It has come to the attention of yr. humble author that down in the intertubes, a new variant an old argument has taken place. For those who want a summary, and links, Metafilter provides these. The short version, however, is this: Once again, an argument has arisen over how writers of American speculative fiction should/shouldn’t, do/don’t, can/can’t present people/beings who are not white, American and male.
It is a fact that the authors of speculative fiction who come from the United States remain majority white and majority male and the majority of the human beings presented in the futures imagined by these authors remain white and male.
The question is then, with all the changes in the culture that have taken place in the US over the last 70 years, why is this still the case? Since arguments about the presentation of race/culture/gender in American SF is is clearly one of those things That Don’t Go Away, I humbly submit that a historical overview of science fiction in the US might be useful here.
Please note: I am not attempting to justify this state of affairs, or to excuse it. I am presenting the history of a literary genre, a partial history anyway. As you may have noticed from the title that I do not expect to be able to do a thorough look in this one column. Neither do I expect to be able to get deeply into the accidents of history and geography that have contributed toward making the US one of the world’s leading exporters of culture and viewpoint for the last half of the 20th century.
What I can say is that like all other literary phenomenon, science fiction is tightly tied to its history, and its history is a lot closer than many of us care to realize.
Modern science fiction started in the United States with the technological and educational advances that made printing cheap magazines in bulk possible and profitable. SF was, of course, born overseas, mothered by Mary Shelly, fathered by Jules Verne, and raised by H.G. Wells. But as a young genre, it emigrated, and on this side of the Atlantic, in the late 1930s, it fell under the sway of three intelligent, articulate, engaging and persuasive men; John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, and Robert A. Heinlein.
They were, in order, a racist, an empiricist, and a failure.
John W. Campbell Jr. was not a writer. He was an editor. He worked for Astounding Stories, which, under the name Analog Science Fiction and Fact remains the oldest continually published science fiction magazine going. Campbell was brilliant at his job. He knew a good story when he had it and how to make a decent story better. He was an unparalleled nurturer of talent, writing long letters and spending hours with the young authors who were brave enough to submit to him, or to stop by his office. His magazine had the highest circulation and the best pay of any of the genre pulps, so competition to get into its pages was fierce.
Among the competitors were Isaac Asimov and Robert H. Heinlein. Asimov was in many ways a product of the American Dream. His parents emigrated from Russia, they worked hard, they raised their intelligent, ambitious son who got a first class education and went on to make a success of his life.
Heinlein, on the other hand, by the measures propounded in his books, died a failure. Illness kept him from fulfilling his desire for a successful military career, an unpopular or poorly delivered message kept him from succeeding in politics, and fate or genes (or something) kept him from becoming a father.
But both men were in their own ways remained True Believers throughout their lives. Asimov believed in the triumph of rationality. Everything could and would eventually be understood, and when it was, it would all be sorted out and stabilized and everything would be…okay. Heinlein believed in The American Way. He believed in the primacy of family, the great benefit of military and societal service and the dire threat of Communism. He also was very much a follower of the cult of the individual and the myth of the pioneer.
Both Heinlein and Asimov, after the styles of their times, were fantastic writers, a fact quickly recognized by Campbell, who cultivated both of them and featured them frequently in the pages of Astounding. As a result of Campbell’s backing and their own talents, these two men and the futures they envisioned quickly set the standard for science fiction in the US.
Unfortunately, the privilege of being in Astounding came with strict rules.
1) You couldn’t have a name that was female, or too “foreign.” Catherine Moore had to become C.L. Moore or take a male pseudonym. Dr. Asimov had to threaten to quit the ranks to write under his own name. I don’t know if anyone else ever succeeded with that threat.
2) You could not ever have an alien race triumph over humans. Campbell really, truly believed that human beings, as personified by the white (especially Scottish) male was the greatest living being in the universe. Nothing and no one except the laws of physics were allowed to be portrayed as better than him. Asimov wanted to write about aliens, but given Campbell’s insistence on triumphal endings being reserved for humans, he couldn’t do it. Instead, he wrote about robots. Heinlein, who was one of Campbell’s stalwarts had to pull up stakes and go elsewhere because he wanted to do things like make the hero of Starship Troopers (a book that is in itself the subject of arguments That Don’t Go Away) Philippino. Campbell’s view of the universe was the unwavering view of Astounding, and because he got so many good writers to expound on it (remember, he paid well and had a large circulation), it became the dominant view of US SF going into, and coming out of World War II.
There were, of course, numerous dissenting voices. Other magazines, most notably Galaxy under the guidance of Horace Gold, and The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction rose up in the forties and fifties to take the kind of stories and writers Campbell wouldn’t touch. This was where authors such as Theodore Sturgeon and the great Ray Bradbury found their homes. Bradbury in particular wrote about shifting futures where nothing was safe or stable, much less sorted out, and about the great danger of attempting to make everyone the same, a commentary on American culture, and on Campbell’s view of the future. There were talented and influential women writers who made their debuts; Leigh Brackett, Andre Norton, Anne McCaffery and Judith Merrill to name a few. There was also a small but existent body of science fiction literature in the African American press.
But despite the brilliance and breadth of non-Campbellian authors, the view from Astounding remained the dominant one, because this was the view that got the backing of Hollywood.
TO BE CONTINUED . . .
——————————————————————————————————————–
Someone was kind enough to alert me to an initial (literally!) error and I corrected it. I should have caught it when I put it up!
It’s very interesting to get a historical overview of how the genre evolved in th US – very well done Sarah.
I have recently followed (but not participated) the “Great Cultural Appropriation Debate of DOOM” that exploded out of a PoC’s open letter to Elizabeth Bear – watching an initially articulate debate on this very important subject devolve into a flame-war with lots of hurt all around has been very disheartening. Elizabeth Bear is one of my recent discoveries and I really felt that she handled the critique of her work very graciously and I can certainly understand why her temper finally snapped and she removed herself from the deabte.
I am looking forward to your next colum.
I’d be interested in the sources Ms. Zettel is using. If it read, told to her by others etc – I must admit that though I collect pulps from the era, I’m not at all brushed up in SF history.
Trinuviel: It’s a perpetual problem. This issue more than any other (except possibly religion in SF)raises a great deal of feeling on all sides and it is very easy for it to devolve into a shouting match. However, I think we’re better for having the discussion, even if it gets difficult. I do believe there are things in the genre that need to change, and without the conversation nothing will change at all.
Jay: This is one of those cases where I haven’t got sources to give you. Almost everything I’ve got here is coming from personal conversation with various primary sources, including and especially William Tenn, who wrote for and with Campbell back in the day (and who personally annoyed Heinlein with his review of Time Enough for Love), and my father, Len Zettel, who was a part of “organized fandom” from waaaaay back in the day (he attended the first Hugo Awards banquet, so you don’t have to wonder where I get it from), and convention panels too numerous to mention listening to folks like Judith Merrill, and, of course, my own opinions of the matter.
For me the whole discussion was very illuminating and thought-provoking and you’re prefectly right that we can’t change things without debate. But I sometimes feel that these very ideologically and emotionally freighted debates very easily devolves into the kind of flame-war we witnessed last week precisely because there’s this built-in distance and anonymity online. There’s a tremendous risk of misinterpretation when debating sensitive subjects in a forum only relying on the written word but with the possiblity of replying instantly. I have seen a similar debate (on gender and sexuality) played out in the Danish press (mainly news papers) and while the subject was sensitive and people got angry, the delay inherent in the publishing process kept a lid on the worst temper, which meant that the anger didn’t derail the entire debate. This is why this recent debate online was so disheartening to witness – because it ended up with a lot of hurt and a lot of anger and no feeling of progress. At least, that’s what it looks like to me – some people have simply removed themselves entirely from the debate while others a busy nursing their anger and hurt. And it makes my a little heart-sick. Then again, I do have a tendency to depression so it might just be me having a dark moment.
It will be interesting to see where the subsequent parts of this article go. My sense — bearing in mind that this is just Part 1 and I may be wrong — is that the premise may be problematic, in two main ways.
First, in the way it so far seems to ignore the points of many of the postings linked to via MetaFilter. That is, I don’t know if anyone has actually expressed surprise that these problems still exist in SF even after 70 years, because there is a general awareness that these problems in SF must be understood as symptoms of a larger set of systems and history that have continued to exist after far longer than 70 years. To have that awareness rejected, in lecture voice by a white person no less, and all of the forces at play reduced to the actions of a few isolated people in a Great Man version of the history of SF…well, I’m a white male, and yet I can see how people could be legitimately hurt and offended by this. It’s a diminution of people’s own life experience.
Second, I’m not sure that words like argument, discussion, and debate are entirely correct orientations towards the bulk of what we’ve had on this subject recently. Not every post on the Internet is an invitation to debate; sometimes, the Internet can be a place to bear witness to a truth, to safely vent anger, to issue a rallying call — to create space. And in that sense, having someone who does not seem to understand the need for this come in and try to redefine the space…well, again, even I can see that this is problematic, a colonization of those attempting to break out of post-colonial bonds.
This doesn’t mean that a history of this sort isn’t useful in its own way — as a general history, as a personal history, and because understanding is something that needs 360 degrees to happen — but I’m not sure it is flattered by framing it in the context of the recent postings that you linked to. I did not find it so, so far; but as I said I’m curious to see where you go with it.
Wow! Sarah, your start on this subject is more than impressive. I didn’t know about about your triumvirate, etc. More, please.
“Minority” races are making their way into American fantasy (in contrast with SF), for instance in the urban fantasies of Charles de Lint. And I am writing a fantasy series about prehistoric Americans, with characters who are necessarily all Native. first title ZADAYI RED coming out in July.
As an outsider (non-USian) I find this a fascinating start – can’t wait for your comments on Earthsea (the books) and Deep Space 9 (if you have any particularly Sisko’s alter ego).
Caleb fox: Thanks. Glad you’re enjoying it so far. Best of luck with your series. Who is publishing it?
MattD: I agree with you that “great man” theories of history seldom hold water. The exception is in very small communities. Literary SF is part of a big business, but it is in itself, even now, a very small world and back in the 40s it was even smaller. Then it was possible for a handful of individuals to have a very strong effect on the entire genre.
As to anybody being surprised by the current state of play…well, I remain surprised by it, frankly. Given the changes in proportional representation of women and US minorities in the larger US literary environment, the fact that there has been comparitively little movement inside SF still kind of blows my mind. It ocurred to me if I was still perplexed by it, others might be as well, and that an examination as to the root causes of this intractibility, some of which are unique to SF, might be useful.
The presentation of race/gender/culture in US SF is, I believe, a legitimate discussion, but I didn’t see what I could add by takling the most recent iteration of the debate head on (for one thing it’s poor manners to start a fire in your host’s house). Again, what I thought I might be able to do is have a look at some of the root causes of the situation that are unique to US SF. After all, if you want to find your way out of a situation, it is generally helpful to know how you got into it.
I will freely admit that what is being presented here is my interpretation of my own understanding of events. I will also freely admit I could be entirely wrong. I offer up these ideas for what they are worth, and in the hope they’ll add to understanding of the genre, warts and all.
Ms. Zettel says: “John W. Campbell Jr. was not a writer. He was an editor.”
John W. Campbell, Jr. was very much a writer before he became editor of Astounding. He wrote at least five (short) novels and at least a collection’s worth of short stories, “Twilight” perhaps being his most famous short work. It was voted one of The Greatest Stories of All Time by SFWA and showed up in the SF Hall of Fame, ed. Robert Silverberg.
Just to set the record straight on this one factual error.
Dave, you are absolutely correct. He did publish original fiction (he is also rumored to have rewritten some of his contributor’s work, including writing the famous last paragraph of “Nightfall”). However, his real influence was pretty much entirely as an editor, and he edited much more than he was a writer. But I’m probably splitting hairs here.
I’m glad that this is being discussed. As an author of speculative fiction, one of my pet peeves is that people, upon learning that I write the stuff, immediately think I’m writing about hobbits and elves, as if people of color don’t our own rich fantasy traditions and tropes and folklore to draw from.
I was dragged, kicking and crying out for my Mama, into the discussion about the Discussion About RaceFail 09. Ye gods, but it’s sticky in there. I was on John Scalzi’s “Whatever” site, reading and commenting on Mary Anne Mohanraj’s two part essay on how to characterize People of color. Her second part was really great. I would say insightful, but she is already inside, looking out.
I appreciate being able to (read others) address a small part of the whole with this column. Thank you, Ms. Zettel. I think we have an advantage in Michigan. Due to the weather, we certainly have the time to be more insightful.
“John W. Campbell Jr. was not a writer.”
In a technical sense, yes.
But Don A. Stuart was one of the most acclaimed writers in the field before John W. Campbell was hired to replace F. Orlin Tremaine.
Arcot, Morey and Wade were among the most popular sf characters in their day, as was, of course, the series of stories Campbell wrote about them. “Twilight” was one of the most acclaimed stories of its day. “Who Goes There,” along with being endlessly anthologized, has been made into two successful films and is now being remade again.
In short, John W. Campbell, under the name “Don A. Stuart,” and then under his own name, was as successful,. and famous, and popular, as an sf writer writing within the genre of the field in the early Thirties could possibly have been.
So I boggle at your statement that “John W. Campbell Jr. was not a writer.” This just couldn’t be more wrong.
Sorry for the belatedness of this comment, but I only just ran across this piece of yours.
Okay, I see Dave Truesdale addressed this, but this simply is wrong, as well: “However, his real influence was pretty much entirely as an editor,”
Yes, in the long term, he was far more influential as an editor than as a writer now. But in the thirties, his Arcot, Wade, and Morey stories were immensely influential in creating the genre of space opera. And his Don A. Stuart stories were immensely influential in creating the kind of sf where tone and setting were far more important than crashing action and cardboard characters.
As a writer, he was immensely influential in the history of the field. You simply have to be familiar with the sf of the Twenties and Thirties to realize this, and I gather you’re not, perhaps, as strong in that area as you are in later sf. (Which is perfectly understandable, of course; I just wanted to set the record straight here, and hope you’ll forgive me for writing so belatedly and strongly.)
As an upcoming black science fiction author, I am convinced that science fiction novels, television programs and movies should reflect the enormous amount of cultural and ethnic diversity in our society. Many science fiction themes promote the idea of exploring new worlds and new civilizations, while overcoming great difficulties and odds during the process.
Many people are uncomfortable with a more diverse science fiction cast. This is most unfortunate. Our society, like technology, is ever changing. The Internet is providing an outlet for science fiction authors regardless of their race or color. The days of the 1950s style of science fiction with the weak, helpless screaming white woman, John Wayne-type macho man with ray guns and the monster/alien/brain or whatever from out-of-space mentality are gone. Peace.