were passed up. I'm not sure why that is; but that still makes me wonder about whether all the more important short stories were covered, since short stories are not something I ever read in large amounts.
Still this book, despite that one misgiving, stands well as a window into the industry and the people (editors) who figured prominently in creating the consistent feel and encouraged writers to hone their writing skills. It also shows how in the boom times they had to deal with other less stringent publishers and editors who were trying to get a piece of the pie without the work. It carefully details how these late comers consistently destroyed themselves and often a few of the established magazines in the process before recovery was possible.
This book goes on the shelf right next to my two volumes Robert Heinlein biography.
This is a great reference piece that might even have a few good suggestions in reading for die hard SFF fans.
J.L. Dobias
December 1, 2021
An entertaining look at the first 50 years of SF publishing and fandom (where "first" is roughly defined as the beginning of the SF magazines and the associated beginnings of fandom, rather than the beginnings of SF as a genre) written by one of the key players. While del Rey absolutely has his biases and blind spots, especially when reading his history with the perspective of almost another fifty years of development in both SF and society in general, he's still a good resource for looking back at these formative years.
Many of the chapters are little more than lists of which magazines were publishing which stories, which are less interesting, but easy to skim for recognized titles. Other chapters, however, go into more detail regarding the development of fandom, conventions (Worldcon), awards (Hugos and Nebulas), workshops (the Clarion Writers Workshop), and other aspects that are now simply part of modern fandom.
Worth reading if you're a fan of early SF short stories or the general history of SF fandom.
Many of the chapters are little more than lists of which magazines were publishing which stories, which are less interesting, but easy to skim for recognized titles. Other chapters, however, go into more detail regarding the development of fandom, conventions (Worldcon), awards (Hugos and Nebulas), workshops (the Clarion Writers Workshop), and other aspects that are now simply part of modern fandom.
Worth reading if you're a fan of early SF short stories or the general history of SF fandom.
April 20, 2020
There was a lot of history here, but it was very much a narrative of del Rey's thoughts about who published what and who worked with who. I was hoping for more analysis, and it just wasn't that kind of book. This is more like a history of jazz that tells you who performed what and where, and what people thought about it, without ever taking about why Big Band was commercially successful and Be Bop was not.
Honestly, I've been looking for a book that would analyze what makes Science Fiction unique, and how it really has evolved. I keep finding more like this: narratives of what happened. Still looking.
Honestly, I've been looking for a book that would analyze what makes Science Fiction unique, and how it really has evolved. I keep finding more like this: narratives of what happened. Still looking.
x-not-for-me
May 15, 2021I did confirm, by flipping through the university's copy, that I prefer the stories from the 40s and 50s of this era. The recommended reading list provided no new avenues (for me) to explore.
(May 2021)
(May 2021)
March 21, 2024
Pompous, chauvinistic and parochial. It's only good for telling you how Lester Del Ray feels about the events that were covered, not any meaningful contextualisation and the general feeling towards them.
February 20, 2019
"Scientifiction" the beginning of Science Fiction! A great book about the start of Science Fiction until the mid-seventies. For anyone interested in Science Fiction and how it started.
December 11, 2016
A history of science fiction from 1920-1976 by Lester del Rey, a science fiction author.
Good thing: This is a good overview of the growth of science fiction through magazines and then out into books.
Bad thing: I'm not a big fan of short stories and most of the work discussed is about them.
I would have loved to read del Rey's take on science fiction after this time.
Good thing: This is a good overview of the growth of science fiction through magazines and then out into books.
Bad thing: I'm not a big fan of short stories and most of the work discussed is about them.
I would have loved to read del Rey's take on science fiction after this time.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews