The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction

Rating:
Summary: A Who's Who of Who's Missing
Review: Expections run high when a 600 plus page encyclopedia of SF is published. The major section of the text, "Science Fiction on the Page," devoted to SF writers, takes up nearly 300 pages. However, this encyclopedia is fannishly idiosyncratic, to say the least, as the following list of omitted writers attests - to wit: Tony Daniel, Avram Davidson, Gordon R. Dickson, George Alec Effinger, James Gunn, Alexander Jablokov, Nancy Kress, Ian McDonald, George R. R. Martin, Andre Norton, Rebecca Ore, Robert Reed, Mike Resnick, Frank M. Robinson, Fred Saberhagen, Charles Sheffield, Dan Simmons, Clifford Simak, Cordwainer Smith, William Tenn, Jack Williamson, George Zebrowski, and David Zindell. No offense, but frankly, I could have done with a little less on Eugene Byrne, Simon R. Green, Justina Robson, Kim Newman, et. al., for entries on Terry Bisson, C.M. Kornbluth, Stanley Weinbaum, Robert L. Forward, Michael Flynn, Michael Bishop, Barry Malzberg, James Tiptree, Jr., George Turner, et.al. The number of important SF writers neglected in this enclyclopedia is staggering. This is less a comprehensive reference work than a deficient compilation by a fan whose predisposition toward Brithsh SF and occasional crankiness makes for a disappointing entry into SF reference field.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent introduction to emerging authors
Review: George Mann's accessible and well-organized encyclopedia of the genre makes for a fun read and a great introduction to emerging authors. While Mann succeeds in highlighting promising new talents, he lamentably excludes many deserving "big names." And the section devoted to SF movies and television, while entertaining, seems ill-suited for a work concerned almost wholly with literary works. Regardless of any given reader's bickering with who Mann chooses to exlude, the "Encyclopedia" is a studious and helpful reference for genre addicts and curious initiates.

Rating:
Summary: 4.5 stars
Review: I agree that alot of worthy authors were left out of this book(Michael Swanwick, James Morrow and Neil Gaiman to name a few), but the vast ammount of information that is included makes it well worth the price! Half of the book is comprised of author bios including some of the top new writers like Ken MacLeod and Michael Marshall Smith. Another section is dedicated solely to themes, terms, and devices in SF. Overall this book is very current and very well done. In future editions it would be a good idea if the History of SF section were dropped(It has been done SOOO many times) and the SF Film section were its own book. That way all 612 pages would be strictly authors, books, lists and awards. Also my cover art is different(much better) than the one shown above, and it also includes some of the authors previous reviewers were missing from their copys. The only other Encyclopedia that comes close to this one is the book by John Clute, but it's more than twice as much and its a bit dated(time for a new edition?).

Rating:
Summary: A British, fannish view of the field of SF
Review: I bought this book sight unseen or without even a description, since i do love things SF. Upon opening and beginning to read it, I realized that it wasn't quite what I expected.

First of all, its from England, which is not a bad thing at all, but it does mean that British authors have a more prominent and highlighted presence in this work than Americans are accustomed to reading about. Iain Banks and Stephen Baxter have pretty big entries, for example, and George R.R. Martin has none at all.

And second, it was written by a fan for a fan (admitted in the first paragraph of the preface). I had been expecting something like the big encyclopedias out there, done by an editor or a writer that I had simply not heard of. So, the viewpoint is different, and much more subjective than you might expect. You won't find cold and clinical analysis of the entries. This can be a good thing, if you don't mind the presence of the author bias.

The Encyclopedia itself is broken up into several parts. After a preface, Mann discusses the origins and history of SF. The next section, the longest, discusses selected authors. The subsequent section looks at SF in movies and TV. Much like the Encyclopedia of SF, Mann has a goodly section on thematic entries, as well. Finally, he finishes the work with a look at SF societies and awards and such, and has a substantial section on internet resources. Although the hazards of the Internet make such sections perilously prone to being outdated, it was a pleasure to see one here. The book is cross-referenced quite well, too. Those looking for a large, exhaustive encyclopedia on the order of the John Clute Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (or his one for Fantasy) should look elsewhere. If you want a more idiosyncratic view, with a British slant on authors and SF in general,this may be more of your cup of tea. And it IS cheaper and more intimate than the other monster SF encyclopedias on the market. It was not what I expected, but I am well satisfied with the Mammoth Encyclopedia of SF.

Rating:
Summary: A British, fannish view of the field of SF
Review: I bought this book sight unseen or without even a description, since i do love things SF. Upon opening and beginning to read it, I realized that it wasn't quite what I expected.

First of all, its from England, which is not a bad thing at all, but it does mean that British authors have a more prominent and highlighted presence in this work than Americans are accustomed to reading about. Iain Banks and Stephen Baxter have pretty big entries, for example, and George R.R. Martin has none at all.

And second, it was written by a fan for a fan (admitted in the first paragraph of the preface). I had been expecting something like the big encyclopedias out there, done by an editor or a writer that I had simply not heard of. So, the viewpoint is different, and much more subjective than you might expect. You won't find cold and clinical analysis of the entries. This can be a good thing, if you don't mind the presence of the author bias.

The Encyclopedia itself is broken up into several parts. After a preface, Mann discusses the origins and history of SF. The next section, the longest, discusses selected authors. The subsequent section looks at SF in movies and TV. Much like the Encyclopedia of SF, Mann has a goodly section on thematic entries, as well. Finally, he finishes the work with a look at SF societies and awards and such, and has a substantial section on internet resources. Although the hazards of the Internet make such sections perilously prone to being outdated, it was a pleasure to see one here. The book is cross-referenced quite well, too. Those looking for a large, exhaustive encyclopedia on the order of the John Clute Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (or his one for Fantasy) should look elsewhere. If you want a more idiosyncratic view, with a British slant on authors and SF in general,this may be more of your cup of tea. And it IS cheaper and more intimate than the other monster SF encyclopedias on the market. It was not what I expected, but I am well satisfied with the Mammoth Encyclopedia of SF.

Rating:
Summary: Could have been good, but it ain't
Review: This book, both by title and description, purports to be a reference source on the genre of science fiction. In some ways, it is exactly that, but unfortunately, it has such glaring omissions that it is more of a novelty than a good source of information.

On the plus side is the organization of the book, which is essentially broken down into four sections: a brief history of SF, a listing of authors and their major works, a listing of significant science fiction movies and a glossary of key topics in the genre (aliens, robots, etc.). This format makes the book easy to read either end-to-end or just randomly (although an end-to-end read will be diminished a bit by redundancies). In addition, the author is a decent enough writer to make this a relatively pleasant read.

Unfortunately, the omissions in this book are so apparent that they make the reader question the author's true knowledge of the genre. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the section on authors, where such prominent science fiction names as Piers Anthony, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Keith Laumer and Clifford Simak (one of the legends in the field) are missing while much more obscure authors get space. This is not a judgement on the quality of the authors either mentioned or forgotten, merely their level of contribution to the genre. In addition, there are cases where plot descriptions are inaccurate.

While an interesting read, the flaws in this book are so significant and obvious that it cannot rate any higher than two stars. While this might give a reader a glimpse into the world of science fiction, it is a distorted glimpse, like through a piece of flawed glass: you can get a lot of the details, but the overall picture is a mess.

Rating:
Summary: Better than John Clute Anyway
Review: Unlike John Clutes laboring pseudo-academic gibberish designed to appease Harold Bloom and his cronies which keeps you flipping back to the glossary as his burdensome tome clefts large cavities in your thighs this book's approach is more practical. Albeit slightly biased toward English writers. John Clute is himself Australian, however Clutes faculty club post modern fashion statement is absent and that's good for anyone who finds such trendy accents precious, vain and fatuous. If you want that read Jacques Derrida or the minutes of the Modern Language Association, that is "serious" literature.