I find this intriguing because in recent years the establishment view of physical theory has been increasingly challenged. The rise of cold fusion, Mill's hydrinos, and various claims to vacuum tapping electromagnetic and permanent magnet generators are a challenge to the mainstream view.
Perhaps the most open and defiant challenge to the prevailing view of these matters can be found in the Steorn challenge to the scientific community. Theoretical arguments in most of these cases are offered which are contrary to current mainstream theory. Indeed, Thomas Bearden's modifications of electromagnetic theory would offer scope to most forms of fantasy. I am assuming that you are familiar with this because Jeffery Kooistra publishes in your magazine and he was once associated with Eugene Mallove and Infinite Energy magazine, perhaps the greatest of all critics of the prevailing view of scientific theory.
Aether theory is making a new bid, quantum mechanics is challenged by Randell Mill's reinterpretation of the theory, and claims of successful unification of gravitation and electromagnitism are appearing on the internet (See Myron Evans). Many of the proponents have decent to very good academic credentials to lend credibility to their claims. However, mainstream science publications such as Nature and Science dismiss such claims as fraud or nonsense and little is heard of these matters in the mainstream press.
Still, this issue is being raised by these claims. What is science and who speaks for it? Is scientific theory whatever the actual nature of the material world is, or just an ideology? Scientific opinion is revised over time, often with much acrimony, but what happens if the scientific enterprise devolves into multiple schools of thought and it is no longer possible to speak of a single point of view on any particular topic? And as these schools cannot all be right, credibility wanes. In the end science and hence science fiction may appear to be more fiction representing an ideology as would Catholic fiction, Protestant fiction, Communist fiction, or Capitalist fiction.
Such an argument would suggest that the only real difference between science fiction and fantasy is orthodoxy. Science fiction is fiction based on the current accepted view of reality and fantasy is not. But science may not just change its opinion, it may also simply disintegrate into competing voices and orthodoxy is lost. In that case what is the real distinction between a science fiction story and a fantasy story when confidence that the science is real is lost? No one can really know the future of scientific opinion or even if it will remain single. Thus it would seem that the distinction between science fiction and fantasy is mere prejudice. An assertion that the current accepted view of reality will prevail in the future. The distinction between a science fiction magazine such as Analog and a fantasy magazine is no more than appearance.
I would like to suggest that you should comment on these matters in some future editorial. The prevailing view of science keeps alive the tokamak fusion program, denies scope to Robert Bussard's focused fusion reactor, not to mention many potentially more effective power sources, assures no solution to global warming (if it is itself not just an intellectual fraud) than to suffer energy poverty and assures that the settlement of the solar system will be painful, difficult, and slow if it is ever attempted. All of the future that Analog has in its history promoted is in danger from a worldview buttressed by prevailing scientific orthodoxy. It would be much better if Analog would entertain stories based on other scientific premises. There may not be that much to lose and much to gain in bringing to the public a wider point of view.
James Wood
* * * *
Actually, I have commented on these matters in many previous editorials, and Analog stories have always featured both “real” and alternative science. The difference between science fiction and fantasy is not just orthodoxy! But science is based on accumulated evidence and logically constructed models to explain and extrapolate it. It's very important for some science fiction to explore new models—but they have to be constructed with the same regard for logical consistency and agreement with observation as older models. In other words, it's wonderful if you can write convincingly about things that sound impossible—but if you want our audience to swallow them, you have to provide some basis (not necessarily today's orthodox science) for regarding them as plausible.
* * * *
Dear Stan,
Thank you very much for defining the limits of what Analog will accept. I'm just a reader, not a writer, and I read Analog because I know what I like. For example, I will always pass over any anthology edited by a certain very (perhaps most) famous editor of anthologies, because his tastes and mine differ greatly.
But your acceptance criteria are broad enough to include the occasional (and rare) story I don't care for, and also the occasional story that is in the boundary area that I really love. An excellent tradeoff in my humble opinion.
As for your comments about the Star Wars series, I prefer to believe my cousin's advice, when I had mentioned to him back in 1977 or so that I had no intention in seeing an obvious fantasy movie. To which he responded, “Trust me, put your mind in neutral, and go see it if only for the ‘sleazy spaceport bar’ we've all read about in the older pulps.” Certainly it was good advice. Which is why I'm glad your boundaries are a bit wider than a strict interpretation of “science fiction” would normally dictate.
Again, and still, thanks for the premier magazine in the field.
Don Manyette
* * * *
Dear Dr. Schmidt:
I'm writing because I have some concern for where science fiction is going these days. In my mind at least, it has been backing itself into a corner for some time now, in a way that is so introverted and stylized that only the hardcore dedicated reader can enjoy it.
If you've not already seen it, I would direct your attention to a recent article in “Wired":
www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/news/2007/04/scifighetto0412
I have to say I can understand the sentiments expressed there. I started reading science fiction in the early ‘50s, a joy to me because it offered a different view of humanity, unrestricted by the conventions of the present, and buoyed by new understandings of science, in particular, astronomy. It was why I became a scientist (See the book about me on Amazon.com). Granted, the stories of those times were weak in character development, but that didn't seem to matter because so many new possibilities were being explored that had never appeared in print before.
But, sad to say, all that has all changed. The early writers could write about galactic civilizations and intrepid time travelers, but all that has been done to death now. What should a science fiction writer do now? Cutting-edge science is now about working out the details of how the universe in constructed and esoteric theories of how the universe was formed. We now have space travel, and some major scientists are seriously considering how to build a time machine. What is left that can be legitimately called science fiction that is fresh and new? Has science fiction reached the end of its run?
I hope not, because I think its approach can still offer a fresh look at humanity. But, in my humble opinion, things have to change. For science fiction to remain viable, it has to focus on what it was really about all along—not science per se, but about its effect on people.
But, strange to say, as the article above points out, that particular aspect of science fiction is only considered appropriate in non-science fiction works. And that is the state of science fiction today. Science fiction has been shunted off to quirky, convoluted tales that primarily value the coveted banner of science fiction today, the idea of the original science-based idea.
And that is the problem. Science fiction is being killed by its unwillingness to abandon its original goal of exposing new scientific ideas to the public. I understand that to become merely stories about real people living in a future where science has a major impact on their lives is not much different than exactly what we have now in the 21st century. This is the future the early science fiction writers wrote about. Unless you're living in a hole s
omewhere, you understand science has a major impact on your life, and you understand there are serious consequences implied by that knowledge, ranging from the current decrease in the Earth's magnetic field to the certain probability of all life being wiped out by an asteroid impact sometime in the future.
So if traditional literature has taken up the mantle formerly held by science fiction, where is science fiction to go? That is the question, and in my opinion, it needs a good answer soon before it disappears as a viable art form altogether.
Henry M. Harris
Pasadena, CA
* * * *
You're certainly right that it's harder than it once was to come up with new, viable ideas that still feel speculative, but it's hardly impossible. Does anybody really believe that the early 21st century is not much different from all the millennia stretching ahead? Writers may have to reach farther now, but remember that what writers were doing forty or fifty years ago, much of which we now take for granted, was quite a stretch back then.
And the effects of science and technology have long been our major emphasis—but we still prefer to look at the effects of new science and technology, rather than just the lives of people in the world as it has already changed.
[Back to Table of Contents]
UPCOMING EVENTS by ANTHONY LEWIS
* * * *
13—15 July 2007
THINK GALACTICON (Political SF conference) at Roosevelt University, Chicago, IL. Guests: Nalo Hopkinson, Nisi Shawl, Nnedi Okorafor-Mbachu. Registration: $35 until 28 May 2007, $40 thereafter; supporting memberships: $15. Info: thinkgalactic.org; [email protected].
* * * *
27—29 July 2007
M.O.O.N Con—Middle of Outer Nowhere Con (Wisconsin SF conference) at Ramada Inn/White House Conference Center, Richland Center, WI. Registration: $30 until 29 June 2007, $35 thereafter. Info: www.mooncon.bravehost.com; [email protected]; Robert Poole 1-877-225-5928 (toll-free, Robert Poole).
* * * *
30 August—3 September 2007
NIPPON 2007 (65th World Science Fiction Convention) at Pacifico Yokohama, Yokohama, Japan. Guests of Honor: Sakyo Komatsu and David Brin. Artist Guests of Honor: Yoshitaka Amano and Michael Whelan. Fan Guest of Honor: Takumi Shibano. Registration: USD 220; JPY 26,000; GBP 125; EUR 186 until 30 June 2007; supporting membership USD 50; JPY 6,000; GBP 28; EUR 45. This is the SF universe's annual get-together. Professionals and readers from all over the world will be in attendance. Talks, panels, films, fancy dress competition—the works. Nominate and vote for the Hugos. This is only the third time Worldcon will be held in a non-English speaking country and the first time in Asia. Info: www.nippon2007.org; [email protected]. Nippon 2007/JASFIC, 4-20-5-604, Mure, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-0002. North American agent: Peggy Rae Sapienza, Nippon 2007, PO Box 314, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701, USA. UK agent: Mike Rennie, 68 Crichton Avenue, Burton Stone Lane, York, Great Britain YO30 6EE ([email protected]). European agent: Vincent Doherty, Koninginnegracht 75a, 2514A Den Haag, Netherlands ([email protected]). Australian agent: Craig Macbride, Box 274, World Trade Centre, Victoria, 8005 Australia ([email protected]).
* * * *
1—4 November 2007
WORLD FANTASY CONVENTION at Saratoga City Center and Saratoga Hotel & Conference Center, Saratoga Springs, NY. Guests of Honor: Carol Emshwiller, Kim Newman, Lisa Tuttle; Special Guests of Honor: Barbara & Christopher Roden, George Scithers; MC: Guy Gavriel Kay. Registration $135 until 31 March 2007, $35 supporting. Info: www.lastsfa.org/wfc2007/; World Fantasy 2007, Post Office Box 1086, Schenectady NY 12301.
* * *
Visit www.analogsf.com for information on additional titles by this and other authors.
Analog SFF, October 2007 Page 25