Hobbit
March 24th, 2010, 06:16 PM
Secret pleasures time.... or perhaps not so much of a secret.
Those of you who read the Forums here at SFFWorld may have noticed through some of my comments that I’ve spent the last year or so amassing old SF magazines.
Frankly, it’s become a bit of an obsession.
Thinking back, it is mainly due to the fact that when I was younger I used to buy cheap secondhand copies of the old great magazines when I could find them – Analog (sadly no Astoundings, not in my birthtown!), Fantasy & SF Magazine, Galaxy and Worlds of If. The first American SF magazine I bought ‘proper’ was Analog: the May 25th 1981 edition, with The Tides of Kithrup by David Brin (published later as Startide Rising) and a dolphin on the cover (I still have it.) I had to order it especially at my local WH Smiths. It took a while to get there, at least a month (and I vaguely think longer!) But it was worth it.
I was also enamoured through the many magazine covers printed in books such as Brian Aldiss’s Science Fiction Art and Brian Ash’s Science Fiction A-Z. (Again, I still have.) There, often the size of something little bigger than a postage stamp, were covers from the greats that were a door for me to things I never could attain – or so I thought.
I guess you could say I was bitten. Badly. There, in the pages, I read of old stories, and new, and books being published across the pond that I thought I would never see but desperately, desperately desired.
When I went to university, other priorities prevailed and such items as magazines stopped being bought. There were things like food, beer and coursework books to buy (admittedly with the odd SF/Fantasy book, often secondhand.)
However, thanks to the globalisation of the Internet, I am now in possession of many of those wonders. I have a nearly complete set of F&SF’s from the first issue in 1948 – 1996. Astounding/Analogs from 1942 – 2003 (with a few more gaps, it must be said.) Galaxy’s from issue 2 to 1979. Asimov’s Magazine from the first issue to about 2000.
Why? It’s cost money (not to mention often as much in postage.) They’re not easy to store and some of them are, to say the least, fragile. But there are many rewards.
I LOVE the 1950’s covers. There’s a clarity, a simplicity, an optimism that is very endearing (even when the tales are of nuclear holocaust and global Armageddon!)
But my biggest joy at the moment is reading ‘old stuff’. I have read, or reread, Dune in its original incarnation. Ditto Heinlein’s Double Star, Starship Soldiers (aka Starship Troopers) and Space Lummox (aka the novel Space Beast.) John Varley’s short stories. Stephen King’s Gunslinger in his first appearance. Julian (J.C.) May’s first short story. Joe Haldeman’s tales that would eventually become The Forever War. The emergence of the 1960’s so-called New Wave. The appearance of mutants, esp and Dianetics. The disappearance of pulp SF. The effect of Vietnam on SF writing. And the Moon Landings. Afterwards, the look onwards and upwards to Mars and the rest of the Solar System, and the disappointment thereafter. The - erm - ‘mechanics’ of sex in space (thank you, Analog!)
It has (on the whole) been a wonderful experience.
Perhaps, though, the biggest enjoyment is finding those writers who have seemingly disappeared without trace after being firm favourites in their time. And those I had never heard of before my rummage, ones who were very popular in their time but never heard of now : J.T. McIntosh. Hilbert Schenck. Chad Oliver. William Tenn.
There are many who I remember in my youth that seem pretty much forgotten now: James Blish, Judith Merrill, Damon Knight, Lester Del Rey. Rediscovery has been a joy.
What has been the most surprising experience, though, has been to read these stories in context. For these stories reflect the past, even when they are not directly based in it. Heinlein’s Starship Soldier stands out as being so different to those stories around it. So too The Door into Summer. Earlier, but similarly, (and often older) writers such as Poul Anderson and AE van Vogt.
So it is, coincidentally, that a recent topic has resurfaced (http://markcnewton.com/2010/03/22/bloggers-frontlist-fetish/) around the blogosphere. Namely, that contemporary reviewers, lured by the ever- growing pile of new writers and new books, never look back at the old. Some have been accused of wasting time on older books (those about ten years old), because all readers are really interested in is ‘the now’.
I can see to some extent that, as SF and Fantasy to some extent echo the climate and culture they are written in, the present releases are perhaps most relevant to current readers. The nature of a blog means that its matter tends to deal with ‘now’ and so most are reading what is here, being published, now. QED.
And yet: surely there is room out there for the old stuff? Whilst there is only so much time and an ever-lengthening pile of material to cherrypick from, surely it is worthwhile to look at the background, the history, the ‘how did we get here’? The space operas of today owe much to the gaudy tales of the 1940’s and 50’s – I can see that even more now.
Yes, it has dated. Some of it badly, horribly, even laughably. And yet, personally, I still find an attraction. I see an optimism there that is enlightening and rarely present today. There is an engaging naivety, yet somewhat appropriate for their time, which even though hopelessly dated has a charm. I see heroism, bravery, adventure, romance, the thrill of the unknown, the thrill of terra incognito. How I wish there were canals and the remnants of ancient civilisations on Mars! How about a Moonbase? Teleportation? Non-human aliens?
I can see past all the cliches, the info-dumps, the hokey dialog, the embarrassing names. I still enjoy them for what they are / were.
Whilst not dismissing what we are reading now, I think it is important that we look at, review and comment on the futures of the past. I’d like to think that we do try at SFFWorld – not all the reviews are new books! – but it is becoming a difficult thing to do. A recent request to publishers for older books that may be worthy of our review hasn’t exactly been met with results, though there was some enthusiasm.
So: is there room for old stuff? Should we be reviewing old stuff, discussing old stuff? Is that where Forums, rather than blogs, do more? Or am I an old fogey, talking to the wind, or just myself?
What do you think?
Mark
Those of you who read the Forums here at SFFWorld may have noticed through some of my comments that I’ve spent the last year or so amassing old SF magazines.
Frankly, it’s become a bit of an obsession.
Thinking back, it is mainly due to the fact that when I was younger I used to buy cheap secondhand copies of the old great magazines when I could find them – Analog (sadly no Astoundings, not in my birthtown!), Fantasy & SF Magazine, Galaxy and Worlds of If. The first American SF magazine I bought ‘proper’ was Analog: the May 25th 1981 edition, with The Tides of Kithrup by David Brin (published later as Startide Rising) and a dolphin on the cover (I still have it.) I had to order it especially at my local WH Smiths. It took a while to get there, at least a month (and I vaguely think longer!) But it was worth it.
I was also enamoured through the many magazine covers printed in books such as Brian Aldiss’s Science Fiction Art and Brian Ash’s Science Fiction A-Z. (Again, I still have.) There, often the size of something little bigger than a postage stamp, were covers from the greats that were a door for me to things I never could attain – or so I thought.
I guess you could say I was bitten. Badly. There, in the pages, I read of old stories, and new, and books being published across the pond that I thought I would never see but desperately, desperately desired.
When I went to university, other priorities prevailed and such items as magazines stopped being bought. There were things like food, beer and coursework books to buy (admittedly with the odd SF/Fantasy book, often secondhand.)
However, thanks to the globalisation of the Internet, I am now in possession of many of those wonders. I have a nearly complete set of F&SF’s from the first issue in 1948 – 1996. Astounding/Analogs from 1942 – 2003 (with a few more gaps, it must be said.) Galaxy’s from issue 2 to 1979. Asimov’s Magazine from the first issue to about 2000.
Why? It’s cost money (not to mention often as much in postage.) They’re not easy to store and some of them are, to say the least, fragile. But there are many rewards.
I LOVE the 1950’s covers. There’s a clarity, a simplicity, an optimism that is very endearing (even when the tales are of nuclear holocaust and global Armageddon!)
But my biggest joy at the moment is reading ‘old stuff’. I have read, or reread, Dune in its original incarnation. Ditto Heinlein’s Double Star, Starship Soldiers (aka Starship Troopers) and Space Lummox (aka the novel Space Beast.) John Varley’s short stories. Stephen King’s Gunslinger in his first appearance. Julian (J.C.) May’s first short story. Joe Haldeman’s tales that would eventually become The Forever War. The emergence of the 1960’s so-called New Wave. The appearance of mutants, esp and Dianetics. The disappearance of pulp SF. The effect of Vietnam on SF writing. And the Moon Landings. Afterwards, the look onwards and upwards to Mars and the rest of the Solar System, and the disappointment thereafter. The - erm - ‘mechanics’ of sex in space (thank you, Analog!)
It has (on the whole) been a wonderful experience.
Perhaps, though, the biggest enjoyment is finding those writers who have seemingly disappeared without trace after being firm favourites in their time. And those I had never heard of before my rummage, ones who were very popular in their time but never heard of now : J.T. McIntosh. Hilbert Schenck. Chad Oliver. William Tenn.
There are many who I remember in my youth that seem pretty much forgotten now: James Blish, Judith Merrill, Damon Knight, Lester Del Rey. Rediscovery has been a joy.
What has been the most surprising experience, though, has been to read these stories in context. For these stories reflect the past, even when they are not directly based in it. Heinlein’s Starship Soldier stands out as being so different to those stories around it. So too The Door into Summer. Earlier, but similarly, (and often older) writers such as Poul Anderson and AE van Vogt.
So it is, coincidentally, that a recent topic has resurfaced (http://markcnewton.com/2010/03/22/bloggers-frontlist-fetish/) around the blogosphere. Namely, that contemporary reviewers, lured by the ever- growing pile of new writers and new books, never look back at the old. Some have been accused of wasting time on older books (those about ten years old), because all readers are really interested in is ‘the now’.
I can see to some extent that, as SF and Fantasy to some extent echo the climate and culture they are written in, the present releases are perhaps most relevant to current readers. The nature of a blog means that its matter tends to deal with ‘now’ and so most are reading what is here, being published, now. QED.
And yet: surely there is room out there for the old stuff? Whilst there is only so much time and an ever-lengthening pile of material to cherrypick from, surely it is worthwhile to look at the background, the history, the ‘how did we get here’? The space operas of today owe much to the gaudy tales of the 1940’s and 50’s – I can see that even more now.
Yes, it has dated. Some of it badly, horribly, even laughably. And yet, personally, I still find an attraction. I see an optimism there that is enlightening and rarely present today. There is an engaging naivety, yet somewhat appropriate for their time, which even though hopelessly dated has a charm. I see heroism, bravery, adventure, romance, the thrill of the unknown, the thrill of terra incognito. How I wish there were canals and the remnants of ancient civilisations on Mars! How about a Moonbase? Teleportation? Non-human aliens?
I can see past all the cliches, the info-dumps, the hokey dialog, the embarrassing names. I still enjoy them for what they are / were.
Whilst not dismissing what we are reading now, I think it is important that we look at, review and comment on the futures of the past. I’d like to think that we do try at SFFWorld – not all the reviews are new books! – but it is becoming a difficult thing to do. A recent request to publishers for older books that may be worthy of our review hasn’t exactly been met with results, though there was some enthusiasm.
So: is there room for old stuff? Should we be reviewing old stuff, discussing old stuff? Is that where Forums, rather than blogs, do more? Or am I an old fogey, talking to the wind, or just myself?
What do you think?
Mark