What do you think?
Who's who in science fiction
First edition. Biographies of more than 400 people involved in the field. 220 pages. stiff paper wrappers.. small 8vo..
- GenresReferenceScience Fiction
219 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1976
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 11, 2024
[Elm Tree Books] (1976). SB. Advance Proof. 220 Pages. Purchased from Richard Dalby’s Library.
There’s an early warning when, in the Introduction, the author positions the guide as being “comprehensive” but “less than exhaustive”.
Either way, absurdly, it’s not indexed.
The opening article (Kobo Abe) refers to “The Ruined Map” as “…a further example of… distinguished sf work…” - not a statement which would originate with anyone who knows anything about the novel.
He describes H. P. Lovecraft’s work as “turgid, repetitive and well-nigh unreadable”. Further: “…he provided just enough* genuine contributions to the genre to merit his inclusion here.” Why, then, is the related article of comparable size to that afforded to Stanislaw Lem: “The Titan of East European science fiction”?
“Planet of the Apes” is said to have had: “…a popular eruption in Marvel Comics” - a gaffe which may have been subsequently eliminated.
(*Many qualifying writers are positioned as being on the border of irrelevance. Of Ambrose Bierce, for example: “…in the main it is difficult to see much evidence of sf…”)
It’s claimed that Bob Shaw had one of his “main periods of production” in the 1950s… but not so the 1970s… flagrant nonsense.
L. Ron Hubbard is described as “The Prophet of Dianetics”!
Why anyone would prefer “anti-utopia” to ‘dystopia’, I don’t know… his remarks re: “Logan’s Run”, under William F. Logan, suggest a marked misunderstanding of the term(s)…
Despite numerous faults, and an occasionally pompous tone, I still found this to be an interesting and useful book.
There’s an early warning when, in the Introduction, the author positions the guide as being “comprehensive” but “less than exhaustive”.
Either way, absurdly, it’s not indexed.
The opening article (Kobo Abe) refers to “The Ruined Map” as “…a further example of… distinguished sf work…” - not a statement which would originate with anyone who knows anything about the novel.
He describes H. P. Lovecraft’s work as “turgid, repetitive and well-nigh unreadable”. Further: “…he provided just enough* genuine contributions to the genre to merit his inclusion here.” Why, then, is the related article of comparable size to that afforded to Stanislaw Lem: “The Titan of East European science fiction”?
“Planet of the Apes” is said to have had: “…a popular eruption in Marvel Comics” - a gaffe which may have been subsequently eliminated.
(*Many qualifying writers are positioned as being on the border of irrelevance. Of Ambrose Bierce, for example: “…in the main it is difficult to see much evidence of sf…”)
It’s claimed that Bob Shaw had one of his “main periods of production” in the 1950s… but not so the 1970s… flagrant nonsense.
L. Ron Hubbard is described as “The Prophet of Dianetics”!
Why anyone would prefer “anti-utopia” to ‘dystopia’, I don’t know… his remarks re: “Logan’s Run”, under William F. Logan, suggest a marked misunderstanding of the term(s)…
Despite numerous faults, and an occasionally pompous tone, I still found this to be an interesting and useful book.
December 19, 2012
An interesting look at SF as seen in the 1970s. Not sure if everyone will find this a page turner, but it's a good ref to keep on hand. Not only does it name all the well known SF writers up until 1976, it also has a nice intro that lists out all the themes of SF. Bug-Eye'd Monsters? Yep, that's a theme according to Ash. Agree or not, its fun to look at.
September 4, 2007
Famously inaccurate. It's a fun read to spot the errors and the myths it perpetuates.
May 22, 2015
One of the essential guides to SF authors!
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews