mulcahy.indd 15 Science Fiction Collections in ARL Academic Libraries Kevin P. Mulcahy Kevin P. Mulcahy is the English and American Literature Librarian in Alexander Library at Rutgers University; e-mail: Mulcahy@rci.rutgers.edu. This study assesses the extent to which ARL academic libraries collect science fiction novels. A core list of 200 novels, published between 1950 and 2000, that have either won science fiction awards or been cited on “best” lists were checked against the holdings of 112 ARL libraries. Findings suggest that science fiction is not extensively collected at most libraries studied. The study also assesses differences in how novels are collected by date and by nationality and gender of author. To support in-depth and serious research in a field of increasing scholarly interest, libraries may need to reconsider their collecting practices. ike a number of popular lit- erature genres, science fiction has a�racted increasing a�en- tion from academic scholars and critics over the past three decades. Academic interest in science fiction has increased because of a general interest in popular culture, but also because of the enormous popularity of science fiction films and the pervasive impact on our society of technological advances once restricted to the imagination of science fic- tion writers, including personal comput- ers, the Internet, cloning, and high-tech weapons systems. Scholarly a�ention is reflected in the number of science fiction courses offered at colleges and universi- ties (more than 400 according to a 1996 study1) and the emergence of several academic journals dedicated to the critical study of science fiction, including Extrapo- lation, Science Fiction Studies, and Founda- tion. A�ention is further manifested by the proliferation of science fiction scholarship and history published by presses catering to the academic market (for example, Contributions to the Study of Science Fiction and Fantasy from Greenwood Press and Liverpool Science Fiction Texts and Studies from Liverpool University Press) and a number of scholarly series reprinting classics of science fiction literature (for example, Wesleyan Early Classics of Sci- ence Fiction from Wesleyan University Press and Bison Frontiers of Imagination from the University of Nebraska Press). The Science Fiction Research Association (founded in 1970) is just one of several scholarly associations with a specific in- terest in the field. However, many science fiction writ- ers and scholars fear that the field is still relegated to the margins of the accepted literary canon, especially as manifested in academic teaching, criticism, and publishing. Both a collection of essays entitled Science Fiction, Canonization, Marginalization, and the Academy and the introduction to a May 2004 special issue of PMLA titled “Science Fiction and Literary Studies: The Next Millennium” argue for the importance of science fiction but also express anxiety and frustration over what many science fiction scholars perceive as continuing academic neglect.2 And almost any academic involved in science fiction teaching or scholarship will have firsthand experience of colleagues’ scorn for science fiction: “Why are you bother- ing to teach that stuff?” Science fiction has achieved a place in the academic canon, but its adherents worry about being rel- egated to a second-class berth. Evidence for either the canonization or continued marginalization of science fic- tion might be found in the collecting prac- tices of academic libraries. Indeed, one could argue that the support given science fiction scholars by academic libraries—in the form of collections of primary and sec- ondary works—is an indicator of just how accepted science fiction is by the broader scholarly community. However, a search of the library literature suggests that there have been few studies of the extent to which academic libraries acquire science fiction primary texts—novels, magazines, or short fiction collections. Most mentions of science fiction in library literature are reviews, discussions of recommended reading lists, announcements of major gi�s, or descriptions of special collections. Hal W. Hall’s collection of essays, Science Fiction Collections: Fantasy, Supernatural and Weird Tales, for example, profiles a few major research collections rather than assessing a large number of collections.3 Hall’s chapter, “Research Library Collec- tions of Science Fiction,” in the new fi�h edition of Anatomy of Wonder (which ap- peared as this essay was being revised for publication) offers additional profiles and statistical data about the best collections of science fiction among academic, public, and national libraries but does not a�empt to assess a wider range of collections.4 This study complements Hall’s work by examining the collecting practices of a specific population of academic libraries. To what extent has science fiction been in- cluded in the canon of literature collected by academic libraries? This study a�empts to begin to answer that question. The author decided to focus on aca- demic members of the ARL rather than a�empt to study all academic libraries or develop a random sample, so the present study (along with any conclusions drawn from it) is limited to larger academic libraries, a group that includes a high proportion of the most prestigious aca- demic libraries in the United States and Canada. All ARL academic libraries were included, except for two Canadian librar- ies whose French-language catalog inter- face posed too great a linguistic challenge, for a total of 112 libraries.5 To assess how ARL academic libraries collect science fiction, a core list of 200 science fiction novels was developed and then checked against WorldCat, the RLG (Research Libraries Group) Union Catalog, and individual library catalogs. The science fiction novels selected were published from 1950 to 2000. Before 1950, science fiction, at least in the United States, was published predominantly in the form of short stories and serialized novels in pulp magazines, but the subsequent half-century witnessed a proliferation of novels published in hardcover and paperback editions.6 The focus on novels is admi�edly a limitation because short stories—published in magazines, author collections, and anthologies—remain a vital part of the output of science fic- tion. Thus, a future study might usefully complement the present one by finding an appropriate methodology for assessing short fiction holdings. The core list of novels was developed by collating lists of major science fiction awards. (See table 1.) The list then was supplemented with a number of novels that were not award winners but had attained classic status in the field, as manifested by their presence in lists of the best or most frequently taught novels (by Neil Barron, David Pringle, Arthur Evans, and R. D. Mullen7) and/or the amount of critical a�ention they have a�racted. Relying on multiple awards and critical reputation provides a more truly repre- sentative list of top science fiction novels 16 College & Research Libraries January 2006 than selecting winners of a single award or relying on the choices of a single critic. It should be noted that although a couple of award-winning novels that were clearly fantasy (for example, Ursula K. Le Guin’s Tehanu) were excluded and the list of award winners was not supplemented with any additional fantasy novels, no rig- orous effort was made to limit the study to novels that met any narrow definition of science fiction. In almost all cases, the award was accepted simply as proof of the work’s belonging to the genre. Certainly it could be argued that some of the novels on the list, such as Neal Stephenson’s Cryptonomicon and Molly Gloss’s Wild Life, are not “really” science fiction, but they are nonetheless included as winners of science fiction awards. Although no one list could please all students of science fiction, this selection includes a significant proportion of the most popular, most influential, and most highly regarded science fiction novels of the second half of the twentieth century in the English- speaking world. It should be noted that at least two other approaches would yield valuable insights into how science fiction is col- lected at academic libraries. One could count (or estimate) the number of science fiction titles owned by each library, as Hall did for a small number of libraries with very strong science fiction collec- tions.8 Useful as such information is, a purely statistical approach would not by itself identify the comparative strengths and weaknesses of collections or offer a detailed assessment of their scope or quality. One also could select a few major authors (for example, Heinlein, Le Guin, Clarke, or Dick) and study how those authors are collected: the proportion of their entire published output owned by a library, including multiple editions; holdings of secondary works such as criticism, bibliography, and biography; and holdings of primary materials such TABLE 1 Science Fiction Awards Award Abb. Organization Time Period Selection Method Arthur C. Clarke Award (novels published in U.K.) A Science Fiction Foundation 1987+ Panel of judges British Science Fiction Award B British Science Fiction Association 1969+ Member vote John W. Campbell Memorial Award (novels published in U.S.) C 1972+ Selected judges Philip K. Dick Award (best original paperback) D Philadelphia Science Fiction Society (sponsors) 1982+ Selected judges Hugo Award H World Science Fiction Convention 1953+ Fans registered for convention Locus Award L Locus Magazine 1970+ Locus readers Nebula Award N Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America 1965+ Professional science fiction and fantasy writers James Tiptree Jr. Award (for “gender-bending” fiction) T James Tiptree Jr. Literary Award Council 1991+ (with “retrospective awards”) Selected judges Science Fiction Collections in ARL Academic Libraries 17 as manuscripts and correspondence. This approach would yield a highly focused qualitative assessment of the collections, but at the sacrifice of a broader evaluation of collection quality. The approach in this study strives to provide both quantitative and qualitative assessments of the science fiction collections examined, with some a�ention to both breadth and depth, but it complements rather than precludes those alternate approaches. Although novels were not deliberately restricted to a particular language or na- tionality, the selection criteria used in this study (American and British awards and critical a�ention) in effect limited the books included primarily to titles published in English. Only two were originally published in other languages: Stanislaw Lem’s Solaris (Polish) and Rob- ert Merle’s Malevil (French). It would be interesting to conduct a similar study of how ARL libraries collect non-English- language science fiction, whether in the original language or in translation. It is highly likely that the holdings of non- English-language science fiction from the period studied (with the possible exception of the works of Stanislaw Lem) would be dramatically lower than for English-language works. A�er the list of novels was developed, a search was performed to find which of the ARL academic libraries owned each book. WorldCat was checked for each title, then the RLG Union Catalog. Spot-checking of some titles suggested the need to supplement the search of the major bibliographic utilities with searches of individual online catalogs. The author ended up examining the individual online catalogs of all 112 libraries (searching only for those titles not previously found in WorldCat or the RLG Union Catalog). Alternate titles of novels and all editions or printings owned by libraries were in- cluded. A novel was considered “owned” by a library as long as any printing or edition was listed as owned, on order, or even missing, because the intent was simply to see if science fiction novels were being selected. Searching was carried out between May 2002 and February 2003. Ideally, all catalogs would have been searched at the same time, or within a few weeks, but because the author was the only available searcher, it took much longer. What was developed, then, was a snapshot of holdings during a particular period. It should be stressed that almost certainly libraries have acquired more of these titles (especially some of the more current novels, but older ones as well) since the search was completed. One weakness in this approach is that some libraries have science fiction holdings not included in online catalogs, for example, in recent gi� collections or in parts of the collection for which there are as yet no machine-readable records. Thus, holdings might be higher than indicated by the searches conducted as part of this study, although it could be argued that absence from online catalogs would make titles effectively invisible to most users. The study began with a number of ex- pectations. For example, it was assumed that works of better-known authors would be owned by more libraries than would works of lesser-known authors (even though lesser-known authors such as Gene Wolfe are o�en more highly re- garded by scholars and critics than their more famous peers). Further, it was ex- pected that most libraries would own the works of the most famous science fiction writers (Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Robert A. Heinlein, Ursula K. Le Guin, among others). Moreover, it was thought that most libraries would own novels by writers with substantial reputations for their work in fields outside science fiction, crossover writers such as Margaret At- wood, Kingsley Amis, and Marge Piercy. Conversely, it was expected that fewer libraries would own the novels of writers li�le known outside the field of science fiction or the novels of newer writers who have had less time to establish their repu- tations. The author also was curious to see whether the writer’s gender or nationality made a difference in how libraries col- 18 College & Research Libraries January 2006 lect science fiction. It was felt that ARL libraries were more likely to collect the works of American writers than those of non-American writers and the works of male authors rather than those of female writers. Moreover, the author expected that more recent works would be more widely held than earlier titles. The results revealed a wide variation in library holdings of the science fiction novels studied. The mean number of novels owned by the ARL academic libraries is 100.18 (or 50% of the novels), and the median is 98 (or 49%). On the other hand, the range was quite wide, from 194 novels owned (97%) to 18 novels owned (9%), and the standard deviation was 37.3. As figure 1 indicates, library holdings follow a normal, bell-shaped distribution. To the extent that the list of novels represents the best of science fiction novels, clearly there are great dif- ferences in the way ARL libraries collect those works. Some libraries collect com- prehensively; most collect extensively, but not comprehensively; and others own few of even the widely acknowledged classics of the field. (See table 2.) The data suggest that although science fiction has made significant inroads in the academy, few ARL libraries are collecting it at anything approaching a comprehensive level. The relatively sparse holdings of the 200 novels studied are striking because those novels comprise a small and highly select subset of the universe of science fiction novels published during the period. The author is not aware of an authoritative count of the number of new science fiction novels published between 1950 and 2000, but there are reliable counts for some years within the period. Using The Locus Index to Science Fiction, Neil Barron has estimated about 300 new science fiction novels per year between 1988 and 1994; Locus tallies 288 for 1999 and 269 for 2000.9 If one assumes a drastically lower output for much of the 1950s and 1960s and a somewhat lower output for the 1970s and early 1980s, it is still quite evident that the 200 novels studied here comprise a small proportion of all the science fiction novels published in the fi�y-year period under study. Even if one were to posit a low-end estimate of 100 new science fiction novels published per year during the period (an extremely conservative estimate), the total would be 5,000 novels—and the subset of 200 novels would be only four percent of the total. Thus, the average ARL academic library owns barely half of a highly selective list of the best science fiction novels published in the la�er half of the twentieth century. In one sense, it would be unfair to criticize the libraries that rank low in this study as it is likely that they collect li�le science fiction because there is li�le or no demand for it on the part of their faculty and students or because it is not included in their collection scope (or perhaps be- cause funds are lacking for what might be seen as a popular rather than scholarly field). Yet, it is a ma�er of concern that ARL academic libraries have, for the most part, quite limited collections of a litera- ture increasingly studied. A future study might examine how frequently science fiction is explicitly mentioned in collec- tion policy statements at ARL academic libraries and might explore the correlation between the teaching of science fiction FIGURE 1 ARL Ownership of Selected Science Fiction NovelsARL Ownership of Selected SF 0 5 10 15 20 25 1- 20 21 -4 0 41 -6 0 61 -8 0 81 -1 00 10 1- 12 0 12 1- 14 0 14 1- 16 0 16 1- 18 0 18 1- 20 0 Number of Selected Novels Owned N u m b e r o f L ib ra ri e s Science Fiction Collections in ARL Academic Libraries 19 TABLE 2 ARL Academic Libraries Ranked by Holdings of Selected Science Fiction Rank Library Number of Books on List Owned Percentage of List Owned 1 University of California–Riverside 194 97.0% 2 University of Texas–Austin 172 86.0% 3 Texas A&M University 169 84.5% 3 University of Wisconsin–Madison 169 84.5% 5 Emory University 165 82.5% 6 Brigham Young University 163 81.5% 6 State University of New York–Buffalo 163 81.5% 8 University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill 162 81.0% 9 Michigan State University 160 80.0% 9 Ohio State University 160 80.0% 11 University of Colorado 151 75.5% 12 University of Virginia 149 74.5% 13 Colorado State University 145 72.5% 14 University of Georgia 143 71.5% 15 Washington State University 142 71.0% 16 University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign 141 70.5% 16 Pennsylvania State University 141 70.5% 18 University of Alberta 140 70.0% 18 Stanford University 140 70.0% 20 University of Pennsylvania 139 69.5% 21 Princeton University 138 69.0% 22 University of Utah 137 68.5% 23 Temple University 136 68.0% 24 Yale University 134 67.0% 25 University of Toronto 133 66.5% 26 University of Kansas 132 66.0% 27 Duke University 131 65.5% 28 University of Iowa 129 64.5% 29 Auburn University 127 63.5% 30 Louisiana State University 124 62.0% 31 University of California–Berkeley 123 61.5% 32 Indiana University 122 61.0% 33 University of Miami (Florida) 121 60.5% 34 University of Arizona 118 59.0% 35 University of Michigan 117 58.5% 20 College & Research Libraries January 2006 TABLE 2 ARL Academic Libraries Ranked by Holdings of Selected Science Fiction Rank Library Number of Books on List Owned Percentage of List Owned 36 University of British Columbia 116 58.0% 37 University of California–Los Angeles 115 57.5% 37 Harvard University 115 57.5% 39 University of South Carolina 114 57.0% 40 Georgia Institute of Technology 113 56.5% 41 Arizona State University 112 56.0% 41 Brown University 112 56.0% 41 University of California–San Diego 112 56.0% 41 University of Pittsburgh 112 56.0% 45 University of Delaware 111 55.5% 46 North Carolina State University 110 55.0% 47 University of Houston 109 54.5% 48 Tulane University 108 54.0% 49 Florida State University 107 53.5% 49 University of Washington 107 53.5% 51 Northwestern University 105 52.5% 51 University of Oregon 105 52.5% 51 State University of New York–Albany 105 52.5% 54 Cornell University 103 51.5% 54 Iowa State University 103 51.5% 56 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 99 49.5% 57 University of California–Davis 97 48.5% 57 University of Minnesota 97 48.5% 57 Texas Tech University 97 48.5% 60 University of Louisville 94 47.0% 61 Purdue University 92 46.0% 61 University of Tennessee–Knoxville 92 46.0% 63 Oklahoma State University 90 45.0% 64 University of Florida 89 44.5% 64 McMaster University 89 44.5% 64 Rice University 89 44.5% 64 University of Rochester 89 44.5% 64 Syracuse University 89 44.5% 69 University of Connecticut 88 44.0% 70 Kent State University 87 43.5% Science Fiction Collections in ARL Academic Libraries 21 TABLE 2 ARL Academic Libraries Ranked by Holdings of Selected Science Fiction Rank Library Number of Books on List Owned Percentage of List Owned 70 University of Waterloo 87 43.5% 72 Southern Illinois University 86 43.0% 72 Washington University–St. Louis 86 43.0% 74 Rutgers University 84 42.0% 75 University of Southern California 83 41.5% 76 McGill University 81 40.5% 76 University of New Mexico 81 40.5% 76 Virginia Tech 81 40.5% 79 University of California–Irvine 80 40.0% 80 University of Chicago 78 39.0% 81 University of Hawaii 76 38.0% 82 University of Oklahoma 75 37.5% 82 York University 75 37.5% 84 Columbia University 72 36.0% 85 University of Cincinnati 71 35.5% 86 Ohio University 70 35.0% 86 Queens University 70 35.0% 88 Boston College 69 34.5% 88 University of Missouri–Columbia 69 34.5% 90 Boston University 67 33.5% 91 University of Western Ontario 66 33.0% 92 University of Guelph 65 32.5% 92 Johns Hopkins University 65 32.5% 94 University of Maryland–College Park 61 30.5% 94 University of Massachusetts 61 30.5% 96 Dartmouth College 59 29.5% 97 Case Western Reserve University 58 29.0% 98 University of Illinois–Chicago 56 28.0% 98 New York University 56 28.0% 100 University of California–Santa Barbara 55 27.5% 100 University of Manitoba 55 27.5% 102 University of Kentucky 53 26.5% 103 State University of New York–Stony Brook 47 23.5% 103 Vanderbilt University 47 23.5% 105 University of Notre Dame 45 22.5% 22 College & Research Libraries January 2006 courses and the presence of strong science fiction collections at ARL schools. There are some interesting intersections between this study and Hall’s survey of top research collections. Hall listed thirty- eight U.S. and Canadian libraries with major science fiction research collections, twenty-two of which are ARL academic libraries (the other sixteen include the Library of Congress, the Huntington Library, four public libraries, and ten col- lege and university libraries not in ARL).10 There is considerable agreement between this study’s list and Hall’s. For example, UC Riverside leads this study’s list and is described by Hall as the largest science fic- tion collection and Texas A&M is the third ranked library on both lists. On the other hand, there are some discrepancies. The University of Louisville is the third largest collection (and the second largest ARL) on Hall’s list but ranks only sixtieth in this study, and Temple and Syracuse rank in Hall’s top twelve ARL libraries while com- ing in twenty-third and sixty-fourth, re- spectively, in this study’s list. Some of the differences are explicable in the very na- ture of a “special” collection. For example, Louisville’s large holdings are accounted for primarily by its superb collection of a single author, Edgar Rice Burroughs, who falls outside the chronological scope and only partly within the generic scope of this study. Temple’s fine collection (described at h�p://www.library.temple.edu/collec- tions/special_collections/sfc.htm) is based on several large gi�s and focuses on pulp magazines, fanzines, and the manuscripts of a dozen or so authors. The collection at Syracuse also has strengths in pulp magazines, and the collections at both Temple and Syracuse are described by Hall as only partly cataloged. Indeed, Hall noted that “although most of the [Temple] collection (90 percent) was cataloged by 1984, the influx of gi�s has since reduced the portion of cataloged material to about half.”11 Many of the best science fiction special collections are thus characterized by tremendous depth, rather than breadth, or lag in providing complete records of their holdings. Simply put, the scope and audience of special collections, though in many ways overlapping with general ARL collections, are distinctive. (See table 3.) To see if there was any correlation be- tween library size or budget and science fiction holdings, the author turned to ARL Statistics, selecting five academic years (1974–1975; 1981–1982; 1987–1988; 1994– 1995, and 1999–2000) and looked at two tables, “Total Volumes Held Rankings” and “Total Materials Expenditures Rank- ings.”12 He created a crude average rank simply by averaging the rankings of the five years selected and then checked the correlation with the science fiction holding rankings. The correlation between library size and science fiction rankings was positive, but not terribly strong—0.4281. TABLE 2 ARL Academic Libraries Ranked by Holdings of Selected Science Fiction Rank Library Number of Books on List Owned Percentage of List Owned 105 Wayne State University 45 22.5% 107 Georgetown University 37 18.5% 108 University of Alabama 34 17.0% 108 University of Saskatchewan 34 17.0% 110 George Washington University 32 16.0% 111 University of Nebraska–Lincoln 28 14.0% 112 Howard University 18 9.0% Science Fiction Collections in ARL Academic Libraries 23 TABLE 3 Science Fiction Novels Ranked by ARL Ownership Rank Title Author Pub Date # of Libs % of Libs Awards/ Lists 1 Slaughterhouse Five Vonnegut, Kurt Jr. 1969 111 99.10% E, NB 2 The Handmaid’s Tale Atwood, Margaret 1985 110 98.20% A Fahrenheit 451 Bradbury, Ray 1953 110 98.20% E, NB, P Childhood’s End Clarke, Arthur C. 1953 110 98.20% E, NB, P The Left Hand of Darkness Le Guin, Ursula K. 1969 110 98.20% H, N, T 6 Stranger in a Strange Land Heinlein, Robert A. 1961 109 97.30% H The Dispossessed Le Guin, Ursula K. 1974 109 97.30% H, L, N A Cancticle for Leibowitz Miller, Walter M. Jr. 1959 109 97.30% H 9 The Alteration Amis, Kingsley 1976 108 96.40% C Dune Herbert, Frank 1965 108 96.40% H, N Riddley Walker Hoban, Russell 1980 108 96.40% C 12 Foundation’s Edge Asimov, Isaac 1982 104 92.90% H, L The Einstein Intersection Delany, Samuel R. 1967 104 92.90% N 14 Neuromancer Gibson, William 1984 102 91.10% D, H, N 15 The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress Heinlein, Robert A. 1966 101 90.20% H Flowers for Algernon Keyes, Daniel 1966 101 90.20% N He, She and It Piercy, Marge 1991 101 90.20% A 18 The Gods Themselves Asimov, Isaac 1972 100 89.30% H, L, N 19 The Female Man Russ, Joanna 1975 98 87.50% T 20 Heliconia Winter Aldiss, Brian 1985 96 85.70% B The Fountains of Paradise Clarke, Arthur C. 1979 96 85.70% H, N Rendezvous with Rama Clarke, Arthur C. 1973 96 85.70% B, C, H, L, N The Lathe of Heaven Le Guin, Ursula K. 1971 96 85.70% L The Telling Le Guin, Ursula K. 2000 96 85.70% L 25 The Man in the High Castle Dick, Philip K. 1962 95 84.80% H 26 Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy Adams, Douglas 1979 94 83.90% E 27 Dhalgren Delany, Samuel R. 1975 93 83.00% NB 28 Heliconia Spring Aldiss, Brian 1982 92 82.10% B, C The Demolished Man Bester, Alfred 1953 92 82.10% H 30 The Stars My Destination Bester, Alfred 1956 90 80.40% E, NB, P Stand On Zanzibar Brunner, John 1968 90 80.40% B, H Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang Wilhelm, Kate 1976 90 80.40% H, L 33 The Crystal World Ballard, J. G. 1966 89 79.50% NB, P 34 The Unlimited Dream Company Ballard, J. G. 1979 88 78.60% B 24 College & Research Libraries January 2006 TABLE 3 Science Fiction Novels Ranked by ARL Ownership Rank Title Author Pub Date # of Libs % of Libs Awards/ Lists Gateway Pohl, Frederik 1977 88 78.60% C, H, L, N More Than Human Sturgeon, Theodore 1953 88 78.60% E, NB, P 37 Lord of Light Zelazny, Roger 1967 86 76.80% H Ender’s Game Card, Orson Scott 1985 86 76.80% H, N The Space Merchants Pohl & Kornblunth, Cyril 1953 86 76.80% E, NB, P 40 Cryptonomicon Stephenson, Neal 1999 85 75.80% L 41 Dreamsnake McIntyre, Vonda N. 1978 84 75.00% H, L, N 42 Dragonflight McCaffrey, Anne 1968 83 74.10% H*, N* Man Plus Pohl, Frederik 1976 83 74.10% N 44 The Big Time Leiber, Fritz 1958 82 73.20% H Solaris Lem, Stanislaw 1961 82 73.20% E, NB 46 Babel 17 Delany, Samuel R. 1966 81 72.30% N The Calcutta Chromosome Ghosh, Amitav 1995 81 72.30% A Malevil Merle, Robert 1972 81 72.30% C 49 Double Star Heinlein, Robert A. 1956 80 71.40% H Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein Roszak, Theodore 1995 80 71.40% T 51 Timescape Benford, Gregory 1980 79 70.50% B, C, N Ringworld Niven, Larry 1970 79 70.50% H, L, N Snow Queen Vinge, Joan 1980 79 70.50% H, L 54 A Case of Conscience Blish, James 1959 78 69.60% H 55 The Midwich Cuckoos Wyndham, John 1957 77 68.80% NB, P 56 The Postman Brin, David 1985 75 67.00% C, L The Parable of the Talents Butler, Octavia E. 1998 75 67.00% N Dying Inside Silverberg, Robert 1972 75 67.00% NB 59 The Difference Engine Gibson & Sterling 1990 74 66.10% 60 Speaker for the Dead Card, Orson Scott 1985 73 65.20% H, N On Wings of Song Disch, Thomas M. 1979 73 65.20% C To Your Scattered Bodies Go Farmer, Philip Jose 1971 73 65.20% H The Forever War Haldeman, Joe 1974 73 65.20% H, L, N The Wanderer Leiber, Fritz 1964 73 65.20% H Way Station Simak, Clifford 1963 73 65.20% H This Immortal Zelazny, Roger 1965 73 65.20% H 67 Starship Troopers Heinlein, Robert A. 1959 72 64.30% H 68 Time of Changes Silverberg, Robert 1971 71 63.40% N Claw of the Conciliator Wolfe, Gene 1981 71 63.40% N Science Fiction Collections in ARL Academic Libraries 25 TABLE 3 Science Fiction Novels Ranked by ARL Ownership Rank Title Author Pub Date # of Libs % of Libs Awards/ Lists 70 Rite of Passage Panshin, Alexei 1968 70 62.50% N Red Mars Robinson, Kim Stanley 1992 70 62.50% B, N 72 The Sparrow Russell, Mary Doria 1996 69 61.60% A, B, T 73 Barefoot in the Head Aldiss, Brian 1969 68 60.70% NB Mission of Gravity Clement, Hal 1954 68 60.70% E, NB, P 75 A Scanner Darkly Dick, Philip K. 1977 67 59.80% B Past Master Lafferty, R. A. 1968 67 59.80% NB Citadel of the Autarch Wolfe, Gene 1983 67 59.80% C 78 The Integral Trees Niven, Larry 1984 66 58.90% L Diamond Age Stephenson, Neal 1995 66 58.90% H, L The Shadow of the Torturer Wolfe, Gene 1980 66 58.90% B 81 Rogue Moon Budrys, Algis 1960 65 58.00% NB, P The Lovers Farmer, Philip Jose 1961 65 58.00% NB Titan Varley, John 1979 65 58.00% L 84 Startide Rising Brin, David 1983 63 56.30% H, L, N 85 Blood Music Bear, Greg 1985 62 55.40% H*, N* Wild Life Gloss, Molly 2000 62 55.40% T A Mirror for Observers Pangborn, Edgar 1954 62 55.40% NB, P Pavane Roberts, Keith 1968 62 55.40% NB, P The Drowning Towers Turner, George 1987 62 55.40% A 90 Camp Concentration Disch, Thomas M. 1968 61 54.50% NB, P Years of the City Pohl, Frederik 1984 61 54.50% C Door into Ocean Slonczewski, Joan 1986 61 54.50% C 93 Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said Dick, Philip K. 1974 60 53.60% C Blue Mars Robinson, Kim Stanley 1996 60 53.60% H, L Green Mars Robinson, Kim Stanley 1994 60 53.60% H, L 96 The Body Snatchers Finney, Jack 1955 58 51.80% NB Behold the Man Moorcock, Michael 1969 58 51.80% N* 98 The Jagged Orbit Brunner, John 1969 57 50.90% B 99 The Inverted World Priest, Christopher 1974 56 50.00% B Doomsday Book Willis, Connie 1992 56 50.00% H, L, N To Say Nothing of the Dog Willis, Connie 1997 56 50.00% H, L 102 Downbelow Station Cherryh, C. J. 1981 55 49.10% H Grass Tepper, Sheri S. 1989 55 49.00% NB 104 Hyperion Simmons, Dan 1989 54 48.20% H, L Bug Jack Barron Spinrad, Norman 1969 54 48.20% NB, P Limbo Wolfe, Bernard 1952 54 48.20% NB, P 26 College & Research Libraries January 2006 TABLE 3 Science Fiction Novels Ranked by ARL Ownership Rank Title Author Pub Date # of Libs % of Libs Awards/ Lists 107 Mythago Wood Holdstock, Robert 1984 53 47.30% B Norstrilia Smith, Cordwainer 1975 53 47.30% P 109 Moving Mars Bear, Greg 1993 52 46.40% N Walk to the End of the World Charnas, Suzy Mckee 1974 52 46.40% T 111 The Many-Colored Land May, Julian 1981 51 45.50% L 112 Tau Zero Anderson, Poul 1970 50 44.60% NB No Enemy But Time Bishop, Michael 1982 50 44.60% N 114 Make Room! Make Room! Harrison, Harry 1966 49 43.80% NB, P The Fall of Hyperion Simmons, Dan 1990 49 43.80% B, L 116 Gloriana, or the Unfulfilled Queen Moorcock, Michael 1978 48 42.90% C 117 Vurt Noon, Jeff 1993 47 42.00% A The Year of the Quiet Sun Tucker, Wilson 1970 47 42.00% C 119 Cyteen Cherryh, C. J. 1989 46 41.10% H, L Beyond Apollo Malzberg, Barry M. 1972 46 41.10% C Bring the Jubilee Moore, Ward 1953 46 41.10% NB, P 122 Perdido Street Station Mieville, China 2000 45 40.20% A Islands in the Net Sterling, Bruce 1988 45 40.20% C A Fire Upon the Deep Vinge, Vernor 1992 45 40.20% H 125 Darwin’s Radio Bear, Greg 1999 44 39.30% N Synthajoy Compton, D. G. 1968 44 39.30% The Extremes Priest, Christopher 1998 44 39.30% B 128 Dark Universe Galouye, Daniel 1961 43 38.40% NB Slow River Griffith, Nicola 1995 43 38.40% N 253: The Print Remix Ryman, Geoff 1998 43 38.40% D 131 Lincoln’s Dreams Willis, Connie 1987 42 37.50% C 132 Excession Banks, Iain M. 1996 41 36.60% B The Uplift War Brin, David 1987 41 36.60% H, L 134 The Forever Peace Haldeman, Joe 1997 40 35.70% C, H, N China Mountain Zhang McHugh, Maureen 1992 40 35.70% T Pacific Edge Robinson, Kim Stanley 1990 40 35.70% C 137 Brown Girl in the Ring Hopkinson, Nalo 1998 39 34.80% L 138 Ammonite Griffith, Nicola 1993 38 33.90% T 139 Mirror Dance Bujold, Lois McMaster 1994 37 33.00% H, L Beggars in Spain Kress, Nancy 1993 37 33.00% H*, N* Kirinyaga Resnick, Michael D. 1999 37 33.00% H* 142 A Deepness in the Sky Vinge, Vernor 1999 36 32.10% C, H 143 The Falling Woman Murphy, Pat 1987 35 31.30% N Science Fiction Collections in ARL Academic Libraries 27 TABLE 3 Science Fiction Novels Ranked by ARL Ownership Rank Title Author Pub Date # of Libs % of Libs Awards/ Lists 144 They’d Rather Be Right Clifton & Riley 1957 34 30.40% H Distraction Sterling, Bruce` 1998 34 30.40% A 146 The Vor Game Bujold, Lois McMaster 1990 33 29.50% H The Jonah Kit Watson, Ian 1975 33 29.50% B Aristoi Williams, Walter Jon 1992 33 29.50% 149 Feersun Endjin Banks, Iain M. 1994 32 28.60% B The White Queen Jones, Gwyneth 1991 32 28.60% T The Healer’s War Scarborough, Elizabeth 1988 32 28.60% N 152 The Child Garden Ryman, Geoff 1989 31 27.70% A, C The Rise of Endymion Simmons, Dan 1997 31 27.70% L 154 Orbitsville Shaw, Bob 1975 30 26.80% B Synners Cadigan, Pat 1991 30 26.80% A 156 When Gravity Fails Effinger, George Alec 1987 29 25.90% NB 157 The Anubis Gates Powers, Tim 1983 28 25.00% D Stations of the Tide Swanwick, Michael 1991 28 25.00% N Mysterium Wilson, Robert Charles 1994 28 25.00% D Elvissey Womack, Jack 1993 28 25.00% D 161 Permutation City Egan, Greg 1994 27 24.10% C Dinner at Deviant’s Palace Powers, Tim 1985 27 24.10% D 163 Black Wine Dorsey, Candas Jane 1997 25 22.30% T Lavondyss Holdstock, Robert 1988 25 22.30% B 165 A Woman of the Iron People Arnason, Eleanor 1991 24 21.40% T Barrayar Bujold, Lois McMaster 1991 24 21.40% H, L Larque on the Wing Springer, Nancy 1994 24 21.40% T 168 Buddy Holly Is Alive and Well Denton, Bradley 1991 23 20.50% C The Moon and the Sun McIntyre, Vonda N 1997 23 20.50% N 170 Falling Free Bujold, Lois McMaster 1988 21 18.80% N The Sky Road MacLeod, Ken 1999 21 18.80% B 172 The Conqueror’s Child Charnas, Suzy Mckee 1999 20 17.90% T Pyramids Pratchett, Terry 1989 20 17.90% B Tik-Tok Sladek, John T. 1983 20 17.90% B 175 Corrupting Dr. Nice Kessel, John 1997 19 17.00% Software Rucker, Rudy 1982 19 17.00% D Terminal Experiment Sawyer, Robert 1995 19 17.00% N Brute Orbits Zebrowski, George 1998 19 17.00% C 179 The Ragged Astronauts Shaw, Bob 1986 18 16.10% B 180 The Time Ships Baxter, Stephen 1995 14 12.50% B, C, D Fairyland McAuley, Paul 1995 14 12.50% A, C 28 College & Research Libraries January 2006 The correlation between materials budget and science fiction holdings was even weaker—0.3272. In fact, the library with the strongest science fiction holdings con- sistently scored at the low end of the ARL rankings. This suggests that for many of the most highly ranked ARL libraries sci- ence fiction is not a priority purchase and perhaps that some of the lower-ranked libraries are seeking nontraditional subject areas in which they can excel. The study also allows some conclu- sions about novels more likely to be acquired by ARL libraries. Looking at the TABLE 3 Science Fiction Novels Ranked by ARL Ownership Rank Title Author Pub Date # of Libs % of Libs Awards/ Lists 182 Homunculus Blaylock, James 1986 13 11.60% D Growing up Weightless Ford, John M 1993 13 11.60% D 400 Billion Stars McAuley, Paul 1988 13 11.60% D 185 Take Back Plenty Greenland, Colin 1990 12 10.70% A, B 186 King of Morning, Queen of Day McDonald, Ian 1991 11 9.80% D Wetware Rucker, Rudy 1988 11 9.80% D 188 Fools Cadigan, Pat 1992 10 8.90% A Subterranean Gallery Russo, Richard Paul 1989 10 8.90% D 190 Strange Toys Geary, Patricia 1987 9 8.00% D Dreaming in Smoke Sullivan, Tricia 1998 9 8.00% A 192 Through the Heart Grant, Richard 1992 8 7.10% D Brother to Dragons Sheffield, Charles 1992 8 7.10% C 194 Headcrash Bethke, Bruce 1995 7 6.30% D Brontomek Coney, Michael D. 1976 7 6.30% B Secret History Gentle, Mary 2000 7 6.30% B 197 Aztec Century Evans, Christopher 1993 5 4.50% B Only Forward Smith, Michael Marshall 2000 5 4.50% D 199 Grainne Roberts, Keith 1987 4 3.60% B 200 Troika Chapman, Stephan 1997 2 1.80% D A = Arthur C. Clarke Award B = British Science Fiction Award C = John W. Campbell Memorial Award D = Philip K. Dick Award E = Arthur B. Evans and R. D. Mullen, “North American College Courses in Science Fiction, Utopian Literature and Fantasy—The Books Most Widely Assigned” H = Hugo Award for Best Novel; H* = expanded version of Hugo-winning story/novella L = Locus Award N = Nebula Award for Best Novel; N* = expanded version of Nebula-winning story/novella NB = Neil Barron, “Best Books,” in Anatomy of Wonder P = David Pringle, Science Fiction: The Hundred Best Novels T = James Tiptree Jr. Award Note: The author has cited inclusion in the Barron, Evans, and Pringle lists only for those novels not winning an award. Science Fiction Collections in ARL Academic Libraries 29 top twenty-five novels in table 3 reveals no real surprises in a group dominated by major writers and classic novels. Seven- teen of the novels in the top twenty-five also appear on the Evans and Mullen list of most frequently taught novels and twenty-one in Barron’s list of best books.13 Three writers make multiple appearances in the top twenty-five—Ursula K. Le Guin four times, Arthur C. Clarke three times, and Robert A. Heinlein twice. Indeed, the pa�ern of writers with more than one novel on the list is common: the 200 novels on the list (including three collaborations) were wri�en by 139 authors. It also is noteworthy that at least four of the writ- ers in the top twenty-five are arguably not science fiction writers in the commonly accepted sense. The works of Amis, At- wood, Piercy, and Vonnegut are rarely marketed as science fiction, and certainly Vonnegut and Atwood take some pains to distance themselves from the genre of science fiction.14 Thus, the most popular novels for academic libraries are those by a few leading science fiction writ- ers—the “brand names”—and those by mainstream writers who might, on occa- sion, write works that can be claimed as science fiction. Because the novels comprising the list span a half-century of publishing, it would be interesting to see the extent to which library collections were skewed to newer or older titles. Although it was expected that earlier works were less likely to be owned (or at least less likely to be represented in online catalogs and the major bibliographic utilities), in fact, they were more likely to be owned by the greatest number of libraries. (See table 4.) Of the twenty-five novels owned by the most libraries, eleven, or 44 percent, were published in the 1950s and 1960s, even though the novels published during those decades represent only 24 percent of the novels in the study. In contrast, only two, or eight percent, of the top twenty-five were published between 1990 and 2000, even though the novels published in that period comprise 35 percent of the novels in the study. Those two were novels by Ursula K. Le Guin, probably the most critically acclaimed and academically respected science fiction writer of the la�er half of the twentieth century, and Marge Piercy, a poet and novelist bet- ter known for her non–science fiction work—two writers whose work is likely to be acquired almost automatically by research libraries. As table 4 shows, the same trend is evident in looking at the first quartile or even the top 50 percent. The concern about older works not ap- pearing in online catalogs appears to have been unfounded, and the older novels proved to be more frequently collected than more recent titles. In retrospect, the selection of novels for this study was perhaps skewed too heavily to the most recent decade, 1990–2000, thus including more novels less fully established as part of the sci- ence fiction canon. Of the sixty-five novels included from the decade, sixty did win at least one of the best novel awards and two others were expanded versions of award-winning novellas or TABLE 4 Novels by Decade Decade 1950–59 1960–69 1970–79 1980–89 1990–99 2000 Number of novels 18 30 34 48 65 5 % of novels in study 9% 15% 17% 24% 32.5% 2.5% Number in top quartile 9 14 15 7 4 1 % in top quartile 50% 46.7% 44% 14.6% 6.2% 20% Number in top 100 15 26 25 20 12 2 % in top 100 83.3% 86.7% 73.5% 41.7% 18.5% 40% 30 College & Research Libraries January 2006 short stories. But the number of awards has grown over the past two decades, thus inflating the number of novels that can be designated as “award winners.” Al- though the distribution of novels among the first three decades of this study does reflect, at least in rough fashion, science fiction publishing data for that period, the number of novels from the 1980s and the number from 1990s should have been more equal to reflect publishing trends accurately. Nonetheless, what the data suggest is that either ARL libraries have been buying fewer science fiction novels since 1990 or tend to acquire science fic- tion in a rather slow fashion. With the exception of the works of a few “brand- name” authors such as Le Guin (and now perhaps Samuel R. Delany and William Gibson), it is likely that science fiction is currently purchased on a delayed basis by many libraries, acquired only as authors develop reputations, attract increased critical a�ention, and find their way into college syllabi—or perhaps are acquired only when received as gi�s. One odd pa�ern was observed too late in the study to gather comprehensive data, but it is still suggestive enough to men- tion. A number of the works included in this study, though published as separate novels, are in effect installments in a larger work, a frequent pa�ern in science fiction publishing. When searching for holdings of individual titles, o�en double-checking by searching for author records, the author began to notice that sometimes a library would own one part of a multivolume work, but not all the parts. Because in several cases only one of the novels in a set was an award winner whose hold- ings had been searched, the author had in those instances only an impression of such partial holdings. In two instances, however, the data were more complete. For example, Kim Stanley Robinson’s tril- ogy about the colonization of Mars, titled Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars, is one sustained and continuous narrative in three separately published volumes, each of which won awards as best novel. Similarly, Gene Wolfe’s celebrated Book of the New Sun was, by publisher’s deci- sion, originally released as four separate books (three of which are award winners included in the study list), though, again, it comprises one continuous narrative. In both cases, searching revealed that libraries had not acquired all the novels that form the larger work, in essence de- priving readers of the complete narrative. For example, although fi�y-one libraries owned all three volumes of Wolfe’s Book of the New Sun included in this study, another thirty-three owned only one or two of the three. Similarly, whereas forty-three libraries owned all three of Robinson’s Mars novels, another thirty- seven owned only a partial set. It should be stressed that these are not sequels in the conventional sense, in which an author revisits characters or se�ings that proved to be popular in the hopes of re- capturing an earlier success. Instead, they are segments of a longer narrative, the individual parts of which are incomplete. This pa�ern suggests that ARL libraries might at times collect science fiction in a haphazard way. Possible explanations are that librarians were not familiar enough with the works selected to realize that they were incomplete without other vol- umes in the set or that science fiction is regarded as an occasional discretionary purchase, acquired as the budget permits and ignored when the budget is tight, or perhaps that science fiction might o�en be acquired as gi�s, without much in the way of careful selection. The gender of the author appears to play only a modest role in library deci- sions. The average ARL academic library owned 46.2 percent (or 20.8) of the forty- five novels wri�en by women on the list, with library holdings ranging from a mere three novels to all forty-five. On the other hand, the average library owned 51.2 percent (or 79.4) of the 155 novels wri�en by men, with holdings ranging from 15 to 149. Science fiction as a genre has long been a male-dominated literature (in terms of both writers and readers), Science Fiction Collections in ARL Academic Libraries 31 and although this has clearly changed over the past two or three decades, male writers are somewhat more likely to be collected. On the other hand, the appar- ent bias in favor of male writers might simply reflect the fact that twenty-four of the forty-five novels wri�en by women (or 53.3%) were published in 1990 or later, a period in which ARL academic libraries appear to have slowed their acquisition of all science fiction. A similar small effect can be seen in terms of nationality. The average ARL aca- demic library owned 42 percent (or 18.9) of the forty-five novels by British writers (with holdings ranging from two to forty- three novels) compared to 52.4 percent (or 75.4) of the 144 novels by American writers (with holdings ranging from 11 to 141). Interestingly, the sixteen British nov- els in the top hundred (in terms of library holdings) were all published before 1986 (fourteen before 1980), whereas of the twenty-nine in the bo�om one hundred, sixteen were published a�er 1990. British novels seem particularly affected by the apparent change in buying pa�erns a�er 1990. It is possible that a major factor here is that British novels without American publishers more o�en escape the a�en- tion of selectors. And British novels ulti- mately reprinted by American publishers are more likely to come to the notice of American selectors. Novels by writers of other nationalities comprise a sample far too small to support generalizations, but the average library owned 50 percent (or 3.5) of the seven Canadian novels on the list, 39.7 percent of the two Australian novels, and 72.6 percent of the three nov- els in the “other” category (wri�en by a Pole, a Frenchman, and an Indian). One factor militating against the pur- chase of science fiction novels by ARL libraries might be that a significant por- tion of science fiction is published first in paperback. Although the data on how many of the 200 novels appeared first in paperback or how many have never been published in hardcover are incomplete, one subset offers a hint of the impact of paperback publishing. The Philip K. Dick Award is given annually to the best original paperback novel. Nineteen of the Dick Award winners are included on this study’s list, but only one, William Gibson’s enormously popular and influential cy- berpunk classic, Neuromancer (1984), is in- cluded in the top hundred novels by ARL holdings, coming in the fourteenth spot with 102 libraries owning it. The remain- ing eighteen are owned by an average of only fi�een of the 112 libraries checked, with seventeen ranked in the bo�om fi�y and eleven in the bo�om twenty. This find- ing suggests that publication in paperback format significantly lessens the likelihood of a novel’s purchase by ARL libraries. Although Gibson’s Neuromancer is the evi- dent exception, it also has been reissued in a hardcover edition, which might help to account for its somewhat anomalous popularity among ARL academic libraries. And, of course, since the Philip K. Dick Award was established only in 1982, it is unclear how much of the relative scarcity of these novels in ARL academic libraries can be a�ributed to format and how much to the apparent change in acquisition prac- tices cited above. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to suggest that ARL academic libraries are less likely to buy science fic- tion in paperback than in hardcover. This study suggests that most ARL libraries do not collect science fiction extensively. Libraries tend to be strongest in the “brand name” science fiction writ- ers and in mainstream writers who either dabble in science fiction or whose works can be claimed as science fiction. Major works of some of the most celebrated and critically acclaimed science fiction writers of the current period, such as Octavia But- ler, Kim Stanley Robinson, Connie Willis, and Gene Wolfe, are owned by only half to two-thirds of the ARL academic libraries. And some of their most important books, such as Wolfe’s Book of the New Sun, have been acquired in a patchwork fashion that forces readers to turn to interlibrary loan or to purchase the complete work. The study suggests that many of the ARL 32 College & Research Libraries January 2006 libraries have collections adequate only to support instructional needs and pleasure reading. However, there is li�le evidence that many will have the kind of in-depth collections to support serious research beyond studies of a relative handful of major writers and classic texts. Much of science fiction scholarship and criticism demands reading a wide range of novels (and stories), not just a few masterpieces. For example, a scholar studying racial or sexual stereotypes in science fiction or exploring how Cold War anxieties or fears of terrorism are reflected in science fiction might well want to examine dozens of nov- els and stories by a wide range of authors, not just a few classics. To the extent that we can extrapolate from the holdings of the relative handful of highly regarded novels in this study to the holdings of the larger body of science fiction novels published during the period, there is reason to doubt that most ARL academic libraries are able to support extensive research. As countless science fiction writers and scholars have argued, science fiction is a genre uniquely qualified to analyze and portray the impact of technology on our culture and physical environment. If science fiction continues to be studied in colleges and universities, if scholars are to be able to conduct serious research on this influential and important branch of popular culture, ARL libraries will need to consider their collection prac- tices, commi�ing a larger amount of their budgets and perhaps more aggressively pursuing gi� collections.15 A number of related studies seem worth pursuing. Earlier discussion spoke of the desirability of studying how ARL academic libraries collect science fiction short stories and novellas, but it might be even more important to determine the extent to which they collect science fiction films and even major television series. Certainly more people habitually view science fiction films and television shows than have read even the best-known sci- ence fiction novelists, and filmed science fiction has begun to draw enormous critical a�ention and to exert significant cultural influence. Do ARL academic libraries have the collections to support instruction and scholarship in this area, or will scholars have to depend on their own purchases or rentals? How do collections of science fiction compare with collec- tions of other genre fictions such as the detective story, westerns, and romances, or with formats such as comic books or graphic novels? For that ma�er, how do collections of science fiction compare with collections of mainstream “literary” fiction in ARL libraries? And, of course, one could extend this study beyond ARL academic libraries to consider other academic libraries and public libraries as well. Librarians have been citing the importance of developing popular culture collections for at least twenty years.16 It is important to assess whether libraries are developing strong general collections in popular culture or leaving the task to a handful of special collections. Notes 1. Arthur B. Evans and R. D. Mullen, “North American College Courses in Science Fiction, Utopian Literature, and Fantasy,” Science Fiction Studies 23 (Nov. 1996): 437–528. 2. Gary Westphal and George Slusser, Science Fiction, Canonization, Marginalization, and the Academy (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 2002); Marleen Barr, “Introduction: Textism: An Emancipation Proclamation,” in “Science Fiction and Literary Studies: The Next Millennium,” ed. Marleen Barr, PMLA 119 (May 2004): 429–41. 3. Hal W. Hall, Science Fiction Collections: Fantasy, Supernatural & Weird Tales (New York: Haworth, 1983). 4. Hall, “Research Library Collections of Science Fiction” in Anatomy of Wonder: A Critical Guide to Science Fiction, 5th ed., 811–36, ed. Neil Barron (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004). 5. A list of ARL libraries is available at www.arl.org; the two academic libraries excluded are Université Laval and Université de Montréal. Stanford is included, though subsequent to the author’s searching, the university decided to quit ARL. Science Fiction Collections in ARL Academic Libraries 33 6. Brian M. Stableford, The Sociology of Science Fiction (San Bernadino, Calif.: Borgo Pr., 1987), 63; Gary K. Wolfe, “Evaporating Genre: Strategies of Dissolution in the Postmodern Fantastic,” in Edging into the Future: Science Fiction and Contemporary Cultural Transformations, 11–29, ed. Veronica Hollinger and Joan Gordon (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Pr., 2002). 7. Neil Barron, “Best Books,” in Anatomy of Wonder: A Critical Guide to Science Fiction, 5th ed., 837–58, ed. Neil Barron (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004); David Pringle, Science Fiction: The Hundred Best Novels, An English Language Selection, 1949–1984 (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1985); Evans and Mullen, “North American College Courses,” 525–26. 8. Hall, “Research Library Collections of Science Fiction.” 9. Neil Barron, Anatomy of Wonder 4: A Critical Guide to Science Fiction, 4th ed., 455–56, ed. Neil Barron (New Providence, N.J.: R. R. Bowker, 1995). See also the online Locus Index at h�p://www. locusmag.com/index. 10. Hall, “Research Collections of Science Fiction,” 812. 11. Ibid., 825. 12. ARL Statistics (Washington, D.C.: ARL). 13. Evans and Mullen, “North American College Courses,”525–26; Barron, “Best Books,” 838–53. 14. Edward James, “The Arthur C. Clarke Award and Its Reception in Britain,” in Science Fiction, Canonization, Marginalization, and the Academy (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 2002), 70–72. 15. Gi� collections are likely to prove a valuable resource, given many readers’ passionate a�achment to science fiction. The author would consider himself a reader of science fiction rather than an avid collector, but his own library would rank fourteenth among the ARL libraries and it is certain that much stronger private collections abound and might ultimately be available for ARL libraries. 16. See, for example, Robert G. Sewell, “Trash or Treasure? Pop Fiction in Academic and Research Libraries,” College and Research Libraries 45 (1985): 450–61; Frank W. Hoffman, Popular Culture and Libraries (Hamden, Conn.: Library Professional Publications, 1984). 34 College & Research Libraries January 2006