From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Date: 6 Jan 1993 13:35:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan6.030621.3615@math.ucla.edu>  
troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes:
>     If you are serious in claiming that Campbell forced
> a higher level of scientific rigor on the genre, you should
> be able to back it up with evidence.  My opinion is that
> Campbell increased the production of pseudoscientific hackwork,
> and that he could not tell the difference between science
> and crackpot babbling.

Campbell, despite his liking for some areas of pseudoscientific
hackwork, did raise the overall scientific rigor.  For Astounding
would not publish the worst of the space opera nonsense: no
more fires in space, sound in space, misunderstanding of how
gravity works, etc.   While he still allowed nonsense in 
certain areas, he closed a lot of holes. Compare some of the
pre-Campbell nonsense with most Campbell area works.

>     If you are serious in claiming that Campbell forced
> much higher literary standards on the genre, let's look
> at the evidence.  How many Campbell regulars were really
> good writers.  I cheerfully admit to some, but even there
> how much credit is due to Campbell?  Campbell did not create
> Heinlein, he just bought Heinlein's stories.   He has more
> influence in some other cases, but how many of these are
> really good writers?

REALLY good. A handful at least. But the important point is that
most of the writers under Campbell were quite a step up over those
of the pre-1939 preriod.  Read Before the Golden Age or 
Science Fiction of the 1930s, then read Adventures in Time and 
Space or The Astounding/Analog Reader for a good comparison.
> 
>     The Campbell Revolution, we are told, heralded a
> new age of artistic excellence.  Where is this
> excellence?  Off the top of my head, in no particular
> order here is a fair sampling of prominent Campbell
> writers: Van Vogt, L. Ron Hubbard, Poul Anderson, the
> young Randall Garrett, the younger Robert Silverberg,
> Arthur Zirul, Isaac Asimov.  They all have their merits,
> or nearly all do, but are any of them first-rate from
> a purely literary standpoint?  (Note the qualification:
> some of Asimov's and Anderson's stories are excellent,
> but for other reasons.)

Silverberg certainly is.  You left out Sturgeon, who wrote quite
a bit for Campbell. Heinlein at his best was very good.

>     Let's compare them to a sampling of pre-Campbell
> saifai writers: Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Karel Capek,
> Aldous Huxley, John Collier, Olaf Stapledon, Stanley G.
> Weinbaum.  These poor fossils had to get by without the
> benefit of Campbell's literary wisdom.  How do they
> compare in literary merit to the Campbell crowd?  (I
> repress a snicker.)

Verne, Wlls, Huxley, and Capek were NOT part of the field.  By
and large they were ignored by the American magazines, which
was were SF became a genre of its own. Also, nobody has claimed
there were never good stories before Campbell nor bad stories 
later. The claim is that Campbell raised the average significantly.

By the way, Weinbaum is overrated.  He wrote a couple of pretty
good stories, but most of his works aren't that good. Have
you read The Complete Short Stories of Stanley Weinbaum (or
even The Best of Stanley Weinbaum)?

>     Let me state again, that this is *not* a criticism
> of Campbell.  He was only an editor, though an
> energetic and devoted one, and he can't be held
> responsible for the subsequent course of saifai
> literary history.  He was as influential as an editor
> can be, but no more.  His influence, good and bad, was
> limited.

But the influence of a good editor can be tremendous. Campbell
is the prime example in SF, but hardly the only one. Look at
the contributions of H.L. Gold, Anthony Boucher, Fred Pohl,
Damon Knight, Terry Carr, and Michael Moorcock.

> 
>     I can't address your arguments, since you have
> declined to state them, but in reading books and
> articles by Campbell-worshipers it is usually apparent
> that they are ignorant of most earlier saifai.  

Nope, it is you who don't seem to understand the history of
SF as a genre.  SF in the 1930s was basically a pulp field,
full of pot boilers and space opera. It had ignored, by and
large, Wells, Verne, et al.  Campbell changed this.
For
> "hard" saifai, look to Verne, Wells, and Weinbaum.  For
> sweeping vision to Stapledon.  For satire to Capek.
> For fantastic saifai and related fantasy, look to Lord
> Dunsany, to James Branch Cabell, to John Collier, and
> the brilliant Weird Tales writers of the '30s: H.P.
> Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard, C.L. Moore, usw.

Well, since nobody has claimed that Campbell was pivotal in
the evolution of modern fantasy (though Unknown was important),
the latter is a straw man.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written