The unseen libraries of our dreams

The wraparound cover of the November 1963 Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, one of the covers I remember from my grandfather's collection. The art by Hannes Bok illustrated "A Rose for Ecclesiastes" by Roger Zelazny.

I am a child visiting my grandfather’s house. He’s a skinny man whose ghost-white hair grins out a large bald spot. He’d been old as long as I’d known him so old is what he remains in my memories.

Every time I visit his house he sits in an easy chair reading science fiction novels. Several novels a week, all stacked on the end table next to his chair. Each visit is a map of his progress through these books, my eyes entranced by the book’s dazzling covers of imaginary worlds, far off starscapes and alien adventures. The books change week by week but my grandfather never changes.

Many of the novels my grandfather reads are from his small library of genre books and magazines collected over a lifetime. Pulp magazines from the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s. Decaying paperbacks from the Golden Age of Science Fiction. Bestselling hardcovers from the late 1970s and early ’80s. His library exists in a tiny room of his house, a room he claimed as his own and lined with book shelves, a desk and a small sofa.

My grandfather's a craftsman and built the shelves in his library. I often sneak into the room and stare at the pulp magazine covers with their bright primary-color screams of excitement and the unknown. I pull out the magazines and books and read through them, always careful to put them back in the same spot because otherwise my grandfather would know I’d been in his library.

He probably always knew I sneak in, but he never says a word.

My grandfather also reads novels from the town’s library and browses their new book collection every week. He takes me with him once and I’m amazed. I’d never seen so many books. To my young eyes the library’s bookshelves and stacks stretch onward into forever.

Decades later, when I’m grown, I return to the town’s library and realize how small and poorly stocked it actually is. By then I’ve seen much larger libraries and book collections. But none stand as tall in my dreams as my grandfather’s hand-built library or my original visit to the town’s library.

I now live in a small house with my wife and two teenage sons. Life in a small house is intimate and close-knit because you can’t wall yourself off from everyone else with closed doors and other rooms. I’m writing these words at our dinner table. My wife eats her breakfast across the table. My oldest son carries dirty clothes by the table, struggling under his load to the washing machine in the basement.

A small house is not only intimate. It restrains. You think, “Do I really need this object in my life? Do I really need to bring home another consumer wet dream electronic device or must-have promoted item to fill imaginary holes in my life?”

Almost always the answer is no. I don’t feel the need to purchase my way to materialistic transcendence. To satisfy my life by purchasing consumer goods from the altar of capitalism.

Except for books. They are my weakness.

I have a small library in my house. Not in one room like my grandfather. Our house is too small for a room devoted only to books. Instead, on the desk upstairs there are piles of books and magazines. Beside the desk sits two cheap plywood bookshelves on which my wife and I keep many books. I also have boxes and plastic containers full of books in storage around the house. Most of my grandfather’s library rests in plastic containers in the basement. I occasionally go downstairs and open the containers and flip through these ancient magazines and paperbacks.

They are no longer in the order my grandfather kept them in his library. I regret that.

The best bookshelf in our house is downstairs, only a few feet from the dinner table where I write these words. This bookcase is solid wood, hand crafted, about five feet tall with four shelves and two glass-panel doors. My wife and I bought it before our kids were born. It’s the nicest piece of furniture in our tiny house. The bookcase is filled with science fiction and fantasy novels and related books.

Some of these books are first editions, signed by authors I’ve met at conventions and gatherings. Others are cheap paperbacks and book club editions from my youth, a few with nibbled edges where mice had their ways with them years ago. Some are irreplaceable. Others could be easily thrown away.

The books and magazines on these bookcases and stored in boxes around my small house are the dreams which sustain and fulfill my life. At one time each of these books expanded my worldview in unique ways. Each book meant the universe to me at one time or another.

Without these books I'd never have made it this far through life.

Now, though, I wonder if actual physical libraries like these are already a thing of the past. I wonder if maybe I’ve attached too much fixation on the books themselves instead of the stories they tell.

After all, the stories in these books are what first resonated with me.

What is a book after its story enters someone’s life and mind? Is the book still its story, or is it merely an empty shell now that its story lives inside another?

I continually read new novels and stories and books. Without new stories our lives stagnate and harden. Because I live in a small house and have little room for new books, most of the new books I read are virtual. These virtual stories exist everywhere and nowhere.

I carry my virtual library wherever I go. One day in the near future I likely won’t even have to carry my library. It’ll simply appear whenever I wish to disappear into a story.

Even if I can’t touch my virtual library, the best stories still enter my mind and soul. The best stories remain within me.

But what happens to physical books when we no longer need them? Will printed books become merely another consumer dream to fill the empty spaces of our lives? Will actual books become nothing more than objects of art, sitting on shelves to visually amuse people who don’t care to know the stories within them?

I used to dream about having my own personal library like my grandfather’s. I imagined reading books on a sofa surrounded by rows and rows of books I’d already read or would soon read.

But now a major part of my library will never rest on any shelf.

What do our unseen libraries mean for humanity, especially when they can be everywhere and nowhere? What does it mean when we no longer need to physically touch the libraries which create our dreams?


Note: This essay was originally published in the Czech SF/F magazine XB-1.

Let Us Now Praise “Famous” Authors

StartlingStories1953.jpg

There’s a well-known journalistic book about my home state titled Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. Written by James Agee with photographs by Walker Evans, the book chronicles the lives of poor white sharecroppers in Alabama during the Great Depression. As the book's title attests, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men essentially contrasts these sharecroppers with the so-called “famous” people society usually believes are so vital and important to life.

Often the people we think matter the most are forgotten the fastest. And those we ignore end up mattering the most.

I’ve been thinking about this truth lately and how it relates to the science fiction and fantasy genre. After all, ours is a passionate genre with a long and distinguished history. Millions of authors and readers and fans across the centuries created the fertile ground of today’s science fiction and fantasy. Even if only a few of these people are remembered, what they built lives on.

My grandfather was a big science fiction and fantasy fan, which was very unusual for someone in Alabama during the 1940s and ’50s. My first exposure to the genre was through the Golden Age pulp magazines which lined his bookshelves. Astounding Science-Fiction. The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. Galaxy. Thrilling Wonder Stories.

I still have many of his magazines, which are filled with authors both famous and unknown. As I write this the February 1953 issue of Startling Stories, with its subtitle of “Today’s Science Fiction — Tomorrow’s Fact,” sits on my desk. The magazine’s table of contents list several well-known SF authors including Isaac Asimov, Damon Knight, and Philip Jose Farmer. Alongside them are authors few people read today, including George O. Smith, whose novel Troubled Star is the issue’s cover story. The magazine also contains works by authors such as Fletcher Pratt along with fans and editors like Jerome Bixby and Samuel Mines, all of whom have been forgotten thanks to the vagaries of time.

And that's not even touching on other reasons the contributions of some genre fans and authors have been overlooked, such as issues of race and gender and class. Just as James Agee and Walker Evans focused only on white people in Let Us Now Praise Famous Men even though some of the areas they visited had far larger black populations, so too did science fiction and fantasy for many years ignore the contributions of all the people who long embraced the genre.

But no matter whether SF/F authors and editors and fans are remembered or forgotten, they left their mark on our genre. We wouldn’t be where we are today without them.

Despite this, there’s a tendency in our genre — as in all things in life — to give credit for our genre’s success to a few big names. In science fiction there’s the Big 3: Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein. In fantasy, J. R. R. Tolkien is afforded a similar place of honor.

Last year I kicked up a small controversy when I said young people are not finding their way to SF/F through classic authors like Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein and Tolkien. Which is true. New readers are discovering our genre through young adults novels and fiction by authors who weren’t even born when the Big 3 and Tolkien were alive.

And that's how it should be. Every generation discovers the authors who resonate with them. At that point they may dig into the older authors — the classics, if you will — who set the stage for their new gen love.

By pointing this out you’d think I’d blasphemed against all that’s holy is a SF/F world. People accused me of not being a true genre fan. They said I must have something against SF/F. That I hated Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein and Tolkien.

Thankfully a number of authors and fans also reacted positively to what I wrote, including Hugo Award winning author John Scalzi. As Scalzi wrote in an essay responding to my comments, "The surprise to me is not that today’s kids have their own set of favorite authors, in genre and out of it; the surprise to me is honestly that anyone else is surprised by this."

Scalzi’s point — which I agree with — is that no one should expect new genre readers, and especially young readers, to find resonance with works originally written a half century ago. Scalzi says this would be like telling teenagers who want to see a movie about people their age to only watch the 1955 film The Blackboard Jungle. Yes, Scalzi said, that’s a fine movie, just as the classic works by the Big 3 are fine literature. But to expect these works to be the first exposure young people and new readers have to our genre is silly.

Young people are discovering our genre through works which speak to their generation's issues and concerns and ideas. The diverse books they're reading resonate with them in ways the Golden Age of SF doesn't.

A few years ago I was on a SF/F convention panel about bringing new readers into our genre. I mentioned that science fiction needed more gateway novels, which are novels new genre readers find both approachable and understandable (a type of novel the fantasy genre is filled with but which are more rare in the science fiction genre).

As I stated this another author on the panel snorted and said we don't need new gateway SF novels because the juvenile novels written by Heinlein in the 1950s are still perfect. This author believed the first exposure kids have to science fiction should be novels from the 1950s. And that this should never change.

That is the attitude people should fear because, in the long run, it will kill our genre.

This brings me back to my earlier point about the “famous” people our world holds up to acclaim. Yes, many famous authors helped build our genre, but so did the work and love of countless forgotten people.

Eventually we’re all forgotten by history. But maybe we’re also never truly forgotten as long as what we created lives on.

I love Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein and Tolkien, all of whom were among the first genre authors I read. Their impact on our genre can't be ignored. With luck new readers will eventually discover these classic authors. But don't be shocked if that doesn't happen.

What matters is that as long as the science fiction and fantasy genre lives, a little bit of everyone who ever loved our genre will also live on. And that excites me more than arguing about the fate of a few famous names.

Space operas boldly go to the heart of the human soul

My father still lovingly recounts the first time he saw Star Wars back in 1977 (later retroconned as Star Wars: A New Hope). When the movie opened with the star destroyer crossing the screen in pursuit of Princess Leia’s ship, a chill ran my father's spine. He later said he knew he was seeing something totally new and exciting.

And he did, along with millions of people around the world. Never mind that Star Wars wasn't close to being original and new, having been inspired by both earlier films like Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress and the entire written genre of space operas. Which had itself been partly inspired by westerns.

But none of that mattered to filmgoers.

I was a young child when Star Wars debuted, so I don’t remember the film’s hype. But I do remember my father’s excitement after he saw it. He and my mother decided to see it again, and this time they took me.

And there began my love affair with science fiction, as I wandered away from my parents while they stood in line for the screening. I didn’t have a destination in mind but eventually I wandered into a dark theater and found an empty seat and sat down and watched Star Wars by myself.

Or, I watched the first half of Star Wars. Somewhere in the middle of the movie my parents and the theater staff found me. Now that I have children I understand how scared my parents were at my disappearance.

I don’t remember what happened after they found me. Perhaps I’m blocking the trauma of their screams and any punishment I received. But from then on I was a Star Wars fan. I played with every Star Wars toy I could find. Star Wars action figures filled my days with dreams of distant, star-filled galactic horizons. A diecast Millennium Falcon, which I flew by hand as a child across the fields near my house, has landed on my desk and begs to be played with as I write these words.

Only after seeing Star Wars did I begin reading literary science fiction and discover that the film not only wasn’t overly original, but that George Lucas had borrowed his themes and motifs from a number of genre sources. Among these was what is likely the first space opera as readers would recognize the genre, The Skylark of Space by E. E. "Doc" Smith, published in Amazing Stories in 1928.

There are a number of earlier stories which can lay claim to being space operas, such as Edgar Rice Burroughs’ highly influential Barsoom series, featuring his famous hero John Carter of Mars. But E.E. Smith introduced something different with Skylark: true interstellar travel and space ships combined with adventures on other planets. He continued this trend with his influential Lensman series of stories.

He also introduced mediocre writing and poor science, with the space engine at the center of his Skylark adventures powered by copper which is magically transformed when connected to an unknown “element X.” But if the heart of the ship’s space drive made no sense, the heart of the story resonated with readers. They ate it up.

As did other authors, who began playing in the space opera sandbox of stars, mixing romance with the clash of civilizations and interstellar drama and action. Authors such as Leigh Brackett (known as the “Queen of Space Opera”) and C. L. Moore filled the pulp magazines with these exciting stories.  As did A. E. van Vogt, who published the well-known novel The World of Null-A. Even Isaac Asimov space opera’ed away with his extremely influential Foundation series. These space operas and many more set the stage for the Golden Age of Science Fiction.

But space operas didn’t only exist as written stories. The genre has long been a multi-media spectacle, with the Flash Gordon comic strip and movie serials exposing generations of kids and adults to rocket ships and lasers. Even George Lucas was a fan. Before making Star Wars, Lucas evidently tried to adapt to the big screen the Flash Gordon comics strip and serials but couldn’t secure the rights. As recounted by Oscar-winning director Francis Ford Coppola, who went with Lucas to try purchasing the rights, Lucas was very depressed at losing out on the Flash Gordon space opera before declaring, “Well, I'll just invent my own.”

And he did.

In the 1960s and ’70s space operas fell out of fashion in the written science fiction genre, possibly as a result of the New Wave movement and other SF trends. Not that space opera vanished. Instead, the genre was merely biding its time, with novels by Poul Anderson, C. J. Cherryh, Gordon R. Dickson and others still captivating readers.

Then Star Wars showed the world how much people loved space opera, and a new group of authors like Iain M. Banks, Stephen Baxter, and many more started creating what’s called New Space Opera. From there even newer authors have run with the genre in totally unique directions, such as Ann Leckie with her Hugo and Nebula winning Ancillary Justice series and Jack Campbell with his Lost Fleet series.

It’s fitting that at the end of her life the Queen of Space Opera Leigh Brackett wrote the early script for The Empire Strikes Back. While there’s debate about how many of Brackett’s words and creations remain in that Star Wars sequel, I like to believe her spirit — and the spirit of the worlds she created through her stories — gave the film its heart and soul.

And that heart and soul is why people respond to space operas. We know the stories are melodramatic and unrealistic. We know the special effects are there to dazzle us, be they effects on the big screen or mentally created by words on a page. But that doesn’t matter. Space opera stories are fun and exciting and resonate with the deep urge inside humanity to see what exists beyond the horizon. Or in the case of space operas, beyond the next world or galaxy.

Last year my family saw Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Yes, the film is a copy of the original Star Wars: A New Hope. Yes, the story makes a pointed effort to manipulate the emotions while also dishing up big steaming helpings of nostalgia for the original film.

But I don’t care. My entire family enjoyed the movie. I’m particularly pleased that my youngest son loved it. Up to this point he'd refused to watch most of the older Star Wars films, saying the series was silly, cliched and out of date.

Yet he embraced the new film and has already seen it twice.

Each new generation finds their own space operas. That’s another thing I love about these stories.
 

Note: This essay was originally published in the Czech SF/F magazine XB-1.

What happens when the science fiction worldview goes universal?

The title of American author Thomas Wolfe’s famous posthumous novel might be You Can’t Go Home Again, but most authors do go home over and over during their lifetimes. When I visit relatives in my home state of Alabama I am always asked how my writing career is going, where my upcoming stories will be published, and what new stories I’m working on.

But while my relatives are thrilled at my literary success, the funny thing is few of them actually read my stories.

One relative even told me she can’t read science fiction stories. While she reads lots of fiction and particularly enjoys the mystery genre, science fiction doesn’t make sense to her. She can’t read SF stories because she literally doesn’t understand the world creation and themes and ideas which support the genre.

When my relative first told me this, I couldn’t believe it. After all, science fiction is everywhere in today’s world, from TV to films to video games. Even technology fashions such as smartphones and tablets and wearable tech are influenced by science fiction. How could someone not understand the underlying themes and motifs of the SF genre?

But then I read an essay by genre author and critic Shaun Duke and understood why my aunt doesn’t read SF. In this essay Shaun suggested people consider science fiction as one of the “supergenres” alongside realistic fiction and anti-realistic fiction, underneath of which would then exist the traditional genres of historical novels, crime stories, romances, fantasies, mysteries, and so on.

As Shaun said, “These supergenres would not necessarily define the genres beneath them, but they would suggest a relationship between genres that moves beyond narrative practice, but never quite leaves it behind. A fantasy novel might be as much historical as it is anti-realist; the former is a narrative practice, while the latter is a conceptual ‘game.’“

Shaun makes some fascinating points in his essay. However, I wonder if Shaun didn’t take his thought experiment far enough. Perhaps instead of even speaking of science fiction as a genre or supergenre, we should instead speak of SF and other established genres as viewpoints toward seeing the world.

After all, fiction itself is a worldview, a way of saying that certain types of stories have not truly happened and likely will never happen. The “fiction” worldview allows people to approach fictional stories with a different frame of mind than the viewpoints we have when approaching historical texts, or memoirs, or poetry, or even real life. And within the viewpoint of fiction rest more individualized views of what fiction can accomplish. These individualized viewpoints—our traditional genres like fantasy, horror, romance and so on—essential set up people to understand what they’re about to experience.

Just as the human mind must learn to interpret the sensory inputs we receive from our eyes and ears—allowing us to know that this image we’re seeing is a tree and that buzzing sound a bee—so too must people learn to understand the fictional stories they experience. Hence the existence of genres, which help people understand the fictional motifs and themes and beliefs they're about to encounter.

Now before people attack this theory of mine, let me state that I also understand there’s more to genre than merely worldview—in our current 21st century world there’s also a marketing aspect to genres which publishers and authors use to sell books, along with social communities of readers connected with each genre. However, I think this worldview theory is still a useful way to understand part of why genres exist.

And if it’s true that genre should in part be understood as a literary viewpoint, this would also help explain why my relative is unable to read science fiction. Her worldview—the way she sees the universe and her place in it—does not encompass a science fiction spin on reality. To her, SF is literally outside the realm of things she’s willing to accept as being part of existence.

The good news for the science fiction worldview is that growing numbers of people are both accepting it and seeing the world through SF eyes. We live in a time of vast technological and societal change, where humanity’s old assumptions and cultural norms are being forced to adapt to new circumstances at a dizzying speed. It’s no wonder science fiction films and TV shows and video games and manga are so popular.

But this also raises the question of what happens to the SF literary genre when the science fiction worldview becomes so ubiquitous.

Most people approach SF these days through mediums other than the written word. And while science fiction may be popular in visual mediums like films, fewer people than ever are actually reading SF literature, meaning that those who still read SF are trending older and older. This is the exact opposite of other literary genres like fantasy and horror.

At a recent convention I asked a well-known author why he thought written fantasy had eclipsed the science fiction genre in recent years. This author (whom I can’t name because it was a private conversation) said that “Unlike with the fantasy genre, science fiction is still trying to discover what it wants to say.”

But what if the problem with SF isn’t that it doesn’t know what to say to 21st century audiences, although I believe that is part of the problem. What if the worldview of science fiction, centered around technological change and futurism and humanity’s place in the universe, no longer strikes many people as being unique to the genre because this worldview has become common among a sizable portion of humanity.

In short, what if SF’s worldview is now the defacto worldview of so many people that the literary genre itself seems rather tame and boring?

I don’t know if this is true, but it’s what I’m contemplating these days as I write my stories. But if there’s any truth in this, for science fiction literature to again become relevant then how our genre views the world—and our genre’s place in our fictional understandings of life—must change.


Note: This essay was originally published as one of my monthly columns in the Czech SF/F magazine XB-1.

Authors shouldn't whine about fast rejection times

The Dark is a online magazine of horror and dark fantasy which, in the last three years, has received a number of accolades and reprints in "year's best" anthologies. Edited by Sean Wallace and Silvia Moreno-Garcia, the magazine is open to more experimental stories and new authors, which results in issues of The Dark often pushing the boundaries of both the genre and literary fiction.

The Dark is also known for fast response times on most submissions, often within 24 hours. Sean and assistant editor Jack Fisher divide up the slush pile and give each story a first read.

You'd think authors would be happy with fast response times because it means they can submit their stories somewhere else. But it turns out some authors hate a quick no. They'd rather the band-aid be pulled off bit by bit over months and years instead of a quick yank.

One reason for this is authors have been conditioned to expect long response times for short fiction, partly because many literary magazines like Tin House and Granta are notorious for letting submissions hang in limbo. This not only hurts authors but shows a lack of respect toward our work. When a literary magazine takes a year to decide on your story, don't pretend your submission spent all that time being read and analyzed. It likely received the same amount of attention as a submission rejected in only a few hours.

Before anyone screams, yes, there are exceptions. If your story is under active consideration or is a finalist for a magazine, expect longer waits. If a magazine says they take up to three months to consider stories (which many print magazines still require and I'm okay with), both expect and accept it. Part of this comes down to knowing a market before you submit. This knowledge can be easily gained through places like the Submission Grinder.

All of which makes the recent responses Sean Wallace received after a couple of prompt rejections all the more jarring.

A few days ago Sean quoted one author's response on Facebook:

“Yeah, okay. Just so you understand, there is no way I believe you have read that last one I sent you in this amount of time . . . and now, I don’t believe you read the first one, either. That’s okay. It’s not like that makes you exceptional or anything. I dream of an exceptional editor. I’ll spare you further submssions, since clearly you’re not bothering to read the ones I send.”

Followed a day or so later by a response from a different author.

"Wow, that’s quick! Thanks for giving it the due consideration it so obviously required. Luckily, these things require almost no effort to write ’em, so a curt dismissal is all the remuneration any writer needs. Oh, and maybe a hearty go f*#& yourself—or is that just too redundant?—author”

I get it. Rejection hurts. I've received a ton of rejections in my time and will keep receiving them until I die. But I would never respond like that to an editor.

First, you burned yourself with an editor who might buy one of your stories in the future. Second, you insulted an editor who respected your work enough to NOT sit on it for months even though the magazine won't ever be buying your story.

Third, the first person misspelled "submission" in their response. Which I'm sure really made that author look great in Sean's eyes.

It's not hard for submission editors to both read every submitted story and stay on top of their slush pile. As Sean has said, "If we get ten stories a day, and each slush editor takes five, spread out throughout the day, then the chances are fairly high that any given submission can be processed, rejected or moved into a maybe folder, within minutes. And the system is set up to do automatic rejections with a quick click of a button. As such, there is no inherent malice in a fast response these days. The issue, really, is that some magazines and markets have been traditionally so slow in the past that it established expectations and that is in of itself problematic."

Total agreement.

Note to authors: The editors of professional magazines work for their readers, not their writers. While it's nice when editors give specific feedback on a story, that rarely happens. If you want feedback on your writing enroll in a writing program or take part in a critique group. Don't expect it from editors.

In this day and age the way editors show respect to authors is by not wasting our time by holding submissions which won't work for their publications. That's what Sean Wallace and everyone at The Dark does and I praise them for it.