But how is one to distinguish between legitimate science fiction and
ridiculous junk? Place of original publication is no guide; some of the best have
appeared in half-cent-a-word pulp magazines, with bugeyed monsters on their covers;
some of the silliest have appeared in high-pay slicks or in the “prestige” quality
group.
“The Pretzel Men of Pthark”-that one we can skip over; the contents are
probably like the title. Almost as easy to spot is the Graustark school of space
opera. This is the one in which the dashing Nordic hero comes to the aid of the
Page 157
rightful Martian princess and kicks out the villainous usurper through superscience
and sheer grit. It is not being written very often these days, although it still
achieves book publication occasionally, sometimes with old and respectable trade
book houses. But it does not take a Ph.D. in physics to recognize it for what it is.
But do not be too quick to apply as a test to science fiction what are
merely the conventions of better known fields of literature. I once heard a
librarian say that she could not stand the unpronounceable names
given by science-fiction writers to extraterrestrials. Have a heart, friend! These
strings of consonants are honest attempts to give unearthly names to unearthly
creatures. As Shaw pointed out, the customs of our tribe are not laws of nature. You
would not expect a Martian to be named “Smith.” (Say-how about a story about a
Martian named “Smith?” Ought to make a good short. Hmmmm-)
But are there reliable criteria by which science fiction can be judged by
one who is not well acquainted with the field? In my opinion, there are. Simply the
criteria which apply to all fields of fiction, no more, no less.
First of all, an item of science fiction should be a story, i.e., its
entertainment value should be as high as that which you expect from other types of
stories. It should be entertaining to almost anyone, whether he habitually reads the
stuff or not. Second, the degree of literacy should be as high as that expected in
other fields. I will not labor this point, since we are simply applying an old rule
to a new field, but there is no more excuse here than elsewhere for split
infinitives, dangling participles, and similar untidiness, or for obscurity and
doubletalk.
The same may be said for plotting, characterization, motivation, and the
rest. If a science-fiction writer can’t write, let him go back to being a fry cook
or whatever he was doing before he gave up honest work.
I want to make separate mention of the author’s evaluations. Granted that
not all stories need be morally edifying, nevertheless I would demand of
sciencefiction writers as much exercise of moral sense as I would of other writers.
I have in mind one immensely popular series which does not hold my own interest very
well because the protagonist seems to be guided only by expediency. Neither the
writer nor his puppet seems to be aware of good and evil. For my taste this is a
defect in any story, nor is the defect mitigated by the wonderful and gaudy
trappings of science fiction. In
my opinion, such abstractions as honor, loyalty, fortitude, self-sacrifice, bravery,
honesty, and integrity will be as important in the far reaches of the Galaxy as they
are in Iowa or Korea. I believe that you are entitled to apply your own evaluating
standards to science fiction quite as rigorously as you apply them in other fiction.
The criteria outlined above take care of every aspect of science fiction but
one-the science part. But even here no new criterion is needed. Suppose you were
called on to purchase or to refuse to purchase a novel about a Mexican boy growing
up on a Mexican cattle ranch; suppose that you knew no Spanish, had never been to
Mexico and were unacquainted with its history and customs, and were unsure of the
competence of the author. What would you do?
I suspect that you would farm out the decision to someone who was competent
to judge the authenticity of the work. It might be a high school Spanish teacher, it