Are We Advocates of Scientific Fiction?
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Are We Advocates of Scientific Fiction? |
| Creator: | Sam Moskowitz |
| Date(s): | Sept 1937 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Science Fiction |
| Topic: | The future of science fiction |
| External Links: | Hosted online. Amateur Correspondent #2 pp 6-7. |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Are We Advocates of Scientific Fiction? was a 1937 article by Sam Moskowitz, addressing the subject of the prozines, which were in decline, and the future of science fiction as a genre.
Moskowitz was 17 at the time he wrote it, making him barely older than the juveniles he mentions.
Text
ALMOST INCREDIBLE to me is the rapid ascent of scientific fiction to public favor---and the resultant degeneration of the thing as a whole.
Only three or four years ago, when I asked for any of the scientific fiction magazines by name---and especially when I used the term, science-fiction---my only response was a blank stare or puzzled frown on the part of the dealer. Today, to the contrary---and undoubtedly as a direct result of the of the injection of scientific fiction (or pseudo-science stories, as some editors are wont to classify them) into the juvenile magazines and books---, the term has become a popular phrase and rings familiar to the ears of a large percentage of the public.
Hugo Gernsback and others glibly stated about ten years ago that when scientific fiction became known to the general public, their tastes in the matter would naturally elevate the standard and general excellence of this branch of literature. Unfortunately, the effects of this notoriety have been directly opposite to those expected. The new reading audience has demanded the elimination of what amount of faulty science remained and seeks only pure flights of fancy. There must be no more dealing with facts, possibilities, or theories. Get the hero to the scene of action (you can pick up a heroine almost anywhere) and fire away. What matter if he does use an open airplane in his flight to Mars? Why bother with mere trifles!
And we find that the weird fiction field has been similarly exploited; for no sooner did this type of literature gain popular favor than we had Doctor Death, Doctor Occult, Terror Tales, Horror Stories, and other magazines of the like.
Is it proof enough that science-fiction is on the down-grade when Mort Weisinger, one of the editors of Thrilling Wonder Stories, personally admits that he has been directed by Leo Margulies to give that magazine a definite juvenile appeal---especially for children from ten to fifteen years of age?
And is it by mere coincident that certain newsstand magazines, which have never before printed a science-fiction story, suddenly blossom out with many pseudo-science features of low grade?
Yet, even this could be tolerated; but when various magazines with suggestive foretitles, such as Saucy and Spicy, do the same thing, and in a much more smutty manner, we have about reached the limit of our patience.
I should like to make an appeal to you readers. Which do you prefer---to pick up a comic magazine and find "Speed Jones on the Awful Planet Targo", latest pseudo-science cartoon thriller, or, as you might have done only four or five years ago, to glance through O'Brien's or O'Henry's classification of the best short stories of the year and find listed therein "The Colour out of Space" or "The Dunwich Horror", by H. P. Lovecraft, "Creation Unforgiveable", by David H. Keller, M. D., and possibly half a dozen others? The question is purely rhetorical; the latter is infinitely preferable.
But how in the name of all that is held sacred can scientific fiction ever gain anything while it has as its representatives scientifilms, scienticartoons, and pseudo-science stories? These items have no connection whatever with true scientific fiction, and they should be eradicated from all magazines professing to publish such literature---especially the fan magazines. This can be done, if you fans will cooperate by boycotting these magazines; if you will refuse to pay to view the horror-packed, mechanically-acted melodramas that pass as "scientifilms", thereby weakening further their already poor box-office appeal; and if you will leave the absurdly childish "scienticartoons" to the juveniles, who are certain to soon tire of them.
Are we advocates of scientific fiction? If we are, let's do something to get it out of the rut into which mercenary publishers are dragging it!
Responses
Moskowitz' article undoubtedly expresses the viewpoint of some, though I disagree, and I believe nearly all the others will after a little thought.Jack Speer: Letter printed in Amateur Correspondent #3 pg 18. Nov 1937.
There i much to be said in support of Sam Moskowitz' contentions re the "degeneration" of scientific fiction. Even so I hardly agree with the bulk of them.Norman F. Stanley: Letter printed in Amateur Correspondent #3 pg 19. Nov 1937.
Moskowitz' article was interesting and timely. I can't speak to any extent regarding the scientific pulps, as I have only lately become acquainted with them. My theory regarding the matter is this: Most of the pulps are sold to a class of persons actually 10-15 years old mentally; consequently the editors demand that the stories be written for their consumption. Fast action, vivid description, and thrilling situation written in words that won't tax the vocabulary of their average (farmhand, mechanic, factory worker, etc.) reader. Most of these readers lack imagination, but have a sufficient amount to identify themselves with the hero and live through the story as they read it. An entirely different type of reader appreciates and is capable of understanding a story that calls for thinking on the reader's part. Perhaps I could develop this into a short article giving the other side of the argument as a reply to Moskowitz. (I agree with him that the true literary and basic fact content of the average pulp magazine is pretty low. However, poor Constant Reader---and buyer---isn't very well educated and I'm afraid doesn't want to be.)Burton C. Blanchard: Letter printed in Amateur Correspondent #3 pg 20. Nov 1937.
I liked best Sam Moskowitz' article and admire its sincerity, but I think that the true stf. fan doesn't buy the odious imitations (which he urges them to boycott) anyway. I know I never did and never will.Art Widner: Letter printed in Amateur Correspondent #3 pg 21. Nov 1937.