Michener's opinion of SF

[obrien135]

I am currently reading "Space", by James Michener. About the last quarter of the chapter 'Twins', one of the charactors in the story who is a scientist working for NASA, and has had a collapse from exhaustion, is visited by several astronauts who bring him science fiction books to read during his recovery. After he reads them, having never read science fiction before, he comments that most of the authors seem fascist. sexist, anti-democratic and elitist. Can anyone comment on why Michener would have that opinion, if that is his opinion projected through the character? I can see faint signs of characteristics like those in certain SF authors but it's hard to say if it's really sexism or racism, or whatever. For example H.G Wells "Time Machine". The creatures that live below the Earth's surface seem to represent the working class and the are represented as loathsome. I guess this could be an example of elitism. And Philip K. Dick has been accused of racism because of his use of a certain word in reference to African American people. But George Orwell seems to be antitotalitarianist, rather than anti-democratic. That doesn't make him a fascist. I enjoy SF and I am uncertain why these negative connotations are associated with it. Can anyone clarify?

 

[chrispenycate]

Sounds as if he got delivered a lot of Heinlein (Heinlein has been accused of all of those opinions, and was a favourite author of NASA employees).

More seriously, science fiction should be questioning all of above. Far too many SF books assume that democracy is the optimum possible political system, that all forms of segregation are wrong, because that is today's fashionable morality. All right, I was brought up with those as virtues, too, but SF should be exploring all alternatives, the whole range of possibilities.

Fascist? On average SF tends towards the left wing, socialist end of the political spectrum (well, apart from Baen authors, perhaps). Not that one can't get authoritarian on that axis, but there's a healthy dose of libertarianism to balance it.

Because balance is the key. I know I have read the Michener, but can't remember anything about it. Which suggests it didn't have any very revolutionary concepts to balance out with opposing antitheses. But, while SF does tend to get stuck in fashion eddies from time to time on the whole it explores a wider set of concepts than any other branch of literature.

 

[Nerds_feather]

A lot of classic SF books are, essentially sausage-fests in which women are either absent, unremarkable or blatantly inferior to the mens. A lot of classic SF, furthermore, propagates the myth of technocratic meritocracy--if only society were run by those with expertise! That's pretty anti-democratic. Asimov's Foundation Trilogy would be a perfect example of both of these things.

 

[j d worthington]

A lot of classic SF books are, essentially sausage-fests in which women are either absent, unremarkable or blatantly inferior to the mens. A lot of classic SF, furthermore, propagates the myth of technocratic meritocracy--if only society were run by those with expertise! That's pretty anti-democratic. Asimov's Foundation Trilogy would be a perfect example of both of these things.

Eh? As I recall, it was actually, in the two longest segments of this set, the women who proved to be the ones who pulled everyone's bacon out of the fire, through their intelligence, persistence, and courage. As for the idea of "technocratic meritocracy"... again, there are such things in sf, certainly; but one hell of a lot of it from the "Golden Age" called that entire idea into question. Even Heinlein blasted it with both barrels on more than one occasion (e.g., "The Roads Must Roll"....). Then you have such writers as Sturgeon, Moore, Kuttner, Bester, etc., who tended to take a very dim view of technocracy; nor was Asimov at all persuaded by its shaky premises, as any even marginally careful reading of his work tends to show. A belief in science as the best tool for tackling things, yes; technocracy, hardly.

 

[Toby Frost]

When is the book set? Some eras would seem to fit this much better than others, although I can't think of a time when SF in general was downright fascist (although the authoritarianism of a few books might make some people suspect it). 1970s SF, in particular, was often very anti-establishment.

Sadly, 1984 has been co-opted by right-wingers, especially in America, to be an attack on Soviet Russia rather than all dictators. It's possible that this mis-reading, which in some cases is probably deliberate, could lead to it being seen as militarist and pro-authority. And that's why we gotta bomb the commies!

 

[Randy M.]

A few rather disjointed thoughts:

1. I don't know whether the character was a viewpoint character and one likely to be mouthing Michener's opinion -- too long since I read the book and I've never had an urge to reread it. But let's recall the book was first published in 1982, the best-selling s.f. writers of the time were as I recall Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke and Herbert -- maybe Le Guin, too. It might have been difficult to come to those conclusions by reading what they wrote at the time, still you could look at Dune and some of Heinlein and assume support for elitism. And if all one read of Heinlein was Starship Troopers it wouldn't be hard to levy charges of anti-democracy, not to mention militarism.
2. There was a good deal of older s.f. being reissued at the time -- Ballantine's Best of series for one -- and some of it could have led to those conclusions.
3. Sexism in s.f. was rampant from the 1920s on, only really being examined from the late 1960s on. (Note, it was rampant in the whole society as well; that's not an excuse, but fiction does stem from its time.)
4. Note Norman Spinrad's similar reaction to older s.f. leading to his 1972 novel, The Iron Dream.
5. Even in the old days there were stories/novels that were the antithesis of fascist, etc. I'm thinking in particular of works by Eric Frank Russell like "...And Then There Were None" and the Jay Score stories (Men, Martians and Machines). But I don't think these were the stories at the forefront when someone asked for recommendations.
6. One of the things about s.f., and maybe especially short s.f. from the 1940s onward, is that it doesn't always reflect the writer's opinion. With later writers self-expression as it's pushed by more mainstream writers becomes more important, but a lot of early s.f. acts as thought experiment: Given these conditions, how would this work out? And I think outside readers of the time were not always aware of that and mistake what a given writer wrote as rationalization or propaganda for a particular view. And of course, sometimes it really was the writer's belief or very near the writer's belief, so figuring out which is which isn't easy unless you read the bulk of a writer's work.

Really, if this was Michener's view, it depends on how widely and deeply he read in the genre, and to some degree maybe what time period his reading fell in. Given Spinrad's reaction, even some readers who loved the potential of s.f. had misgivings about the results; and not just Spinrad, but much of the so-called New Wave and those writers contemporary to the New Wave but not necessarily of it, like Le Guin, Joanna Russ and a cadre of other writers who worked hard to broaden the perspective of the genre.



Randy M.

 

[K. Riehl]

A large portion of the SF writing community went after A.E. Van Vogt for his writing. He often postulated that the only way to effectively get the human race to fight off the alien menace was via a totalitarian government bending all resources into the fight.

Oddly Van Vogt also wrote some of the more libertarian titles such as Weapon Makers.

I agree with Randy M. on the thought experiment approach. Many of the writers in the pulps were trying out various scenarios. In The Futurians written by Damon Knight they talk about being afraid to write about socialism in the 30's and communism in the 40's and 50's.

Michener also started hanging around with the Kennedy's which will serve to skew anyone's viewpoint.

 

[Ogma]

There is a shade of SF which would fit Michener's description. There is a lot of 'the little guy/gal does not matter'. We can't just get along and be nice to each other but we have to be forced into a hive mind, weeded by some cataclysm to leave an enlightened few, enslaved or replaced by a fitter race (PKD wrote the Golden Man in reaction to this view). The lives of millions are sometimes sacrificed for the welfare of the main characters (for example the antics in Deathworld 3, where basically whole peoples are sacrificed to give a handful of Pyrrans a home, had my jaw dropping ) or some greater ideal.

Obviously, this is only part of the spectrum of SF. There are plenty of works that eschew this world view and several created in reaction to it. It may even be consigned to the past. But it does exist and it can be found sometimes in surprising places.

It is interesting that the books are given to the MC by several astronauts. Maybe Michener is commenting on the astronaut's worldview by implication?

 

[Kissmequick]

Authors are not their characters*, even if they are a viewpoint character. It may or may not have any bearing on what Michener thought of SF at all. It may be the complete opposite in fact. Without Michener to tell us one way or the other there is simply no way to tell.

*Not automatically. Just because a character says something, doesn't mean the writer agrees with it. Did JRRT agree with Sauron? Doubtful. does GRRM think all his POV characters are delightful and agrees with everything they all say? Very doubtful considering they disagree so much... Unless you know otherwise, it's best to assume the character is that, a character
That said...

There is a shade of SF which would fit Michener's description.

Older SF of a certain type is replete with all those themes. It's not everywhere, but it's in enough.



Sidebar

Even in the old days there were stories/novels that were the antithesis of fascist, etc. I'm thinking in particular of works by Eric Frank Russell like "...And Then There Were None" and the Jay Score stories (Men, Martians and Machines).

EFR was/is a fave. Three to Conquer, Next of Kin...he was quite anti-authority.

Do you have a Eustace, or a Willie?

 

[steve12553]

... he comments that most of the authors seem fascist. sexist, anti-democratic and elitist...

That sounds like the comment of someone who had read three books and used it to judge a library. That may have been Michener point with this character. The book is actually sitting on the shelf behind me now but I've never got to it. And as far as actual Science Fiction I've always found it to be left wing, right wing, up, down, strange, charm, bottom and top.

 

[JoanDrake]

If you were to write straight romances which use politics as their source of drama, and be German in 1933 everyone would assume you were an Nazi. If they didn't, you wouldn't be writing them (or much else)

An awful lot of SF before 1970 flowed though the editor of Astounding Science Fiction, John W. Campbell Jr. He was an unabashed technocrat and generally looked upon as a very benign Authoritarian in his personal politics who was not at all averse to imposing his politics on his writers.

Additionally, we are talking about the kind of men like Heinlein who won the Hugo one year for the definitive Fascist blueprint, and the same Hugo one year later for the Hippie's Handbook. When you herd cats for a living it can make you a little strange.

I think Michener may be trying to point out here that the Astronauts were, in fact, NOT a technocratic or militaristic group, by and large, and that is true. To this day they run rather left of center as military or even government employee types go. So does NASA, for that matter. There are exceptions, of course.