{"id":11452,"date":"2019-11-13T13:51:15","date_gmt":"2019-11-13T13:51:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/?p=11452"},"modified":"2024-07-06T20:08:31","modified_gmt":"2024-07-06T20:08:31","slug":"nebula-award-stories-twelve-edited-by-gordon-r-dickson-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/?p=11452","title":{"rendered":"Nebula Winners Twelve, edited by Gordon R. Dickson, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

ISFDB<\/a><\/p>\n

Other reviews:1<\/sup>
\nPaul Walker, Galaxy Bookshelf (Galaxy,<\/a><\/em> November-December 1978<\/a>)<\/a><\/em>
\nStephen W. Potts, Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review<\/em> (July 1979)
\nVarious, Goodreads<\/a><\/p>\n

_____________________<\/p>\n

Editor, Gordon R. Dickson<\/p>\n

Fiction:2<\/sup>
\nA Crowd of Shadows<\/em><\/strong> \u2022 short story by Charles L. Grant \u2217\u2217<\/strong>
\nBreath\u2019s a Ware That Will Not Keep<\/em><\/strong> \u2022 short story by Thomas F. Monteleone \u2217<\/strong>\u2217<\/strong>\u2217<\/strong>
\nTricentennial <\/em><\/strong>\u2022 short story by Joe Haldeman \u2217<\/strong>\u2217<\/strong>\u2217<\/strong>
\nIn the Bowl<\/em><\/strong> \u2022 novelette by John Varley \u2217<\/strong>\u2217<\/strong>\u2217<\/strong>+
\nThe Bicentennial Man<\/em><\/strong> \u2022 novelette by Isaac Asimov \u2217<\/strong>\u2217<\/strong>\u2217<\/strong>\u2217<\/strong>\u2217<\/strong>
\nHouston, Houston, Do You Read?<\/em><\/strong> \u2022 novella by James Tiptree, Jr. \u2217<\/strong>\u2217<\/strong>\u2217<\/strong><\/p>\n

Non-fiction:
\nIntroduction <\/em><\/strong>\u2022 by Gordon R. Dickson
\nScience Fiction in the Marketplace<\/em><\/strong> \u2022 essay by Algis Budrys
\nThe Academic Viewpoint<\/em><\/strong> \u2022 essay by James E. Gunn
\nNebula Awards, 1975, 1976: Win, Place, and Show<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

_____________________<\/p>\n

Although it isn\u2019t a \u2018Best of the Year\u2019 volume for 1976, this collection of Nebula Award winners (chosen by the Science Fiction Writers of America) seems to be a natural fit for that group, hence this review. I have discussed the Asimov and Tiptree stories previously, but have pasted them in at the end for the convenience of those who haven\u2019t seen them.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The first of the stories is the winner of the Nebula Award for best short story, A Crowd of Shadows<\/em><\/strong> by Charles L. Grant,3<\/sup> which begins with the narrator going to a holiday resort called Starburst. While he is on the beach he sees a couple with an android boy (only obvious from the digits tattooed on the inside of his arm). Later, while having dinner in the hotel, he again sees the threesome, and notes the anti-android sentiment expressed by some of the other diners.
\nThe next morning a detective arrives at the narrator\u2019s door to investigate the murder of one of those diners overnight and, later that day, the narrator sees the detective again outside the hotel. He then watches as the detective tries to deal with anti-android hostility from the guests, many of whom think the boy did it because of the way he was treated the previous night. Then there is another murder . . . .
\nThe story closes with (spoiler) the narrator waking that night to see a disturbance, a \u201ccrowd of shadows\u201d, on the beach. When he goes down to investigate, he finds the boy is dead\u2014and that he is not android but human (the parents later turn to be the androids).
\nThis story unfolds smoothly enough (and generally reads like something you might find in a literary quarterly) but the motivation for the boy\u2019s actions isn\u2019t convincing, and the murders aren\u2019t explained. The narrator\u2019s final admission about his own potential prejudice also rings false.
\nThis doesn\u2019t seem like an obvious Nebula Winner to me, and I\u2019m not even sure it works as a story.4<\/sup><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Breath\u2019s a Ware That Will Not Keep<\/em><\/strong> by Thomas F. Monteleone is one of his \u2018Chicago\u2019 series, set in a dystopian future where people are eugenically produced by \u201cBreeders\u201d, host-mothers spoken to telepathically by their \u201cMonitors\u201d:<\/p>\n

Technically speaking, Feraxa was human. Visually, however, she was an amorphous, slithering, amoeba-like thing. She was tons of genetically cultured flesh, a human body inflated and stretched and distended until it was many times its normal size. Lost beneath her abundant flesh was a vestigial skeleton which floated disconnected and unmoving in a gelatinous sea. Her bioneered organs were swollen to immense proportions and hundreds of liters of blood pumped through her extensive circulatory system.
\nYet he knew, even as he activated the probes that plunged into her soft flesh, that she was still a woman to him. A very special kind of woman. From her earliest moments of consciousness, she had spent her life contained within the glassteel walls of the Breeder Tank. It was an immense cube, ten meters on each side, the back all covered with connecting cables and tubes which carried her life-support systems, monitoring devices, and biomedical elements that were necessary for her continued maintenance.\u00a0 p. 21<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Benjamin is Feraxa\u2019s Monitor and, after some initial scene setting which limns their relationship, he notices that something is wrong with one of her routine biochemical tests. After discussing it with his boss it becomes apparent that there has been a malfunction, and that Feraxa, if left to go to term, will birth a batch of \u201crandoms\u201d rather than the administrators she was supposed to produce. The decision is made to terminate them.
\nWhen the surgical team arrives later (spoiler), we see that Feraxa\u2019s psi powers are much more advanced than anyone realises, and she kills several of the medical technicians by inducing cerebral haemorrhages. Nevertheless, she is eventually overcome and killed.
\nBenjamin goes home and attempts to have biological sex with his partner, rather than the computer-assisted sex that is normal for citizens of this society; as he climaxes he thinks of Feraxa.
\nThis is a competent piece of SF horror, but its 1970\u2019s-style future dystopia feels dated, and it has the feel of a taboo-busting version of earlier 1950\u2019s stories.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Tricentennial <\/em><\/strong>by Joe Haldeman starts just before America\u2019s Tricentennial (2076), with a scientist from an L-5 colony trying to get political help to fund a project to send a radio signal to a newly detected alien civilisation. The scientist gets nowhere, and over the next few years the L-5 colonists build a starship to go to a nearby twin sun to harvest antimatter. They then plan to detour to 61 Cygnus (the source of the signals) on the way back. The ship departs during the Tricentennial celebrations on Earth.
\nThe mission initially goes to plan but on the second leg (spoiler) an accident happens on the spaceship, and it continues accelerating to 99% of the speed of light. The effects of relativity cause an ever increasing time difference between the ship and Earth.
\nWhen the ship\u2019s crew eventually manage to fix the problem and, after 1500 light years of travel, they settle on a nearby planet. At this point the ship time is 2093, whereas it is 5000 on Earth. This provides a suitably elegiac ending:<\/p>\n

The season they began landing colonists, the dominant feature in the planet\u2019s night sky was a beautiful blooming cloud of gas that astronomers had named the North American Nebula.
\nWhich was an irony that didn\u2019t occur to any of these colonists from L-5\u2014give or take a few years, it was America\u2019s Trimillennial.
\nAmerica itself was a little the worse for wear, this three thousandth anniversary. The seas that lapped its shores were heavy with a crimson crust of anaerobic life; the mighty cities had fallen and their remains, nearly ground away by the never-ceasing sandstorms. No fireworks were planned, for lack of an audience, for lack of planners; bacteria just don\u2019t care. May Day too would be ignored.
\nThe only humans in the Solar System lived in a glass and metal tube. They tended their automatic machinery, and turned their backs on the dead Earth, and worshiped the constellation Cygnus, and had forgotten why.\u00a0 p. 60<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is a competently done story with some good culture-drift\/anti-science\/dumbed-down-culture background, but I don\u2019t think it is an obvious Nebula finalist (or a Hugo Award winner!)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In the Bowl<\/em><\/strong> by John Varley is one of his \u2018Eight Worlds\u2019 stories, this time set on Venus, where the narrator Kiku has gone to prospect for \u201cblast jewels\u201d. He gets off to an uncertain start:<\/p>\n

Never buy anything at a secondhand organbank. And while I\u2019m handing out good advice, don\u2019t outfit yourself for a trip to Venus until you get to Venus.
\nI wish I had waited. But while shopping around at Coprates a few weeks before my vacation, I happened on this little shop and was talked into an infraeye at a very good price. What I should have asked myself was what was an infraeye doing on Mars in the first place?
\nThink about it. No one wears them on Mars. If you want to see at night, it\u2019s much cheaper to buy a snooperscope. That way you can take the damn thing off when the sun comes up. So this eye must have come back with a tourist from Venus. And there\u2019s no telling how long it sat there in the vat until this sweet-talking old guy gave me his line about how it belonged to a nice little old schoolteacher who never . . . ah, well. You\u2019ve probably heard it before.\u00a0 p. 62<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There follows some travelogue that describes his trip into the deserted wastes of Venus, and Kiku eventually reaches the last human settlement; it is there that his eye finally stops working. His attempts to get it repaired lead him to the story\u2019s second main character, Ember, a precocious eleven-year-old who he finds at a water fountain in the middle of the settlement\u2014with her pet otter. Kiku feels optimistic about Ember\u2019s medical abilities as she has a peacock fan of feathers on her head, and transplanted long blonde hair on her forearms and lower legs.
\nEmber fixes his eye, and then tells him she wants to go with him to look for blast jewels. Kiku fobs her off until he realises that she is the only one in town who will hire him a sky-cycle. Eventually he, Ember, and the otter set off.
\nThe rest of the story details their journey towards the blast jewel site, during which their relationship develops (Ember agreed to guide Kiku for free as she wants him to adopt her and take her to the more civilised Mars; he doesn\u2019t entirely agree to do this, and rather leads her on). We also learn more about blast jewels, and how the formative process is so unstable that all you have to do to find them is to stamp on the ground and listen for explosions.
\nThe climax of the story occurs when (spoiler), Kiku tells Ember that he won\u2019t take her to Mars; she then sexually propositions him (she is supposedly eleven, and he is seventy), but he refuses and leaves their shelter to sleep outside. When he wakes up later she (and her pet otter!) are lying beside him . . . and next to them both is a nascent blast jewel:<\/p>\n

It was three meters away, growing from the cleft of two rocks. It was globular, half a meter across, and glowing a dull-reddish color. It looked like a soft gelatin.
\nIt was a blast jewel, before the blast.
\nI was afraid to talk, then remembered that talking would not affect the atmosphere around me and could not set off the explosion. I had a radio transmitter in my throat and a receiver in my ear. That\u2019s how you talk on Venus; you subvocalize and people can hear you.
\nMoving very carefully, I reached over and gently touched Ember on the shoulder.\u00a0 p. 91<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

They initially try to figure out how to get far enough away from the explosion so that their force suits will be able to protect them (the suits are impermeable but don\u2019t entirely stop the effects of noise and acceleration\u2014why the suits can mitigate the pressure and heat of Venus\u2019s atmosphere but not the pressure of sound waves isn\u2019t explained). Then Kiku looks more closely at the proto-blast jewel, and the reader gets to visit the sense-of-wonder mother lode (last seen age 12):<\/p>\n

The damn thing was moving.
\nI blinked, afraid to rub my eyes, and looked again. No, it wasn\u2019t. Not on the outside anyway. It was more like the movement you can see inside a living cell beneath a microscope. Internal flows, exchanges of fluids from here to there. I watched it and was hypnotized.
\nThere were worlds in the jewel. There was ancient Barsoom of my childhood fairy tales; there was Middle Earth with brooding castles and sentient forests. The jewel was a window into something unimaginable, a place where there were no questions and no emotions but a vast awareness. It was dark and wet without menace. It was growing, and yet complete as it came into being. It was bigger than this ball of hot mud called Venus and had its roots down in the core of the planet. There was no corner of the universe that it did not reach.
\nIt was aware of me. I felt it touch me and felt no surprise. It examined me in passing but was totally uninterested. I posed no questions for it, whatever it was. It already knew me and had always known me.
\nI felt an overpowering attraction. The thing was exerting no influence on me; the attraction was a yearning within me. I was reaching for a completion that the jewel possessed and I knew I could never have. Life would always be a series of mysteries for me. For the jewel, there was nothing but awareness. Awareness of everything.\u00a0 p. 92<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What happens afterwards is predictable in hindsight.
\nThis is an engrossing story with well-done world-building, lots of engaging character interaction, and a good sense of wonder scene to finish. However, there are a couple of things that spoiled this for me this time around. First, there is Ember\u2019s age: not only is she a minor in our society, but she is one in the story too (the age of majority is twelve on Venus, and fourteen on Mars), so the idea of her propositioning a much older man makes for uncomfortable reading (even if the advanced biotech makes age\u2014and birth sex\u2014more mutable in this strange future world). And even if you don\u2019t experience a cultural relativism fail as I did, having Ember as an eleven year old just doesn\u2019t convince (I realise there is a history of peppy young female characters in some SF\u2014but eleven<\/em>?)
\nThe second problem the story has is that at the end of it they both, having discovered the jewels\u2019 sentience, plan to go back to civilization and say nothing\u2014they have no objective evidence, and it would prove impossible for humans to get close enough to the jewels to observe them without causing an explosion. They then (fatalistically and unconvincingly) accept that the jewels won\u2019t be able to exist near human cities, and that mankind\u2019s expansion will eventually doom them.
\nSome of you will no doubt be able to overlook both these caveats\u2014your prize will be a contemporary retelling of a Golden Age sense-of-wonder type story that is very well done. Those of you who develop the same reservations as me will still find it an entertaining and worthwhile read.<\/p>\n

The reviews of the next two stories are reprints from previous posts here\u2014skip down to the conclusion for the rest of this maunder if you have read them before.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Bicentennial Man<\/em><\/strong> by Isaac Asimov is the Nebula (and Hugo) Award winner for best novelette, and it is probably one of the best stories of his I\u2019ve read\u2014vastly superior to his early work in the various 1940s Astoundings<\/em> I\u2019ve read recently (there is nothing like thirty years of practice to improve your writing).
\nThe story concerns Andrew, a valet robot who is the property of a family who discover that he can carve wood and \u201cenjoy\u201d the experience. His owner begins selling the carvings, and puts half the money in an account for the robot. Andrew becomes increasingly human-like, and he eventually has enough money to \u201cbuy\u201d his freedom. His owner doesn\u2019t want the money, but he does institute a court case to give Andrew\u2019s wishes legal foundation, and they win. Nonetheless, years later, after the death of the owner, and even though Andrew is legally free, he almost comes a cropper at the hands of two yobs as a result of his programming, which means he must obey their orders to dismantle himself. Andrew is only just saved in time by the son of the family. Andrew then determines to write a history of robots, which eventually results in the establishment of robot rights.
\nThis first part of the story mirrors, in some respects, the emancipation of the American slaves, but the rest of it goes somewhere else entirely when it proceeds to detail Andrew\u2019s long struggle to become human. This begins after the \u201cLittle Miss\u201d of the story, the young girl that Andrew used to care for, dies in her eighties, and Andrew goes to United States Robots with one of the grandsons to pressure them to give him one of their new android bodies. Andrew eventually gets his way, but causes US Robots to change their business model so they never deal in autonomous robots again.
\nEven after getting his android body, Andrew wants to become even more human, and this leads him into the design of ever more sophisticated prosthetics:<\/p>\n

He accepted membership in several learned societies, including one that was devoted to the new science he had established\u2014the one he had called robobiology but which had come to be termed prosthetology. On the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of his construction, a testimonial dinner was given in his honor at U.S. Robots. If Andrew saw an irony in this, he kept it to himself.
\nAlvin Magdescu came out of retirement to chair the dinner. He was himself ninety-four years old and was alive because he, too, had prosthetized devices that, among other things, fulfilled the function of liver and kidneys. The dinner reached its climax when Magdescu, after a short and emotional talk, raised his glass to toast The Sesquicentennial Robot.
\nAndrew had had the sinews of his face redesigned to the point where he could show a human range of emotions, but he sat through all the ceremonies solemnly passive. He did not like to be a Sesquicentennial Robot.\u00a0 p. 153<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The rest of the story describes the processes which make Andrew completely \u201chuman\u201d (spoiler): first, there is a court case which defines him as such; second, he has surgery which makes him mortal. The last scene has the World President arriving at Andrew\u2019s deathbed to sign the new law and to declare him The Bicentennial Man.
\nThis is an exceptional piece which is smoothly written, has a number of smart set pieces, and builds a great story arc (which stretches over generations). It also has a great last line which is both a call-back to the first part of the story and a revelation that Andrew\u2019s humanity goes beyond prosthetics or laws.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Houston, Houston, Do You Read?<\/em><\/strong> by James Tiptree, Jr. is the Nebula Award winner for best novella, and it is probably one of the best known stories from the this period, a story which tells of a spaceship crew who are caught in a time-distorting solar flare and end up hundreds of years in the future. The three men in the crew don\u2019t realise what has happened for a good chunk of the story and most of the first half is a tense, claustrophobic tale that has them trying to work out what has gone wrong. Earth is not only in the wrong place in the \u201csky,\u201d and they don\u2019t have the fuel to get there\u2014Houston isn\u2019t answering their radio calls either. However, an all-female crewed spaceship does and, after much back and forth, the three men are eventually rescued by them after using up all their fuel to get as close to them as possible (the last part of the men\u2019s journey involves a perilous spacewalk to cover the remaining distance).
\nThe second half covers the three men\u2019s experiences on board the women\u2019s ship, and how Lorimer, the narrator, slowly discovers that there was an epidemic on Earth that killed off all the men, with only eleven thousand women surviving. These have cloned themselves into a population of two million, and they live in static, peaceful, and non-hierarchical society.
\nThe story concludes (spoiler) with an extended (and sexually violent) scene where the three men are drugged and lose all behavioural inhibitions (the story actually begins with the men in this state and the story is told mostly in flashback). Under the influence of the drug they now act out, in extremis, the character traits exhibited throughout the story (Lorimer is the decent but passive observer; Buddy is the horny, sexist, and rapey one; and Dave\u2014the commander\u2014is the patriarchal, religious nut job).
\nSo, obviously, Buddy rapes one of the Judys and assaults Andy (who we discover is not a teenage boy but an androgynous female). During the assault the pair collect a semen sample (to increase the planet\u2019s gene pool), before Dave turns up and orders Buddy to stop. Dave then does some religious ranting before pulling a gun and firing, puncturing the hull.
\nThe men are eventually restrained and, it would seem, killed\u2014Lorimer\u2019s last line is this:<\/p>\n

The drink tastes cool going down, something like peace and freedom, he thinks. Or death.\u00a0 p. 266<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Reader reaction to this story will probably split into two groups. Some will hate it and think that the male characters are misandrist caricatures, and the women\u2019s peaceful utopian society both unlikely and unrealistic; others will love the \u201cLet\u2019s get rid of the men\u201d power fantasy, and see the story as a clear-eyed view of what the world would be like without the dreaded patriarchy. I suspect that the irony of the women\u2019s final actions\u2014where they act in a way as ghastly as the men supposedly do\u2014will be lost on this latter group and, if it isn\u2019t, I\u2019m guessing this will be written off with the usual \u201cthe ends justify the means\u201d zeal. After all, what did Lorimer do to deserve a death sentence other than possess a Y chromosome?
\nMy own reaction was mixed. The story is, in some respects, technically well done\u2014I\u2019ve already mentioned the tense first part, and the later unravelling of the mystery behind this strange society is skilfully done too, even if it is pretty obvious what has happened. On the other hand there is the stereotypical (at best), or malign (at worst), characterisation, and the pious genocide of half of the human race at the end of the story.5<\/sup> I didn\u2019t dislike this as much as The Marching Morons<\/em> because it is a better told story, but it is essentially the same kind of unpleasant scapegoating.6<\/sup><\/p>\n

There are four pieces of non-fiction in this volume. Leading off is the Introduction <\/em><\/strong>by Gordon R. Dickson, where he discusses the remarkable quality of current SF, and suggests this is due to the wide freedom that writers have within the genre with regard to \u201cidea, pattern, attitude or style\u201d.
\nHe finishes by saying that attempts at categorisation will not prevent this:<\/p>\n

Consequently, science fiction, as a self-defining genre, has had to resist the impulses of some of its best friends to put it into different bags at different times in its history, right down to the present one\u2014bags which in every case would have excluded work that properly belonged within its canon. The efforts continue; not merely on the part of some publishers and booksellers, but on the part of some scholars, academics, critics, and others without and within the field itself. Human nature being what it is, they can be expected to so continue into the future.\u00a0 p. xii<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I presume that the individual story and essay introductions also come from Dickson: I’ve included these for contemporary colour, and because they are sometimes of interest for other reasons (the Tiptree one obliquely refers to that writer\u2019s real identity).7<\/sup><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

There are also two essays in the middle of the book. The first of these is Science Fiction in the Marketplace<\/em><\/strong> by Algis Budrys8<\/sup> (oddly by-lined as by Algirdas Jonas Budrys), which is, unusually for Budrys, quite a hard read. It took me about two and a half attempts to work out what he was saying (or part of it anyway).
\nBudrys begins by talking about the kinds of current SF which are worth buying (for readers) and selling (for publishers), before going back to look at when SF first became a commercial proposition under Gernsback and Campbell. After this he swerves into Campbellian SF (\u201cModern Science Fiction\u201d), and how this had a monopoly in the field until Kingsley Amis arrived:<\/p>\n

Kingsley Amis came to this country in the mid-fifties to present a series of lectures at Princeton. These were later collected as New Maps of Hell<\/em>, the first nonCampbellian (and hence \u201cnonKnightly\u201d) body of SF criticism which had to be generally respected. It represented a view so shockingly disruptive of \u201cmodern science fiction\u201d standards that many members of the SF community were unable to assimilate it.
\nFor years, most reaction to Amis was less reasonable than it was outraged. In some quarters, it was puzzled; here was a consistent view of SF measured as social satire, embodying Amis\u2019s \u201ccomic inferno\u201d term, lent weight by ivied halls, and implying an artistic accomplishment at some hands\u2014notably Frederik Pohl\u2019s\u2014where Campbellians had simply read competence underlying a kind of frivolity. (The Space Merchants<\/em>,9<\/sup> for instance, was a notably successful commercial property of its time, but most SF community members saw it as technically flawed and certainly not a serious social extrapolation.)\u00a0 p. 107<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Budrys then discusses Amis\u2019s successors\u2014the Milford and Clarion writing workshops, the New Wave, etc.\u2014and how, after these various efforts to develop literary standards, \u201cwe have come to the present pass\u201d. He then mentions (the information is gleaned from several editor interviews) that storytelling sells better than academic work (\u201cgloom and doom\u201d, \u201cartiness\u201d, \u201cmessages\u201d), and discusses both types of fiction before concluding with this:<\/p>\n

What does that maximum audience want? What is the essential ingredient that it finds attractive, and will search for? What makes it ignore the work of the conscious and acclaimed intellectualizer, in favor of writers who may appreciate academe and be appreciated by it, but who make no obvious bow to it in their writing?
\nIf the endurance of Star Trek<\/em> as a phenomenon is any indicator, the key ingredients occur most thickly in \u201cmodern science fiction.\u201d The basic premise of the voyages of the starship Enterprise is solidly Campbellian, and most of the individual episodes of that TV series would, with a little fleshing-up, fit very nicely in a 1940 [Astounding Science Fiction<\/em>]. There is something to be learned, however, from the fact that the \u201cscience\u201d in Star Trek<\/em> is pure set-decoration, and there is room to wonder just how essential \u201cscience\u201d\u2014i.e., consumer technology\u2014is to \u201cscience fiction.\u201d It\u2019s also interesting to note that Star Trek<\/em> has always been perceived as somehow different from the standard pulp-like TV adventure series\u2014and more satisfying to those who like it at all.
\nThis observation to my mind opens a door into an enormous room which ought to fill up with critics and scholars. Star Trek<\/em> has undoubtedly created a major percentage of the SF reading audience today. There is no question but that \u201cmodern science fiction\u201d is limited not only intellectually but artistically. It cannot illuminate as much of life as there obviously is. Yet Campbellianism may be stronger than ever today. Still, it cannot be true that the evolution of SF can go no further without leaving its audience behind, or else the readers are not in fact interested in going where no man has gone before on the ultimate frontier. That limitless frontier is the capacity of Man to be interested in himself.
\nI find it difficult to accept the proposition that SF is a somehow special form of literature, with its own rules, if those rules are assumed to be restrictive. I am much more ready to assert that there is evidence SF contains more of whatever essential it is that causes people to read fiction of any kind, and bit by bit over the years to come we are going to find it, by playing off \u201cacademe\u201d and \u201ccommerce\u201d against the private thing that happens within the mind of the artist, and which then communicates to the audience.\u00a0 p. 111-112<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There is a lot to unpack in this essay, and I may have to have yet another read of it. (I note in passing that there are some matters discussed here that overlap with Norman Spinrad\u2019s recent review column in Asimov\u2019s Science Fiction<\/em>.10<\/sup>)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Academic Viewpoint<\/em><\/strong> by James E. Gunn is an interesting essay about teaching sf. Gunn lays down a set of criteria and then discusses each of them:<\/p>\n

1. CONSISTENCY OF STORY
\n2. STORY PREMISES
\n3. APPLICATION OF THE PREMISES
\n4. CREDIBILITY OF THE CHARACTERS
\n5. CONSISTENCY OF THEME
\n6. IMAGERY
\n7. STYLE
\n8. TOTAL ARTFULNESS
\n9. CHALLENGE TO THE IMAGINATION
\n10. OVERALL IMPRESSION\u00a0 p. 120<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I suspect Gunn\u2019s classes were worthwhile educational experiences.
\nAt the end of the book we have Nebula Awards, 1975, 1976: Win, Place, and Show<\/em><\/strong>, which gives the finalists and winners for this year and the one before:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I suppose I should leave my comments about the finalists for my 1976 overview, but I\u2019d note in passing that it seems a weak year for short stories (Knight\u2019s I See You<\/em> presumably doesn\u2019t appear as it is outside the qualification period, and Aldiss\u2019s Appearance of Life\u2014<\/em>which appeared in a UK original anthology, Andromeda #1\u2014<\/em>presumably wasn\u2019t seen by enough voters).<\/p>\n

In conclusion: a book of two halves, with the latter half\/two thirds stronger.\u00a0 \u25cf<\/p>\n

_____________________<\/p>\n

1. Paul Williams provides a long review of this anthology in his Galaxy Bookshelf<\/em> (Galaxy<\/em>, November-December, 1978)\u2014it is almost three pages long\u2014and it is worth a read. He says that \u201cit is the most tolerable [. . .] of the Nebula Award volumes I have read\u201d, and \u201chas two excellent stories\u201d by John Varley and Isaac Asimov, and \u201ctwo equally good essays\u201d by Algis Budrys and James Gunn. He goes on to say the Varley is \u201cnot his best, but pretty good\u201d and that \u201cthe Asimov, however, is breathtaking\u201d.
\nHe comments further about the Asimov:<\/p>\n

The story is really a series of short-shorts, nicely woven together. What makes them fascinating is the careful evolution of Andrew\u2019s thinking from machine to man. Asimov has not simply taken a human character and called him a robot, but made Andrew wonderfully different and only gradually human. Part of his success depends on the constant contrast between him and his human family. They are not complex people, but warm and alive. As intricate as the philosophical and legal aspects of the story become, Asimov never loses the story\u2019s humanity. Nor is anything assumed. If this were to be the first robot story you had read, you would not be confused by any of the terminology. p. 137<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He is not as impressed by Grant\u2019s story:<\/p>\n

Less than first-rate is [the] award-winning, \u201cA Crowd of Shadows.\u201d To me, this is a typical \u201caward-winner,\u201d the kind of story people like Damon Knight and Harlan Ellison point to as evidence of science fiction\u2019s maturation, the kind that is supposed to be comparable to anything in the mainstream.
\n[. . .]
\nThe murders [. . .] have nothing to do with androids, or with the time and place of the story. They are acts of protest against an unfeeling world. The world itself is hardly described. It could as well as be Miami Beach. In short, change \u201candroid\u201d to black, and the time of the story to twenty years ago, and you have the same story.
\nAs in most \u201caward-winners,\u201d neither the theme nor the characters are in any way remarkable. By contrast with the Asimov story, one might say that Grant\u2019s narrative technique is more sophisticated (i.e., more literary), but while both are working with familiar materials, Asimov\u2019s style makes them seem fresh and alive, while Grant\u2019s does not.\u00a0 p. 137-138<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He goes on to say the same is true, to a lesser extent, of the Haldeman and Monteleone stories, i.e., both \u201chave familiar ideas given sophisticated literary treatment.\u201d Walker finishes with the fiction by saying, \u201cFinally, there is James Tiptree, Jr.\u2019s Houston, Houston, Do You Read?<\/em>\u2014which I could not.\u201d
\nHe goes on to discuss the non-fiction essays at some length (although he seems to come to the mistaken conclusion that Budrys was \u201ctsk-tsking\u201d about \u201cthe predominance of story-oriented sf in the marketplace\u201d). After some further discussion about why people read SF he concludes with this:<\/p>\n

I can think of no better reason for a mature adult to read science fiction than because he or she enjoys it. Non-fiction is a much better source of ideas; the better mainstream literature is a considerably superior source of aesthetic pleasure. All the science fiction experience has to offer is itself. The experience of alien worlds and new technologies and far future adventures. For those who love it, it is enough.\u00a0 p. 139<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

2. The stories are taken from F&SF<\/em> (Grant, Varley), Dystopian Visions<\/em> (Monteleone), Analog <\/em>(Haldeman), Stellar #2<\/em> (Asimov), Aurora: Beyond Equality<\/em> (Tiptree). There is nothing from Amazing<\/em>, Fantastic<\/em>, or Galaxy<\/em>.<\/p>\n

3. There was only one more \u2018Starburst\u2019 story from Grant, A Voice Not Heard<\/em> in Asimov\u2019s Science Fiction Magazine<\/em>, September 1984.<\/p>\n

4. The Nebula Awards are as easily skewed by author popularity as the Hugos, if not more so (I don\u2019t want to be unkind to the writer or his story, but Grant had been Executive Secretary of the SFWA for four years by this point). Remember, awards are decided by author popularity \u00d7 story quality \u00d7 story availability \u00d7 zeitgeist.<\/p>\n

5. Death seems to have been a major feature of Tiptree\u2019s work according to the Science Fiction Encyclopaedia<\/a>. She also has form for writing what can only be described as political propaganda: Ellen Datlow remarked (in a recent Coode Street Podcast<\/em>) that she rejected a story of hers which has the super-rich eating their young . . . . (is this Mortality Meat<\/em>?)<\/p>\n

6. In Jo Walton\u2019s An Informal History of the Hugo Awards<\/em>, she says, \u201cI\u2019d have voted for the Tiptree.\u201d
\nRich Horton says:<\/p>\n

I admit to not being a big fan of Houston, Houston, Do You Read?<\/em>, largely on the grounds that I don\u2019t really approve of stories that seem to call for my extermination. (I grant that that\u2019s an unfair reading of the story, which is subtler than that, but it still bothers me.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I\u2019m not sure it is<\/em> subtler than that.
\nGardner Dozois says:<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve always been lukewarm about Houston, Houston, Do You Read?<\/em>, which I think is a much misunderstood story. Alice Sheldon herself once told me that she considered it to be a \u201ccautionary tale,\u201d NOT a wish-fulfilment utopia (someday, we\u2019ll get rid of all the men!), as many people read it; you\u2019re not supposed to approve of what happens to the men in the story, the idea being that either sex having complete power over the other is not a good idea.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Even if I\u2019d had that conversation with Sheldon myself, I\u2019d still<\/em> find it difficult to view the story as a cautionary tale, and suspect very few people are going to find one buried there, especially given the generally disagreeable male characters (Lorimer is, at best, passive).<\/p>\n

7. The 1976 Nebula Award pages (p. 240 and p. 241) are a composite of three pages photoshopped into two for convenience.<\/p>\n

8. I was always a bit \u201cmeh\u201d about The Space Merchants<\/em> myself, and couldn\u2019t really see what the fuss was about.<\/p>\n

9. Some of Budrys\u2019 other essays are available in print at Lulu<\/a>, and as ebooks at Amazon<\/a> and Ansible Editions<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10. Norman Spinrad is not impressed with the current<\/em> Nebula Award Winners volume, or the state of SF generally, judging by this review column<\/a> in the current Asimov\u2019s<\/em>. It was taken down for a short period after complaints before reappearing with Shelia Williams\u2019 (the editor of Asimov\u2019s<\/em>) disclaimer. (This latter seems rather spineless to me\u2014I can see why you might want to say the author\u2019s opinions are their own, but you don\u2019t have to grovel.)
\nThere is more about this hoo-hah on File770<\/a>. Some of the comments are interesting (no, not really): apparently you don\u2019t actually have to engage in reasoned argument nowadays, just describe your opponent as a \u201cgrumpy old white man\u201d. I wonder if the people who post comments like this realise it says much more about them than those they are attacking.<\/p>\n

11. If you want a better idea of how this book measures up against what I might pick for a 1976 \u2018Year\u2019s Best\u2019, or learn what other anthologists chose, look at the table below (this is the same one which will appear at the end of the review of the Carr and Wollheim volumes). It will be updated as and when I find stories I like, or citation sources I feel should be included (for more on the latter see below).<\/p>\n

The first to fourth column give the story titles, authors, lengths and place of publication (see below the table for abbreviation legend).
\nThe \u2018T\u2019 column lists T<\/strong>erry Carr\u2019s choices with an \u2018x\u2019, and his recommendation list with an \u2018o\u2019.
\nThe \u2018D\u2019 column lists Gardner D<\/strong>ozois\u2019 choices with an \u2018x\u2019, and his other recommendations (comments in his introduction and in Walton\u2019s An Informal History of the Hugo Awards<\/em>) with an \u2018o\u2019.
\nThe \u2018W\u2019 column lists Donald W<\/strong>ollheim\u2019s choices with an \u2018x\u2019.
\nThe \u2018A\u2019 column lists Lin Ca<\/strong>rter’s choices with an \u2018x\u2019.
\nThe \u2018S\u2019 column shows my (S<\/strong>F Magazine\u2019s) current choices an \u2018x\u2019 (historical choices are an \u2018o\u2019). A dash means read but passed over (I only select stories better than \u2217\u2217\u2217+ and above, and not all of them). Blank means unread.
\nThe \u2018C\u2019 column shows how many of the anthologies and\/or polls used in the Classics of Science Fiction list<\/a> included the story in their collections or lists (note that C<\/strong>oSF is SF only and skews against fantasy), minus the anthology or award citations which have their own column (Carr, Dozois, Wollheim, Hugo, Nebula, etc.).
\nThe \u2018O\u2019 column shows the number of inclusions in o<\/strong>ther major anthologies or recommendation lists not on the CoSF (Classics of SF) list. These are selected by me (usually to include fantasy retrospectives or awards that CoSF doesn\u2019t include) but I may not yet have done this for some\/all of the stories.*
\nThe \u2018H\u2019 column shows the story\u2019s 1977 H<\/strong>ugo award placing (F for finalist, W for winner).
\nThe \u2018N\u2019 column shows the story\u2019s 1977 N<\/strong>ebula award placing (F for finalist, W for winner).
\nThe \u2018U\u2019 column shows stories that were one of the 1977 Locu<\/strong>s Poll\u2019s top ten short stories, novelettes, or novellas.
\nThe \u2018T\u2019 column shows the t<\/strong>otal points that each story gets (they get a point for being in each column and for each of the CoSF and other anthology citations).<\/p>\n

The titles, names, lengths, publications, and overall score columns are sortable.<\/p>\n

A good way to sample 1976\u2019s best short fiction may<\/em> be to start at the top of the table and work down until you get to the last of the 2-point stories. Bear in mind this is statistically invalid, but it will give you something to aim at. Enjoy.<\/p>\n

Best Science Fiction and Fantasy Stories 1976<\/h3>\n
\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n\n\n Title<\/th> Author<\/th> L<\/th> P<\/th> T<\/th> D<\/th> W<\/th> A<\/th> S<\/th> C<\/th> O<\/th> H<\/th> N<\/th> U<\/th> TO<\/th> <\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
I See You<\/td>\n Damon Knight<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n F<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 6<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Phantom of Kansas<\/td>\n John Varley<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n GAL<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n F<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 7<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Seeing<\/td>\n Harlan Ellison<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n AND<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Death of Princes\u00a0<\/td>\n Fritz Leiber<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n AMZ<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 3<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Psychologist Who Wouldn't [. . .]<\/td>\n James Tiptree, Jr.<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n NED<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 3<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Eyeflash Miracles<\/td>\n Gene Wolfe<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n FUT<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n F<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 5<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
An Infinite Summer<\/td>\n Christopher Priest<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n AND<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 4<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Highest Dive\u00a0<\/td>\n Jack Williamson<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n SFM<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Meathouse Man<\/td>\n George R. R. Martin<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n ORB<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 3<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Custer's Last Jump<\/td>\n S. Utley\u00a0&\u00a0H. Waldrop<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n UNI<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n F<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 6<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Bicentennial Man<\/td>\n Isaac Asimov<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n STE<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 4<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n W<\/td>\n W<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 11<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Diary of the Rose<\/td>\n Ursula K. Le Guin<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n FUT<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n F<\/td>\n W<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 7<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Air Raid (1)<\/td>\n John Varley<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n ASI<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Ladies and Gentlemen [. . .]<\/td>\n Kate Wilhelm<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n ORB<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Back to the Stone Age<\/td>\n Jake Saunders<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n LON<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n F<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Armaja Das<\/td>\n Joe Haldeman<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n FRI<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Mary Margaret Road-Grader<\/td>\n Howard Waldrop<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n ORB<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n F<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 5<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Samurai and the Willows<\/td>\n Michael Bishop<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n F<\/td>\n F<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 6<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Appearance of Life<\/td>\n Brian W. Aldiss<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n AND<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 5<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Overdrawn at the Memory Bank\u00a0<\/td>\n John Varley<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n GAL<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 5<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Those Good Old Days of Liquid Fuel<\/td>\n Michael G. Coney<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Hertford Manuscript<\/td>\n Richard Cowper<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 4<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Natural Advantage<\/td>\n Lester del Rey<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n AMZ<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Cabinet of Oliver Naylor<\/td>\n Barrington J. Bayley<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n NEW<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
My Boat<\/td>\n Joanna Russ<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n o<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 3<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Houston, Houston, Do You Read?<\/td>\n James Tiptree, Jr.<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n AUR<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n 6<\/td>\n <\/td>\n W<\/td>\n W<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 11<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
By Any Other Name<\/td>\n Spider Robinson<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n ANA<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n W<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Piper at the Gates of Dawn<\/td>\n Richard Cowper<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/td>\n F<\/td>\n F<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 6<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Gotta Sing, Gotta Dance<\/td>\n John Varley<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n GAL<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n F<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 5<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Tricentennial<\/td>\n Joe Haldeman<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n ANA<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n W<\/td>\n F<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 4<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
A Crowd of Shadows<\/td>\n Charles L. Grant<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n F<\/td>\n W<\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 4<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Custom Fitting<\/td>\n James White<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n STE<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n F<\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 3<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
In the Bowl (2)<\/td>\n John Varley<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n F<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
His Hour Upon the Stage<\/td>\n Grant Carrington<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n AMZ<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n F<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Stone Circle<\/td>\n Lisa Tuttle<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n AMZ<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n F<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Breath's a Ware That Will Not Keep<\/td>\n Thomas F. Monteleone<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n DYS<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n -<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n F<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Anvil of Jove<\/td>\n G. Benford & G. Eklund<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Weather War<\/td>\n William Cochrane<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n ANA<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Media Man<\/td>\n Joan D. Vinge<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n ANA<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Birthdays<\/td>\n Fred Saberhagen<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n GAL<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Greenhouse Defect<\/td>\n Andrew J. Ouffutt<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n STN<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Bagatelle<\/td>\n John Varley<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n GAL<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Paradise Beach<\/td>\n Richard Cowper<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Tower of Ashes<\/td>\n George R. R. Martin<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n ANB<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Barrow<\/td>\n Ursula Le Guin<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Codemus<\/td>\n Tor Age Bringsvaerd<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n ROW<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Dead in Irons<\/td>\n Chelsea Quinn Yarbo<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n FTL<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Pairpuppets<\/td>\n Manuel Van Loggem<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n ROW<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Party Line<\/td>\n Gerald Klein<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n ROW<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Screwtop<\/td>\n Vonda N. McIntyre<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n TCS<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Seventh Voyage<\/td>\n Stanislaw Lem<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n TSV<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Spider Silk<\/td>\n Andre Norton<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n FLA<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Strange Wine<\/td>\n Harlan Ellison<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n AMZ<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
A Case of the Stubborns<\/td>\n Robert Bloch<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Ladies of Beetlegoose Nine<\/td>\n Reginald Bretnor<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Incredible Umbrella<\/td>\n Marvin Kaye<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n FAN<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
A Beast for Norn<\/td>\n George R. R. Martin<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n AND<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Giant Killers<\/td>\n Andrew M. Stephenson<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n AND<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Eudoric's Unicorn (1)<\/td>\n L. Sprague de Camp<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n YBF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Shadow of a Demon<\/td>\n Gardner F. Fox<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n DRA<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Ring of Black Stone<\/td>\n Pat McIntosh<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n ANU<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Lonely Songs of Laren Dorr<\/td>\n George R. R. Martin<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n FAN<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Two Suns Setting<\/td>\n Karl Edward Wagner<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n FAN<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Stairs in the Crypt<\/td>\n L. Carter\u00a0&\u00a0C. A. Smith<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n FAN<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Goblin Blade (1)<\/td>\n Raul Garcia Capella<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n YBF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Dark King (1)<\/td>\n C. J. Cherryh<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n YBF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Black Moonlight<\/td>\n Lin Carter<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n FAN<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Snout in the Alcove (1)<\/td>\n Gary Myers<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n YBF<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Pool of the Moon<\/td>\n Charles R. Saunders<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n x<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Journey to the Heartland<\/td>\n Brian W. Aldiss<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n UNI<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Jamie's Smile<\/td>\n Alan Bennert<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n IOT<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Second Soul<\/td>\n Alan Brennert<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n GAL<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
How You See It, How You Don't<\/td>\n Rich Brown<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n AMZ<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Cinderella Machine<\/td>\n Michael G. Coney<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n FSF<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
O, Brave Old World<\/td>\n Avram Davidson<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n BET<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
In the House of the Worm<\/td>\n George R. R. Martin<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n IOT<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Skirmish on a Summer Morning<\/td>\n Bob Shaw<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n COK<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
In the Land of Clear Colors<\/td>\n Robert Sheckley<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n NEC<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
The Never-Ending Western Movie<\/td>\n Robert Sheckley<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n SFD<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Under the Generator<\/td>\n John Shirley<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n UNI<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Predators<\/td>\n Steven Utley<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n IOT<\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Beneath the Hills of Azlaroc<\/td>\n Fred Saberhagen<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n ODY<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
When I Was Ming the Merciless<\/td>\n Gene Wolfe<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n IOT<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Men of Greywater Station<\/td>\n H. Waldrop & G. Martin<\/td>\n nv<\/td>\n AMZ<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Bloody Man<\/td>\n Avram Davidson<\/td>\n na<\/td>\n FAN<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Tharquest and the Lamia Orbiquita<\/td>\n Brian Lumley<\/td>\n ss<\/td>\n FAN<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n o<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/tbody> \n\n \n <\/table>\n\n Generated by wpDataTables<\/a><\/span>\n<\/div>