Astounding -- Alec Nevala-Lee -- 2018

John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction

 

A history of the early days of modern Science Fiction, centered about the lives of John W. Campbell Jr. and three of his proteges: Robert Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and Isaac Asimov. A sometimes interesting account of a crucial era in the history of Science Fiction, but mainly just biographies of the titular personalities. Most of the interactions among these characters occurred before World War II, long before the lifetimes of anyone likely to be reading. I'm a longtime SF reader who grew up reading Heinlein and Asimov, and started reading Analog intermittently from about the time of Campbell's death.  As invested as I am in the SF of the second half of the 20th Century, the history of the first half didn't interest me that much. Really, if you want to know what was happening in SF way back when, just read the stories! (SPOILER: It mostly sucked, especially Hubbard and Asimov. But there were also outstanding authors.)

That said, this a decently written book, if a little gossipy for my tastes. If you've a solid curiosity in the history of SF it'll probably hold your interest. I don't know how much original scholarship is here; it might be a substantial amount. For me, the text had the feel of a crib job from from a limited number of sources. I'd be interested to know if this wasn't the case should anyone have taken the trouble to go through the Notes.

As an example, Nevala-Lee seemed to lean heavily on Asimov's autobiography "I, Asimov", a wildly egotistical account of the self-described genius scientist, professor and writer. The author mostly agrees with that description of Asimov, even though the latter was never really a scientist or professor and was, at best, pretty second-rate as a writer. And how did Asimov get away with his harassment of women in the SF community? In my world, that never would have been tolerated by friends and partners, and Asimov would have been the recipient of more than one pounding. Was the SF of that era really that deferential to Big-Name Pros?

After the war, Campbell's influence on the development of SF was reduced, as the field expanded to a breadth much wider than what was published in Astounding. Heinlein and Asimov developed as major figures with little (Asimov) to no (Heinlein) guidance from Campbell. What was truly astounding was how Campbell, until his death, was often wildly enthusiastic about obviously crackpot ideas. He had studied some science and engineering in his youth, but it sure didn't seem to take. An exception was Campbell's interest in Hubbard's development of "Dianetics", to which he was an important contributor. Initially, Dianetics appeared to be a possibly useful aid for self-analysis, which Campbell made extensive use of in his own life. As Hubbard succumbed to his peculiar brand of narcissistic insanity, Dianetics degenerated into an authoritarian quasi-religious instrument which assuaged Hubbard's colossal egomania while providing wealth and power to the toxic Grandees of Scientology.

Later in life, Campbell would apparently make wildly racist comments in conversation and correspondence. Given his tendency to challenge people (in a straight-faced manner) with hyperbolic statements that he himself might not necessarily believe, those statements probably shouldn't always be taken at face value. But if they occurred with the frequency and vehemence that the author cites, it seems it may have been "problematic", indeed. But Campbell was always a leading futurist, if he was nothing else. Is it possible he was just presciently providing mediocre SF writers of our present era (the Cellophane Age?) a chance to signal their virtue?