From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Date: 31 Dec 1992 13:38:28 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec31.074208.23131@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>  
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> Ironically, another thread mentions a space trilogy written by  
Campbell.  I've
> read it.  It's no better than Ray Cummings.

But we're not talking about Campell the writer here. We're talking
about him as editor.  Most of the stuff Campbell wrote under
his own name was no better than the run of the mill space
opera of the time (the stuff he wrote as Don A. Stuart was
better).  However, he was the pivotal editor in SF history.

> 
> The trouble with an argument like this is that it's unprovable.   
You can say
> "Campbell SF was a big jump from pre-Campbell SF" all you want, and  
give
> examples, and have no way to be proven or disproven, because  
there's enough
> subjective judgment involved that we can _prove_ it only in extreme  
cases, and
> this one is not extreme enough.  (And I'd argue that that itself  
shows that
> the jump, even if it exists, couldn't be _that_ big.)

Define reasonable standards of proof and anyone familiar with
the history of SF can prove it.  

There are various telling pieces of evidence:

1. Science fiction before 1939 was very different, on average,
   than SF after 1939, when Campbell took over at Astounding.
   Most of the major writers, who were to have profound 
   influence on those who would come later, were writers
   developed by Campbell.

   Compare the major works of the forties--by Heinlein, Sturgeon,
   Asimov, De Camp, Van Vogt (not a great writer, but, at
   his best, a step up from the 1930s), Simak, Kuttner,
   Moore, and so forth--to the major works of the 1920s and 1930s.
   You'll find a more polished writing style, better
   characterization, less of a "pulp, pot-boiler feel," more
   logical backgrounds, and so forth.

2.  Most of the major SF critics and historians agree on 
    Campbell's effects, including Knight, Blish, Aldiss,
    and others.

3.  The writers themselves agree on this point.  Stories
    that were commonplace in the 30s could no longer meet the
    standards of the 40s.


> 
> Who defined SF in its current form is another unprovable; I could  
just as well
> claim Star Wars defined SF today.  There are just so _many_ things  
that
> influenced today's SF that you can't trace most specific  
innovations back to
> single sources.

I don't think anyone is claiming that on single person or thing
was the source of today's SF.  But Campbell was the person 
who had the single biggest impact.  Subsequent "revolutions"
were spread out over more different people.  1949-50  was a time
that was almost as important in SF as 1939, since this saw
the birth of F&SF and Galaxy, which together, in somewhat 
different ways, widened the SF horizon.  But the "credit" for
this falls on several different editors (like Anthony Boucher
and Horace Gold), while 1939 was all Campbell.  Likewise,
the new wave of the sixties had a profound impact, but again
was attributable to a handful of major figures, not just a
single editor.

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