The Seining

     This question is being raised ever more often:

     As I’m one who both reads and writes science fiction, this is often on my mind. Granted that “you have to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince,” the problem can’t be reduced solely to sifting through the massive heaps of SF being published annually. The science fiction genre has always known great internal variety.

     The origins of SF brought us both gee-whizzy stuff and thoughtful explorations of all kinds of questions. Consider two of the earliest SF writers: Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. These men both wrote SF, but their aims were radically different.

     Verne wrote about marginally imaginable adventures and possibilities, with a focus on the “gee-whiz” factor. If you’ve read his stuff, you can see that at once: From The Earth To The Moon, 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, Master Of The World, and so forth were aimed to dazzle the reader with possibilities that were out of reach when Verne wrote. (Yes, some of them remain so today.)

     By contrast, Wells, a historian by inclination, was much more concerned with societies. His books The First Men in the Moon, The Island of Dr. Moreau, and War of the Worlds invoked pseudoscience to make possible an examination of how people behave, and how societies are transformed, when disturbed by something unprecedented.

     So even at its origin, the science fiction genre knew some internal variety. Yet for reasons beyond the scope of this screed, SF in English was dominated by Gee-Whizzers – with emphasis on space opera and time travel – until the emergence of a single, seminal figure: Robert A. Heinlein.

     Heinlein has been called “the dean of science fiction,” with great justice. He was the first to meld the speculative bent of the Gee-Whizzers and the probing orientation of the Social Analysts with deep characterization and graceful style. To read his pre-1970 novels for the first time is to touch a priceless treasure. The initiate is often overwhelmed by that first acquaintance, in a “Where have you been all my life?” sort of fashion. Even his juveniles, such as Time For The Stars, Citizen of the Galaxy, and Tunnel In The Sky are packed with insights into the psychodynamics of both individuals and societies.

     From Heinlein and several of his near contemporaries (e.g., Isaac Asimov) flowered ever-newer strains of SF. They improved steadily over the years, broadening their outlook as they refined their storytelling powers. No, they weren’t entirely consistent. Then as now, it was what a publisher believed he could sell that determined what would reach the SF reader. Sometimes, a writer whose income was primarily from his stories would feel forced to pander to the devotees of some particular sub-genre. Some had to turn out lowbrow romances; others had to write porn. There were also some “dry spells” during which a large fraction of the SF reading community felt under-served; the “New Wave” period is part of that. Yet today’s SF writer is typically a considerably better writer and storyteller than those of a century ago.

     All the same, he might not write what you want to read.

* * *

     Selecting among writers requires more delving than was once the case. The space-opera buffs don’t want the sociological studies. The time-travel aficionados shrug aside the post-apocalyptic stories. As the varieties multiply, the job gets harder.

     There’s also the related problem of auctorial sensibility. A writer’s values come through his stories no matter how hard he tries. If the reader has important differences with those values, it won’t matter how well told are the writer’s stories. Thus a freedom advocate like your humble Curmudgeon cannot abide socialists such as Octavia Butler or Kim Stanley Robinson. Nor would a hard-driven atheist, violently allergic to any treatment of the supernatural or the spiritual, be able to stomach novels such as these, these, or these. (And that will be my only plug for my own crap.)

     This is a subject in which reviewers could play an important part. Amazon reviews can make or break a writer. But seldom do reviewers spend many pixels on the writer’s sensibility. If his values powerfully shape his stories, reviewers should mention that – and them. But it doesn’t happen often.

     To sum up: the reader must seine diligently among the tens of thousands of SF writers currently publishing to find the kind of material that will please him. It’s a chore, but it’s in service to one’s own satisfaction with the entertainment he selects. And do please review! It’s a service to other potential readers. Also, it’s sometimes invaluable as a catharsis after finishing a novel that proved not to be to one’s taste.