From: dstein@oak.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Reply-To: dstein@oak.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 13:53:30 GMT

Eric S. Raymond answers:
 
[J. Verne's idea of SF looks like Campbell's via Raymond:]
|> Plausible but wrong.  Read Panshin's discussion of Verne in
_The_World_Beyond_
|> The_Hill_ for an effective refutation. 

[Evidence for Campbell's sweeping, complete reinvention of SF:]
|> Do your own homework (I cited some sources to start with in my reply to Ken
|> Arromdee).  There is quite a bit of good scholarship on this subject, not to
|> mention first-person testimony from writers who were active before, during,
|> and after the Campbellian revolution

[Explain how Campbell redirected the thinking of SF writers 
so as to "reinvent" SF:] 
|> I don't have to.  They've done it themselves, at length, in print. 
Campbell's
|> influence is well documented.  If you want to argue this further,
repair your
|> ignorance first.

   When I challenge someone on the net for an evidence or an explanation,
   I do so in general with the hope that they indeed have something 
   informative to say beyond parroting (often well-known) opinions found 
   in certain well-known works on the subject.

   This is why I challenged Crawford on "political values", this is why I 
   explained in detail my position on "Cold Equations" to Jim.  I do not
   know how will they answer or if they'll bother to, but if they will,
   I can hardly imagine them being more condescending then you.

 
   I will give this another try.  I will drop the question about _how_
   (not if) did Campbell influence a certain key generation of authors,
   and why is reading pre-Campbellian pulp solely enough to `repair' his
   reputation.

   But I will again challenge the particular version of Campbellian
   (re)definition of SF that you gave.  Here you simply cannot hide 
   behind the opinions of your favorite experts without showing a 
   lack of willingness or ability to stand your own ground with the 
   help of your own brain.


   Look, you stated:

>He [Campbell] did not merely `influence' SF, he *defined* SF as we know 
>it today --- as a literature of plausible extrapolation centered on human
>reactions to technological change and challenge.  

   Here are my questions:

  1. Why is this definition not implicit in J. Verne's SF works?  

   You were able to sum up Campbell's definiton of SF in one sentence.
   If you can't sum up (not prove) the essential difference between
   Campbell's and Verne's idea of SF in one paragraph, I do not believe
   that you understand the difference.

   It is alarming that one would need an `expert' like Panshin to explain 
   the difference in a way that could not be briefly paraphrased -- talk
   about an over-academization of SF history!

  2. How well does the definition really fit SF then and today?

   I fail to see how the term *technological* fits books like 
   _More Then Human_ or even _Man in the High Castle_.  And I fail
   to see how does the term *human* square with works like _City_ 
   or _Mission of Gravity_.

  3. Why does the definition NOT fit some well known pre-Campbell SF?

   J. Verne's _20,000 Leagues Under the Sea_
   H.G. Well's _The War of the Worlds_
   A. Huxley's _The Brave New World_
   Capek's _R.U.R._

   Just a few examples of very well-known SF works with which Campbell 
   might have been familiar, and which fit his definition.  So why is 
   his definition of SF so original and unique to be worth a mention?


   Well, will you again refer to "good scholarship" or will you 
   bother to support your statements with your own arguments?

 - David

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not a native speaker of English, so I'm not sure what I wrote.
Flames will be ignored unless you post them in perfect Czech.
================================ - David (the metamathician) - ===
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written