I've wanted to ask someone this question for a while -- I collected many paperbacks published as SF Masterworks by Gollancz around the turn of the century. They were terrific mass published titles; came with numbers on the spine to inspire collectors to be completists. The cover art was one of the reasons these paperbacks were so desirable. The art was breathtaking being illustrated by people like Boris Vallejo, Chris Moore and Jim Burns... but sometime later (maybe 8 to 10 years later) Gollanz made the terrible, terrible mistake to print the covers in mono and two tone! The covers were still the same illustrations but rather than be giddy, wild dreamscapes into future/alternative worlds they become second rate wallpaper... These boring covers are still being sold now as part of the SF Masterworks range... Any idea why a publishing house would do something so regressive? It's like a type of artistic vandalism to reduce the Chris Moore's cover to Bester's The Stars My Destination ( showing Gully Foyle with tiger stripe tattoos) into a flat monochromatic nothingness... Why? I stopped buying them because of this idiotic move.

Thank you for posting, you’ve saved me some money. I’m a graphic designer and this book unfortunately hasn’t been designed well. My jaw dropped a few times with some of the page layouts, especially on pages with 2-3 pieces of art. Whoever laid out these pages didn’t use a grid system which is quite tragic given the content. Also I’d be very bothered by such an art book containing elements that don’t reflect the title.

So much information packed into a single book review. In this case you’ve saved me a purchase, although I did pick up The Magus based on your interview with Christopher Priest. Great video Outlaw!

Thanks; I found this quite enjoyable, both the tour and the commentary. I actually find the 70s' artwork more imaginative.

Love that Angus McKie end paper at the start. The book reminds me of “Space Wars, Worlds and Weapons.” I recall that that art book generated an enormous interest in finding the works referenced within it and helped to kickstart my love of science fiction reading, and art. I think in that sense this modern take on the same thing could help generate more readers.

I grew up in the ‘70s lookin’ at Heavy Metal magazine. And,,, Chris Bishop/Ian Drury books.

Posting early, befor others "articulate much better"😊 .And give me "a nuff said " moment . Not a bad book . Some i have seen befor. Those were the days i dared to judge a book by its cover . Even the covers with the space man with the ray gun saving some less clad damsel , seldom found inside.😂😂 .Eerie and Creepy covers ?. Good call on the Wells . Verne is another who have suffered at the hands of bad , abridged translation .

I bought the book and I'm delighted with it. I have hundreds of books but this is now my favourite. The pictures are awesome and bring back the memories of my youth. The book explains the history of the art form very well and includes personal contributions from the artists themselves. It is great to see the same sci-fi subject being covered in different ways by different artists for the same book as the art form developed. There is a sci-fi channel which broadcasts SF to the world and they must be professionals. Yes? So if you love sci-fi then buy this book.

Taschen would've done a better/bigger job of this. I'd die a happy man if Benedikt got around to a massive monograph on Richard Powers. The decades old Dragons Dream volume is nice but slight for such a prolific, prodigiously talented artist. If Frazetta can have a monster tome dedicated to him, why not RMP?

Guilty as charged concerning vintage paperbacks. Can never resist a good Richard Powers cover. I think you summed up the problem I had with the book perfectly when you pointed out the author was more interested in the art than the science fiction. There is no real insight into the relationship between the art and the text of the books they were illustrating, which is a real missed opportunity. I also found myself slightly frustrated that there were not more examples of the covers themselves. Perhaps a hangover from Paperbacks From Hell, but it does illustrate the focus of the book. A bit of a disappointment. Still, the art is beautiful and the information on the individual artists is valuable. Excellent video as always.

Thanks for covering this. A very nice critical overview. Got much of the cover art. Tend to agree with you on monographs vs overview. Nevertheless it looks interesting.

Thanks for the flip through. Very informative.

Excellent × 10 this book is this and that good loved it just love old school sci fi( 60s,70s,80s,90s) plus some 50s,40s art is very good dont like A.I not because its too fake but because its too perfect.

It’s an interesting looking book but it’s probably something that I would browse through in the bookstore but not buy. Also, if I’m buying an art book I want a lot of full page pictures. If I buy a book showcasing book covers I want the pictures to be, at least, the size of the paperback, not smaller. I love 70’s SF covers but this book doesn’t do anything for me but it’s always a pleasure to listen to Steve talk about anything.

9 times out of 10 I buy a book first for content then second for the best cover. The one time of the ten I will bypass content if I fall in love with the right cover

Interesting your comment about Jim Burns. I met him at Worldcon 2014 in London. What a guy he is. However I didn't realise his work goes as far back as the 70s?

It looks like an early drop for the Christmas market, most likely aimed at youth. It's got a very similar lackluster layout and selection to a book that was issued by the SFBC. Something fun for under the Christmas tree, or perhaps a late-year birthday. A starting point to train an eye to discern by element. It looks like "Lost Transmissions" might be the better 'book shaped object'.

Although he didn't do SF book covers (to my knowledge), my SF/space fav artist of all time is Chesley Bonestell. Much like Harryhausen is my fav stop-motion animator of all time. They just don't make 'em like that anymore. Not to say subsequent or more modern artists aren't extremely talented, they are, it's just that modern video/CG art is computer assisted as opposed to analog/organic/by-hand. It's a personal taste of course, as I prefer to play acoustic musical instruments as opposed to analog/digital electronic instruments even though I have used synthesizers both analog and digital in performance situations for decades. I simply prefer hands-on when it comes to SF art instead of CGI or electronic mediums. Traditional art in this genre seems more human to me. As always OB, another great topic here on the Outlaw Bookseller. Is there no end to the breadth and width of your knowledge? Crikey. Cheers, old chap!

Somewhat on the fence about this book, seems a bit jumbled together. I’m wondering if “Tomorrow and Beyond” by Ian Summers is a better collection of work? The John Harris art book is on my list too.

Some lovely artwork there, but you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover they say . The new John Wyndham covers are awful but the books are fantastic case and point I think . Enjoyed the interview on Jon’s channel sci fi scavenger good fun most entertaining 👍🏻

Hmm! I don't think I'll bother to buy it. On the basis of your flick-through, it strikes me as an ad-hoc assemblage of whatever the author had to hand, rather than a well researched and serious attempt to cover the 1970s as a decade. Like you, I prefer single artist monographs, and I have many of those. Two more general books on SF art I can recommend are Brian Aldiss' "Science Fiction Art', a book of massive proportions published by New English Library, and 'Art of the Imagination' by Frank M. Robinson and a couple of others who really know their stuff. The Aldiss is great fun and makes no attempt to be comprehensive, the Robinson is quite simply stunning in its breadth.

A lot of nice Foss & Frazetta but essentially pointless. Art books that aren't one artist need to have a theme or at least a consistent time frame. At least there wasn't much if any Freas.

El libro puede estar muy bien el problema es la maquetacion

This has been on my wish list for months and I'm pretty disappointed with the content and format. I'm a year younger than you, so the 70s was my formative period too and it's easy for the likes of us to see where the book falls short in the content arena, but for a publisher not to give a full page to each worthy piece is criminal. It's a 'miss' for me. 'The Art of Classic Sci-Fi Movies: An Illustrated History' is published in a couple of months - I hope it'll be better than this.