By Popular Request – A. Bertram Chandler and More Harlan Ellison
24. Nov, 2008 
4 Comments
I’ve added links to the A. Bertram Chandler stories that are hosted on the official A. Bertram Chandler website.
I’ve got a lot more to add – there’s scifi.com’s archives and a few other places. (Some free magazines are already up – Raygun Revival, Tor, Subtarranean Press) and lots more to come.
***
In light of the ‘is sci fi dying?’ roundtable, and via SFSignal Harlan Ellison reminds us of what science fiction is and what it isn’t:
“The core of science fiction as a thinking tool is the effect of technology on human beings.”
Not plot. Not tech. Not even characterization. The EFFECT of. Or Upon. (Of course you have to have a plot and some tech and some characters – of course. But as Asimov’s Foundation stories prove – at least in the minds of those who criticize his flat and virtually non-existent characters – you don’t need to have ‘real’ characters to demonstrate the effects of the science of psychohistory on humanity.)
This is one reason why I stop short of Mike Brotherton’s iron-hard declaration that the science must always be right: ultimately, it is not the tech but its relationship to people. (In the much-mentioned Haldeman novel Forever War, an FTL drive based on tachyons’ seeming ability to travel backwards in time is posited. But the story is concerned with how time dilation screws with human relationships – and any ‘tech’ that would bring these effects to the forefront could have been substituted or even just hand-waved in the background.)
Please note the lack of subjective descriptors: we are not talking good science fiction or bad science fiction, only science fiction. Good science fiction will have real characters, plausible, believable, logically extrapolated and accurate science and/or technology and some kind of plot. A plot that forces people to deal with the effects of technology.
***
Harlan’s multi-decades old rant actually deals with the question of whether science fiction and sci fi are the same. John (I presume it’s John) at SFSignal says “I use the term “SciFi” to refer to science fiction films and I use the terms “science fiction” or “sf” for science fiction books”
And a lot of other people do to. Which is fitting, since most film and television offerings that lay claim to the genre ARE skiffy.
Harlan says during the round table: “…when you are able to diminish something, you don’t have to actively go after it. It has already become laughable. When people start thinking that Independence Day is science fiction and they’ve never read a novel by A. E. van Vogt, they’ve never read a novel by Kate Wilhelm, then what we have is a bastardized form. When they read Star Trek novels and they think this is writing, we lose from the pool of literature. We have an ever more increasingly illiterate population and I think this sci fi crap is what helps that along. It keeps people stupid.”
While I do believe that our population is becoming increasingly illiterate (by which I mean less interested in examining what they’re being spoonfed, not necessarily unable to read), I can’t go along with Harlan’s statement that Sci Fi is one of the causes.
The acceptance of Sci Fi by a general audience – yeah, verily, even the lauding and awarding and elevation of Sci Fi to the level of cultural icon – is a symptom of our problem, not a cause.
As Harlan goes on to say “You don’t have to coarsen something to make it acceptable.” Well, unfortunately in these days of dumb and dumberer, it seems that you do if you want to get the green light for production.
Brotherton, during our discussions (with Bill the SciFi Guy) about the science in science fiction, wonders whether the FTL drive will be left in the movie version of Haldeman’s Forever War. He speculates that it may be passed over in favor of a more easily understood cryogenic sleep. He seems to feel that the effects of time dilation are probably beyond the ability of a movie audience to easily comprehend.
And they probably are. They shouldn’t be, but they probably are.
Just follow this path: which of these two forms of entertainment requires more participation by a consumer – reading literature or watching a movie? Which requires more cogitation?
Anyone saying ‘watching a movie’ may leave now.
On the other hand – which of those two media receive more attention, earns more money and which will be found in more homes – books or movies?
Hear that? It’s the sound of a dog not barking. Because the one media requires less intellectual participation, it has become the more influential. And thus begins the downward spiral – more influence means more money, means more influence, means more money…
Which brings me to James Wallace Harris’ piece on Defining Science Fiction – also via SFSignal. (John and the boys really are the best at getting me going early in the morning!)
James makes this statement: “After pursuing hundreds of hours of meditation on the subject, I want to define science fiction as a belief system rather than an art form, and when we label something science fiction we?re doing the same thing as when people call something Christian music or a religious novel. Religion is an approach to defining reality. Science fiction is an approach to defining reality. So too are philosophy, science and journalism.”
Which reveals another case of mistaking a symptom for the disease. James dismisses previous definitions because they don’t seem to cover everything in a neat package. This is due to evolutionary pressure more than anything else (well, also a bit of wanting to rope in as much as possible on the part of some folks). Previous definitions have been accurate – for some. Knight’s catch-all works just fine for me without having to add any spiritualism to it at all.
Jame’s has made the mistake of turning Knight’s definition (SF is what I’m pointing at when I say ‘that is SF’) 180 degrees: My bookshelf that defines SF by way of example must be YOUR bookshelf too.
We are all familiar with the fans who have made their chosen literature a religion. So readily apparent is the cliche that David Gerrold included notes in some of his Cthorr novels admonishing readers not to take his made-up philosophy seriously. However, the simple fact that you won’t find all of science fiction fandom living in a Martian Nest at the Church of All Worlds is proof that the definition is flawed. Maybe James has turned SF into a belief system. Not all of us have.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO MY FEED
I agree completely, for some people science fiction is just a form of entertainment. But as our culture evolves, there are certain science fictional concepts that have been accepted in the world at large that I think make up a belief system. Whether they are true or not doesn’t matter, people accept them.
For example, intelligent robots, aliens from other worlds, interstellar travel, time travel, homo sapiens 2.0, and so on. If you look at children’s books, movies, television shows, games, etc., you’ll find all kinds of science fiction concepts embedded with no explanation. They are taken for granted. Who are teaching 4 year olds about space ships and robots? Somehow they acquire those concepts with equal ease as dog and cats, gods and angels, cars and trucks.
Sure, science fiction is a form of entertainment that people seek out. But the concepts of science fiction have flowed out of the entertainment and into culture. Some people believe in those concepts.
Jim
James,
respectfully, I think you are stretching things too far and are mistaking some science fiction tropes that have been adopted by the popular culture for a ‘belief system’.
Many of the works you refer to are, undoubtedly (especially so in the case of movies and television) fantasy rather than science fiction (Star Wars, for example); these feature rayguns, rocketships and robots and, although they ‘look’ like (and sometimes act like) their SF counterparts, they are, in actuality, mere stereotyping, icons for ‘the other’ or ‘travel to foreign lands’ – standins for what in an earlier era would have been pirate ships and fairies.
One of the main problems for SF as literature, at least in the realm of gaining new readers, is the introduction of a multitude of unfamiliar concepts – faster than light travel, time dilation, time paradoxes, aliens that are more than just ‘the other’. One spends a lifetime learning these concepts from context – but only if one is motivated to look beyond the icon and explore what it actually represents. Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, for example, go beyond the mere concept of a mechanical, autonomous being. If one is treating the story as belief system, there is no need to look into the deeper, more important and meaningful aspects. There would be no need to create such a thing as the ‘Three Laws’. The ‘robot’ would be a mere cipher.
Anyone who is treating science fiction as a belief system is wading in the shallow end of the pond, playing with icons that are devoid of their actual reason for being and any real meaning.
What you are seeing is an increased awareness of SF tropes and their wider use in our culture because they have become so pervasive through mass media – but you are not seeing “science fiction” becoming pervasive, nor is it developing into a belief system. You’re looking at shades, being manipulated by people who have little knowlege or appreciation for the genre itself. By way of example – Vampires are ‘hot’ right now; Twilight and its soon to be made sequels are replacing Harry Potter – but this is an affectation of the money mavens. Popular fazes do not a belief system make.
Finally, if science fiction does engender some kind of belief system – wouldn’t it have to have its own comprehensive definition? Show me how and where numerous dystopian stories of the future jive with the utopian ones, or how tales of post-singularity humanity dove-tails with military space opera that’s based, in large part, on stories from the days of sail and imperialism. Does one just pick a single trope and build a life around it? How does one use this belief system in their daily lives – when most of science fiction has not yet been realized technologically?
Sunday I watched WALL-E with some friends. The first half is like a silent movie with little or no dialog. It’s all science fiction. I mean chock full of science fictional ideas. Now WALL-E is a movie aimed at little kids. The movie makers made no effort what-so-ever to explain things. I’ve talked to mothers with 4 and 5 year-olds who have seen this film, and the kids didn’t complain about not understanding what was going on. I’m guessing they have been bombarded with science fictional ideas all their life, so even at a tender age of 5, this stuff is not new.
I have met plenty of people who were not science fiction fans like us, but who talk with the assumption that manned exploration of the galaxy is destined to happen. I’ve even had young people ask me when is NASA going to build spacecraft like the ones in Star Trek and Star Wars.
I can’t help but feel that this is a belief system like the belief in life after death or heaven. Just because people haven’t made a formal religion out of it doesn’t mean it’s not a belief system. People believe in ghosts and angels and fairies, so why not galactic civilizations or intelligent robots?