Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!@RUTGERS.ARPA:redford%doctor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
From: @RUTGERS.ARPA:redford%doctor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: "Age of Wonders" by Hartwell
Message-ID: <1120@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 07:54:37 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.1120
Posted: Thu Apr 4 07:54:37 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 04:23:17 EST
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 68
From: redford%doctor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Redford)
I picked up an interesting hardback a few weeks ago: "Age of Wonders" by
David G. Hartwell. It's a general discussion of SF by the former editor
of the Timescape series. Timescape had a consistently high standard of
novels and a consistently high level of bickering with the publisher, and
so is no longer with us. Nevertheless, Hartwell has a lot of interesting
things to say. Chapter 5 is called "When It Comes True, It's No Fun
Anymore" and is about the collapse of the field in the late Fifties, just
when everyone thought that SF would finally become respectable:
"... Until 1957, a whole lot of the creative energy of SF had gone into
visions of space and space travel, producing a large majority of the popular
enduring works up to that time. A wave of excitement and euphoria broke
over SF in late 1957: Finally, it's real! Now everyone will know that we
were right all along, all during those decades when we were called space
nuts (or simply nuts) - we were the ones who had faith, who knew, and now
the world is at our feet!
"Within a few weeks the horrible truths began to pile up. The world
didn't care that the SF field had been right all along - aside from a few
early headlines and Sunday-supplement pieces about science fiction becoming
science fact, no one paid any more attention to SF than they ever had.
And as 1958 wore on, it got worse: Fewer and fewer people were buying and
reading SF books and magazines. During the years after Sputnik, the field
declined radically.
"... The truth is that in a single instant the fact of space travel turned
most of the classic space travel stories of science fiction into fantasies.
Every week of the new space age made more science fiction untrue. This
was such a big thing for SF that no one could quite think it through at
the time. Everyone knew that something was really wrong, however, and the
sudden decline in SF was a numbing disappointment to everyone, coming at
the end of the great boom in SF that characteried the early Fifties.
"In such classics as Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold the Moon," SF readers
had been told in no uncertain terms that space travel would be a private
enterprise, usually the inspiration of an Edisonlike inventor or visionary
businessman. That the Russian government had gotten there first, that the
U.S. military would follow in a bungling fashion (at least initially) boggled
SF readers. Doc Smith's "The Skylark of Space", Heinlein's Future History
stories, all the classics and standard works were now no longer improbable
but possible: They were dead wrong. Space travel, one of the greatest visions
of generations of SF writes and fans, was real and the euphoria of SF fans
at the fact was real, but a major and confusing readjustment was suddenly
necessary."
He then goes on to discuss the idea that SF is supposed to be a predictor
of technology, largely because John W. Campbell thought that way. Sometimes
someone gets lucky in the prediction game, but more often it turns out
different, and worse, than anyone expected. As Jerry Pournelle once said
about the first Moon landing, "Only NASA could take the greatest event in
human history and make it boring!"
Hartwell says SF is about prophecy, not prediction. Its purpose is to
provide visionary images, not blueprints. That SF is possible at all is
what distinguishes it from fantasy, but we shouldn't expect too much from
it. When you start to think it's real is when you go off into the depths
of flying saucerdom or Scientology.
Now, I'm not quite sure I go along with all that. Visionary images are fine,
but only if there isn't something obviously wrong with them. Remember the flap
in these (disk) pages a few months ago over "Dune"? I, and a number of other
people, rejected "Dune" because of the holes in its science and plot. Sure,
you get a thrill when the huge sandworm comes bursting up out of the desert,
but if a small voice says "Wait a minute, that can't work", then the thrill is
gone. The Dune movie was even worse in this respect. It had lots of great
effects, but they were spoiled by the dumb dialogue and plot. I'll go along
with the idea that it doesn't have to be true down to the last rivet, but I
don't want to turn my brain off completely when I read.
John Redford
DEC-Hudson