Chapter IV: Of Tygers and Men, A Conclusion or TwoWe have reached the point at which we have a good deal of evidence for agreeing with a statement of Dr. Treguboff's, which she put forth quite early in her thesis:Science fiction is a subject of many popular misconceptions. It is believed, for example, that it is a form of pulp fiction, with no literary merit, whose content is about gadgets, space adventures, and monsters, and whose readers and authors are people of small education and smaller literary discriminations. Little, if any, factual basis exists for these beliefs. (pp.24-5)Of course, not all of her assertions are amenable to statistical treatment--this is one of the reasons why my thesis was necessary. However, I am not attempting to draw the cloak of statistical/scientific respectability about science fiction on the basis of the quotation; the point is that Dr. Treguboff read a good deal of science fiction, and did so under the enforced objectivity of her panel, and after so reading was convinced that the above remarks were justifiably to be made in her doctoral dissertation. I stress the source merely because one is far more likely to be certain of one's ground before taking stands in a thesis than in a periodical article. Science fiction, then, can convince others, on the basis of intuitive and/or statistical evidence, that it is more than pulp. The logic behind the evidence I have discussed was as follows: after reading and sorting out numerous critical opinions, I saw that critics object to either the content of science fiction or to its form. The content, we saw, can be both morally and cognitively valuable--and has been so not merely in a few exceptional cases but in enough cases that it may be considered to be a regular occurence--and a few of these cases were illustrated in the text. The form, too, can satisfy conventional critical criteria; this was illustrated in a lengthy reading of a Sturgeon novel, and shorter readings of Bester and Aldiss short stories. Hence, science fiction is more than pulp, on the basis of evidence which is literary criticism and not mere unsupported intuition. The first conclusion I should like to offer is this: it is obvious to even the most casual reader that not all the science fiction which is turned out even in the modern period is good literature; however, because there can be quite excellent stories in among the whole range of science fiction, it is clear that the critic and the general reader will be missing much if they ignore the field as a second-class citizen of literature--as "pulp", that is. Therefore, it is incumbent upon "serious" critics and readers to deal seriously with science fiction, at the risk of otherwise missing valuable and enjoyable literary experiences, for it too can furnish all the characteristics which they praise in other fields of literature. Actually, the above paragraph is the real conclusion of this thesis, at least on the grounds of the material I have already presented. However, I should like to offer an observation not based on the evidence above, but stemming from it, which might help to explain why the blind-spot in the "popular" view of science fiction has persisted. My second "conclusion" is that there exists a science fiction sensibility, a special temperament which is either induced or appealed to by science fiction. The sensibility is perhaps best characterized by an experience I had recently: I was sitting in on an Introduction to Literature class which was discussing Blake's "The Tyger," and found that while most of the people in the class were speaking of the Tyger as an evil entity about which the poet could not decide whether it had been created by God or by The Enemy, I was myself "for" the Tyger and in sympathy with it. That is, it seemed to me perfectly valid to look upon it as a self-generating entity, splendid in its vigor and strength, which in a sense had created itself, and which was capable of "taking on" the Universe. The instructor, with whom I was taking a special readings in poetry course, later confirmed the plausibility at least of my alternative view. Then I realized that my view of the Tyger was virtually identical to Heinlein's view of Man in The Puppet Masters (see Chapter III) and hence to a quite prevalent science fiction viewpoint. The science fiction sensibility, then, is one which actively entertains the notion that Man is not inherently depraved, but is at least capable of progress. "Down-beat" science fiction stories are usually warnings against the opposing view; a work like On The Beach, that is, is a warning type, but it would be more common (though less effective psychologically) to find in what we might call mainstream science fiction the hero going off with his lady love and submerging his submarine beneath the polar icecap until the radiation had died down--analogous to the action in Wylie's When Worlds Collide--instead of docilely surrendering to the hostile Universe. If I were the psychologist-statistician Dr. Treguboff is, I would have tested my notion by means of questioning fans and antis about their reactions to the Blake poem; however, I could not have constructed a valid test myself, and so I shall let the issue rest on the suggestion that there is a science fiction sensibility and that it can be operationally defined in terms of reaction to "The Tyger"--at least I shall let it rest until I write an Astounding article about it. A final comment: John Campbell is changing the name of Astounding to Analog Science Fact and Fiction for the express purpose of not scaring off the pulp-conscious prospective buyer. Though the howls from the sentimentalists are long and loud, I think it commendable that Campbell should be willing to meet the uninitiated more than half way, and hope that the pulp misappellation will soon be dispelled. In conclusion, whether one is a Tyger-fancier or a critic who is looking for valuable literary experiences, science fiction is good stuff. I shall write at no greater length about it, because--and this is perhaps the real test of literary value--I'd rather go read it. ©2003 Michael A. Padlipsky. All rights reserved. |