Notes, Reports, and Correspondence
Our Review Policy. It is the intention of Science-Fiction Studies to
review, or at least report on, all new critical, historical, bibliographical,
and biographical works concerned with SF or SF writers, as well as new editions
of older fictions such as the Hyperion reprints reported on in our last issue or
the Avon reprints discussed in one of the following notes. We will not attempt
to review the general run of new SF or even attempt to make a selection of the
best of such books for review. But this is not an ironclad policy of exclusion:
if any of our present or potential contributors is moved by some new SF novel,
collection, or anthology to say something which he or she believes would
interest our readers, we would certainly be pleased to consider it for
publication. Finally, SFS is a journal of literary scholarship rather than of
pedagogics, so that we are not automatically interested in anthologies intended
for the classroom or in books or booklets on how SF may best be taught in this
situation or that. While I would certainly recommend Beverly Friend's Science
Fiction: The Classroom in Orbit ($3.75 from Educational Impact, Box 548,
Glassboro, NJ 08028) to any teacher wondering what to do with an SF course, its
suitability as text or guide would be better discussed in College English
or The English Journal than in SFS. But again this is not an ironclad
policy of exclusion: a review of such a book that moved from pedagogics to the
nature of SF might well find a place in our pages. —RDM.
A Response to Dr. Lem (see p. 55 above). I'm sorry that Stanislaw Lem
misread my letter in SFS #3, I'm often accused of being cryptic, but in this
case I don't see how I could have said more plainly what I meant. I said,
"...it doesn't take much critical intelligence to notice that a lot of
Farmer's work is crude, etc. What would be really interesting, and much more
difficult, would be to try to find out why these crude efforts are so
popular." I neither said nor meant that whatever is popular is good (I am a little wounded that Lem, whom I respect, should have believed this of
me). But it is equally simplistic to dismiss the problem by saying that popular
works are popular works because they are bad. In this field alone, thousands of
bad works are published every year, and most of them sink into instant oblivion.
What is it about certain bad works that makes them immensely popular? The answer
which I suggested in the case of van Vogt is that his early works contain a
powerful dreamlike element—some of them, in fact, are nothing but dreams
embedded in superficial pseudo-stories. In the case of Farmer (who is not always
crude), I think there are equally powerful archetypal elements. I don't propose
any general solution. I haven't read the Perry Rhodan novels (and since I
understand there are about 300, am not about to), but I think their
international success requires some explanation. I would find that more
interesting than a disquisition on the Aristotelean ideas in Cyrano. —Damon
Knight.
The "English Jules Verne." I believe that the answer to Alex
Eisenstein's query in SFS #4, p. 305 ("I hope that somewhere I may find who
it was that first christened Wells the 'English Jules Verne'") is
disappointingly banal. Wells was compared to Verne, as to Poe, Jeffries, Samuel
Butler, and Bulwer Lytton, by reviewers of The Time Machine, but the
epithet itself appears to be the invention of Arthur H. Lawrence, an English
journalist who interviewed Wells in the Young Man magazine (11[Aug
1897]:253-54). The earliest American reference I know is to the "Jules
Verne of England" (US Bookman 6[Sept 1897]:69). But perhaps another
reader can come up with something prior to these? —Patrick Parrinder.
The Early Science Journalism of H.G. Wells (see SFS 1:98-114): Addenda. Subsequent
research has turned up 5 "new" Wells items which to our knowledge are
previously unrecorded (though all are signed except for the transcript of a
lecture by Wells). These belong by and large under the rubric "Education
and Popularization" and provide additional confirmation for our remarks
under that heading in SFS #2. Together with the other essays and reviews on this
subject, they are resource material for possible articles on the connection
between Wells's pedagogical concerns and his SF (and/or his later polemical
writings). Three of the 5 pieces are in the Educational Times (ET). (An
erratum detected in our article occurs in item #9, where Sept 3 should be Sept
30.)
#9A. The Teaching of Geography. ET 46(Oct 1 1893):435-36. [Signed]. Ranged in
ascending order of complexity, the pedagogical approaches to geography proceed
from "where is A?" through "what kind of place is A?" to
"why is A what it is?" They proceed, that is, towards a
"descriptive"—"inductive" or scientific—view of the
subject. Ideally, with a proper sequence of studies (see ## 51 and 55A), the
study of geography can become "something altogether wider, a great and
orderly body of knowledge centering about man in his relations to space."
(See also #31A).
#11A. The Making of Mountain Chains. Knowledge 16(Nov 1 1893):204-06.
[Signed]. An account of various contemporary hypotheses—which Wells
illustrates with homely examples—about how mountains are formed, concluding
with his own synthesis of these ideas.
#31A. Geology in Relation to Geography. ET 47(July 1 1894):288-89. [Signed].
Using England as an example, Wells points out that "all the chief facts in
the geography of a country may be obtained in a quasi-inductive fashion from its
geological structure." Thus "a few elementary geological
considerations...bind together what are otherwise disconnected facts in a
singularly powerful manner." (The argument here anticipates Wells's
position in #51; see also #9A.)
#55A. Science Teaching—an Ideal and Some Realities. ET 48(Jan 1 1895):23-29.
[Identified in ET as a transcript of Wells's lecture before the Royal College of
Preceptors, Dec 12, 1894]. The fullest expression of notions Wells brings up in
## 9A, 36, and 51. Ideally, education should be primarily and fundamentally
scientific: there should be an overall sequence of studies, emphasizing the
interrelatedness of various disciplines. Structurally also, within any given
area of study, "generalizations" should be arrived at
"inductively" on the basis of "object lessons and physical
measurements" which enable the student to "see certain visible facts
as connected with certain other visible facts." In practice, on the other
hand, school curricula are unorganized and chaotic. Rather than providing
"an ample background of inductive study"—the prerequisite for
"exact thinking" and consequently for exactness of expression—schools
instead offer a bewildering array of courses in which facts—purveyed as dogma—are
presented in isolation from one another and without regard to any experiential
or experimental basis.
#88A. J.F.N. Academy 56(May 6 1899):502-04. [Signed]. A tribute to the
philosopher J.F. Nisbet and his "quest—that perpetual quest!—of the
unassailable truths of being." "It has a touch of the heroic"
that Nisbet, "feeling, as he certainly did, a strong attraction towards
certain aspects of devotion...would defile himself with no helpful self-deceptions...but
remained, as he was meant to remain, outside, amid his riddles." (Compare
the conclusions of #88, where Wells defines his own, similar position in regard
to the "imperative to believe"). —David Y. Hughes and Robert M.
Philmus.
Conferences. An SF Conference will be held April 11-13 at the University
of Colorado at Denver, co-sponsored by the University and the SFRA. The featured
speakers will be Ursula K. Le Guin, Edward Bryant, Robert Silverberg, and Thomas
D. Clareson. Further information may be obtained from Bureau of Conferences,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302. The 1975 SFRA Conference will
be at Florida International University, Miami, Fla 33144. Queries on papers,
panels, etc. may be addressed either to Martin H. Greensberg, Dept. of
International Relations, or to Joseph D. Olander, Associate Dean, College of
Arts and Sciences.
Back to Home