[PREV - HARD_PROBLEMS] [TOP]
RAYMONDS_FOLLY
About esr's stab at making hard sf
and libertarianism the core of SF:
"A Political History of SF":
[ref]
(An earlier version was titled:
"Libertarianism and the Hard SF Renaissance")
These essays by Eric S. Raymond (aka esr)
are puported to be histories of science
fiction, intended to show that the one
true science fiction is Hard SF and that
there's some intimate link between it and
libertarian politics.
I would contend that he made a
serious mistake in writing his
ideas up as a "history": he would
have done better by his cause if
he'd written a manifesto.
It would be far better if he
he'd tried to establish why
more Libertarian Hard SF should
be written... you might not
agree, but at least it wouldn't
be factually wrong.
Re-writing history to fit his
view of the world is crazy on
all counts; it just isn't going
to persuade anyone that has any
familarity with the field; and
it hurts his credibility overall.
Esr (following Gregory Benford)
makes the claim "Hard SF is the
core of the field".
Problems:
(1) Hard SF itself typically isn't
very hard -- it's rare that it
doesn't incorporate a rank Esr claims he's
absurdity like faster-than-light applying the
travel. linguistic
concept of
(2) It's not difficult to think of lists "radial
of works that are not pure Hard SF, but categories".
would seem peculiar to exclude from
SF's core. Here's a quick list of The idea is that
things (some well-known, some not): a few counter-
examples don't
Theodore Sturgeon matter, because
"More than Human" he's after a
Alfred Bester general concept.
"The Stars My Destination"
Clifford D. Simak's How many
"Time is the Simplest Thing" would be
James Blish too many?
"Jack of Eagles"
A. E. van Vogt
"Slan"
Roger Zelazny
"Lord of Light"
Samuel R. Delany DELANY
"Babel-17"
Fritz Leiber
"The Big Time"
E.E. Smith THROUGH_THE_LENS
"Lensman" series.
(3) In general, esr continually gives
short-shrift to writers that might
contradict (or at least
complicate) his thesis:
Ursula LeGuin,
Samuel R. Delany,
Cordwainer Smith,
Philip K. Dick,
William Gibson,
Bruce Sterling...
That a respect for freedom is necessary
for progress is probably indisputable
(though exactly what that means could
be argued).
What that has to do with SF isn't clear IN_DEEP
to me; the suggestion that SF has to
remain grounded in reality in order for Sounds good to
it to remain a popular success seems me, but it ain't
like quite a leap of faith. what post-Trek
SF is about.
(Are you tempted to invoke
another standard of quality
besides popularity? I'd go
along, but remember that esr
is being a free-market
libertarian here.)
Esr essentially claims that the
central feature of SF is an
embrace of change, and that's
what it has in common with the
'tarians.
But the people who call
themselves "Progressives" (And nor do the people
don't think of themselves who call themselves
as the enemies of change, "Conservatives" regard
themselves as the
enemies of progress.)
Does it really make sense to look
at the Futurian/Galaxy school of (And how does he feel about
SF as Marxist? Star Trek? Tremendously
popular, but hardly
"The Space-Merchants" by libertarian in premise.)
Pohl and Kornbluth is a
well-regarded satire of
advertising and one might
say "capitalism raging And very few things published
out of control". Does in Galaxy were anywhere
that make it "marxist"? near as political as this.
I think Esr betrays a "if
you're not with me you
must be against me"
mind-set here...
Was cyberpunk really a "failed
revolution"? I'm not so sure it
deserves to be thought of as a
revolution (and esr pretty much Or maybe it's
says so as well), and I'm pretty a cultural
certain it wasn't a failure mismatch...
(e.g. Gibson and Sterling are both For esr,
critical and commercial punk == bad?
successes).
Possibly, the real
The role that the cyberpunk reason esr regards
revolution needs to play in cyberpunk as an
esr's story here seems pretty affront is because
forced: is cyberpunk hostile to it's not romantic? (or not
hard SF? To libertarianism? always)
"Hard" SF has always been
uncomfortable with the
notion that human beings
can be considered as
material entities,
biological machines.
The human spirit must
not be completely
dependant on a
physical substrate.
Though as
premises go,
that would
seem pretty
Hard.
Can Philip K. Dick be
classified as a "new
wave relic"? Dick is
increasingly respected And he started
and more widely read writing a decade
as time goes on. or so before the
"new wave".
Did Heinlein reach his "peak"
with "The Moon is a Harsh
Mistress"? I might be
inclined to think so, but it Possibly, esr is presuming
certainly wasn't the peak of (unconsciously?) the
his sales and popularity. By existence of a "real SF
that standard it was a minor fandom" that's a smaller
work compared to the books set than the people who
published by Heinlien during are actually reading the
his long decline. How can books?
those later sales be shrugged
off? (Isn't the market
always right?)
Think about the absences in this
history, e.g. no mention of Ursula
LeGuin. Now *I* don't
particularly like her stuff, but LEGUIN
many people do, and for this to
be a tale of hard libertarian sf
triumphant you've got to write
her out of the story...
Another issue: how "hard" was Campbellian hard SF,
anyway? Esr shrugs off faster than light travel as
a minor exception to the rule of scientific rigor,
but is that at all reasonable? If you're dealing
with the future of human interstellar exploration,
sticking in FTL automatically shoves you off into
the realm of non-rational fantasies...
And you could argue that Campbell's later obessions
with flaky nonsense (Dean drive, dianetics,
hieronymus machine, etc) somewhat undermines his
claim for intellectual rigor.
There's all sorts of odd stuff here:
"Reagan's threat to build SDI at the Reykjavik
summit with Gorbachev in 1986 triggered the
collapse of Soviet strategic ambitions as
Mikhail Gorbachev realized that the Soviet
Union could not match the U.S.'s raise in the
geopolitical poker game. The Berlin Wall fell
three years later; science fiction saved the
world. Somewhere, Campbell and Heinlein were
probably smiling."
Myself I regard the connection bettween SDI
and the collapse of the Berlin Wall as an Surely, a true
interesting hypothesis, but I've never seen libertarian would not
anything that I would call proof on the presume a communist
subject. I could also easily believe that it dictatorship to be
was total luck that the Soviet Union collapsed a viable form of
on Reagan's watch. government in the long
term...
I'm not even sure that I buy
that "optimism" is a key Why was it
component of hard SF... necessary for
Algis Budrys has made the anyone to do
point that much of "modern or say anything
sf" (including the sf written to get the
by Campbell) has a certain How about some of Soviet Union to
somber tone to it. Asimov's early work fall?
on the Foundation
Consider the "Galaxy Series" series?
of Gregory Benford, whose
premise is that humanity is DEAD_HAND
attacked by a powerful alien
force and loses.
Humanity must survive as a
conquered, subject race from
then on... there is no
feel-good revolution pulled
out of a hat in the last chapter.
Esr mentions L. Neil Smith,
J. Neil Schulman and so on --
and alludes to how bad their
stuff really is -- but claims
we're supposed to regard their
strong sales to SF fans as
significant.
Are we tracking artistic success
or are we tracking popular
sales? If it's sales, what DHALGREN
happened to "Dhalgren" in this
history? He claims that
explicitly libertarian SF books Maybe he means it's
"sell astonishingly well"... astonishing considering
more so than than Ursula K LeGuin? their obvious lack of
William Gibson? Bruce Sterling? quality.
Philip K. Dick?
--------
[NEXT - THROUGH_THE_LENS]