Conversation

I’ve been reading, Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction by Alec Nevala-Lee. It’s a sort of group-bio of the invention of modern science fiction starting in the 1930s amzn.to/2VAgCTD
12
227
The book is competent though a bit sloppy. Could be better, but does the job I was looking for it to do. I’m mainly reading it because it’s sort of the only one out there about this weird modern invention of an entire genre.
4
24
You realize, reading the story of these 4 inventing modern science fiction around a cheap magazine (Astounding) that when the time is ripe, a fairly random, marginal, not very special group can shake the world. They were just the right people in the right place at the right time
2
78
I got the feeling, which I do NOT get reading biographies of famous scientists or mathematicians, “shit, I could have played the role of one of these 4 in a slightly alternate universe.” It’s astounding (heh!) the extent to which the fact that it was these 4 was mostly chance.
Replying to
They were talented in various ways, and high-energy, but clearly each realized they’d just been cast into their roles at a moment when history was overwhelmingly going to make a thing happen. They were kinda regular guys who rose to a challenge and opportunity. Not Chosen Ones.
2
37
This is very encouraging for those of us who think we’re fairly mediocre and normal (or at least normally deviant) people. I personally think most fields of exceptional accomplishment require a mix or exceptional/unique circumstances AND exceptional/unique ability. But not all.
2
38
Which is not to say any random set of 4 people could have done what they did. But there were almost certainly a few hundred people around at the time who might have ended up being The Ones. Unlike say Einstein’s discoveries where perhaps 5-6 others were contenders at the time.
1
23
To put it another way, if Einstein hadn’t happened, there’s a good chance relativity wouldn’t have happened till decades later. But if these 4 hadn’t happened, science fiction would totally still have happened, right on schedule. Just with different initial condition biases.
4
35
I don’t think you can rationally calculate and strategize your way to a mediocrity leverage point. You have to flow your way there by just letting go and pumping out your life energy down the channels of least resistance.
2
39
It also seems clear that they didn’t quite realize they were making history until quite a while after they had done it. That’s another marker. When you solve a historic math or science problem, you usually know it right away. That’s what it seems like from the biographies.
1
25
Tech pioneering seems somewhere in between math/science and science fiction in terms of necessity/inevitability and interchangeability of the human parts in epochal events. 🤔
1
26
I’m getting the sense that Astounding/Unknown under Campbell were like the blogosphere in the aughts and 10s. Though only a few names like Asimov and Heinlein got big, dozens were experimenting and creating sci-fi conventions and tropes. A kind of Silicon Valley of genre fiction.
2
27
Another thing. Nuclear technology was clearly the biggest thing shaping the imagination of this crowd. Space was just the backdrop. Computers and robots were mostly props. But nukes: as central then as climate change today. Golden age sci-fi was very much an atomic age genre.
2
37
And Heinlein’s competent man trope was the tip of an iceberg. This era appears to clung desperately to the idea of absolute mastery of increasingly inscrutable tech. And we’re not even to the 40s yet.
1
23
Campbell was basically a one-man human internet of sci-fi, a sort of Mycroft Holmes figure, routing ideas, provocations, etc to their correct destinations and absorbing all the nest output. He *was* the market. Intercessionary figure bridging to fandom.
1
25
Heh, Asimov started avoiding aliens and went with robots because he didn’t like Campbell’s militaristic edits based on humans being superior to aliens. Interesting.
1
33
Alright, we’re back to live tweeting my reading. Now into WW2. Heinlein is getting jingoistic, Asimov got married and is getting confident and snapping bra straps, Hubbard has messed up his navy career. Campbell is still with the magazines unable to find a role in war effort.
1
7
Heinlein and Asimov work at the same place in the war effort, with Heinlein as superior. Clash of wills. The nerdy, awkward, deferential but strong-willed Asimov (22?) is slowly asserting himself against dominance of the 12-years older Heinlein (34?), a charismatic asshole.
2
10
Ironic choice of words in last tweet. Looks like Heinlein had painful hemorrhoids and surgery for it etc. Wife turning into an alcoholic under stress of getting sister and kids back from Philippines interment. Just cause for assholery I guess.
3
8
All but Asimov are trying to live up to the competent man trope they’ve mythologized in SF culture and kinda failing. A tale of 3 slow trainwrecks and one bright young kid watching and learning.
1
14
Hubbard is coming across in this telling as at once the biggest liar and scammer and the only one not drinking the competent man kool-aid. This is a story of 3 hypocrites and one narcissistic sociopath.
1
12
One thing I can relate to is Campbell’s constant struggle to find steady, quality contributors through the war. Despite his ability to pay top dollar and the fact that his supply was mostly physically unfit-for-duty types. Only a rare few could do what he wanted.
1
10
What he wanted was people who could take his prompts and deliver creative results different and better than what he himself might have produced. A sort of laissez faire writers market with campbellian monopsonic characteristics. He wanted to send grand strategy. Much schwerpunkt.
2
20
Campbell badly wanted sci-fi to be relevant to the war and got investigated and a slap on the wrist for running a story speculating too close to the Manhattan project. He did it on purpose to get exactly such a response. Ultimately all he got to do was produce sonar manuals.
2
19
It’s weird reading about this failed attempt at relevance in parallel with actual accounts of wartime R&D. Sci-fi as the insecure fanboy of the real thing, trying to Mary Sue itself into the real thing. Much fractal, so irony.
1
23
Oddly this desire for relevance has never been any part of my own motivation for sci-fi experiments. My intentions are pure escapist self-indulgence.
1
7
But I guess in 1942, science and science fiction still seemed like vaguely comparable human activities at the same level, kinda like programming vs using the internet did in the 90s.
2
20
I hope there’s a similar book available for the counterculture era... PKD/Le Guin etc. And one for Jules Verne to Amazing era. Why is there no proper Big History of all of science fiction? Or is there. It seems like a manageable project. About the size of a Caro book.
7
22
The difference between good genre fiction and literary fiction is quantity over quality. You have to read a vast amount and absorb the intellectual currents across the aggregate. If you just read a couple you won’t get the appeal. If you read a few dozen from a period, you will.
1
11
I’ve read almost all of Asimov and Clarke, and samples of most in the top 10-15 I think. Taken as a whole, the genre is a sort of fandom of technological civilization. It’s own fandom is 2nd order. This book captures that spirit.
1
22
Lol apparently upsetting the Seldon plan was Campbell’s idea and initially Asimov didn’t want to do it. The result was the Mule, probably the most interesting episode in the series.
3
23
Campbell was a tactical humbug, pulling PR stunts to position himself and science fiction in the post-war mythology. Some sort of greater good/creating what we would today call transhumans type mission. Reminds me a bit of Elon Musk, the way he appears to have pwned the plot.
1
12
Show replies