Archive for the ‘Books’ Category

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich

Way back when — specifically in 1996 — the world was different in several ways. I was writing a regular column for Andy Porter’s great old newsmagazine SF Chronicle and my great but definitely never old wife, Betty Anne Hull , had allowed herself to be nominated to represent our 8th Illinois district of Congress by the Democratic Party. Unfortunately both enterprises came to naught. When the votes were in, Betty Anne had lost the election to the long-entrenched Republican incumbent, and the person who legally owned Andy’s magazine (never mind how that happened. Long story) had pulled the plug. An article I had written for its next issue on Newt Gingrich thus never appeared.

In more recent times, it occurred once more to me (having forgotten all about that earlier piece) to write about Newt, so I did. But then Andy, somewhat sharply, asked if I had forgotten about the first piece. Which, of course, I had, my memory having once been described as the envy of all the other sieves. So he sent me a copy of the piece and when I read it ,it seemed interesting enough to share with you. But do, please, remember that it is a 1996 piece and all the things that I speak of in it as current matters are very much not any more.

(Incidentally. Andy has retained copies of all my SF Chronicle pieces and thinks it would be a good idea for one of you editor guys to bring them out as a book, maybe an ebook. I agree with him.)

War with the Newts
For SF Chronicle, 1996.

I hope Karel Capek wouldn’t mind my borrowing the title of his old SF novel, although since he’s no longer around we’ll never know. Capek’s book was actually a pretty good read, being about these evil, slimy creatures that did their best to ruin the human race.

And for some reason it keeps coming up in my mind these days.

Well, that’s disingenuous of me. I know the reason perfectly well. Perhaps you do, too: it’s because my wife, Betty Hull, is running for Congress here in Illinois. If she happens to beat the odds and get elected she will spend her term in the House doing her very best to thwart the designs of our current Head Newt, a.k.a. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

Of course, since their districts are about a thousand miles apart, her technical opponent won’t be Newt Gingrich. The adversary on the scene is a massively funded and well entrenched incumbent named Phil Crane — best known in some circles for the hissy fit he threw when some reporter said he had favored the use of nuclear weapons in the Gulf. Crane wasn’t going to sit still for a libel like that. With great indignation he protested that he hadn’t said a word about nuclear weapons, all he had suggested was the use of neutron bombs.

Isn’t it a pity that so many Congressmen know so little of what they’re talking about? They used to have an institution called the Office of Technology Assessment available to help them keep from looking stupid. Happens I know a little bit about the OTA because once or twice they invited me down to Washington to help figure out what to do about things like electronic copyright. The OTA worked hard to try to distinguish facts from airy hopes and delusions. They were pretty good at it, too, but they don’t do it any more. Apparently Congress didn’t want to hear anything that conflicted with what they wanted to believe, so — as an “economy” measure — they shut the OTA down.

Anyway, it isn’t really Phil Crane that Betty’s running against. It’s Newt and all his ilk, and, like the fellow says, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we set forth the reasons which impell us to this.

A lot of people like Newt Gingrich. Actually, in my one personal encounter with him, a couple of hours, five or six years ago, I found him to be an affable guy who — a big plus for us SF fan — actually has read a lot of science fiction, even attends a con now and then (that’s where I met him, in fact) and doesn’t mind admitting his SF interest in public. (He even says that Asimov’s Foundation books were one of the most seminal influences on his life. God knows what Isaac would have thought of that.) He even went so far as to write, or at least to collaborate on, an SF novel, 1945, an alternate-history job that I’m told isn’t bad at all. (I haven’t got around to reading my copy yet.) Gingrich is a buddy of people like our own homies, Jerry Pournelle and Jim Baen, some of whom arranged for him to give the keynote speech at the Nebula awards banquet a while ago. He writes for the World Future Society‘s magazine, The Futurist; he goes to futurists like Alvin and Heidi Toffler (you know, the Future Shock guys) for advice and suggestions, and he is a perfect marvel at generating one-liners for the TV news sound bites. What’s more he has declared himself in favor of science in general and the space program in particular; as a Congressional freshman the first legislation he introduced (unfortunately never passed) was a bill to set up procedures for governing colonies on the Moon. He has gone on record as predicting that by 2020 newlyweds will honeymoon in space; that, too, may be a little premature, but, hey, it’s a nice idea.

All that sounds really nice, this year. But you have to wonder where he’s going to be next year, because the man does switch sides so.

Consider, for instance, Newt on the environment. From 1984 to 1990 Newt was a member of the Sierra Club. In its March–April issue this year the club’s magazine, Sierra, took a look at Newt’s record with the organization. On paper at least, he was a dedicated conservationist if ever there was one. He took all the right positions. Drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge? Certainly not, Newt said; that would be only a “188-day quick fix” for America’s energy needs, which would be better served by “fuel efficiency and conservation measures.” Giving away the national forests? “Subsidized logging operations, as well as subsidized forest roadbuilding, should cease.” Protecting the wetlands? “The ecological significance of fresh- water wetlands … cannot be overemphasized. It is vital that our wetlands be protected.” He also favored strong controls on toxic emissions and just about everything else the Sierra Club stood for, and he said it all so convincingly that the club endorsed him in several elections.

That was the Newt that was. The Newt that is is a quite different person. As Speaker, he picks the chairs of, among others, committees dealing with the environment; the people he picked were Don Young (R, AK) and Thomas Bliley (R, VA). These gentlemen are not conservationists; in fact, they were so stalwart against every conservationist measure that in 1994 the League of Conservation Voters rated them both, on a scale of 0 to 100, a flat zero. Newt’s “Contract with America” promises radical revision of Clean Air Act standards for measuring toxic emissions. (Which is politician-speak for cutting the heart out of anti-pollution measures.) And, insiders say, under this former Sierra Club crusader applicants for House staff positions are now asked if they are members of the Club, and it is marked against them if they are.

Well, if you’ve happened to come across the book I wrote with Isaac Asimov, Our Angry Earth, you know I don’t have much time for “futurists” who kiss off the future environment for the sake of somebody making a few extra bucks today. There are other reasons why I don’t like what Newt and his stalwarts are doing, but let’s just let it stand with that one big one.

Is that what we all really want?

Newt claims it is, claims a “mandate” from the people. When you look a little more closely at that mandate it turns out not to be really overwhelming; by and large, just about 22 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots for Newt’s Republicans in 1984. Even fewer of the votes — only about 18 percen t — went to Democrats, so they got their “landslide.”

But the arithmetic shows that 60 percent of the eligibles, an overwhelming majority, cast a Kafka ballot — “none of the above” — by not voting in that Congressional election at all.

Considering what Congress is like it’s easy to understand the voters’ distaste for the whole ugly mess. But the effect of voting with the feet is that the doctrinaires and the obsessed are the ones who are going to come out and vote anyway, no matter what. So they are the ones who elect the people who govern us; and so we get the government we deserve.

What can we do about it?

Well, what I would really like you to do is to move to the 8th Congressional District of Illinois and vote for my wife. If that’s too much trouble, I’d appreciate it if you’d vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, to make Newt and his loopy band of brothers history. But no matter what, for God’s sake, vote.

 
Related posts:

Harlan Ellison, 1969.

Harlan Ellison, 1969.

Harlan Ellison did not appear from nowhere. When he first began to show up in the sf magazines he had already been writing from an early age — had even had his work appear in as prestigious a magazine as The New Yorker, but had never really found his voice until the beginning of that period in the early ’60’s. That’s when he began to write the astonishing series of pyrotechnical masterpieces sometimes referred to as the “Repent, Harlequinstories.

More than for most writers, Harlan’s stories and his life seemed both almost part of the same work of art. His home was in the hills overlooking Los Angeles — well, not exactly, in a technical sense, really overlooking it. To overlook the city from Harlan’s front door you would have had to be able to see through some miles of solid rock, because he lived on the far side of the hills.

The house was worth the trip. The name on the door was “Ellison Wonderland.” His writing office would not have shamed a banker, though it centered on nothing more spectacular than a typewriter, and one that was neither computer-based nor even electrified, but powered only by the muscles of Harlan’s ten fingers. His office’s central sound system, he boasted, could deliver any music a visitor requested at the press of a button; and the whole place, like any proper wonderland, had a secret chamber.

And there, in those years of the 1960s, he wrote stories like “‘Repent, Harlequin,&rsqu; Said the Tick-Tock Man,” “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream,” “The Beast That Shouted Love at the Heart of the World,” “A Boy and His Dog,” “Pretty Maggie Moneyeyes” and “Shattered Like a Glass Goblin,” racking up a considerable collection of Hugos and Nebulas in the process. (One writer said, “They ought to give him a Hugo every time he writes a story, just for the titles.”)

I was Harlan’s editor for the first publication of some of the best of those stories, and I have to say that it was not an easy job. We were in a state of war for five or six years on end. There was the Battle of the Douchebag, when Harlan fought tenaciously for his right to have one character in a story call another by that epithet. In a large sense, he was sort of in the right; for generally speaking a writer should be entitled to have his story presented as he conceived it. But I was aware that a significant fraction of our magazine’s readers were fairly young boys, of an age where parents, not themselves readers, might pick up a magazine to see what Tom Junior was reading and be shocked to see that word becoming part of their son’s vocabulary. (Remember we’re talking about a time half a century ago.)

Or the Battle of the 4-Color Border, in which Harlan, having seen some colorful graph strips in, I think, Scientific American, wanted similar strips to frame his next story, and didn’t want to accept the judgment that he couldn’t have them unless we took the printing of the text of the magazine off the cheap black and white press they had always been printed on and substituted a budget-busting color press. And additional skirmishes beyond count.

There was no doubt that Harlan was a major sf writer. The only jarring note was that Harlan was dissatisfied with the possession of that pigeonhole, and so his production of sf stories dwindled as he went on to the exploration of other pastures.

The pasture that was most financially rewarding, I think, was a career as professional lecturer. In return for taking a plane to some college town and talking for an hour or two to a couple of thousand college undergraduates he would receive a check that was usually larger than what a short story brought in, and was a lot less trouble. Moreover, he soon hit upon a way of making it more profitable still. He brought along remaindered copies of his backlist books, and when the talk was over sold them, autographed, to members of the audience.

Audiences loved him. At least, most of the members of his audiences did, though for a few people it was not all that pleasurable. Those were people who were the subject of some of his reminiscences. If I had had any doubt this was true — I never did — I would have learned better on one occasion, in New York one evening just before that year’s annual Nebula Awards dinner.

Harlan had come to New York to speak at the dinner, and his publisher’s publicity people had taken advantage of the opportunity to put him on some radio and TV spots to promote Harlan’s latest book, the anthology, Again, Dangerous Visions. One of the programs was Long John Nebel’s all-night talk show, on which I was a regular. John had had some troublesome experiences with West Coast writers not long before, including Terry Southern, the man who wrote all the funny parts in the film Dr. Strangelove, but on six hours of John’s show rarely responded to a question with more than a “Yes,” “No” or “I don’t know, but maybe.”

So John called me up before booking Harlan with a worrisome question, “Can he talk?”

I assured him that the one problem no one had ever had with Harlan was getting him to talk, but John, wanting insurance, asked me to join the show anyhow.

I’ve made many mistakes in my life. That day I made a big one. I said, “Yes.”

When we assembled in the studio and John began to talk he spent a good twenty minutes praising the anthology, though of course he hadn’t read any part of it. Then he turned the mikes over to Harlan, who spent another twenty minutes modestly praising the talents of all the authors in the book, Then John said, “What about you, Fred? What did you think of Again Dangerous Visions?”

That sort of question is not meant to be answered candidly on that sort of program, but I could not make myself join in the previous hymn of worship. What came out of my mouth was something like,, “Well, it’s interesting that Walter Bradbury, the book’s editor at Doubleday, describes it as ‘stories that have been rejected by every editor in the science-fiction field.’ All the same, I think there are some stories there that are really good.”

John, who had been about to lean back in his chair, gave me a quick look and then one at Harlan, whose mouth was already opening for rebuttal. John rapidly returned to the upright position and addressed me. “And why don’t you tell us about some of the stories that impressed you, Fred?” And bloodshed was postponed.

A consideration I had overlooked, however, was that Harlan was to be the keynote speaker at the next evening’s banquet. And I would be sitting at a head table, right under the speaker’s place, in full view of the audience for all of the three-quarters of an hour that Harlan spoke.

It was a memorable evening. There are, however, some memorable evenings that I really would prefer to forget. What’s more, I can prove that some of his assertions were false, as I have, for instance, a copy of my parents’ marriage certificate and the record of my own birth nearly two years later.

Part 2 of Review of the Campbell-Swisher Letters

John W. Campbell in 1957 (from efanzines.com)

John W. Campbell in 1957 (from efanzines.com)

Fantasy Commentator
Sam Moskowitz and A. Langley Searles Memorial Issue, Special Double Issue, Nos. 59 & 60.

 
On October 5, 1937, John W. Campbell’s world changed. The powers at Street & Smith, on F. Orlin Tremaine’s advice, appointed him to replace Tremaine as editor of Astounding Stories. That must have been a shock to Campbell, who’d been worriedly wondering who would get the job, as well as a solution to the worst of his money worries.

I had guessed elsewhere the his weekly paycheck was probably $35, but I was wrong. Actually it was $30. Yet that was a sum the young Campbells had only dreamed of having — was enough, indeed, to permit him to buy a Ford (presumably on the installment plan), and thus to manage, among other things, that long desired trip back to New England to visit old friends. But that didn’t happen right away. Getting used to his new job kept him jumping

He would have liked to start afresh, with a lineup of stories that he had chosen in the first place, and edited to make them more like the stories he himself wrote, in the second. He didn’t have that luxury. Tremaine had bought a number of stories, which now sat in the magazine’s inventory and had to be published. This appeared to have filled the magazine through its January 1938 issue; Campbell’s first editorial, in the December 1937 number said February would be a “mutant” issue. It didn’t say what part of the magazine would get mutated. It turned out to be the stories.

The magazine did not show the effect of a new hand at the tiller very quickly. That wasn’t John’s fault. No magazine can show the full effects of a new editorial policy overnight. Not only are there the inventory of stories bought under the old policies to work off, but it takes a while to let the contributors know what the new policies are.

What John did with the submissions that kept coming in was first to give each one a fair reading (sometimes this may not be much more than the first page; you can tell), and then divide them into two parts. The ones he didn’t have any interest in got a printed rejection slip. The ones that had something good about them got a typed note from John saying what he liked about the story and what about the story kept him from buying it. Those went back, too. But sometimes they came back again revised to the Campbell prescription and then got bought, and more frequently the next stories Campbell got from that writer were closer to his wishes. (How do I know so much about John’s reading habits? Because he described them to me, and they were so eminently sensible that, when I became a pro editor myself, I adopted them as my own.)

 
There are two points in the letters where John talks about dealings with me. Both of them are wrong. In the first one, he says I bragged to him that my Astonishing Stories sold more copies than his Astounding. That’s incorrect, though. I didn’t know about the difference in sales figures or I certainly would have bragged about it all over town.

The other is in the discussion about putting a non-Jewish pen name on the stories by Milt Rothman that I sold him as Milt’s agent. In the letters, John says he thought it better not to tell me about his reasoning because it might cause misunderstandings. But he did tell me. That led to my advising Milt to do what he said, in fact. On that one, I do have a theory to explain it. I think when he wrote the letter he hadn’t told me his reasoning, but then changed his mind and on a later occasion did tell me.

Well, this got longer and more detailed than a review should. I apologize for that, and in general for taking so long, when all I really wanted to say was if (1) you want to be an editor, or (2) if you’re interested in Campbell as a person, or (3) if you just like a good read on a science-fiction subject — why, then, this is a book for you.

 
Related posts:

Fantasy Commentator 59-60

Fantasy Commentator
Sam Moskowitz and A. Langley Searles Memorial Issue, Special Double Issue, Nos. 59 & 60.
 

When John W. Campbell, Jr., washed out of MIT by failing to pass their German course, he didn’t stay in Massachusetts. Instead, he returned to his mother’s home in Orange, New Jersey. He had left some close friendships behind, though, and one of the first things he did after relocating was to write a letter to his Massachusetts friend Robert D. Swisher, a pharmaceutical chemist working for the Monsanto Corporation.

That was the first letter of many, and they were all carefully preserved, misspellings, factual errors and all, by Swisher, and then by his widow. Now they are published, under the guise of an article in the late A. Langley Searles’ fanzine Fantasy Commentator, published as a memorial tribute by Searles’ widow, Alice Becker, M.D. The issue contains nothing but the letters. Its length — 156 large pages — is within accepted book publishing standards. So let’s call it a book, the two of us, all right?

This book, then, contains all the letters John wrote to Swisher over a period of more than twenty years, from John’s early attempts at writing science-fiction stories of his own through his triumphal masterminding of the world’s best science-fiction magazine and his intoxication with L. Ron Hubbard’s invention of Dianetics, followed by his final rejection of that cause — though not of the validity of many of its principles which, called by one name or another, he apparently subscribed to until his death.

As a document bearing on these matters, this is not merely a good, readable book. It is an invaluable one, and the credit for the clarity and completeness that make it such a pleasure to read belongs in no small part to its editor, the late Sam Moskowitz. The source material Sam had to work with was a clutch of actual letters, many of them handwritten and some not easy to decipher, and a considerable fraction of them comprising little more than technical descriptions of the cameras, lenses and films for which the two correspondents shared an affection. All of that photography material Moskowitz skillfully redacted away. What remains is the next best thing to a detailed personal diary of the life of a stand-out major figure in the field of science fiction.

Continue reading ‘The Campbell Letters’ »

Sense of Wonder
A Century of Science Fiction
Leigh Ronald Grossman, Editor

What is wonderful about this book is that it contains scores and scores of the very best science-fiction stories ever written, as well as other scores of worthwhile poems and essays. What is barely legible about it is the size of the typeface in which all these goods are set — approximately around a 5 point font, or roughly the size of the type in which pharmaceutical manufacturers set the listings of possible side effects from their wares that they don’t want you to read. The book is definitely not summer hammock reading. You might not break the hammock, but don’t drop it on your foot. Seriously, don’t drop it on your foot.

The usual thing one would do to give you an idea of its thoroughgoing coverage of what is essentially the pick of the best sf stories ever is to give examples. That doesn’t work here. I tried to check it out by thinking of a story I had admired and then looking to see if it was in the book, More often than not the stories were, and when I read through the list of stories to see how many there were that I would have preferred to omit, there were few.

And there is a way of overcoming the book’s typographical defects. That is to forget the paper-and-print book, and — if there is one — seek out the ebook edition.. And if there isn’t one as yet, just be patient. Sooner or later the publisher will come to his senses and bring one out, for this is a work that cries out for Kindle.

Because if you do, we have a whole bunch of famous ebooks for you now out from Baen—

Like Homegoing, Black Star Rising, Jem, Starburst, Narabedla, Ltd. and more than a dozen others in various formats, just out. Available here.