Whatever Happened to Sense-of-Wonder?
21. Apr, 2008 
20 Comments
I’m a crotchety old fan.? I’m a curmudgeon.? An old fart.? I happily subscribe to the world view that change is bad and therefore we must?fear it.? Nothing good ever comes from change.?
I’m an uber science fiction fan.? I’ve been reading the stuff for four plus decades and, while I can’t hold a candle to Forry Ackerman in the longevity (or even the collection) department, I’m certainly on his side of the generational divide.? I think Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Russell, Chandler, Smith (all three), Brackett, Brunner, Aldis, Anderson, Niven, Pournell, Pohl, Dick, Disch, Dickson, Delaney, Moorcock, Spinrad Kornbluth, Silverberg and yes, even Ellison, are science fiction.??
Alas, I seem to be in the minority.? ?That’s ok.? Kids never seem to know what’s good for ‘em until they’re old enough to be waving their own old-man stick around.? What gets my goatee are the reasons I’m in the minority.
Old scifi isn’t literary enough.? Old scifi lacks characterization.? Old scifi is, you know, old.?
I’ll defy any whip-snapping guttersnipe to explain to me what ‘not literary enough’ means.? There’s words on the page that make sentences.? Several follow each other in paragraphs.? Eventually they all combine to tell a story.? Does?every single paragraph have to appeal to each one of my five senses?? Do I have to keep a copy of the OED handy when I read? ?Is a program required to keep track of the characters?? Must I be transported on airy waves of meaningless, time wasting drivel?? Fah.? Take an English class.
And what’s all this crap about characterization? I’m sorry if the younger generation has been so swaddled in sensory overload that it takes a sledgehammer to make even the minutest impression on their creaseless brains, but I shouldn’t have to pay the price.? They’re so out of touch that they can’t even recognize a stereotype anymore.? Stereotypes make it easier to get to the story.? We read for the story – remember?
I don’t need to know whythe bad guy is a bad guy – he’s a bad guy with bad guy motivations who’s gonna do bad guy things.? Scientists will invent neat stuff because they’re scientists.? Engineers will figure out how to solve technological problems because they’re engineers.??Nubile young daughters will fall in love with heroes because they’re nubile young daughters and heroes will win the day for the obvious reason.? What the hell else do you need to know? If you want to spend all your time trying to figure out who is who and why is why – go read a suspense thriller, but stay out of my science fiction.
Old.? Outdated. The world they wrote in no longer exists.? The references aren’t relevant.? Some of them don’t even mention computers (thank god).
To which I say – what the hell happened to your sense of wonder?? Do you mean to sit there and tell me that?you’re going to let the lack of specific technological advances put you off a science fiction story?? That you can’t imagine your way around a reference to vacuum tubes or punch cards?? What a sorry bunch of intellectual?wimps!?
So what that it didn’t happen that way.? It might have.? If you listen to the latest theories on how the Universe really works, you’d know that there are probably an infinitude of parallel universes.? For really real.? You don’t?even have to pretend anymore, not even a little.? Because you know what?? There IS a universe where they went to the Moon using punch cards to plot ballistic trajectories.? There IS a universe where computers are still room-sized behemoths, another where people fly around cities using personal jetpacks, another where Venus is inhabited by intelligent amphibians and still another where the imagination of science fiction fans isn’t?straight-jacketed by ‘what really happened’.
Science is now telling you that everything you can possibly imagine -?in infinite and endless combination – is really happening somewhere.? The old authors and ancient stories give you a ringside seat into some of those worlds and what do you do???You stick your sense-of-wonder in a box and retreat?into the gray, toneless world of only accepting things you can see.?
Talk about fearing change.?
sure – no problem
Guess I’m a little slow. I just now noticed the nice write up you did on Ray Gun Revival over on the home page. Many thanks.
John,
you were pretty clear. I was just making sure that my own views where the, shall we call it, ‘line’ resides.
I thought that was what I said, but maybe not clearly. The parameters of the “reality” within the story should be consistent and where possible conform with known facts and natural law. Technical explanations of how or why things work the way they do within the given “universe” are nice to have but are of secondary importance to the story itself. To give an example. Flash Gordon uses a paralyzer ray in FG trip to Mars. There’s no explanation of how the ray interacts with electrical impulses in the human brain or triggers endorphins into the bloodstream or spits crazy glue all over the target. Flash just pulls the trigger and the bad guy gets frozen. Next chapter.
Now, now; I’m the only one here who gets to tell people where to go…
I do endorse the idea that some SF is just for the adventure and has little need for science.
But I also support the idea that when and where science is called for, it should be accurate or at least a reasonable extrapolation.
If a character in an adventure tale needs to resort to simple math, 2+2 better equal 4, or there better be some good explanation as to why it doesn’t. If a particular locale has a huge, bloated red super-giant in its sky, that planet should be in an orbit that allows for a livable environment, or the characters need to be supplied with equipment that sustains them.
An example (something I intend to write about): The novel Recall Not Earth by C.C. MacApp. FTL ‘jump’ engines require time to build up a sufficient ‘charge’. They can’t maintain that ‘charge’ indefinately because power is needed for weaponry and other ship systems and because, due to esoteric laws of quantum mechanics, the ‘accumulators’ leak.
Totally made up science (somewhat reasonable extrapolation of what was known when it was written) and consistent throughout; battle tactics were based, in a reasonable manner, on the limitations imposed and an ancient alien ship added to the story by being able to build up charge – not instantaneously, but just a tiny bit faster than anyone else.
Adventure and reasonable scientific extrapolation. The balance is what we’re looking for, unless you want to read a textbook.
I’d agree with COF about this. RGR aims more toward the Edgar Rice Burroughs Mars/Doc Smith/Leigh Brackett space adventure stories. The emphasis is on character, plot, etc. Usually the action is so fast paced there’s no time and no interest in the technical aspects. They would only slow the story down. This is Space Opera. I accept that label unashamedly. In fact I wave my Space Opera banner high.
If you want accurate technical information, read a text book or technical manual. I write to entertain and the instruction or edification I want to convey to readers is more of the emotional kind. Existence presents certain problems common to everyone whether they’re on Mars or New Jersey. Questions of love, bravery, integrity, what makes a person want to get up in the morning, what he or she must do to feel justified. All that good stuff. I’ve found in the Jack Brand stories I’ve done for RGR that the space opera, or more specifically, the space western genre ,provides a broad enough canvass to delve into all that.
psik, John,
I think there has to be a distinction made between stories that are ‘just fun’ and stories that are science fictional in intent.
RGR seems to be trying to evoke the Planet Stories style of ‘adventure tale’, and I wouldn’t expect much in the way of ‘good science’ from a new or an old story of that genre.
On the other hand, I do think its quite possible to write an adventure tale in that vein that’s been updated and, where appropriate for the story, to introduce ‘correct’ science.
psikeyhacker posted in a note that had to be deleted for technical reasons the following:
“Thanks for the info about the new site John. Maybe not so new but news to me. LOL
I have a question about this though:
{{{ One of the ingredients of a strong story for me is that sense of wonder you mentioned. While the story is sci-fi as broadly defined, I really don’t care much about the science of it. If there are space ships and ray guns and other space gadgets, I pesonally don’t care how they work. I’ll accept it as a given. But I want to see them used sensibly as part of a strong plot. }}}
I am very interested in science fiction as a stimulus to kids understanding science and technology. Although most of the techno-babble on Star Trek I simply find hilarious there is some information in their. The Heisenberg compensator is funny in its irony but it does let people know about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle if they look it up.
I reread E.E.Doc Smith’s Triplanetary a few months ago. It was entertaining and brought back memories but that was all. I would much sooner suggest Tao Zero by Poul Anderson to someone because it really gets across the idea of time dilation at relativistic speeds.
So are these stories golden age style entertainment or is there REAL SCIENCE in the stories without trying to explain the workings of technology that doesn’t exist and may never.
psik
From Whatever Happened to Sense-of-Wonder?, 2008/05/18 at 8:36 PM
John,
thanks very much for a quick and complete answer.
I’m sure everyone will understand that these are your criteria and not anyone else’s. I’m repeating that here to make sure folks hear it.
First let me say these are my views and mine alone. The Raygun Overlords have their own mysterious ways and they have the final word on what gets published.
When I read a piece the first thing I ask myself: Does the story fit into the category of what we refer to loosely as golden age space opera? Frankly, it seems there are very few writers who can turn out this kind of story. Most of what we see are either hard sci-fi retreads, or recycled Star Trek or Firefly episodes.
The Overlords love Firefly, I can’t stand it, personally. But if the story is strong enough I’ll overlook the Joss Whedon influence and refer it on to the next level.
One of the ingredients of a strong story for me is that sense of wonder you mentioned. While the story is sci-fi as broadly defined, I really don’t care much about the science of it. If there are space ships and ray guns and other space gadgets, I pesonally don’t care how they work. I’ll accept it as a given. But I want to see them used sensibly as part of a strong plot.
After deciding whether it fits in the space opera category, I mainly look at four things. Is there an interesting and new idea here? Then come characterization, plot and how well it’s written. I really look for strong charactrers with plausible motivations. The plot should also be believable and if possible be constructed with the purpose of saying something. Good craftsmanship is also a must. And finally setting is important too.
These are just my opinions, as I said, and other Slushmasters, I’m sure don’t agree with all of them, and that’s what makes a democracy.
John,
thanks. I went to RGR probably a year (or more so) ago and liked what I saw.
Thanks for reminding me (and giving me those other links).
I’ll check it out.
In the meantime: give an old guy a break – what do YOU look for as a ‘keeper’ when wading through the slush?
Dear Crotchety,
The sense of wonder is still alive over on the Ray Gun Revival ezine. Don’t know if you’ve checked it out yet. Each month’s issue features stories that could have been published in the old pulp magazines that you remember so fondly. The editors are Johne Cook and L.S. King, and Paul Christianson. I am one of the Slushmasters (first readers) and author of the Jack Brand series, which is what you might call a space-western. This month’s issue has the latest installment of this series, which is soon to go into print as a novel. So if you revel in those thrilling tales of yesteryear that mix golden age sci-fi, good story telling and that sense of wonder, please check out http://www.raygunrevival.com.
I also contribute to Nathan Lilly’s Spacewesterns.com. This site is updated weekly and has more golden age-influenced content.
lol.
they only love what they THINK is science fiction
Oh No! Science fiction has been invaded by Marching Morons. They love Star Wars and think it’s SCIENCE Fiction.
LOL
The movie Idiocracy is like a remake of Marching Morons. Where Is Honest John Barlow when you really need him?
psik
If you subscribe to even marginal conspiracy theories, the lack of a ‘real’ education in public schools these days can be laid at the feet of the industrio-military complex: its MUCH easier to sell crap to idiots, its MUCH easier for idiots to sell themselves to other idiots and get elected to office.
On the other hand, it may just be the natural evolution of the marching morons. Intelligent people are at one end of the curve – the hump is behind them, but the hump represents 99.75% of the population and no matter how you slice it, they’ve got a hell of a lot more buying power. Whatever you do, you can’t be economically viable unless you pander to them.
I have my own peeves about public education; one of my biggest is the disconnect between “ignorance of the law is no excuse” and the lack of education in basic law. I don’t think they’re even teaching the Constitution or the basics of the governmental system we live under (in the US) – certainly not if the 20-something pundits on Fox News are anything to go by. They’re totally ignorant (deliberately ignorant?) of the fact that the system was set up to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority; they keep on bleating about ‘judges that interpret the law’…
{{{ so ignore them and relax with a copy of your favorite ‘Old Timey’ author. }}}
What about the crappy science education in this country and all of the people complaining about education in general?
I was shocked when I watched McNamar’s Fog of War and he said he hadn’t encountered Plato until he got to college. I don’t know how much stuff I learned about history and psychology and science from reading sci-fi books while in grammar school. I don’t recall encountering any new BIG IDEAS in high school or college. The SF writers covered the map. I decided I was an agnostic at 12 because of sci-fi. No adults ever mentioned the concept.
So telling kids about stuff that is worth their time seems more important than “enjoying” the good stuff. The kids are the future. That is a cliche but it is an unavoidable truth.
SF Ed
psik
psik,
OK. Excuse me for being dense.
I tend to agree with you; if stories are going to go so far out that the ‘technology is indistinguishable form magic’, and presuming that the author wants it to remain science fiction, I think the least they can do is give us some foundation that explains ‘how’ the tech got that far out.
Have you read ‘a world between’ by Spinrad? Norman is a new waver (60’s new wave to clarify) and has written some pretty good essays on the subject. I consider that story SF because it has an SFnal setting (remote interstellar colony) but the science that he mostly riffed on was politics – a squishy science if there ever was one.
{{{ Are you saying that some of the ‘new’ science fiction denigrates science }}}
No, I am saying the so called science fiction fans denigrate science by saying or implying that science isn’t important in SF. It is SCIENCE that makes it SF. It is as though they are taking Clarke’s saying the wrong way.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke, “Profiles of The Future”, 1961 (Clarke’s third law)
English physicist & science fiction author (1917 – 2008)
Technology is just magic so it is no different from fantasy. All that matters is the quality fo the Writing. BULLSHIT!
psik,
thanks for commenting!
You get the ‘First Comment on a New Blog Award’.
Are you saying that some of the ‘new’ science fiction denigrates science by either not presenting it accurately or substituting hand-waving for science?
Sense of wonder about WHAT?
I am also in that 4 decades of science fiction category. But I think the point of science fiction is to create a since of wonder about science and science is about reality. Quite frankly I have found that good science fiction books make science more interesting than most science books. Sf got me reading about the evolution of stars after introducing me to the concept of stars exploding. No adults I knew told me that was possible.
But these days the so called science fiction fans emphasize the FICTION. That is why literary characteristics are so much more important. I suspect a lot of them aren’t good at science or math, but don’t hold your breath waiting for them to admit it though. I will admit there is significant variation in writing quality among various authors. I think Mack Reynolds is about the worst writer that I like anyway. His characters are kind of like cardboard stereotypes. But sci-fi is about the story and what the author does with the science in the story not the writing.
The cyber-nano-technology in some of these so called SF books today comes across more like fantasy to me. Artificial Intelligences that can have their feelings hurt. Nano-tech machines in people’s blood streams but never any mention of what they use as a power source.
Kids in grammar school and high school still need to learn basic physics and the 50s and 60s stuff does that better than this cyber-nano drivel. Some don’t even want to call it science fiction, it is speculative fiction. So as long as people who claim to like science fiction denigrate science they are going to have to claim that crappy sci-fi is great sci-fi.
psik