Transcribe
Translate
Fantascience Digest, v. 2, issue 5, July-September, 1939
Page 10
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Page 10 FANTASCIENCE DIGEST -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLAUSIBILITY OR SUPER - SCIENCE? BY JOHN F. BURKE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is not a new question by any means, but it was revived at the London Convention of the Science Fiction Association, and since every speaker had something to say about it, perhaps the old question needs resuscitating. Do we want plausibility, or super-science? The days of thought-variants are, praises be, behind us - as far as the designation of "thought-variant" is concerned. But, despite the "human interest" trends of Campbell and the "sex and slaughter" or Palmer, we still dabble in supers and hypers. A glance at the magazines of a few years ago will show just how we have come to this stage when space warps and galaxy-bending are things rather to be scorned as trivial than marvelled at. From the simplicity, and human, natural development of such stories as "The Wreck of the Asteroid" and "The Moon Era", we have progressed (?) to a stage where a voyage through space is taken as an accomplished thing, and anything less that the speed of light is a positive danger in the space traffic lanes. Every one of the speakers at that London Convention asked for more plausibility in modern science fiction, and all were unanimous in declaring that American science fiction was in a disgraceful state today. While not totally agreeing with all their views, I think some of the things they said were all too true. Professor A.M. Low, the SFA president, pointed out that the extravagance of American science fiction repelled the British public, a fact which none can deny. The American fans will doubtless claim that this is because they have not yet been brought to the stage where they can appreciate the "advanced" ideas of the thought-variant writers, and will learn in time. I think, however, that they are wrong. That good science fiction is popular in this country is quite definite -- H.G. Wells is as well-known as any writer in the country - better known than most, and his fantasies are always sure of a good reception, though he writes so few nowadays. To go one step further, Olaf Stapledon's books sell well, though his ideas are far more advanced than Wells'. They are titanic in their concepts - but they are logical, and developed from present-day knowledge, with a flavoring of what we may reasonably expect to happen in the future in the way of scientific discovery. The ideas are imaginative - but not fantastic. Human beings will always be more interested in human beings than in cold machines, particularly when they are asked to believe that those machines will warp time and everything else known to their senses. I personally do not think authorizes should be tied down too much in
Saving...
prev
next
Page 10 FANTASCIENCE DIGEST -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLAUSIBILITY OR SUPER - SCIENCE? BY JOHN F. BURKE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is not a new question by any means, but it was revived at the London Convention of the Science Fiction Association, and since every speaker had something to say about it, perhaps the old question needs resuscitating. Do we want plausibility, or super-science? The days of thought-variants are, praises be, behind us - as far as the designation of "thought-variant" is concerned. But, despite the "human interest" trends of Campbell and the "sex and slaughter" or Palmer, we still dabble in supers and hypers. A glance at the magazines of a few years ago will show just how we have come to this stage when space warps and galaxy-bending are things rather to be scorned as trivial than marvelled at. From the simplicity, and human, natural development of such stories as "The Wreck of the Asteroid" and "The Moon Era", we have progressed (?) to a stage where a voyage through space is taken as an accomplished thing, and anything less that the speed of light is a positive danger in the space traffic lanes. Every one of the speakers at that London Convention asked for more plausibility in modern science fiction, and all were unanimous in declaring that American science fiction was in a disgraceful state today. While not totally agreeing with all their views, I think some of the things they said were all too true. Professor A.M. Low, the SFA president, pointed out that the extravagance of American science fiction repelled the British public, a fact which none can deny. The American fans will doubtless claim that this is because they have not yet been brought to the stage where they can appreciate the "advanced" ideas of the thought-variant writers, and will learn in time. I think, however, that they are wrong. That good science fiction is popular in this country is quite definite -- H.G. Wells is as well-known as any writer in the country - better known than most, and his fantasies are always sure of a good reception, though he writes so few nowadays. To go one step further, Olaf Stapledon's books sell well, though his ideas are far more advanced than Wells'. They are titanic in their concepts - but they are logical, and developed from present-day knowledge, with a flavoring of what we may reasonably expect to happen in the future in the way of scientific discovery. The ideas are imaginative - but not fantastic. Human beings will always be more interested in human beings than in cold machines, particularly when they are asked to believe that those machines will warp time and everything else known to their senses. I personally do not think authorizes should be tied down too much in
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
