dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) (10/14/85)
>(1) Campbell was not a tyrant. In fact, he encouraged many kinds of > experimentation in Astounding. This is attested by Heinlein > (Expanded Universe) Asimov (Opus 100, Before The Golden Age) > and many others. There were a couple of problems with his > editorship: an unreasonable insistence on "human supremacy"... > [ROBERT FIRTH] I disagree. The record of "Astounding" does not bear your assertions out. It was "Galaxy" and "The Magazine Of Fantasy And Science Fiction" that were on the cutting edge of experimentation. Campbell was considered tyrranical by even his friends (same books you quote) and had a general reputation for being so. If he encouraged experimentation, it was not in the literary content, but in the scientific content. His insistence on human supremacy and his well-documented, deep involvment with Dianetics most certainly went hand-in-glove with his strict editorial control, which drove away most of the good science fiction writers of his day (Silverberg, Sturgeon, Cordwainer Smith, Aldiss, and others). As to the testimony of Heinlein and Asimov, neither of whom would know literary experimentation if it came up and bit them on their homo superior, it seems a tad facile to credit them with much critical acuity on the subject of their mentor and paymaster. Davis "Thank God For Horace Gold" Tucker
Shiffman@GODZILLA.SCH.Symbolics.COM (10/17/85)
From: Hank Shiffman <Shiffman@GODZILLA.SCH.Symbolics.COM>
Date: 14 Oct 85 03:38:41 GMT
From: druri!dht@topaz.rutgers.edu (Davis Tucker)
>(1) Campbell was not a tyrant. In fact, he encouraged many kinds of
> experimentation in Astounding. This is attested by Heinlein
> (Expanded Universe) Asimov (Opus 100, Before The Golden Age)
> and many others. There were a couple of problems with his
> editorship: an unreasonable insistence on "human supremacy"...
> [ROBERT FIRTH]
I disagree. The record of "Astounding" does not bear your assertions
out. It was "Galaxy" and "The Magazine Of Fantasy And Science
Fiction" that were on the cutting edge of experimentation. Campbell
was considered tyrranical by even his friends (same books you quote)
and had a general reputation for being so. If he encouraged
experimentation, it was not in the literary content, but in the
scientific content. His insistence on human supremacy and his
well-documented, deep involvment with Dianetics most certainly went
hand-in-glove with his strict editorial control, which drove away
most of the good science fiction writers of his day (Silverberg,
Sturgeon, Cordwainer Smith, Aldiss, and others). As to the testimony
of Heinlein and Asimov, neither of whom would know literary
experimentation if it came up and bit them on their homo superior,
it seems a tad facile to credit them with much critical acuity on
the subject of their mentor and paymaster.
Davis Tucker
If you're going to abuse someone, at least do so for the right reasons.
Asimov's description of his working relationship with Campbell is
exactly in line with everything you describe. I refer you to Asimov's
autobiography, wherein he provides a large number of examples of
Campbell's pigheadedness and peculiar ideas. Asimov himself found these
ideas, including or perhaps especially Dianetics and Scientology,
ridiculous in the extreme.
I guess you and the good doctor aren't so far apart after all.