DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Science Fiction Forward, v. 1, issue 1, September 1940

Transcribe
Translate

Science Fiction Forward, v. 1, issue 1, September 1940

Page 10

Page 10.   SCIENCE FICTION FORWARD

statement. Weinbeum and E.E.Smith also got a few tons of uncomplimentary prose dumped their way.....
     Let us proceed to the second of the abovementioned temblors. I refer to the speech made by Donald A. Wollheim at the Philly Conference of 1937.
     I don't think it would be an exaggeration, as is usually the case, to describe this speech as a thunderbolt. Wollheim was a fan of international renown and whatever stand he took on the various issues which used to agitate us was often sufficient to decide the thing one way or another. Consequently, when he came out in this utterance and denounced, blanket-wise, science-fiction fans in general for their lack of political awareness, it made a tremendous furore.
     All of you know what followed: the tedious attacks and counter-attacks, the personal slander, the "X-Act", the first-person arguments which on many occasions almost came to blows, and all the rest of it. The fans were split into two great camps: those who maintained that science-fiction was "only" entertainment, and those who maintained that the science-fiction fans should support the Loyalists in Spain.
     And despite all attempts at reconciliation by disinterested this parties (like Tucker), this split has persisted to the present day.

                      II.

     The editors of the SCIENCE FICTION FORWARD take the same attitude toward Mr. Wollheim as they do toward the article "Apostasy" by Peter Duncan. We do not doubt the sincerity of Mr. Wollheim for one moment. He really belived, we freely admit, that the only way in which science-fiction could attain its full stature was to follow the suggestions he outlined at his speech in Philadelphia.
     But this does not alter the situation one mite. The road to hell, after all, is paved with good intentions. The troubles with which this world is afflicted do not come from insincere men, but from men sincerely mistaken.
     It would not only be unnecessary, but also ridiculous, to enter into a critical examination of the Dunan article and the Wollheim speech. What we must constantly keep in mind while considering these two tendejcies is, that they were reactions to a stimulus. If such an article as "Apostasy" were to be written today, when the real issues involved in science-fiction are manifest, we would be perfectly justified in condemning it as pedantic, vicious, idiotic, and absurd. Today we cannot dismiss the short-comings of science-fiction with the light allegation that all fans are dumb. A statement like this explains nothing, and inface, merely postulates a new question. On the contrary, we must realize that if science-fiction occupies what I called "a low literary level", it is not because of artistic ineptitude as such, but on account of a bogus constituent in its make-up, namely, ANTI-SCIENCE.
     Why is science-fiction bad? Why doesn't it act, as Wollheim said, "as a lever for progress"? Because it didn't contain enough PRO-SCIENCE to make it anything but! ANTI-SCIENCE has co-existed with its polar opposite a long time in the mind of the science-fiction fan. These two forces, being dynamic represnetations of reel things, can stay side by side for just so long. Sooner or later, one must triumph and decorate the other.
     And as we look back now we can see that both Wollheim and Duncan, because they were true science-fiction fans underneath it all, felt uneasy in the presence of this ANTI-SCIENCE. Neither of them could explain why in so many words; but both knew that there was something

Saving...

Page 10. SCIENCE FICTION FORWARD statement. Weinbeum and E.E.Smith also got a few tons of uncomplimentary prose dumped their way..... Let us proceed to the second of the abovementioned temblors. I refer to the speech made by Donald A. Wollheim at the Philly Conference of 1937. I don't think it would be an exaggeration, as is usually the case, to describe this speech as a thunderbolt. Wollheim was a fan of international renown and whatever stand he took on the various issues which used to agitate us was often sufficient to decide the thing one way or another. Consequently, when he came out in this utterance and denounced, blanket-wise, science-fiction fans in general for their lack of political awareness, it made a tremendous furore. All of you know what followed: the tedious attacks and counter-attacks, the personal slander, the "X-Act", the first-person arguments which on many occasions almost came to blows, and all the rest of it. The fans were split into two great camps: those who maintained that science-fiction was "only" entertainment, and those who maintained that the science-fiction fans should support the Loyalists in Spain. And despite all attempts at reconciliation by disinterested this parties (like Tucker), this split has persisted to the present day. II. The editors of the SCIENCE FICTION FORWARD take the same attitude toward Mr. Wollheim as they do toward the article "Apostasy" by Peter Duncan. We do not doubt the sincerity of Mr. Wollheim for one moment. He really belived, we freely admit, that the only way in which science-fiction could attain its full stature was to follow the suggestions he outlined at his speech in Philadelphia. But this does not alter the situation one mite. The road to hell, after all, is paved with good intentions. The troubles with which this world is afflicted do not come from insincere men, but from men sincerely mistaken. It would not only be unnecessary, but also ridiculous, to enter into a critical examination of the Dunan article and the Wollheim speech. What we must constantly keep in mind while considering these two tendejcies is, that they were reactions to a stimulus. If such an article as "Apostasy" were to be written today, when the real issues involved in science-fiction are manifest, we would be perfectly justified in condemning it as pedantic, vicious, idiotic, and absurd. Today we cannot dismiss the short-comings of science-fiction with the light allegation that all fans are dumb. A statement like this explains nothing, and inface, merely postulates a new question. On the contrary, we must realize that if science-fiction occupies what I called "a low literary level", it is not because of artistic ineptitude as such, but on account of a bogus constituent in its make-up, namely, ANTI-SCIENCE. Why is science-fiction bad? Why doesn't it act, as Wollheim said, "as a lever for progress"? Because it didn't contain enough PRO-SCIENCE to make it anything but! ANTI-SCIENCE has co-existed with its polar opposite a long time in the mind of the science-fiction fan. These two forces, being dynamic represnetations of reel things, can stay side by side for just so long. Sooner or later, one must triumph and decorate the other. And as we look back now we can see that both Wollheim and Duncan, because they were true science-fiction fans underneath it all, felt uneasy in the presence of this ANTI-SCIENCE. Neither of them could explain why in so many words; but both knew that there was something