"In 1963, Asimov argued that science
fiction appealed to an existing type of curious reader, but today, it seems
more likely to subtly alter the way in which we all think and feel."
In "Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac
Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science
Fiction" by Alec Nevala-Lee
"'How long has this racket been going on?
And why didn't anybody tell me about it sooner'"
Heinlein to Campbell after selling
"Life-Line" in 1939, In "Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac
Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science
Fiction" by Alec Nevala-Lee
"'There are about five consistent, adult
science fiction writers in the business: de Camp, Heinlein, Hubbard, van Vogt,
and, if he'll only work at it a little, del Rey.'"
In a letter from Campbell to Heinlein, In
"Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron
Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction" by Alec Nevala-Lee
I started reading science fiction in the '80s. I
never enjoyed the Hubbard stories I read in anthologies. Then I found out about Dianetics. His self-created biography including multiple
resurrections was more fantastic than any of his fiction. :-)
Campbell, as many have observed, took science fiction to “another level”.
I'm a little surprised Andre Norton was omitted in this write-up. I remember the day I became a fan of hers
when a friend of mine at the time told me to choose three books: "Galactic Derelict" was one of
them. Mao Tse Tung's "Strategy and
Tactics" was another. What was I
thinking? I was only going with my
interests. Our elementary school also
passed out monthly catalogs for the Scholastic book club, and there I found
Norton's first biggie, "Star Man's Son, 2250 AD". I seem to have become that character until I
realized girls weren't all that impressed. Sure, Norton's science fictions and
fantasies are usually qualified as "young adult", but I still read
one occasionally. I was never too
impressed by Hubbard, Pohl, Campbell, but Asimov and also Heinlein still continue
to amaze me. And where's James
Blish? "Cities In Flight",
another grand space opera, has plenty of descendants in today's science fiction
world. Even though it's a bit weird in
that the Oakies launch entire cities into space because Earth is a bummer, I
saw plenty of Blish in Dan Simmon's "Hyperion" series, another meh
space opera, and of course Blish also wrote novels based on the Star Trek TV
series. Andre Norton's novels inspired
me to write when I was 12. I'm still
doing it. And still having fun.
I have read every single story and book
mentioned in Nevala’s-Lee and I’m not even American, and own copies of every
book named. I indeed got hooked in the 80s as I said, reading every single SF
book our local library had. And when I had read them all, I relentlessly
pestered to the librarian to check to see if there were others she could order
(IN English). She was not amused, clearly believing that the ones already on
the shelves were taking up space they didn't deserve. She also couldn't
understand why a boy would want to read about spaceships and aliens (not very common
in Portugal at the time).
One of my great thrills was in college when
late, late one night a friend and I, high as kites, decided for fun to call the
phone number listed in the back of a Harlan Ellison collection of stories (I
was already into the BBS
craze at the time). It was supposedly his number with an invitation to call
him, but we assumed it was phony. It wasn't. We woke him up. He was wonderfully
rude and insulting, then settled in to discuss current literature with him
until he pronounced us total nitwits and told us not to call him again until we
had something interesting to say. I'll never forget Harlan.
I'm already and old fart now and still a huge
fan of SF. My library has grown and grown. Science fiction which is clearly
labeled fiction and is understood to be fiction is one thing. But Lafayette Ron
Hubbard's Dianetics which grew into Scientology claims to be non-fiction. I
always thought (and I still do) that Hubbard's theory that the unborn fetus develops
engrams is pure horse-shit. One example. A woman developed an unexplainable
rash on her rear end. While still a fetus, the fetus heard the mother say
something about aspirin. Notice how aspirin sounds like ass burns…All
credibility is gravely endangered when someone calls Hubbard a giant of the
science fiction genre. Was he prolific? Yes, but that is no indication of
prowess and his writing is mediocre at best. It could be argued that Dianetics is
his best piece of science fiction, at least in terms of impact.
I read a lot of science fiction (way back) when
I should have been studying physics. I consider the prime time of SF writing to
be between the end of WWII and 1970. For me the last great writer was Larry
Niven, who crafted stories set in the wonderful universe that he created. The
most influential writer who was omitted is Arthur C, Clarke. Some of the story
lines presented during the three year run of the original Star Trek are
mesmerizing. Science fiction as a genre allows you to write in almost any other
genre, as long as you are willing to change your setting. Hubbard is still
widely considered as a trash author in the general SF community.
Nevada-Lee fails to note that Heinlein in his
later years was no friend to Hubbard, whom Heinlein came to consider and out
and out charlatan. Hubbard Was a charlatan!
His SciFi books weren't very good either. And the "church" founded
in his image and likeness is, too. Since Heinlein seemed to have a low BS
meter, it's not surprising. Since Heinlein seemed to have a high BS meter, it's
quite surprising Heinlein got into his bandwagon... The Church of all Worlds
was started based on Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. He at least, had
the good grace to be embarrassed about it. Hubbard. Ugh.
His “Battlefield Earth” sucks major eggs. Always amusing to see Hubbard
mentioned in the same breath as the great science fiction writers such as
Heinlein, Asimov, etc. His best was not even up to the standard of their worst.
Heinlein wrote about people. Clarke
wrote about concepts more than the people.
Asimov averaged the two. Hubbard’s stuff was horse-shit. Heinlein was a
curious (and cantankerous) duck. And he
mostly wrote early on as if social constructs would endure long after
governments had changed. Towards the
end of his life, he realized that society was changing faster than governments
and political philosophies. He had a
hard time wrapping his head around it. And he never forgave Clarke for Clarke's
denouncement of Star Wars tech, despite a lifelong (until then) friendship (Lee
mentions this in his book). Since "Star Wars" devolved into a boondoggle,
Clarke turned out to have been right.
Not only does science fiction (and fantasy)
pervade our culture, it has infiltrated every corner in one aspect or another. I
believe that it is the forward thinking aspects required of writing in these
genres that has allowed it to do so: SF writers (and fans) are responsible for
creating the internet - and showing us how to use it. The argument is stronger if you confine
yourself to fields of entertainment (though most of our advanced technologies
were inspired by SF and brought into existence by readers of SF), and
particularly in the realm of fan-based engagement with those entertainments.
Getting the fans together with the creators on an equal footing first took
place within SF Fandom and has branched out (spawned is a good word) to every
other fandom, from comics to cosplay. (What other fandom can lay claim to
renewing television shows and getting its name on a space shuttle?) I can think of no other literary field of
endeavor where the fruits of its labor are enthusiastically embraced by the
entire world and yet the creators - those responsible - are disregarded,
belittled and looked down upon, if they are given any consideration at all.
They're paid low word rates, most only get midlist level advances and are
constantly subjected to unfounded criticism of their work. These authors have
and are still creating the future we're going to inhabit. They deserve a much
more elevated position in our society.
Science Fiction has become a kind of
portmanteau term covering a lot of very different writers with very different
intentions just like "folk" covers an awful lot of different styles
of music and musicians. In the UK, for example, Christopher Priest has spoken
often of using something speculative as the core metaphor and then pushing that
hard, as well as the importance of deep characterisation. His excellent, “The
Adjacent”, is certainly Science Fiction in those terms but is a long way
from what, for example, Peter Hamilton or Alastair Reynolds are doing. Simon
Ings, Ian MacDonald, Ken MacLeod, Ian R. MacLeod and others are also pursuing
things from a decidedly "non-space opera" angle (my favourite single
novel from the Golden Age - Simak's "Way Station" is also largely
character driven and as for the remarkable tales of Cordwainer Smith).
Isn't the problem that the narratives in SF are
characterised as a function of technology rather than character? And because of
this, the literary elite have, as a whole, dismissed the genre. The writers of
the golden age did not help themselves in this regard, and it is their legacy
which has coloured subsequent Lit. Attitudes. Those authors who have lit.
Credentials (Atwood, Lessing, Ballard, Orwell et al.) rise above the rest
through (a) their treatment of narrative/character (b) intent (c) style.
Orwell, as we all know, wrote beautifully. Dick did not. Though Dick was a
wonderful SF author. Having said all that, I am presently reading Peter F
Hamilton's Great North Road. Literary it is not. Entertaining it most certainly
is. Pohl was more of an in-betweener than just a
Golden Age writer. He was very much a different kind of writer than Asimov,
Heinlein or Van Vogt. His work deserves more to be placed with Dick's,
Silverberg's or Sheckley's. Not new wave but a generation on from the writers
who established the genre in the pulp periodicals.
Are we still use the word "fascist" as a slur? Left-wingers have been doing that for decades, it's a fine
tradition! Anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone to your right, no matter
how marginal their deviation, is to be labelled a "fascist". I'm willing to be bet you have never in your
life encountered a single person who describes themselves as a
"fascist". Doesn't that trouble you? That the only means to uncover
these "fascists", who are apparently everywhere, is by left wing
deduction and declamation? (No, of course not because we're so virtuous and
smart!). "Fascist" now no longer refers to an inter-war movement
founded by Italian national syndicalists but instead, the demonic force which
motivates all Evil in the universe. Think Social Welfare spending is out of
control? FASCIST. It doesn't bother you that women still tend to look after
kids, at home or professionally? FASCIST. Really, using the word "fascist" is a
means of signalling to your in-group. The word itself is utterly
decontextualised. When your tails are up that epithet means "anything which isn't to my left". Heinlein must have been a fascist too! -
because he was a nudist? Or wrote that anarchist book set on the moon? Or built
that bomb shelter during the Cold War? Or because he believed in free love and
distrusted organized religion? Wait, I got it! Starship Troopers! Yeah, that
fascist pamphlet. It has bombs and guns in it and stuff. FASCIST.
The 1950/60 science fiction was fuelled by
discoveries of the time into mainstream thinking take black holes first put
forward in 1783 it was in the 1960s that it became a science that was talked
about in newspapers. SF writers help to explain it in better terms than
scientists by putting it in a story. Neutron stars, event horizons,
singularity, pulsars are another examples. There was also nuclear power a
double edge sword, medicine was promising to cure more people talking about DNA
genetics. A SF writer would have to read the scientific journals of the time to
get an idea. Scientist themselves were becoming writers to explain their
thoughts about gravity, populations and general science. Much more difficult
now as soon as you have written a book there is always someone to say, O such
and such wrote about that in the 60s or that has been done before.
One hell of a book ride that made me recall some of my SF youth by reading about these guys.
