Science Fiction Dialogues

by Gary K. Wolfe (Editor)

Book by

Paperback

Published January 1, 1984

About the author

Gary K. Wolfe is Emeritus Professor of Humanities at Roosevelt University and the author, most recently, of Evaporating Genres: Essays on Fantastic Literature and Sightings: Reviews 2002–2006. He writes regular review columns for Locus magazine and the Chicago Tribune, and co-hosts with Jonathan Strahan the Hugo-nominated Coode Street Podcast.

Reviews

[Darnoc Leadburger · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of people in the know say that just reading science fiction doesn't get you a completely comprehensive vision of the field; you have to read about science fiction to get a grasp on the larger picture. I haven't quite heard Gary Wolfe say it in black-and-white like that, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did; I've been listening to his Coode Street Podcast on and off for probably a year and a half now and he does a good job of balancing his opinions, critical thought, and what the average reader might think. He did a similar thing in 1982 when he set out to publish a volume of pieces about science fiction with the distinct goal of capturing all the different major approaches to writing about the field. Hence, this isn't just a collection of pieces of about science fiction; it's an attempt to capture the very state of discussing science fiction. As far as I know the pieces in this book are original, but it does a better job than another collection of essays I've recently read (*Intersections*, edited by Slusser and Rabkin) because it features the writings of critics and authors alike; it's just a nice and well-rounded experience. I can almost guarantee that not every piece in it will hit for you, but that's okay; it's meant to be a sampler. I'll explain each piece here and what I thought about it, but if you're serious about your genre reading, I'd just go read this - or a similar collection - for yourself to see if this particular form of discussing the genre is right for you.

PART 1: HISTORICAL QUESTIONS
--Brian Aldiss, writer of *The Billion Year Spree* (and Mark II, *The Trillion Year Spree*) writes "*Frankenstein*, a Monster for all Seasons." If you're familiar with his takes on the field you'll know that he calls Mary Shelly's magnum opus the first real science fiction story, and here he talks about the writing of that book, why *Frankenstein*'s abandoning of alchemy and turning towards rationalization marks the beginning of science fiction, and how other critics interpreted and responded to his history and writings - it's a bit scatterbrained, but I like Aldiss, and I mostly liked what he had to say. I don't like rating these essays, but... I liked this.

PART 2: PRIMARY SOURCES IN SCIENCE FICTION
--The tentpole of the collection of a series of letters sent between Stapledon and H. G. Wells between 1931 and 1942. They start with Stapledon coaxing Wells into conversation and critiques of each other's stories and philosophies start happening as they move closer to WWII. I'm a fan of Wells but I've mostly just read the big and popular stuff, and the only Stapledon novel I've read is *Last and First Men* (it is quite unique and respectable, I must say), so I didn't have too much to connect to these different discussions. But it was nice to see some primary source materials, and I'll be glad to have this represented in my permanent science fiction library.
--My favorite essay in the book is Algis Budrys' "Non-literary Influences on Science Fiction." You think this is going to be about Flash Gordon or Star Wars or something by the title, but it's really about editorial influence and the typesetting requirements dictated by the magazine printing formats that changed around authors' prose styles and intents. For example, shortening a nice sentence to a very bland one so that it doesn't bleed over to the next page. This is all framed as a warning to those who want to critique science fiction from the magazine era, and it touches upon concerns I've never conceptualized before but will be sure to integrate into all of my reading and reviewing going forward. This was worth the price of admission (in time and money) all by itself!
--Speaking of editorial involvement... Horace L. Gold (H. L. Gold to some), longtime editor of *Galaxy* from 1950 to 1961, gets a writeup on him from Joseph Marchasani. There are some anecdotes from authors who worked with him, from those who playfully edited his [Gold's] own stories, people like Alfred Bester who said he played an instrumental role in creating *The Demolished Man* (similar to how John W. Campbell helped Asimov and Heinlein conceptualize things like the former's Robot stories and the latter's Future History), and those authors who despised Gold's editorial influence. At the end of the day, though, this essay helped highlight someone who is often overshadowed by Campbell, perhaps because he was the second big and powerful editor in the field and not the first (if you discount Gernsback); nonetheless, it was good to read more on him, and I hope to read further in the future.

PART 3: APPROACHES TO "HARD" SCIENCE FICTION
--Sometimes SF criticism comes in the form of summarization like it does with Donald M. Hassler's "Irony in the Work of Hal Clement." He looks at books like *Mission of Gravity* and *Star Light* and talks about Mesklin-human dynamics and some of Clements' science. This was a nice refresher since I read those books (and *Close to Critical*) last year, but it didn't do anything to change my understanding of Clement or what Hard SF can be. He also talked about *Cycle of Fire*, which I can't comment on too much since I haven't read it. Overall, this was alright.
--Thomas J. Remmington's retrospective on Niven's *Ringworld* (which I've always found to be a solid story, partially worthy of its influence but also just outclassed) does do its fair share of summarizing, but it does so through the lens of comparison and taking all of Niven's story elements and comparing them to those in *The Wizard of Oz*. The different members of Louis Wu's party are all different members of Dorothy's, and their quests end similarly. I've never read that famous children's work so it wasn't mind-blowing for me, but the similarities did seem to be uncanny when Remmington laid them out. It was a good reminder of what exactly happened in the novel as well - a solid way to spend a few minutes.

PART 4: SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY AND THE HISTORY OF IDEAS
--I have not read PKD's *Valis* (I know, I know; it's on the list of shame) or Harold Bloom's *Flight to Lucifer*, so I had a hard time engaging with Robert Galbreath's dissection of them as reality-bending works. I think he erred away from plain summarization enough of the time, but... I also can't be sure as I had to merely skim some sections to avoid spoilers.
--I wasn't as squemish with spoilers in Thomas P. Moylan's look at Marge Piercy's *Woman on the Edge of Time* because I've never heard of it or its author - apparently, I've just been living under a rock - and because it seems like a merely mildly interesting book that reeks too much of "Sultana's Dream." As far as the piece goes... it's really too short for me to say more.
--Once again, I'd not heard of John Gardner's *Grendel*; but I'm also the uncultured swine who hasn't read *Beowulf* either, so... take my opinion however you can value it. There's lots of summarization but there's also some interesting notes on structure, perspective, and possibly even genre; might be worth the read if you've read the works.

PART 5: FEMINISM AND SCIENCE FICTION
--June Howard writes about Sally M. Gearheart's *The Wanderground* (one of the fun things about reading these old critical bits is that they sometimes talk about "modern classics" that have faded into relative obscurity forty years later) and Joanna Russ' *The Two of Them*. They both push pro-feminist narratives, and I disagree with some of Howard's... well, anti-masculine sentiments that are undoubtedly present. The critique isn't bad, but the science fiction covered didn't particularly seem to be for me - it's not a bad essay, but your mileage will vary depending on tastes.

PART 6: THE PILGRIM AWARD
--The Pilgrim Award was the SFRA (Science Fiction Research Association's) award for lifetime achievement in researching science fiction, and it was given to Sam Moskowitz in 1981. He was a fan (not a writer or academic) first, and Joe De Bolt writes about him. He defends fans, like the ones who started Gnome Press, and even Sam's debut *The Immortal Storm* even if it seems partially based on conjecture. Other works of him were panned. But he'd been around for a long time and produced a lot of work, so... he got the award. Not quite a back-handed congratulations, but not the most earnest either.
--A transcription of Moskowitz's acceptance speech details the story of the first Pilgrim Award winner, J. O. Bailey. His *Pilgrims Through Time and Space* in 1947 was the first book-length work *about* science fiction. He also looked to gathers bibliographies of all the science fiction works out there, although his own writings on the field were panned not insignificantly as well. Can anyone just like anyone else's critique? Apparently not... and this piece really highlights my issue with literary criticism in that its writers aren't bringing anything new to the table; the acceptance speech about criticism is just... critiquing criticism. It's not bad for your overall understanding of the field, but the snake is eating its own tail just a little too pointedly for me... still, decent stuff to read.

PART 7: RESOURCES
--If you like this kind of book, then these guys have info for you. Neil Barron's "SF: Fan to Scholar Industry" is a long-form list of different books which were influential in the study of the genre. Many were name-dropped earlier in the book; some were completely new to me. I don't have the time tro track down and read it all, but it's interesting to see.
--Marshall B. Tymn gives us a real listicley list of books published between 1980 and 1982; over 140 of them, I believe, all about science fiction or fantasy. It makes the idea of reading through the body of work about the body of science fiction pretty dang daunting, and I'll admit that there was too much there for me to comb through and find worthwhile gems at this very moment.
--"News of SF+F from Romania, the Netherlands, Italy, Israel, and Germany" talks about foreign conventions and academic publications. Nothing too interesting to the non-1982er, but it's an interesting snapshot.
--Finally, Jan Bogstad writes a little love letter to SF Fan conventions, and which ones are better than others. Again, probably more helpful in the early 1980s, but it still has its charm.

Overall, I enjoyed reading this book. I really liked the first couple sections and even though I didn't get much out of Parts 4 + 5, that's more because of my reading history than anyone's objective worth. There were plenty of things that I learned for the first time reading this and I liked having writers like Aldiss + Budrys on staff in addition to more typical academics - overall, as an overview of the field, I think I'll give this 7.5/10. It's one of the better collections of essays I've read, and I hope to read more like it (and to reference these essays in my upcoming Goodreads reviews) in the future. Thanks for reading the longest and most critical write-up of this you'll find on the Internet, and here's hoping that some (but definitely not all) of these styles of SF critique can come back in vogue; best of luck to you and your literary dalliances until we meet again...

[Stephen · Rating 2 out of 5]

A mixed bag of science fiction criticism that has not aged particularly well. Worth a skim to find the articles that interest you. I loved the letters between H.G. Wells and Olaf Stapledon and Neil Barrron is always a good read but some of the other selections are turgidly written "oh so academic" pieces and glaring errors of details will always drive me wild (Niven's co-author of Inferno was NOT Davod Gerrold, it was Jerry Pournelle! I mean, c'mon man!)