The Seminal Status of "Doc" Smith's Lensman Series

[jordan179]

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

Comments

[eric_hinkle]

Very well-done and in-depth defense of Doc's work. My only criticism of him is that he sometimes seemed a bit too much in love with Social Darwinism; a few of his alien genocides seem described with too positive an attitude (and I'm not talking monster races like the Ploor). 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.

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.

[jordan179]

My only criticism of him is that he sometimes seemed a bit too much in love with Social Darwinism ...

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

New Wave SF

[eric_hinkle]

All New Wave SF did was to give SF all the bad habits of Lit-Fag High Literary Fiction, resulting in Literary Masturbation instead of storytelling.

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

Re: New Wave SF

[jordan179]

The one good thing about New Wave is that it gave writers greater freedom to experiment. However, most of these experiments achieved nothing.

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

[maxgoof]

Not mentioned in your essay was that E. E. "Doc" Smith was the first science fiction writer to take his writings OUT OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM!!! Everyone else was still going to venus, or mars, or other of the planets. None of them bothered to leave the confines of Sol's gravitational field.

Smith not only did that, he left the GALAXY!!

[jordan179]

You're quite right, but my essay was specifically about the Lensman series and he first took his stories beyond the Solar System in the Skylark series.

There were also some science-fantasies (in the 18th and 19th centuries) about other stars before Smith, but they were very much fantasies. In many of them, aliens came from the stars themselves because the writers didn't properly get the difference between a star and a planet.

Smith was one of the first authors to appreciate the story possibilities of multiple galaxies, and the huge gulf between them as compared to between stars, though. A recent author who has also used this point is David Brin -- his Uplift series in part centers on this fact.

[notebuyer]

Thanks for the reminders of one of the authors I spent a lot of time with. I think it was his optimism that made him a fun read: problems were there to be solved, not lived with.

[jordan179]

I think it was his optimism that made him a fun read: problems were there to be solved, not lived with.

Yes. When I read a lot of modern science fiction of the "doomed to disaster" variety, I often think that what the characters in the story need is an E. E. "Doc" Smith or John W. Campbell Engineer-Hero to come along and knock the problem on its head a few times.

Anodyne

[carbonelle]

If you can get a copy of No Longer Dreams (both Mr. Wright and the his fair wife, authoress L. Jagi Lamplighter have stories therein), you'll find a short story called "The Doom that Came to Necropolis" by Steve Johnson.

From my review: "...the power of the 20th-century hard-bitten common sense and technological know-how meets Cthuloid horrors and secret knowledge of which Man Dare Not Whot."

I said then, and I still say: that story is worth the price of the book. Everything else is laginappe. But if funds are tight, your local library can get you a copy.

Clute's Forewords

[johncwright]

"John Clute's Forewords, which discuss Smith and the series in the most condescending terms, are truly repulsive"

I have never written an angry letter to a publisher before or since, but I wrote a stiffly-worded letter to Old Earth Books for their foolish and slanderous introductions to their reprint of FIRST LENSMEN. They did not see fit to write me back.

I can assure you, introducing a book with a lofty sneer is not the way to put the reader into a frame of mind to read the book. Instead of pointing out any of the strengths of E.E. Doc Smith, as you have done here, Clute sang the praises of the drug culture, and slandered Smith. It was outrageous.

Re: Clute's Forewords

[jordan179]

I can assure you, introducing a book with a lofty sneer is not the way to put the reader into a frame of mind to read the book...

Indeed, and I kind of wonder why Clute bothered to write, and the publisher ran the Forewords. I would not want to associate my name with a book I despised, and as a publisher I would not want my book insulted by such an introduction.

It's possible that Clute was (in his mind) pointing out flaws so that the reader wouldn't get upset later. If so, he was sadly mistaken, because what he identified weren't flaws.

If I wanted to take that strategy in a foreword (which I wouldn't) I would point out that Smith made some scientific mistakes which were due to a relative lack of astronomical and physical knowledge in the 1930's to 50's as compared to today. For instance, his assumption that stars have planets by near-collision rather than by nebular formation was standard science of the mid to early 20th century.

(David Kyle did excellent jobs of retconning these in his own Lensman trilogy, btw).

Bravissimo!

[gray_roger]

Bravissimo!!
I might add further that Doc Smith is not as bad a writer as others assert. He is primitive in both good and bad ways.
The only way I can explain it is musically. If you like Eric Clapton, you know he adores Robert Johnson. But if you listen to Robert Johnson expecting SUNSHINE OF YOUR LOVE, you will be baffled and disappointed. Johnson is powerful, but primitive, in the sense that his music is the original pure essence of the blues. Eric Clapton loves the blues, but his playing is derivative (to some degree), compared to Johnson. Doc Smith's writing, for all its goofy sentimentality, has a powerful narrative drive. On occasion, I might pick up GALACTIC PATROL because I couldn't remember some detail, and get sucked back into the story against my better judgement!

Re: Bravissimo!

[jordan179]

I might add further that Doc Smith is not as bad a writer as others assert. He is primitive in both good and bad ways.

I agree. In fact, I think he's a great writer in every aspect expect characterization, and merely mediocre (not bad) at characterization as well. Note that both the Skylark and the Lensman series do have memorable characters: some so memorable that they have inspired other writers (S. M. Stirling's "William Walker" was by his own admission was inspired by Marc DuQuesne from the Skylark series).

Doc Smith's writing, for all its goofy sentimentality, has a powerful narrative drive. On occasion, I might pick up GALACTIC PATROL because I couldn't remember some detail, and get sucked back into the story against my better judgement!

I have also had that experience. I've read the series literally dozens of times.

Re: Bravissimo!

[gray_roger]

This thread reminded me that Heinlein wrote a commentary on Doc Smith, which was republished in the collection EXPANDED UNIVERSE under the title LARGER THAN LIFE. Heinlein's critique was that the only real weakness in Smith's writing was the "love scenes". On reflection, he was right. The only parts I remember as being too sentimental and naive were exactly that. Heinlein blames it, in part, on Smith's adoration of his wife Jeanne.
I also reread THE HAPPY DAYS AHEAD. Heinlein sounds just like our friend John C. Wright, even about contemporary sexual mores! Who would have thought, maybe Heinlen had a change of heart?

Re: Bravissimo!

[jordan179]

Heinlein's critique was that the only real weakness in Smith's writing was the "love scenes". On reflection, he was right. The only parts I remember as being too sentimental and naive were exactly that. Heinlein blames it, in part, on Smith's adoration of his wife Jeanne.

I never had any problem with Smith's love scenes, but then I'm definitely "sentimental" (and perhaps in some ways "naive.") I guess you could say that Smith was fortunate in love (he found a woman to love early in his life who he remained with for the rest of his days in a very happy marriage), and that this deprived him of the unpleasant experiences that writers can mine for story ideas on that topic.

also reread THE HAPPY DAYS AHEAD. Heinlein sounds just like our friend John C. Wright, even about contemporary sexual mores! Who would have thought, maybe Heinlen had a change of heart?

Maybe Heinlein drew the appropriate conclusions from seeing so many swinging marriages break up around him?