How stigmatized was sci fi in the 80s and 90s?

White Dwarf was like treasure in the early 1980s. The hobby store in town used to get a couple of copies per month, and once they had gone that was it.
In the early days, White Dwarf was great because it covered a wide range of the gaming hobby and not just GW. When they became a strictly in house magazine it lost some of it's charm. Still, it was magic in early 80s.
 
White Dwarf was like treasure in the early 1980s. The hobby store in town used to get a couple of copies per month, and once they had gone that was it.

Different world pre-internet, pre CGI, not just for sf/fantasy, but for all culture. I think, however, that the op has set up a bit of a straw man: his premise is imaginary, not historical.

Pretty sure I saw White Dwarf on sale in my big Sainsbury's only a week ago. That beats my own favourite magazine Fortean Times.
 
I used to write for Games Workshop in the early days. My first published work was for White Dwarf. Tbh though, I can't remember a thing about it, except I ripped Gene Wolfe off to create something called The Vivimancer. :/
Snap! I had my first story published in White Dwarf. It was only 500 words and I can't remember what it was called but it was about a worm-like species (I think I called them Grxx) encountering a giant alien. The whole Grxx civilisation ended when the astronaut abruptly stood on them. It was pretty bad.
 
I got my first rejections from the Black Library... I don't think that counts does it?

I just googled The Vivimancer Stephen Palmer and found a website which no longer exists and this here thread. What number White Dwarf was it @Stephen Palmer?
 
Warning: Brutal Honesty & Belligerent Opinions, about 40 words ahead:
Was this true?
In a nutshell, no.
Were there any people in those type periods who enjoyed geek stuff but were athletic and intelligent who ended up becoming military officers?
Of course.
worshiping athletes
Actually, that's worse now than it was then. I'd add other sorts of pop entertainers, not just athletes. That's actually much worse. Seriously, do you realize what a large fraction of the Hollywood pseudo-intellectuals that take themselves so seriously are high school drop outs?
dragons and swords
As preface, I fully acknowledge, with no apology, that I'm a genre snob. While I don't disdain fantasy, and certainly there is a fuzzy borderland between it & SF somewhere in Meyers' Commonwealth, with all due respect, I must point out that "dragons and swords" is more characteristic of fantasy. Now, I'll get off my high thoat and address the question as regards SF.
80s and 90s
Regardless of when Ellison, first made his infamous remark, the era of the "SF ghetto" was earlier than that. It was one front in the older culture war that C.P.Snow wrote about. The noble Greek philosopher types who dealt with the Big, Abstract, Important, Ethereal questions (meaning the ones where nobody could actually prove you were just a glib bull ejesta artist) vs. the grubby handed slave types who had the vulgarity to deal with the physically real and eventually even cast aspersions on Aristotle's physics by measuring things in the objective real world (How dare they?). Yeah, my bias is showing - if that's a problem, deal with it. I'm strongly partisan in that war - and it still goes on. Reality matters.

Asimov wrote eloquently on this factor in the decline of the "SF is trash" idea in one of his essays in the F&SF series (his finest work, BTW). Specifically about how this began to change with the launch of Sputnik. The changing perception of SF was part of the changing perception of science.

Jane & Joe Sixpack and the Congress'en that pandered to them began to dimly perceive that those 4-eyed, pointy-headed intellectuals were the ones that could build the ICBMs and maybe they were useful after all. JFK's moon speech was part of this sequence. And then he was killed (a coup IMO, but that's another subject, and borders on the verboten here) & he became a Saint, whose vision Must Not be Questioned. So hey, ho, off to the moon we go. Of course SF got a boost.

The other big factor in the change is more complex. The career track that lead to teaching English Lit, either at Uni or in HS, attracted a lot more of some types of people than others. Most of them were the type that crave a feeling of intellectual superiority, but couldn't pass algebra. They were uncomfortably aware that SF was superficially similar to their own subject matter so they felt they'd be expected to have an opinion on it. But they were also aware, that by and large, they didn't understand it. So they turned up their noses and dissed it. That didn't stop the engineering or physics students from reading it. Those profs were pretty effective in defining the "proper" view of SF as trash before the 60s.

But dramatic economic growth, followed by Vietnam, the Pill, and an era with no known venereal diseases that weren't trivially curable lead to the youth rebellion of the 60s. Drawing those links would be another long essay, but I'll just leave that stub. Suffice to say, "Question Authority" became the order of day and the supercilious English prof shrilly asserting that SF was trash wasn't blindly assumed to know what the Heck he was talking about.

The flower children already knew that it was the smart kids in high school that were always reading Analog. So, SF became cool.

That was good and bad. The market exploded and publishers were desperate to cash in on it. But there wasn't really enough talent to go around. So a lot of powdered skim milk got sold as cream. And the poor, vacuous theater major in her bell bottoms & Birkenstocks, striving to look hip and catch the eye of the bearded boy in beads sat on the bench in the park with her copy of Dangerous Visions pretending to read Science Fiction. Because The Establishment disapproved. Which made it chic.
 
Heh heh. I have it right here in my sweaty hands. Issue 67, July 1985. The article includes the word "goodly".

OMG. May this never see the light of day. Seriously!

Oops.

I just googled The Vivimancer Stephen Palmer and found a website which no longer exists and this here thread.

You get a couple more hits with "Steve Palmer", which is the name the article was published under.
 
I recently got hold of the first issue I ever read. It contained instructions to build a model cottage. I now have an entire village of 28mm houses.
 
I think this is going to be my stock answer to these type of assertions...
I think that if you could get a copy and read this book...
Even though it was written and published around 1979--it contains a lot of knowledge of what was going on in the business of SF writing and some of the ups and downs and reasons for those.

This book talks about
1926-37 as being the Age of Wonder
1938-49 as the Golden Age
1950-61 as the Age of Acceptance
1962-73 as the age of Rebellion
The meaning of those is in the text for anyone interested they will need to read the book.

However this is starting with Magazines
And the Age of Rebellion moves closer to novels as magazines begin to wane.

The point is that there is a difference between the ages that media go through so I think the OP needs to be very specific about what media he means to discuss rather than have the discussion focus on Science Fiction in general and having a majority then end up trying to discuss movies and tv.

What goes on in TV and Movies has less to do with stigma and more to do with profitability. The stigma is that the industry hates to lose money.
As for magazines the biggest time of stigma was from 1926 thru 1949.

The greater surge for novels came in the age of acceptance and beyond and I don't recall any stigma after the 70's--or nothing nearly as bad as prior to that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top