Second edition
Scholar Edward James praised the second edition of the encyclopedia in his review (for Foundation) in 1993, writing that it is "the one indispensable volume on every sf readers' shelf: not only the best reference work in the field, but one of the best reference works I have seen in ''any'' field". He did, however, found the "sneering" tone of some film entries (de facto film reviews) less than ideal for an encyclopedia. James also noted that although the project is a collaborative effort, nearly half of the entries for that edition have been written by Clute, which he saw as a very impressive achievement on his part. [2]
Writer Gary Westfahl also reviewed the second edition, for the journal Extrapolation . He called it "an invaluable compendium of and contribution to fifty years of science fiction research", representing "a true conceptual breakthrough" for the field of science fiction studies, and noted that even more than the encyclopedia's previous edition, this one "is the one essential reference book for anyone interested in science fiction". He also predicted that "this work will justifiably be cited in all studies of science fiction during the next decade, and those studies will be significantly better because of Clute and Nicholl's painstaking work". Nonetheless he noted that the volume is not perfect, and contains some errors as well as several entries on novel topics that could use more grounding in prior research before being written about in an encyclopedia". [21]
Critic David G. Hartwell in The New York Review of Science Fiction described the second edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction as an extraordinarily comprehensive and intellectually ambitious reference work that rewards both casual browsing and serious consultation. He emphasized its dual function as a practical dictionary and a source of delight, curiosity, and discovery, rich in obscure facts and unexpected connections. While acknowledging that readers may disagree with individual judgments or omissions, Hartwell praised the encyclopedia’s editorial intelligence, breadth, and depth, judging it superior to the first edition. Although not a replacement for close critical studies of individual authors or movements, the encyclopedia is described as a monumental, living achievement: the most comprehensive SF reference to date and a vital cornerstone within the broader “pyramid” of science fiction scholarship. [22]
Critic Gary K. Wolfe reviewed the second edition for the Locus , calling it as an extraordinarily ambitious and largely successful reference work, markedly expanded and more authoritative than its predecessor, offering unprecedented breadth, particularly in its coverage of film, television, themes, and critical concepts, while maintaining a strong literary focus. Wolfe praised the depth, intellectual rigor, and often incisive critical voice of the entries. While acknowledging inevitable omissions, inconsistencies, and occasional editorial bias—especially in judgments of authors, terminology, and national traditions—the review argued that such flaws are inevitable given the encyclopedia’s scale and ambition. Despite concerns about usability, density, and the near-impossibility of error-checking such a massive volume, the reviewer concludes that no comparable reference matches its scope, authority, or critical intelligence, characterizing it as both an indispensable scholarly tool and a defining cultural statement about science fiction at the end of the twentieth century. [23] In the same issue, Chris Fowler noted that the book launch a event (at Eastercon) and subsequent book signing were very well attended, and that the book has already sold out at specialist bookstores in London. [24]
Writer Damien Broderick reviewed the second edition for SF Commentary. The review portrayed The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction as a landmark achievement that successfully bridged the long-standing divide between academic criticism and popular science fiction culture. Framing the project through Peter Nicholls’s self-aware characterization of SF critics as “smart alecks,” the reviewer emphasized the editors’ deliberate effort to adopt a tone that is intellectually rigorous yet accessible, avoiding both academic obscurantism and fan condescension. The second edition is praised for its vast expansion—more than doubling the word count of the first—and for its increased thematic depth, international coverage, and inclusion of film, media, and cultural contexts alongside literary analysis. Unlike conventional reference works, the encyclopedia is described as conversational, discursive, and highly readable, encouraging browsing and sustained engagement rather than mere consultation. While acknowledging minor errors, lingering biases, and earlier shortcomings—such as "its exclusion of women scholars" for its contributors in the first edition—the review argues that these have been substantially addressed in the revision, which Broderick concludes well "renovated" and updated for the 1990s. [25]
Critic and writer Darrell Schweitzer reviewed the work for Aboriginal Science Fiction . He described it as the most comprehensive single source on contemporary science fiction figures and concepts and is characterized as indispensable for libraries and scholars, likely to shape the study of the field for years to come, and effectively replacing earlier SF encyclopedias, including the 1979 edition. The review acknowledged imperfections, from the presence of a unavoidable but generally minor factual errors and omissions, to a bias toward British perspectives, as well as undervaluation of short-fiction specialists. Despite these reservations, the overall judgment is strongly positive, and the reviewer felt that a number of terms, such as the Big Dumb Object, are likely to "become part of the general critical discourse" in years to come. [26]
Writer John Kessel reviewed it for The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction . Having checked the entries about topics he is familiar with, including his own, he concludes that while the book contains minor factual errors and debatable opinions, its overall treatment of authors is fair, intelligible, and professionally balanced. He notes that the work is focused on broadly defined science fiction, which means it can include authors who did not primarily write SF. On the other hand, its focus on major novelists means it can exclude award-winning short-story authors without novels, and such omissions may strike readers as inconsistent. Likewise, the reviewer expresses some regret that there are separate and valuable entries for films and television shows, but not for individual books. Despite these reservations, the reviewer emphasizes the encyclopedia’s breadth: it includes not only authors but numerous other categories, from illustrators and publishers to awards, comics and magazines, up to even early 1990s. The reviewer finds the book impressively reliable given its scope, noting only minor errors and praising the editors’ commitment to issuing corrections and future updates. Addressing concerns about bias and opinionated entries, the reviewer argues that all encyclopedias inevitably reflect editorial judgment. Compared to earlier editions, this version is seen as more cautious and uniformly toned, with most content written by the three principal editors. This produces a homogeneous voice characterized as literate, informed, and positioned between academia, fandom, and general readership. The 212 cross-referenced thematic essays—comprising about a quarter of the book—are highlighted as substantial and intellectually valuable, though the reviewer notes that the absence of illustrations makes the book less visually appealing than its predecessor. awards. In conclusion, the reviewer judges the encyclopedia to be indispensable for scholars, teachers, critics, and serious readers of science fiction. [4]
Writer Don D'Ammassa wrote a brief review of the second edition for the Science Fiction Chronicle . He called "the real thing for a change", and noted that the entries are mostly up to date and accurate, although there are several pages of errata for items such as misspellings (including of his own name). [27]
Writer Nicholas Ruddick briefly commented on the second edition, noting that it has been "highly praised", and commented that sacrificing black and white illustrations of the first edition for more text was a correct decision. [28]
Critic Stephen P. Brown reviewed it for Science Fiction Eye . He saw the work as "the single most important book ever published in the SF field", emphasizing the sheer scale of the work—its unprecedented accumulation of data and its hyperlinked, cross-referential structure, which encourages exploratory reading rather than linear consultation. At the same time he also stressed that the work is not a neutral compilation of facts but as a boldly opinionated reference work, offering strong, sometimes provocative critical judgments, a choice the reviewer regards as courageous and intellectually honest, even if it invites controversy. The main criticism concerns the editors’ rigid inclusion criteria—especially their rule that only authors with at least one book publication qualify—which leads to notable omissions (such as no entry on Paul Di Filippo, who at that time was a prolific author of short stories, but with no novels published) and is characterized as an arbitrary and irresponsible constraint in a genre defined by porous boundaries. [29]
Lawrence Person reviewed it for Nova Express. The review examines the work together with Clute's The Encyclopedia of Fantasy . Person characterizes both volumes as exceptionally large and detailed, each exceeding 1,000 pages, and praises their comprehensive coverage of authors and themes, likening them to hypertext resources for their interconnected entries and potential for extended browsing. The review highlights The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction for its near-complete inclusion of significant science fiction authors with novel-length works published before 1992, though it notes omissions of some short story specialists, and notes how the works are employing newly coined terms by Clute to categorize motifs. Person commends on the dry, evenhanded British tone, which occasionally employs understated critique, and the varying quality of author entries, some offering more insightful critical analysis than others. Criticisms include uneven media coverage, with notable omissions in film, television, and non-Western (and here, non-British) works, and a perceived British bias in selections (with British topics being more likely to be covered than corresponding topics from other countries); sample topics Person believes should've been covered include film Plan 9 from Outer Space , and the entire concept of anime. The review also points out inconsistencies, such as missing entries for certain authors or imprints, and questions the depth of some media listings. Overall, the article recommends both encyclopedias as essential for serious scholars and enthusiasts of speculative fiction, emphasizing their value for research and casual reference despite minor flaws. [30]
Writer Thomas A. Easton reviewed it for Analog Science Fiction and Fact . He opined that it will become, just like its predecessor, a standard reference for its field, until replaced by the eventual third edition. Coverage-wise, he concluded that there are no major errors and that many topics are satisfactory covered, although he noted that there are some omissions (from no entries on books or book series, to rather lacking coverage of some arguably notable fictional creations); he concluded that such issues are inevitable given the limitations of the paper edition's format. [31]
Writer and critic Norman Spinrad reviewed it for Asimov's Science Fiction . He noted that the first edition was indispensable to him and any other critic of the genre. He notes that the massively expanded second edition—both in length and scope—reflects both the explosive growth and diversification of science fiction across different mediums, such as video games, that has been rapidly happening since the late 1970s, and the difficulty of defining “science fiction” in a culture where the label is increasingly shaped by marketing rather than genre logic. [32]
CD-ROM edition
Critic and scholar Fiona Kelleghan reviewed the CD-ROM edition (aka The Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science Fiction or Grolier Science Fiction) for Science Fiction Studies . She called it "the fun version" of the print encyclopedia, noting that it contains thousands of multimedia additions (from book covers to film posters and video features) as well as useful features such as hyperlinks, although she noted the release suffers from several minor bugs or strange formatting choices. [9]
Critic Russell Letson reviewed that edition the Locus. He described it as an ambitious but uneven digital adaptation of Clute and Nichols’s reference work. The reviewer acknowledged the CD-ROM’s major strength as a full second edition of the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, supplemented by additional entries and updates, extensive cross-references, and a search function that allows users to retrieve names, titles, and terms far more efficiently than in print. In this respect, the reviewer sees the CD-ROM as a genuine scholarly tool, particularly valuable for researchers who need fast access to factual information. However, the multimedia elements, such as audio clips, video segments, author videos, and graphical timelines—the supposed justification for the CD-ROM format—are judged far less successful: superficial, uneven in quality and sometimes trivial, adding little beyond novelty value. The reviewer ultimately concluded that the CD-ROM’s real value lies not in its multimedia aspirations but in its function as a searchable, expandable reference database. [7]
Critic Moshe Feder reviewed that edition for Asimov's Science Fiction. He positively commented on its core, the updated and corrected text of the print second edition. He praised digital features such as hyperlinks and word search, but has more mixed feelings on the “multimedia encyclopedia” extras, such as the Book Browser (hundreds of brief work synopses) which he noted is clumsy in execution and presents content that is often inferior to discussion of plot material in author articles. Likewise, he noted that access to media suffered from issues such as lists being under-informative and with images that are too small and not enlargeable from some menus. Despite the nitpicks, he called the work a remarkable accomplishment with the big advantage of being updateable more frequently than a printed tome, and he strongly recommended it to all readers with serious interest in SF. [33]
Third edition
Critic and scholar Robert A. Aken reviewed the beta version of the online edition in 2012 for Choice Reviews Online , nothing that while not complete, it is easy to access, up to date, with errors being rare, and is concluding that "no print or online work approaches this resource's coverage, with its important factual information and provision of significant analysis and context", recommending it for both students and researchers. [34]
Briefly commenting on the third edition, scholar Andrew M. Butler called it "a gold standard for reference works in the field". [35]
Librarian Waudenna Agee reviewed the online edition for Reference Reviews, judging it a comprehensive, authoritative, and continually expanding online reference for science fiction. The review highlighted the encyclopedia's vast scope—covering authors, themes, media, genres, and institutions—along with its scale (millions of words, extensive hyperlinks, and tens of thousands of titles) and frequent updates, underscored by multiple major genre awards. The reviewer praises the site’s usability: clear search tools with advanced filters, intuitive navigation, concise and precise writing, and a clean, readable visual design. SFE’s evolution from book and CD-ROM editions into a dynamic online database is seen as a strength, with mechanisms for user feedback and error correction enhancing reliability. Overall, the review concludes that SFE is an impressive, user-friendly, and indispensable resource for students, researchers, and general readers interested in science fiction, with strong potential for continued growth. [36]
Steven H. Silver wrote about SFE for Black Gate magazine in 2019. His review called The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction as a landmark achievement in the history of science-fiction scholarship and frames its creation through the career of Peter Nicholls, emphasizing his central role in professionalizing and legitimizing SF criticism. Solver traces how the encyclopedia’s first edition (1979) emerged from Nicholls’s academic and critical work in Britain, won the inaugural Hugo Award for Best Nonfiction in 1980, and established a new standard for reference works in the field. His article compares successive editions, noting that while later print and online versions superseded the original, the first edition, the intellectual foundation of the project, remains historically significant for its breadth, its illustrated format, and its ambition at a time when SF studies were still marginal. Silver highlights the encyclopedia’s evolution into a collaborative, continually updated project—especially in its current web incarnation—which reflects the changing state of SF scholarship and the genre itself. The review concludes that The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction remains one of the most important and award-recognized reference works ever produced in science fiction studies. [37]
