In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Anatomy of Wonder: Science Fiction
Anatomy of Wonder: Science Fiction, ed. Neil Barron. New York: R.R. Bowker Co., 1976.

Part of the "Bibliographic Guides for Contemporary Collections Series," Anatomy of Wonder: Science Fiction does not attempt to be a comprehensive handbook, according to its editor, but it has endeavored to include all works of "major significance." The volume is divided into two sections: "The Literature" and "Research Aids."

Part I, "The Literature," consists of five essays, each followed by an appropriate bibliography. The first four essays cover the field of science fiction "from its beginning" to "the Modern Period, 1938-1975." The fifth, "Juvenile Science Fiction," by Francis J. Molson, is of most immediate interest to ChLA members. Molson' s essay (pp. 302-307) is a concise discussion of the development of the genre Briefly mentioning such 19th and early 20th century series as Frank Reade, Jr. stories and the Tom Swift series, as well as young people's access to adult science fiction and to science fiction pulp magazines, he contends that the publication of Robert Heinlein's Rocketship Galileo in 1947 "marked mainstream children's literature's recognition of SF and its potential for engaging youth. . . . " He then proceeds to analyze the juvenile science fiction of the '50's which he candidly points out was often hack work written for publishers eager to take advantage of the growing interest in science and SF.

In proof of his claim that juvenile SF has come of age in the last fifteen years, Molson cites such works as L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time and O'Brien's Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, and, with less validity, LeGuin's The Farthest Shore, which, as a work of pure fantasy, does not seem entirely relevant to his argument.

The concluding paragraphs explain Molson' s criteria for selecting entries in the annotated bibliography which follows the essay. His choices have been guided more by "the needs of the general reader, the classroom teacher, and the librarian" than by the needs of the specialist or the SF "fan." Books selected, in addition to being within the conventional age levels, are those that are well-written and illustrate "a particular theme, approach, and direction in SF" or which "represent the multivolume work of an [End Page 18] author such as Norton or Heinlein." Third, almost all books included have been published since 1947.

The annotated bibliography (pp. 308-334) contains 99 entries alphabetically arranged by author. For most entries the hardcover edition is listed with date of publication and price, followed by the paperback edition and price but no date. Some entries have no price listed but it is unclear whether this means that they are out of print or that the information was unavailable. The general editor would have been wise to omit prices in any case, since a random check indicates that many prices are now inaccurate.

In a reference book which is primarily bibliographic in nature, one could have wished for a more accurate presentation of publication information. While many entries indicate the existence of both hardcover and paperback editions, only the date of the hardcover volume is given. In some cases, such as O'Brien's Mrs. Frisby and Sleator's House of Stairs, there is no indication of paperback editions though such are currently available for both books. In the case of Ursula LeGuin's A Wizard of Earthsea, the Ace paperback edition is given though it is out-of-print and has been superceded by the Bantam edition.

Though it is perhaps a "purist" objection, it is a bit puzzling to find works of fantasy in a science fiction bibliography. Molson justified the inclusion of such works as Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles, LeGuin's Earthsea trilogy, and C.S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles on the grounds that "it is not always possible to distinguish carefully between science fiction and high fantasy," (although he clearly labels them high fantasy) and because these fantasies "deserve to be widely read" (an irrelevant argument.) One wonders, then, why The Hobbit was omitted.

In reviewing a bibliography, one is always tempted to point out significant omissions, but this...

pdf

Share