The Seminal Status of "Doc" Smith's Lensman Series
E. E. "Doc" Smith is today sometimes dismissed as "merely" a pulp science fiction writer who produced "cliche" space operas. What is not commonly realized is the extent to which he actually originated many ideas which were so widely copied by other writers that they became "cliche." Here is a quick and brief listing of some of his most important
( Read more... )
He was a definite believer in cultural evolution ... I am too. It seems fairly obvious to me that some cultures are better adapted to their environments to others, and that cultures tend to evolve in the direction of such adaptation and succeed, or fail to so evolve, and fail. I do not believe the PC nonsense that all cultures are equal, especially when considered in terms of their ability to accomplish particular tasks of survival and growth.
On the other hand, if by "Social Darwinism" you mean the extreme notion that all is struggle between cultures, and cooperation between cultures is merely an illusion (which, note, is counter to actual Darwinian concepts of biological evolution) ... I would argue that, to the contrary, "Doc" Smith was an early science-fictional proponent of the survival-value of cultural tolerance and multi-cultural symbiosis. Note that his Civilization draws some of its greatest strengths from its ability to include many different races and cultures; and that when possible Civilization converts rather than destroys its foes.
... a few of his alien genocides seem described with too positive an attitude (and I'm not talking monster races like the Ploor).
They are fighting an intergalactic war for survival, a war on a scale where (by the end of the books) the destruction of a whole planet is a standard military operation. The Boskonians have no scruples against doing this to Civilized planets, and if Civilization does not reply in like wise, Civilization will lose the war. Note in particular the effects on strategy of hyperspatial tubes, free planets, and the sun beam.
Civilization tries to convert rather than destroy when possible. In the case of the hardest-core Boskonian races, conversion was impossible -- the races from the Eich up were just too committed to Boskonian ideology to be swayed by any arguments or threats.
You might argue that this is impossible, but keep in mind that the Eddorians -- ruthless super-intelligent telepaths with powers of mind-control and mental editing -- have been paying close attention to the higher-ranking races in their hierarchy for many millions of years. They've had time to render them literally incapable, both genetically and memetically, of thinking un-Boskonian thoughts.
Then again, my mother who I dearly loved, was also a big believer in eugenics and such (got her education at a Progressive school in the 30's, you see), and I was so disgusted by that from her it may have influenced my reading of Smith.
Smith's concept of eugenic breeding programs lasting millions of years seems a bit dated today by the immense progress we have made in bio-technology and genetic engineering. When I read the stories I ret-con this to assume that there is something "special" about doing it "naturally" that is required to create the Arisian Ultimate Weapon. The Arisians do not (as far as I can see) actively work to exterminate the lines they find undesirable; but rather to promote the ones that they find desirable, which does not strike me as evil, given the situation (they must work in secret). Remember that the Arisians, while good, are "ruthless." When they need to be.
BTW, talking SF, what do you think of Smith's 'polar opposite', the New Wave of the 60's and 70's? I've heard it described as one of the biggest mistakes SF ever made.
I agree. The attempt to merge the dying, precious "literary" fiction of the 20th century with the vibrant and innovative science fiction of the same era was in the main primarily harmful to science fiction and fantasy. Very few writers could do it will anyway, and one could argue that Moorcock's work succeeded not because of its "literary" elements but because of the combination of its classic pulp fantasy elements with the fact that Moorcock is just plain a good writer. I don't know of any New Wave science fiction (as opposed to fantasy) that worked well at all -- Delany comes close but his works tend to fall apart on their lack of internal logic.
Reply
Also, it infused a lot of Intellectual (TM) pessimism and nihilism into what until then had been mostly an optimistic genre. Grand adventures in a future you wanted to live to see got replaced by dystopias and utter contempt for the audience, delivered with the curled upper lip and ironic quip of a Seinfeld Sneer.
When I first got introduced to SF by Andre Norton, Poul Anderson, and "Old Testament Star Trek" during the First 1960s, I noticed most of the futures were Bright Futures, futures with hope, futures with grandeur, futures you wanted to live to see and to be a part of.
Then came 1968, Sauron got The Ring, and the Second 1960s (i.e. "The Sixties (TM)" began. And the futures (when they were comprehensible at all) turned Dark. Now, SF had always had its dystopias (such as dictatorship dystopias and nuclear war dystopias), but with the New Wave (TM) and The Sixties (TM), dystopias came to dominate. Vietnam Angst dystopias, Race War dystopias, Nixon-as-Fuehrer dystopias, Population Bomb dystopias, Christian Theocracy dystopias, Reagan-as-Fuehrer dystopias, Nuclear Winter dystopias, Cyberpunk dystopias, Y2K dystopias, Nanotech/Grey Goo dystopias, Global Warming dystopias, ... (Oddly, no Islamic Theocracy dystopias...) Futures that made you want to slit your wrists to avoid.
Around Y2K I noticed another sea change in SF -- an upsurge in Alternate History and "Forward Into the Past" time travel (where an individual or group from the present day get a one-way trip way into the past and have to deal with whenever they end up).
Note the pattern: Bright Future, followed by Dark Future, followed by No Future.
(Perhaps not coincidentally, you see the same pattern in the tangentially-related Christian Apocalyptic Fiction, which went from a Post-Mil "bright future" to a Pre-Mil "dark future" after World War One. Currently, most (if not all) Christian Apocalyptic Fiction holds to the Darbyite Pre-Trib Secret Rapture choreography -- Rapture (i.e. God beams up the Real True Christians), followed by seven years of Antichrist Dystopia, followed by The End. Bright Future, then Dark Future, then No Future.)
Reply
The claim that it let writers focus more on characterization, etc., which I've heard made by some people in other conversations, in nonsense. If you read anything by a good writer from the 1940's to mid-1960's, it had ample characterization. What it did was shift the "bad cliche" story from being "hero fights off monster men from space who want his woman" to "hero tries but fails to fight off monster men from waste dump who rape the woman in the course of the story."
A lot of the New Wave dystopias seem incredibly stupid and poorly-thought out, today.
I totally agree with you on the Bright vs. Dark or No Future shift that happened with the New Wave. I think that it has partially reversed though: note the renewed popularity of space opera from the late 1970's on. Think Alan Dean Foster, Alastair Reynolds, John C. Wright, David Brin, Gregory Benford etc. Note that even the darker space opera scenarios tend to have a lot of ultimate hope in them. (The exception to this is Stephen Baxter, who's a good writer but a very depressing one!)
What has happened is that there is a litcritter wing of sf, descended from the New Wave, which is unremittingly depressing. What is ironic is that they are depressing in ways that make no scientific sense: for instance, energy-poor futures (everyone apparently forgets that E=MC2) or ones in which doom happens in some very improbable fashion (such as everyone getting HIV-AIDS, without any mutation rendering the disease airborne).
Cyberpunk sf never made any sense (I'll go into this at greater length if you like someday). Cyberpunk has unfortunately become accepted as a Hollywood cliche -- as always with Hollywood they have adopted the stupidest concepts in the genre.
Singularity sf is relevant, however, and can be done any number of interesting ways, from incredibly bright to incredibly dark. There is some convergence here with both golden age sf (The Humanoids) and New Wave (I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream). For really dark Singularity sf, look at Williams and Dix; for really bright Singularity sf, look at Vernor Vinge or John C. Wright (actually he did it both ways with the Golden and the Shadow Oecumenes).
By the way, Singularity sf is older than many today realize, it's just the causes of the Singularity which has changed: now it's usually computers while previously it was evolutionary acceleration, often due to alien intervention. Wells' In the Time of the Comet and "Doc" Smith's Lensman series are both, really, about Singularities in human devlopment.
I'm not sure how to rate the ISOT type series (Stirling's Island in the Sea of Time and Flint's 1632 milieus are the two most prominent). It's true that they aren't about the "future," per se, but they are about building better worlds. I guess their theme is "If We Knew Then What We Know Now," and they're generally not depressing at all.
Reply
As per most experiments. I figure if one in three of my story ideas ever makes it to final form, I'm ahead of the game.
The claim that it let writers focus more on characterization, etc., which I've heard made by some people in other conversations, in nonsense.
As Stephen King put it: If you want deep character studies, just take a college literature class. You will get enough deep character study lit-fic to last a lifetime.
To lit-fags, EVERYTHING is Deep Character Studies. The most extreme example of this was a fanzine whose editor would only accept Deep Literary Character Studies (TM) and High Literary Character Interaction (TM). The fanzine's genre? Furry Space Opera, i.e. space opera where all the characters had to have fur and tails because they HAD To Have Fur And Tails. Go fig.
(Note: The terms "art-fag" or "lit-fag" have nothing to do with anything sexual. They refer to an attitude of avant-garde snobbery, usually delivered with an air of Superior Intellect/Holier Than Thou.)
Of Island in the Sea of Time and 1632, I'd go with Flint. He's a much better writer. Just privately ask IronBadger (LJ) about ISOT if you want to get an earful.
May as well identify myself.
Ken Pick
Co-author of "Mask of the Ferret" in the new anthology Infinite Space, Infinite God, hitting the stands this August 15th. (My first professional publication.)
Book website: http://isigsf.tripod.com/
My Author's Page: http://isigsf.tripod.com/id23.html
My co-writer (literary_equine on LJ) had this comment to make in a recent (and rare) public post:
I am delighted that in many of the reviews of ISIG, either Mask of the Ferret, Canticle of the Wolf, or both receives a very positive review. This has puzzled me as many of the other contributors are not literary newcomer lightweights, but now having a prepublication copy of ISIG in my hands, though the other stories are wonderfully written, there are two elements of Mask and Canticle that IMHO make them stand apart:
1) The stories are easily accessible by those who do not have a Roman Catholic background, and
2) They both have very positive themes and endings.
Reply
This is, of course, a perversion of the theory of fiction.
A fiction, classically, has four elements: plot, character, setting and theme. Each is of theoretically equal importance, and a story lacking in one or more of these elements is "unbalanced." Which is not to say "bad" -- simply to say that it is not taking full advantage of the possibilities of fiction.
To insist that a story should focus on character and solely on character, and that any story not primarily focused on character is "bad," is to ignore the imporatnce of plot, setting and theme.
Golden Age science fiction stories tended to focus primarily on "plot" (mystery- or action-sf), setting ("planetary romances"), or theme ("idea stories"). Character often took a back seat.
What's ironic though is that much early sf which had ample character focus is often despised by lit-critters because they don't like the characters. Edgar Rice Burroughs, for instance, had very strongly drawn characters, but they aren't PC Sensitive Men, so they are tagged as "cardboard."
Reply
I write furry space opera. I don't pretend to be writing High Literature/Deep Character Studies. Both furry & space opera mean Milieu/Setting will be important. (Just adding fur & tails -- or any exotica -- to the characters ups the Milieu score. Plus, next to nobody's staked out the big middle in alien design between Parahumans and AWAPs.) Plus space-opera, like most adventure, is Event/Plot-driven. Like ERB, I only need enough character to support the Milieu and Events (though my writing partners tell me I do strong characters).
Same thing goes for Sword & Sorcery (or Macahuitl & Nahualli) -- if this were the Thirties, eric_hinkle on this LJ would be giving Bob Howard a run for his money through the pages of Weird Tales. (And that sort of non-High Lit has staying power -- how many Deep Literary Character Studies from the Thirties do YOU remember offhand? Now how many people you'd run into on the street would recognize the name "Conan the Barbarian"?)
As for "PC Sensitive Men" (aka "just One of the Girls"), how do they differ from what used to be called "sissies"?
Ken
Reply
Yes. Often the proportions will change from chapter to chapter, or even section to section within a chapter. To take some obvious examples, setting is usually established early, plot is focused on during climaxes.
"Doc" Smith was brilliant in terms of ideas, highly skilled with setting and plot, and only adequate in covering chacter. (And he knew his own strengths and weaknesses as a writer, which is one reason why his work turned out so well). This causes the litcritters to despise him, because he is weakest where they demand strength, and his powerful ideas are in many ways antithetical to their own.
Reply
Do you know of any in-print (or at least available) editions of the Lensman series? I'm curious after hearing so much about them -- the original space opera that established the genre conventions, just like I Love Lucy established the genre conventions of the TV sitcom. (And demonstrated 50+ years of staying power.)
In an emergency, I could probably try the LASFS library, but I'd have to fight my way 50 miles across Greater Los Angeles during maximum traffic period to do so.
Ken
P.S. Anecdote about "staying power":
Several years ago, I was in New Orleans on a business trip. Bored out of my skull late at night, I channel-surfed the hotel TV and came across "New Testament Trek" (ST:TNG) -- the episode where Wesley Crusher became a god with the help of an Indian shaman. ("Native American" anything -- even Cherokee Hair Tampons (hee hee) -- being VEH-ry TREN-dy in Hollywood at the time.) All delivered with the solemnity of a Tridentine High Mass; I was expecting them to ring the sacring bell at the appropriate moment and remix in a reverb in their "Important Message" voice.
And suddenly I had a vision. (Not as spectacular as "Thirty Seconds over Narnia", but a similarly-vivid mental image.) All this Important Message solemnity, and in 10 years or so, when Indian Shamanism was no longer trendy, they'll be running it with Joel and the 'Bots at the bottom of the screen.
Got me wondering on what has staying power and what does not. (Obviously, Conan the Barbarian and I Love Lucy have it.)
My conclusion? Nothing gets stale faster than over-relevance. Except for pretentious over-relevance.
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled program.
Reply
Oh, I'd love to hear your words on the Cyberpunk genre.
The usual criticism I've heard is, "Everyone is either an aristocrat partying to death or an illiterate peasant/minimum wage laborer starving in the slums, yet the society as a whole is still developing new technology", or something like that. Something about how the tech base should be dropping, I think?
Reply
1) Mass Poverty
A lot of cyberpunk assumes a combination of robotically-controlled mass production with mass poverty. This is improbable, under a capitalist system, because anyone who could figure out anything they could do for an income surplus during any period of their lives could buy stock in the corporations doing the mass production and hence ride on their success.
This goes directly to the Marxist assumptions underlying the genre: the reason in cyberpunk why a few people are fantastically rich and most people are poor is because the writers are depicting the "final phase of capitalism" after which there will be "superconcentration of capital," the ultimate "contradiction" as there are no more consumers able to buy the goods, and then the "socialist revolution" (which is the underlying ideology).
2) Cybered-Up Poor
How come all these proletarian types on the one hand can barely afford food and shelter, but on the other hand can afford to turn their bodies into ultimate (whatever) machines? Are you telling me that there's a big market for high-end cyberdecks and monomolecular claws but not for cheeseburgers or cottages? This strikes me as, economically, more than a little odd ...
3) Capitalism and Ultra-Violent Anarchy
It's generally assumed that the corporations remain corporations, with traded voting stock, but that assassination and corporate warfare become common. But if this is the case, then what is the point of the voting shares? The loyalty of the Chief of Security would be far more relevant than holding pieces of paper (or electronic registry of same), since he could simply march into the shareholder meeting and shoot everyone who votes the wrong way.
Capitalism works best in peaceful circumstances, where there is an overarching authority enforcing contracts and ownership (this, Marx got right). In a situation of violent anarchy, capitalism dies, save where a local warlord enforces peace enabling a market to be held.
(this is how the medieval fairs got started).
4) Corporate Feudalism
A standard assumption of a lot of cyberpunk is that national governments wither away due to lack of loyalty, and are more or less replaced by megacorporations which can do what they want owing to the lack of national governments. This also derives from the Marxist model (the state is merely "superstructure" atop bourgeoise capitalism), and it is basically a misunderstanding of what states and businesses respectively do.
A state is an organization which has an effective monopoly (which it may franchise on its own terms) on the legitimate (and to some extent practical) use of force in its jurisdiction. A business is an organization which creates some good or service which it sells at a profit.
A state can run businesses; a business could theoretically run a state. However, to do either, the entity must compromise some of its nature, which is why neither state-operated businesses nor business-run states have generally excelled at their avocations.
To take the cyberpunk situation, a business trying to operate as a state would need to form armed forces, to enforce its monopoly on the use of force in its jurisdiction. This means claiming and holding territory; it means inspiring its troops with enough loyalty (or paying them well enough) that they will risk their lives in its defense. All this costs, and too much to be paid for our of business profits, so it must collect taxes in its jurisdiction.
In other words, it must become a state.
By the same token, when a government starts a business, it works better if the government and business are separate. Compare the British East India Company to the various disasters of post World War II British nationalization of industries.
The demands of government and business operation conflict. Corporations, generally, do not WANT to be governments; they want to operate under the protection of governments. And this would still be true if people had neato-keen cyberjacks. :)
Reply
As for the 'Cybered-Up poor'.. I'm thinking cheap handguns and grocery/liquor stores. They aren't trying to get ahead by getting a better job or more education. They just want a lump of cash for more toys/drugs etc.
As for point 3.. the boardroom assassination things seem kind of bad writing. In a more realistic view what about black mail and things of that nature? I've never understood the whole point of getting a little bit more power and all I have to risk is everything I own and my life :P
I agree with point 4. And that 'state' or government is where you get the cool Men in Black ('We're here for your protection.'). You can't have companies trying to get around governmental regulation if there is not a government.
Reply
You aren't getting it.
If they're really poor, then they can't afford to get cybered up. It doesn't matter that they might want the enhancements. They wouldn't be able to get them.
If getting cybered up is cheap enough for the poor to afford, then so would a lot of other things. And then the scenario of them near-starving and poorly-housed falls apart.
As for point 3.. the boardroom assassination things seem kind of bad writing. In a more realistic view what about black mail and things of that nature?
"Boardroom assassination" is only bad writing if there is a government to enforce criminal law on the executives. If there is no such government or if it fears to enforce the law on corporate executives, then killing (or otherwise permanently neutralizing) one's opponents is quite practical.
Reply
Reply
I've commented on that very thing many times. There is very little Sci-Fi these days that is optimistic and looks towards the future.
Reply
Or even "a reasonable mixture of optimism and pessimism." Highly likely progress is assumed impossible, while improbable disasters are assumed unavoidable. This is especially true in the more "literary" modern sf, probably because the writers don't know enough about science and engineering to liberate themselves from present popular misconceptions and see real opportunities or dangers.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment