Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

The Oklahoma Tradition

I've long said that instead of talking about science fiction and fantasy, we should instead be talking about science fictions and fantasies. Various mini-traditions are apparent, whether regional, such as John W. Campbell's New York coterie of writers and the Mormon writers of Utah, or by connecting lines of friendship and mentorship, such as the insufficiently celebrated mentor/protege line of Henry Kuttner, Leigh Brackett, and Ray Bradbury. While different styles and perspectives gravitated around writers, editors, and regions, I had downplayed another pole around which writers cluster.

Fortunately, Bryce Beattie of StoryHack Magazine investigated one such group of writers:
And so the fiction writing theories I like best have their roots in this pulp era, which should be obvious to anyone who knows the online me (shameless self promotion.) There is one particular set of teachings that arose from that time I find most useful. For lack of a better phrase, I call it the Oklahoma Tradition. 
The first such teacher I became aware of was Dwight V. Swain. I was (and am) a fan of Randy Ingermanson’s writing instruction. In an article called “Writing the Perfect Scene” he mentioned Swain’s “Techniques of the Selling Writer,” which has since become my favorite book on the craft of fiction. 
Dwight V. Swain was a pulp author, and he wrote dozens of published stories. Eventually, he was able to leverage that writing success and became a professor at the University of Oklahoma. 
Somehow, I came across Jim Butcher’s articles on writing. I liked him as an author, so I hoped he would have something valuable to say. The concepts he described were extremely familiar. A tiny bit of Googling, and low and behold, he went to the University of Oklahoma. 
At some point I decided I needed to know more where all these ideas came from, so I decided to do some digging.
Working back from articles by Butcher and other writers, Beattie discovered a teaching lineage stretching back to the 1940s and earlier, one whose alumni include Tony Hillerman and Louis L’Amour.

For more information on this formative group of Oklahoma professors and a taste of what they taught, check out the StoryHack blog.

Monday, March 4, 2019

The Amazon Age

Brian Niemeier uses one of my tweets as a springboard into a fascinating look behind the scenes of his latest novel launch for Combat Frame XSeed:
Amazon, on the other hand, did not deliver the 30 day algorithm bump that many successful indie authors swear by. According to my numbers, the A9 algorithm pushed CFXS for only one day. 
That was despite a clear demand for the book, as IGG showed. The newsletter swaps did indeed train the algorithm correctly, filling my also-boughts with genre-appropriate titles. I even ran three AMS ads. But despite CFXS getting rave reviews, Amazon's algorithm didn't grab the book and run with it. 
We can only speculate as to why, but I suspect that Amazon has made changes to nerf the algo gaming strategy. They're constantly tweaking their algorithm, and they've previously blunted formerly successful strategies like free giveaways. Nick Cole has even reported diminished results from newsletter trades.
Brian's got a keen mind and is already thinking about the next development in the bookselling business, beyond the Amazon Age. But what is the Amazon Age? For that, let's look at the original tweets:

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Lewis, Lundwall, and Campbell

Curious in reading Lundwall and Lewis, it is the post-Campbellian magazines of Fantasy & Science Fiction and Galaxy that appealed to European critics more than the drab technical work of Gernsback and Campbell.

I have previously noted that the Campbelline Revolution never thrives where and when Campbell is not present, and that attempts to graft cuttings from the Campbelline tree onto French and Japanese science fiction inevitably wilted.

Further, with the pulps, that the pulps died because editors like Babette Rosmund thought them passe and tried to correct the tastes of their writers and readers. The result: the readership left years before Street & Smith killed their pulp lines.

"When the Vernian monopoly of American science fiction--and through that, of a large part of post-war science fiction from other countries--finally ended (thanks to such editors and authors as Ilya Varshavskiy, Robert Sheckley and Donald A. Wollheim)"--Lundwall (h/t JD Cowan)

Read that as "When Campbell's influence ended." As Malzberg said in Breakfast in the Ruins, Campbell's influence ended because he listened to fans tired of depressing stories and put his foot down. Galaxy and F&SF gave writers an outlet for all the depressing stories writers could write.

Let's be honest, until 2010, it was editors who defined trends in science fiction, not the readers. Part of the upheaval in the 2010s is that there is now more than just an escape valve from the Nielsen-Haydens' vision of science fiction.

This, and science fiction as scripture, are the reasons why the genre has to eternally relearn Ellison's complaint: "Before you can educate, you first must entertain."

It is ironic that an entire generation of editors who blindly copied Ellison never managed to learn this lesson from their hero.

Friday, February 8, 2019

On "Fandom: An Illustrative History, Part One"

Author JD Cowan examines Science Fiction: An Illustrated History, by Sam J. Lundwall in the first of many parts. Written in 1975, during the tumultuous years just after John Campbell's death, Lundwall's account offers an examination of science fiction history unclouded by the revisionism that accompanied the latest editorial handover in the mid-2000s. Lundwall, a Swedish member of SFWA and other SF organizations, set out to "prove that science fiction is a worldwide phenomenon that hadn't blossomed in English speaking countries until post-World War I."

While a European perspective is welcome, as it counteracts American science fiction's continued provincial myopia concerning World science fiction, Lundwall does a disservice to Poe, Wells, and Burroughs in his claim. Furthermore, English language science fiction was thrust in the limelight after World War I because France, Germany, and other nations involved in both science fiction and World War I lost the spark of hope for the future needed to write science fiction and abandoned the field. American and English science fictions were the loudest voices in a much-diminished choir.

Lundwall and Cowan's conversation on science fiction sparks many points of discussion, such as the earliest works in the form, how science fiction's secularization killed its spirit of wonder, and more. Lundwall offers science fiction as the mythology of progress, while Cowan is quick to point out where the mythology diminishes itself:
Mr. Lundwell continues to pry a genre definition from half-formed ideas and made-up terms in order to put to paper what science fiction is. The fact is that it doesn't have one, and that might be because it is not much in the way of a standalone genre. 
Unlike, say, mystery which is about mystery, or romance which is about romance, or adventure which is about adventure, if your genre requires mental gymnastics to explain to a child then you should go back to the drawing board. One sentence should be enough. Genres aren't aesthetics or themes. Genres are defined by what emotion and sense they are meant to invoke in the reader. This is why the average reader picks up a book. They choose one based on the experience it will give them. 
What they are fumbling around to define in the above definitions is Wonder. Wonder is a trait from adventure fiction and its subgenres fantasy and horror. It is the adventure of exploring new lands, peoples, and possibilities. Pair that with the origins of those listed in the paragraph above and you will see where I am going with this, and why the battle for an original definition has been fruitless for well over a century. It's never going to have one, and that is a point that should be discussed more than it is.
That science fiction might be closer to chinoiserie than mystery or horror is a point to ponder. But it is the following exchange which highlight Lundwall's claim of science fiction as a global phenomenon--and gores a sacred cow of science fiction in the 2010s:
And to quash another canard, the author continues:
"When some critics argue that the English author Mary Shelley invented modern science fiction with the novel Frankenstein (1818), they forget that she was drawing upon more than fifty years of Marchen literature, most of it infinitely better and more modern than Frankenstein was."
No, that wasn't written by Jeffro Johnson. In fact you will soon see that the author is no friend of the pulps or the old stories at all. There is a larger point here. This is a man who stood at fandom's heart, and here he is admitting what no one currently in that position will. If you accept Mary Shelley as science fiction (and horror, when it's convenient to the argument) you have to accept many other works that came before hers. You do not get to pick and choose. 
You have to accept fantasy and horror as a whole connect to science fiction, and she did not create either of those. She merely continued on in a tradition that started long before she was born and continued long after she was dead. Despite fandom's best efforts to rewrite the past, she did not create the genre. She was a participant in a unending conversation called art and had her piece. This should be enough. 
Those using Shelley as a bludgeon for political reasons are doing her work and those who came before a disservice and are actively whitewashing history--a history, I might add that was crystal clear from all the way back in 1977. Even fandom understood this.
Let's turn again to Lundwall for an explanation of Marchen literature:
"Modern science fiction in a sense appeared with the German romanticists of the late eighteenth century--Clemens Brentano, Achim von Armin, Adalbert von Chamisso, E. T. A. Hoffman and others. These romantic Marchen writers wrote what in effect were fairy tales for adults, including all the various paraphernalia common in modern sf, such as robots, monsters, strange machines etc, set against a curious background. They demanded an almost boundless credulity from their readers, for they described life, not as a reality, but as a dream of sorts--not what it is, but as it might be."
We see once again the influence of Romantic literature, with this branch in fairy tales, joining English Gothic tales and Poe's mysteries as the venerable roots of science fiction. Cowan and Lundwall will disagree yet again over the merits of the Gothic tale, this time, over the appeal of materialism:
But here is where we get the writer's real opinion of adventure fiction. What follows is his description of The Castle of Otranto, the single most important and popular Gothic novel.
"It had form and no substance, it horrors all lay on the surface as it were . . . the seminal The Castle of Otranto succeeded only in building up baroque facades without much content. In many ways this was the forerunner to the Penny Dreadfuls and the pulp magazines--lots of form, no content."
I will translate this from arrogant fandomese for the paupers in the audience. "Form and no substance" means the horrors are spiritual, implied, and obvious to those reading, and not explicit.
Cowan describes further the importance of the Gothic:
The Gothic is the beating bloody heart in any good traditional romance story and is what gives it the universal core so needed in fiction. White against black. Dark against Light. Hero against Villain. Eternal Life against Endless Death. Temptation against Virtue. It goes beyond the surface into weighty themes of the Ultimate, God, and True Justice. The knowledge of a battle between forces beyond both parties at play that haunt the scenery and the overall world behind the story. It underpins every action and decision, and the thought that salvation or damnation is a stone throw away is the most nail-biting experience of them all. Now those are stakes, and they were an integral part of all fiction until the second half of the 20th century where the worst thing that can happen to you is that a monster might kill you in the dark where you can't see it.

Really makes you think.
Indeed, it does, with this discussion of the first chapters leaving readers much to ponder over. I look forward to the rest of this series, and towards chiming in with my own commentary soon enough.

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

The Rats Spread...

Earlier, I recalled how Hugo the Rat ripped off his writers. Unfortunately, I have to share the same about the far more beloved Weird Tales.

E. Hoffman Price, in his The Book of the Dead, shared a conversation between Price and Robert Howard's father, Dr. I. M. Howard, in April 1934:
"[Farnsworth Wright] and [William Sprenger] and the rest of those sons of bitches are no dealing rightly with Robert. How are they treating you?" 
"Doctor, we are all getting screwed. No one is discriminating against Bob. Business really is bad, damn bad. Well...yes sir, Wright and Sprenger are getting their pay checks regularly." 
"Then why don't those bastards see that you and Robert get paid regularly," he demanded. 
Dr. I. M. Howard's bedside manner was superb: a patient would be afraid not to recover.
"Editors and business managers walk out if they're not paid. Writer who don't do likewise aren't showing good judgement. Bob has a lot of good markets. All I have is crime stuff. When I get into a few other fields, I am through with Weird Tales.
A good many year after this dialog, I learned from an employee of the bank which had handled W. T. funds from the beginning and on until another outfit bought the magazine, that the publisher had money by the ream. The outfit had always pleaded poverty, and had found "The Great Depression" a handy device to exploit writers who could not, or fancied that they could not write salable yarns for any other than W.T. I learned from another source that when R.E.H. died, the "Unique Magazine" owed him $1300. It is only fair to add that the most W.T. owned me at any time was never in excess of $300. This peak was achieved only because of a two-parter, and a short. They were not favoring me. When their indebtedness reached a certain point, they got no more scripts from me. My production went to cash customers. Belatedly, Howard, on his own initiative, adopted the same approach.
While Weird Tales' chiseling did not reach to the same six-figure extent as Hugo Gernsback, Wright and Sprenger stiffed a close friend and occasional editor for the magazine in Price. No wonder many writers tried to break through into the more lucrative slicks.

Friday, March 2, 2018

"A Little Disappointed..."

In an attempt to show the wider context of the changes in 1940s literature and how they may have affected Campbell and science fiction, let's take a look at Doc Savage, the Shadow, and Babette Rosmond.
The pulps were dying by inches during the Forties and the reading audience, cynical after another World War, was no longer satisfied with pulp fiction and pulp heroes. They wanted more thought, polish and realism in their fiction. Babette Rosmond perceived this and surrounded herself with writers who could meet these new demands. She could hardly get rid of Lester Dent (though Walter Gibson did quit during her tenure), so she juggled his novels to make them less conspicuous and showcased the work of MacDonald and others.
Murray, Will. Writings in Bronze (pp. 45-46). Altus Press. Kindle Edition. 
(This seems to be less the audience's attitude and more the editors'. In the 1940s, editors had more power over the market than readers. Changes in literature were driven by the fashions of the editors instead of market pressures. In part, this is because the editors were the market for writers. Sales plummeted under Rosmond, but her policies were in line with those of Street & Smith in the 1940s. I'll be looking into those soon. Rather than Rosmond being a child of Campbell's ideas as I previously assumed, it appears that she instead was a child of a new management that squeezed the vitality out of Campbell and the pulps.)
The years 1946 and 1947 were years of change in Doc Savage, and this was due largely to Babette Rosmond and her policies. It’s rumored that Lester Dent didn’t get along with her very well and she, in turn, evinced a cavalier attitude toward his Doc Savage novels. With the May 1945 issue, she shunted the lead novel to the back of the book in much the same manner as a parent locking an idiot child in the cellar. Though she repented that move in April 1945, it became increasingly evident that she thought more of developing her new writing staff than she did of Lester Dent and Doc Savage.
Murray, Will. Writings in Bronze (p. 45). Altus Press. Kindle Edition. 
This was a few short years after many of Street & Smith's pulpsters were effectively driven out of the career. Street & Smith was looking to make slicks out of their pulps and needed new writers in the current styles to do so. The resistance to the old styles even trickled down to the writers:
In Bronze Shadows #3 (February 1966) John MacDonald related the story of how he was asked to join the ranks of the Kenneth Robesons: 
In 1947, Babs Rosmond asked me, very cautiously and tentatively, if I would like to try a Doc Savage. I have the vague memory that Lester Dent was ill at the time. I do remember that I certainly had need of the money. I told her that I would let her know. I got out some of the back copies of the magazine which I had saved because they had contained stories by me. For the first time I read two Doc Savages all the way through. I did some fretting and some pacing and finally phoned Babs at her office at Street & Smith and said that I could not fault them on the basis of action, or moving the people around, but I just could not bring myself to imitate a prose style so wooden, so clumsy, so inadvertently hilarious that it was like a parody of the style you might term Early Comic Book. I said that Doc seemed to me to be a truly great comic figure, and I was sorry to let her down, but… She said she hadn’t really believed that I would do it, and that in fact she would have been a little disappointed in me if I had given it a try, disappointed in me. 
Murray, Will. Writings in Bronze (p. 46). Altus Press. Kindle Edition.
In 1948, Babette Rosmond would turn away from editing pulps for her own literary career. By then, the damage done by her and Street & Smith's management was permanent. Instead of continuing with the plan to revive their flagging pulp line, yet another management shakeup decided on a different course:
When the end did come, it was as if a sword had fallen. In 1949, the last of the Street & Smith heirs, Gerald Smith, became president of the firm. The sword-wielder is unknown; it may have been Smith or Chairman of the Board, Allen L. Grammer. In any case, it was the latter who announced in April of that year that Street & Smith was dropping Detective Story, Western Story, Doc Savage, and The Shadow—leaving Astounding Science Fiction the sole survivor of a long line of pulps. Citing television and the fact that readers were tired of the pulp format, Grammer said the company was shifting toward the women’s market. 
Murray, Will. Writings in Bronze (pp. 49-50). Altus Press. Kindle Edition. 

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

More Advice from Joseph T. Shaw

Joseph T. Shaw was the famed editor of Black Mask, ushering in the age of the hard-boiled detective and paving the way for film noir. Under his guidance, "The greatest change in the detective story since Poe," wrote popular culture scholar Russell B. Nye, 'came in 1926 with the emergence of the Black Mask school of fiction.'" (h/t: Detnovel.com, who has an excellent overview of Black Mask and its effects on the detective story.) We have already read Shaw's thoughts on dialogue, but Detnovel supplies some of Shaw's approach to character and action. Called "objective realism" by some, he was more interested with creating an illusion of reality instead of a copy of it.

In his letters and memos, he articulated a clear vision of hard-boiled fiction. "We wanted simplicity for the sake of clarity, plausibility and belief," he wrote. "We wanted action, but we held that action is meaningless unless it involves recognizable human character in three dimensional form." Critics have called this style "objective realism," but Shaw's own explanation stresses the difference between exterior appearance and interior emotion. He counseled his writers that "in creating the illusion of reality" they should let their characters act and talk tough rather than make them be tough. This model of character -- a crisp exterior but an amorphous interior -- corresponds to Shaw's idea of his readership. Nor did Shaw urge plots of relentless action on his writers. "To accomplish action it's not necessary to stage a gun battle from start to finish, with a murder and a killing in every other paragraph," he later told Raymond Chandler: "You can keep it alive through dialogue."
To expand a bit, Shaw romanticized his readership, claiming that his readers "knew 'the song of a bullet, the soft, slithering hiss of a swift-thrown knife, the feel of hard fists, the call of courage.'" and:
The Black Mask reader, he wrote, "is vigorous-minded; hard, in a square man's hardness; hating unfairness, trickery, injustice, cowardly underhandedness; standing for a square deal and a fair show in little or big things, and willing to fight for them; not squeamish or prudish, but clean, admiring the good in man and woman; not sentimental in a gushing sort of way, but valuing true emotion; not hysterical, but responsive to the thrill of danger, the stirring exhilaration of clean, swift, hard action – and always pulling for the right guy to come out on top."
As for the results of Shaw's vision, Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, and Lester Dent all wrote for him, and it is impossible to think of film, comics, or fiction without these men.

Sunday, February 18, 2018

A Quick History of the Campbelline Decade

I continue to use the convention of splitting the Golden Age of science fiction into the Campbelline and the Golden Ages, following Robert Silverberg's convention. Much of what fandom considers the Golden Age occurs in the 1950s and early 1960s and follows the rise of the paperback. Certain tropes such as the "Happy Engineer" do not appear until the 1950s as well.

October 1937 - John W. Campbell succeeds F. Orlin Tremaine as editor for Astounding Stories

1938 - In March, Astounding Stories changes to Astounding Science-Fiction. In May, Campbell is given full authority over Astounding

1939 - In March, Campbell starts Unknown, a fantasy companion to Astounding

In July Campbell publishes A. E. van Vogt's first story, "Black Destroyer", and Asimov's early story "Trends". The Campbelline Age is said to begin with this issue

Lensman, the first upswing in popularity of science fiction. While Astounding follows an increase of realism, competitor Amazing uses isekai for relatability and sees better sales. Amazing outselling Astounding, while Astounding has the higher regard will be a constant occurrence throughout the next decade and more.

1940 - Slan

1941 - Asimov's Robots, Poor sales forces Unknown to switch to a bimonthly publication schedule

7 December, The Day That Would Live In Infamy. Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, forcing the United States into World War Two

1942 - Foundation and Weapons Shop. Kuttner and Moore join the stable. Many of the engineers that pushed the technological fiction of the early Campbelline Age join the war effort. "Soft" science fiction, or social science fiction, begins to fill Astounding.

1943 - Paper shortages force Campbell to choose between Astounding and Unknown. Science fiction wins. In the last issues of Unknown, Campbell publishes stories by Babette Rosmond which catch publisher Street & Smith's eye.

The Shaver Mystery begins at Amazing.

1944 - Babette Rosmond is selected to edit Doc Savage. She forces Dent to change his distinct style for a more realistic style that strips Doc of his heroism and science for a conventional mystery format. Dent begins to branch out into mysteries. Sales begin to fall under her editorship.

1945 - Shaver Mystery mania takes over Amazing. Over the next three years, nearly 75% of the magazine is devoted to it. Science fiction fans condemn it, but Amazing's circulation swells to 200,000+ monthly, the highwater mark for all American science fiction magazines. By comparison, Astounding and Weird Tales both sold 50,000 monthly.

1946 - Rosmond begins editing The Shadow, attempting to force the same changes from Doc Savage onto Walter Gibson. Gibson will eventually quit under her editorship. Again, sales fall.

 Arthur C. Clarke's first story appears in Astounding.  Adventures in Time and Space and The Best of Science Fiction are published, igniting a science-fiction publishing boom.

1947 - At WorldCon, Campbell "begged for the fans' indulgence at the profusion of despair, claiming that he could only publish what the writers were delivering . . . but he was sending out pleas to cease and desist." His editing becomes more heavy-handed.

1948 - Rosmond is replaced as editor of Doc Savage and the Shadow. Both magazines return to their roots. Sales begin to recover.

Street & Smith attempts to revive Unknown, testing the waters with an anthology. "Street & Smith printed 300,000 copies, against the advice of John Campbell, but although it sold better than the original, too many copies were returned for the publisher to be willing to revive the magazine."

Amazing ceases publication of Shaver Mystery stories.

Despite science fiction's popularity, a slow exodus of Campbell's writers to other genres, markets, and media begins. This movement is driven by financial concerns as most writers could not support themselves on science fiction alone, especially Campbell's brand. Leigh Brackett notes, "I kept trying to sell him things because he was the top market, but when you wrote a Campbell-type story and it didn't sell then you had no place else to go with it."

1949 - Street & Smith kills off its pulp magazine, including Doc Savage and The Shadow. Only Astounding survives, as it is the most prestigious science fiction magazine. Fantasy and Science Fiction begins.

1950 - Galaxy Science Fiction begins. F&SF and Galaxy have a more permissive editorialship than Campbell, continuing his ideas while allowing the themes he forbade. Galaxy soon becomes the most prestigious magazine in SF.

Campbell publishes L. Ron Hubbard's first article on Dianetics. This flirtation with Scientology and Campbell's fascination with pseudoscience further diminish his influence in science fiction.

Saturday, January 6, 2018

Fandom's Higher Purpose

Reposted from a comment on over at the Mad Genius Club. This article summarizes the emergence of the science fiction fandom and the fan convention in the 1930s. My comments follow.
*****
Our Higher Purpose
by David B Williams

Not surprisingly, this too began with Hugo Gernsback.
He published what he chose to call “scientifiction” stories in his radio and electronics magazines years before he launched Amazing Stories, the first magazine dedicated to SF.
Since he wasn’t responding to a market demand by providing SF stories to his amateur-radio and science-hobbyist readers, Gernsback must’ve thought this type of story conveyed some special value to this audience. He didn’t give them westerns or detective thrillers.
Radio was the most futuristic development the early 20th century. Telegraph and telephone signals traveled along visible wires, like wagons along roads and barges along canals. Electricity also traveled through wires, like water or gas through pipes.
But radio signals were invisible, undetectable until captured and converted to sound by and electronic receiver. Radio signals went everywhere, even passing through solid walls, unconfined to any kind of pre-existing conduit. This was sense-of-wonder technology.
Gernsback’s readers were up to speed on this new technology and wanted to know what was coming next. They viewed science is an endless cornucopia of progress. They were future-oriented and expected more big changes and amazing technologies to come, an ideal audience for the scientifiction stories Gernsback offered them.
But Gernsback wasn’t just providing entertainment to those readers. He believed SF’s mission was to awaken readers to the power and potential of science, to stimulate the imaginations of scientists and inventors, and even inspire readers to seek careers in science. The readers who read about future wonders could then help to make those wonders come true. Unlike westerns, detective tales, or love stories, SF had a job to do. SF had a higher purpose.
In 1926, Gernsback described the ideal SF story as “a charming romance interwoven with scientific facts and prophetic vision,” proclaiming his model of SF as the bearer of science education and prediction. And he never changed his mind. When he launched his last SF magazine, Science-Fiction Plus, in 1953, the subtitle was “preview of the future.”
Gernsback emphasized this higher purpose in his editorials, and he transmitted this kind of thinking to his readers. It’s no surprise that the earliest stirrings of organized SF fandom came from science hobbyists who were at least as interested in the science of SF as in the fiction.
The first two recognized fanzines were pubbed by these amateur-science enthusiasts. The Comet appeared in May 1930 as the journal of the Science Correspondents Club, followed two months later by The Planet from the New York Scienceers. The pages of both publications were devoted to science, although The Planet also included reviews of recent prozine content.
The International Scientific Association tried to mix the amateur scientists and SF fans, but the fans soon became dominant. The first two Eastern SF conferences (Philadelphia 1936, New York City 1937) were essentially exchange visits between delegations from the ISA’s two major branches.
The growing rift between science and science fiction was simply the first dispute royale of fandom’s first decade. But that dispute didn’t spark widespread feuding. The fans simply won by attrition. The focus on science gradually waned, replaced by increasing attention to SF and to fandom itself.
But if fandom wasn’t about promoting science, what was it about? If, as Gernsback claimed, SF had a higher purpose, shouldn’t SF fandom also have a higher purpose? This question plunged all fandom into war.
The Futurians, a group of New York City fans who coalesced around Donald A. Wollheim in the mid-1930s (and thus were written initially known in fandom as “Wollheimists”), would prove to be the driving force behind this conflict.
In addition to Wollheim, key Futurians included John Michel, Fred Pohl, Cyril Kornbluth, Robert “Doc” Lowndes, and, in a widening circle, Richard Wilson, Dave Kyle, Damon Knight, James Blish, Larry Shaw, Jack Gillespie, even Isaac Asimov, though he was really only one of several social affiliates who did not participate in actual combat.
Wollheim and his circle could not countenance the idea that fandom could just be for fun. Gernsback had already explained that SF had a higher purpose. The Futurians believe that SF fandom also needed a higher purpose.
Wollheim classified most fans as “shallow-minded adolescents” and considered discussion of SF as “childish” and “inane”. His goal was to “raise science-fiction from merely a childish puerile hobby to being an active force toward the realization of those things that science fiction already believed.”
At the third Eastern convention in Philadelphia in 1938, Wollheim read a speech entitled “Mutation or Death” written by fellow Futurian Michel, whose severe stutter made him incapable of delivering the oration. This speech introduced the doctrines of Michelism to fandom.
According to Wollheim, “Michelism is the belief that science-fiction fans should actively work for the realization of the scientific socialist world-state as the only genuine justification [emphasis added] for their activities.”
The address ended with the proposed resolution:
“THEREFORE: Be it moved that this, the Third Eastern Science-Fiction Convention, shall place itself on record as opposing all forces leading to barbarism, the advancement of pseudo-sciences and militaristic ideologies, and shall further resolved that science-fiction should by nature [emphasis added] stand for all forces working for more unified world, a more Utopian existence, the application of science to human happiness, and a saner outlook on life.”
After prolonged debate, the motion was defeated 12-8, with several extensions. No one voted against the resolution’s content, but the opponents did object to introducing politics into fan affairs.
In 1940, as General Secretary of the Futurian League, Wollheim defined a Futurian as one who, through SF [emphasis added], attains a vision of the greater world, a greater future for the whole of mankind. A Futurian seeks to utilize his idealistic convictions, always a democratic, impersonal, and unselfish ways, for the betterment of the world.
General Secretary! Working behind all this was Communism, the doctrine that dared not speak its name. Textbook Communism (“the scientific socialist world-state”) embodied all the utopian principles that appealed to idealists in the 1930s. Several Futurians joined or attended meetings of the Young Communist League, and Michel joined the Party when he was old enough.
The question remains as to whether “Michelism” was really initiated by Michel or whether Wollheim nominated Michel as the titular leader to deflect attention from himself. Recall that President Truman, fearing Congressional opposition to anything that bore his name, cunningly called his reconstruction program for Europe “the Marshall Plan.”
Some kind of conflict was inevitable in the first World SF Convention convened in New York in July 1939, because the Futurians had lost ownership of the event. Leading Futurians had been appointed to the planning committee two years earlier but had accomplished nothing. So, at the New York “national convention” in 1938, Sam Moscowitz, William Sykora, and their New Fandom group stepped forward and were authorized to form a new organizing committee.
It must’ve been bitterly infuriating to the Futurians to know that they had allowed this plum to be plucked from their fingers by their despised opponents, and then to see those opponents host a very successful, even historic, meeting.
As fans from across the country gathered in Caravan Hall, the Futurians handed out pamphlets crying alarm and warning fans about the nefarious plans of the “controlling clique.” Headings included “Beware of the Dictatorship!” and “High Handed Tactics.”
This agitprop Salvo perturbed Chairman Moscowitz, who feared that the Futurians were bent on disrupting the convention. He therefore decreed that any Futurians not already in the hall who did not pledge to behave would be banned from the proceedings.
Six of the Futurians (Gillespie, Kornbluth, Lowndes, Michel, Pohl, Wollheim) refused to give such an assurance and, as a result, never got to attend the First World Con. Thus arose the infamous Exclusion Act.
Moscowitz later speculated that the targeted Futurians welcomed their exclusion, because they thereby gained the advantageous position of victims. Crying injustice and fascism, they subsequently garnered widespread sympathy throughout fandom.
Anyway, the war was on to expunge fascism and restore democratic principles to fannish affairs. Fanzines on both sides were filled with accusatory diatribes. It was hard to find fans who didn’t take sides. It was hard for fans who didn’t give a damn and to enjoy SF and fandom in peace.
But in their quest to give fandom a higher purpose, the Futurians and chosen the wrong tactics. Even sympathetic fans came to resent the intrusion of politics and fandom, for whatever reason. And the Futurians’ aggressive attacks on their opponents became more and more tiresome to uncommitted observers.
And what was all the fuss about? What the Futurians offered was not an action program but resolutions. For them, it was enough that fandom express its support for Right Thinking. This was all very exciting. They were engaged in the Great Struggle. They were doing something.
But it was all talk. The Futurians did not choose to engage in the politics of the Real World. Instead, they focus their considerable energies on becoming SF writers and editors and disrupting fandom with her obstreperous behavior. They were successful in both endeavors.
It became widely believed that the Futurians’ operating principle was simply “Rule or Ruin”. For example, Wollheim and three Futurian acolytes showed up at a meeting of the Sykora-led Queens SFL chapter and joined. This seemed odd because Sykora was on the Futurians enemies list. However, he was absent from that meeting and no one objected to admitting the new members.
It wasn’t long before the Futurians sparked dissension with a motion to send a delegate to a leftist youth Congress. Director James Taurasi blocked a vote. The Futurians accused him of dictatorship and initiated impeachment proceedings. They also blackballed new members who were known to oppose Michelism.
Sykora skipped some meetings because of the newly hostile atmosphere, and the Futurians used in attendance requirement in the bylaws to expel them. Taurasi was subject to a second impeachment proceeding and resigned in disgust. Both sides appealed to SFL headquarters at Thrilling Wonder Stories. Leo Margulies, magazine publisher and SFL director, dispensed with the problem by declaring the chapter dissolved.
In just six months, the Futurians had penetrated and destroyed an active and growing club. If the original plan had been to take over the SFL chapter, the Futurians had made wonderful progress, expelling the president and forcing the director to resign. But dissolution of the chapter left the Futurians with nothing to control.
They then formed the Futurian Science-Literary Society of New York, but most of the non-Futurians followed Sykora and Taurasi into a new and thriving Queens SFL. So, in the end, the Futurians won a Pyrrhic victory.
In 1945, after a pause for World War II, several Futurians holding Fantasy Amateur Press Association offices resigned and formed the Vanguard Amateur Press Association with an all-Futurians board. Based on past performance, it was immediately alleged that they were set on wrecking FAPA, and replacing it with an APA that they totally controlled.
But that was the end of it. The world war had changed things. Real fascism had been defeated on the battlefield, and Communism had revealed itself as a flawed Ghod. In the postwar world, and following internal dissensions (revolutions always devour their own), the Futurians dispersed, in turn, to grown-up careers and marriages. Fandom could no longer demand the total commitment of their energies and ambitions. It was time to get on with life.
Gernsback’s faith in SF’s power to educate readers and inspire them to enter the sciences was not totally misplaced. A number of space scientists have acknowledged that reading SF in their formative years helped to guide them into scientific careers. But they certainly didn’t learn their science from SF, and the number of scientists truly recruited by SF was minimal.
Of more concern within the genre was the effect of Gernsback’s formula on the development of SF’s fiction. Western stories didn’t screech to a halt to explain how cattle-ranching works. Why did SF stories need to pause to explain the science? Rather than being the Father Of Magazine Science Fiction, fandom might have chosen to honor Gernsback as the Father Of The Info Dump.
Following the glory days of Gernsback’s preeminence, writers and critics began to challenge his literary ideology. According to Gary Westfahl in the online edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, “some maintain that Gernsback’s impact on SF was harmful because it led to a sterilized in didactic insistence that the road to the future was best apprehended through a focus on science and technology in isolation.”
He cites Brian Aldiss’s assessment of Gernsback as “the worst disaster ever to hit the science fiction field” and adds: “virtually all later voices for SF reform – from John W. Campbell, Jr. and H. L. Gold to the New Wave’s Harlan Ellison and Cyberpunk’s Bruce Sterling – have explicitly or implicitly presented their ideas is a repudiation of Gernsback.”
In the end, the good guys won, in both SF and fandom. SF became less concerned about scientific plausibility and prophecy and more concerned about character development and narrative technique. SF’s job was to awaken a sense of wonder, not a sense of purpose. And, within fandom, the advocates of science fiction and fandom for its own sake replace the amateur scientists and wanna-be Communists.
SF did not need to justify itself with a higher purpose, nor did its associated fandom. It was okay to just have fun.
*****
Given history and the current resurgence of the ideas and tactics of the Futurian Goodthink crusade in science fiction, I disagree that the conclusion has ever been realized. Most authors' disagreements with Gernsback were over his inability to pay a proper rate on schedule--a valid complaint, I might add. But, as is too common with science fiction fandom, the rationale of literary criticism emerges after expulsion from the good graces of fandom, not before. And contrary to this article, the repudiation of Gernsback's message fic was not of his message, but of his methods. After all, a little entertainment sugar made the medicine of the message go down...