It's easy to see why this piece is so influential. It's an analysis of science fiction, where most superficially similar pieces are either apologies or attempted definitions.

Nonetheless, it makes for patchy reading. The tone is an odd combination of familiarity (with some contempt) and critical distance, and the humour often didn't quite come off for me. Your mileage, as they say, may vary.

There's been quite a bit of movement in the genre since the 60s, so while the analysis is still interesting it's not necessarily as applicable as it once was. This is particularly noticeable in one respect: sex and romance. Amis says that sf has completely failed to incorporate either in a mature fashion (as opposed to adolescent stereotypes or a treatment so casual it essentially disregards the question entirely) -- this is true of the 'Golden Age', certainly, but looking at authors like Miéville we see something quite different. The foreword begins by noting the advances within the genre over 25 years, and I guess it's not surprising that in the 50 years following things have moved on a but further.

In short: despite some stylistic idiosyncracies, it's a good analysis of the genre as it was some decades ago. Certainly should be required reading for anyone tempted towards writing a more up-to-date critical survey. ( )