The Golden Age of SF (editorial)
Troy-...@psu.edu
Reproduced from Science Fiction Age, Sept 1997
THE GOLDEN AGE OF SCIENCE FICTION, it is said, is not 1943, or even 1929
- it is instead TWELVE. At that age, we are not yet jaded, and our
senses of wonder seem to resonate with everything we do. Each experience
is new and fresh, and still capable of staggering us. It is the age when
SF can first stake its claim on our imaginations, when we are still
unashamed of awe, and still willing to let drop our pretensions of cool
to gasp "Wow!" at the universe.
Sometimes a bit of science fiction comes along that can act as a time
machine, and take me back to that tender Golden Age of Twelve. It
doesn't happen as often these days. I am older, have read widely, and
can see the plot curveballs coming. It is difficult to make me feel that
sense of wonder that is at the heart of SF when I have already seen so
many marvels. In the eternal game of "Can you top this?" most creators
don't have what it takes to deliver. But still, sometimes, surprisingly,
I am stunned by the shock of the new.
Often it's a bit of prose... but we shouldn't forget that there's a lone
television show that has been delivering the power of the best written SF
- BABYLON 5. ... J. Michael Straczynski has fought the good fight to
make BABYLON 5 not just great television but great SF as well. The
emotions that run through me with each new episode of BABYLON 5 are
similar to those that ran through me when I discovered the founding
masters of SF. What E.E. "Doc" Smith gave us with his Skylark series and
Lensman series, what Olaf Stapledon gave us with his LAST AND FIRST MEN,
what Robert Heinlein gave us with his early novels that turned so many of
us to SF in the first place - that's exactly what J. Michael Straczynski
has managed to give us with BABYLON 5. ... copyright Scott Edelman
For more information on Babylon 5, pick up the latest issue of
Science Fiction Age magazine. Only $3.95.
________
| _____] 2258: "Signs and Portents"
| | ___ 2259: "The Coming of Shadows"
|__|[_ \ 2260: "Point of No Return"
B A _B Y\ L\ O N 2261: "No Surrender, No Retreat"
( \__/ | 2262: "Empire Builders"
\______/
A TV NOVEL (TNT: January 4)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Gary Farber
In <5tva36$8...@agate.berkeley.edu> Dorothy J Heydt
<djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote:
: In article <5tv14q$i...@panix2.panix.com>,
: Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
: >In <8726029...@dejanews.com> Troy-...@psu.edu wrote:
: >: Reproduced from Science Fiction Age, Sept 1997
: >
: >: THE GOLDEN AGE OF SCIENCE FICTION, it is said, is not 1943, or even 1929
: >: - it is instead TWELVE.
: >It would be nice if this statement was properly credited to Peter Graham,
: >as it should be.
: The way I heard it, it was thirteen, not twelve,
Nope, twelve. :-)
: and it was
: attributed to C. M. Kornbluth.
Sure you're not thinking of "Thirteen O'Clock?" :-)
(In the Vast Sea of Misattributions of this phrase, Kornbluth is a new one
to me; but I'm not surprised -- as I said, this is the most misattributed
phrase in sf; second up is Dena (Brown) Benatan's "Let's get sf out of the
classroom and back in the gutter where it belongs.")
: (Who's Peter Graham?)
An sf fan quite active in the Fifties and early-mid-Sixties. One of the
Berkley Bhoys. Best remembered for co-editing VOID, the fanzine
originally founded by twin brothers Greg and Jim Benford when they were
young teens in Germany; Jim dropped off at issue 14; Pete and Terry Carr
became co-editors; Ted White was added a couple of issues later, and it
was one of the leading zines from around 1959 until the Boondogle period
(1964).
Pete's probably otherwise best remembered for his many mentions in Terry
Carr's other fanzines (many of which are collected in the couple of books
of Terry's collected fan-writing, which I highly recommend), though he was
a generally active fanzine fan and Berkley fan in the early Sixties. Long
gafia (gone from fandom), so far as I know, and I haven't heard news of
him in many years; I've never had personal contact with him, myself.
Gary "but a fan in need is still a fan indeed, and we're still working on
that Tower of Bheercans To The Moon" Farber
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1997 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Gary Farber
In rec.arts.sf.written <5u1a62$6...@knot.queensu.ca>
De Castellvi Jaime M <3c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
: Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) wrote:
: : In <8726029...@dejanews.com> Troy-...@psu.edu wrote:
: : : Reproduced from Science Fiction Age, Sept 1997
: :
: : : THE GOLDEN AGE OF SCIENCE FICTION, it is said, is not 1943, or even 1929
: : : - it is instead TWELVE.
: :
: : It would be nice if this statement was properly credited to Peter Graham,
: : as it should be.
: Um, Gary... don't you mean *properly* credited, as it should be to David
: G. Hartwell?
Of course not. If you think David first said it, you're entirely wrong;
sorry.
Pete Graham wrote it circa 1957, in VOID, the fanzine he co-edited with
Greg Benford and Terry Carr (Ted White didn't become a co-editor until a
couple of years later; co-founding editor Jim Benford had dropped off the
team at issue 14)). Actually, Pete said it a lot at Berkeley parties, and
at cons, for a few years before that, but the written cites here are more
easily available.
David is perfectly aware of this, of course, and has never claimed
origination of Pete's classic formulation, which was commonplace in the sf
field before David wrote his first book review (around 1963 in Paul
Williams' WITHIN, I think, not counting school work).
As, at this point, this is probably Pete's main claim to fame in the
field, it would be *awfully* nice if people would quit misattributing his
lovely phrase to other people (Terry Carr gets the mis-credit a lot).
Gary Farber
In rec.arts.sf.written <5u1a62$6...@knot.queensu.ca>
De Castellvi Jaime M <3c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
: Um, Gary... don't you mean *properly* credited, as it should be to David
: G. Hartwell?
Come to think of it, if you don't mind my asking, in the interest of
back-tracking the derivation of erroneous information, may I ask where you
got this incorrect idea from, please? Thanks muchly.
David Goldfarb
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
)De Castellvi Jaime M <3c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
): Um, Gary... don't you mean *properly* credited, as it should be to David
): G. Hartwell?
)
)Come to think of it, if you don't mind my asking, in the interest of
)back-tracking the derivation of erroneous information, may I ask where you
)got this incorrect idea from, please? Thanks muchly.
David Hartwell makes the statement in the book _Age of Wonders_,
and does not credit it to anyone else. I had thought that it originated
with him myself.
David Goldfarb <*>|"I came to Casablanca for the waters."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "The waters? What waters? We're in the desert."
aste...@slip.net |"I was misinformed."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |
De Castellvi Jaime M
Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) wrote:
: Come to think of it, if you don't mind my asking, in the interest of
: back-tracking the derivation of erroneous information, may I ask where you
: got this incorrect idea from, please?
Confirmation: The derivation of erroneus information was implemented by a
faulty memory access on the part of the current operator of this body. I
went back to the essay printed in _Visions of Wonder_ (I had to find
*that* first) which, as you no doubt know, is the opening chapter of the
book both you and Dave refer to and I found, right there at the top, the
quotation by Peter Graham in beautiful (if somewhat tiny) italics.
So I stand corrected. Unfortunately, I've read the article only once yet
-between callouts- and the quotation did not stay in my mind (I'm sure it
stayed *somewhere* in my memory, but it seems it played hide-and-seek with
my conscious recall when I made my post, which then led to posting an
invaluable treasure of oral anecdote).
: Thanks muchly.
Least I could do for Queen and country.
Now, while I gotcha as my more or less captive audience, here is one which
I had meant to ask in rasw, but maybe you could draw upon your accreted
expertise to point an upstart youngster in the right direction...
As I understand it (but I may be in error), _Visions of Wonder_ is the 3rd
SFRA or SFRA endorsed anthology of its kind (the second being _Science
Fiction_, ed by Patrick S. Warrick, Charles G. Waugh and Martin H.
Greenberg -1988-, which I've also got). If so, any idea of what the first
anthology was called, its editors and particulars and -more importantly-
where may I find it?
Not only do I appreciate your assistance in this, but one side benefit as
I continue to expand my still limited fannish horizons is that I'll be
less likely to come up with mistaken attributions in need of backtracking
in the future ;)
Cheers,
Jaime
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/ Jaime M. de Castellvi ^ No lesson is truly learned which is \
/ 3c...@qlink.queensu.ca ^ not truly suffered... Flag a spammie \
/ http://qlink.queensu.ca/~3cjmd ^ for mommy, today! \
/\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^///////////////////////////////////////\
/ J. Potts, on reconciling loving animals and being a carnivore: \
/ "I reconcile it quite easily. You can be compassionate to an animal \
/ and still eat it..." (24 Aug 97) \
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Troy-...@psu.edu
Reproduced from Science Fiction Age, Sept 1997
THE GOLDEN AGE OF SCIENCE FICTION, it is said, is not 1943, or even 1929
Gary Farber
In rec.arts.sf.written <5u3r8v$m...@knot.queensu.ca>
: But there is absolutely no need for you to be sorry because I am "entirely
: wrong" Gary.
I feared that the pain of error might have been too much for you, and I
wouldn't want to feel too guilty should you commit seppukku, or if even
the simple agony overcame you.
: It is quite likely that if I was in error and nobody else
: corrected me, it might have been because they didn't know better either
: -which would seem to indicate that the mistake is widespread or, even
: worse, that apathy is. This has afforded you an opportunity to correct it
: and to instruct the masses ("fatche le moose", as we say up here in the
: land of frozen milk and honey).
Posting erroneous information is, after all, the best way to get a
response on Usenet. With luck, several contradictory responses.
: Besides, from a more self-regarding point of view, I couldn't lose either
: way. This way, a young hot-shot full of piss and vinegar like myself got
: to pick the brains of an old-timer much more advanced in age and fannish
: experience than I am and, by Ghu, I am better fhan for it! In
: quantitative terms alone, look at my ROR for that one-liner: 2 direct
: follow-ups and 3 emails from you.
I'm a mean sumbitch when I see a blatant assertion of an error on my home
turf.
But I'm only 38; I'm a premature old fart because I started collecting sf
at age 5, more or less, and started collecting fanzines at around age 11,
and got *really* *involved* in sf, both professionally and as a fan, over
the rest of my life. It's always been clear to me that the history of sf
and of fandom are inextricably bound together.
: Either way, is good for Zathras.
Just so you use the right tool; we wouldn't want a malfunction. But if
something is good for Zathras, is it necessarily always also good for
Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras,
and the others? Inquiring minds.
[. . .]
: Well, my mamma always used to say that some days I would actually learn
: something new before I went to bed. Much as I hate to grant her this, it
: looks like she might have been right on this for once.
: So long Gary, and thanks for all the facts...
As I keep plugging, we have some bits of information on fanhistory up via
various links at www.fanac.org, and we're working on getting a lot more up
in future years. I'm hoping that Aussiecon III might reprint some of Greg
Benford's fanwriting, which he continues to do, of course; he's still in
FAPA, and has been writing a nice column for APPARATCHIK this past year
(available on the web at this very instant; you can also find a link there
via www.fanac.org).
Can you tell that I'm rilly rilly missing being at Worldcon right now (and
for the next week). Whimper, sob, rend, sulk.
tomlinson
Troy-...@psu.edu wrote:
<much worshipful stuff deleted>
I always did like Dostoevsky better, myself.
Cheers,
-et
-------------------------------------------------------
"I thought it was high time that someone did for Bach what Copland did
for Lincoln, what Beethoven did for Wellington, what Tchaikovsky did
for Little Russians, and what Richard Strauss did for himself."
Gary Farber
In rec.arts.sf.written <8727907...@dejanews.com> Troy-...@psu.edu wrote:
: Reproduced from Science Fiction Age, Sept 1997
: THE GOLDEN AGE OF SCIENCE FICTION, it is said, is not 1943, or even 1929
: - it is instead TWELVE.
Anyone want to name some great sf about Deja Vu?
[. . . .]
Gary "Straczynski is Ray Palmer" Farber
Ian A. York
In article <5u4nv1$j...@panix2.panix.com>,
Anyone want to name some great sf about Deja Vu?
Ian
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
De Castellvi Jaime M
Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) wrote:
: : But there is absolutely no need for you to be sorry because I am "entirely
: : wrong" Gary.
:
: I feared that the pain of error might have been too much for you, and I
: wouldn't want to feel too guilty should you commit seppukku, or if even
: the simple agony overcame you.
To be entirely honest, I did very much expect you'd know something I
didn't, but as a shot straight from the hip it looked too good to take so
I couldn't resist... *grin*. That's why I phrased it as a question
(that's my story anyway... and I'm sticking to it).
: Posting erroneous information is, after all, the best way to get a
: response on Usenet. With luck, several contradictory responses.
Well, several people were disabused in this one, and the record was set
straight in regards to C.M. Kornbluth also (I'd never heard that one but
then again, having found fhandom in my old and decrepit age, I can't
really boast that I've heard much of *anything*).
: I'm a mean sumbitch when I see a blatant assertion of an error on my home
: turf.
Well, as they say in my native place, it is always fun to get the bull
snorting, but then the time is ripe to effect a -hopefully- graceful exit
;)
: But I'm only 38; I'm a premature old fart because I started collecting sf
: at age 5, more or less, and started collecting fanzines at around age 11,
: and got *really* *involved* in sf, both professionally and as a fan, over
: the rest of my life. It's always been clear to me that the history of sf
: and of fandom are inextricably bound together.
Even with my limited exposure, it is clear to me also that this much is
certain. And I don't see that changing in the near future.
: : Either way, is good for Zathras.
:
: Just so you use the right tool; we wouldn't want a malfunction. But if
: something is good for Zathras, is it necessarily always also good for
: Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras,
: and the others? Inquiring minds.
Zathras can only speak for Zathras. Zathras cannot speak for Zathras,
Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras or Zatras. For
knowings of Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras,
Zathras, Zathras, you must ask Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras,
Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras. Asking, you will know.
: As I keep plugging, we have some bits of information on fanhistory up via
: various links at www.fanac.org, and we're working on getting a lot more up
: in future years. I'm hoping that Aussiecon III might reprint some of Greg
: Benford's fanwriting, which he continues to do, of course; he's still in
: FAPA, and has been writing a nice column for APPARATCHIK this past year
: (available on the web at this very instant; you can also find a link there
: via www.fanac.org).
Outstanding. It will be slow catching up for me, but steady.
: Can you tell that I'm rilly rilly missing being at Worldcon right now (and
: for the next week). Whimper, sob, rend, sulk.
I hear you. I hear myself. *sniff*
Vicke Dovheden
In article <5u454s$b...@panix2.panix.com>,
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
[chomp]
>
>But in my senility of age 38, I digress. ;-)
Whoa! Only 38?! With all that fannish knowledge sticking out at the
seams I had you pegged for 50+, at least.
Vicke
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.
John Moreno
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
] In rec.arts.sf.written <8727907...@dejanews.com>
] Troy-...@psu.edu wrote:
] : Reproduced from Science Fiction Age, Sept 1997
]
] : THE GOLDEN AGE OF SCIENCE FICTION, it is said, is not 1943, or even
] : 1929 - it is instead TWELVE.
]
] Anyone want to name some great sf about Deja Vu?
I've done a quick look and I didn't find any great SF on dejanews. And
in case that wasn't a typo, nobody seems to be currently using dejavu.
Gary Farber
In rec.arts.sf.written <34078aae...@news.clark.net>
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
[. . .]
: I've always heard it attributed to Damon Knight.
Well, now you know better. :-)
[. . . .]
Gary "besides, Damon has more than enough other credits to his name"
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <5u32pc$n...@agate.berkeley.edu>, gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>)De Castellvi Jaime M <3c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>): Um, Gary... don't you mean *properly* credited, as it should be to David
>): G. Hartwell?
>)
>)Come to think of it, if you don't mind my asking, in the interest of
>)back-tracking the derivation of erroneous information, may I ask where you
>)got this incorrect idea from, please? Thanks muchly.
>
> David Hartwell makes the statement in the book _Age of Wonders_,
>and does not credit it to anyone else. I had thought that it originated
>with him myself.
There are two versions of AGE OF WONDERS: the original version, (Workman
hardcover, 1984; McGraw-Hill paperback, 1986), and a revised version (Tor,
1996).
I was the in-house editor on the revised version, and it was I who pointed out
to David that he really ought to credit Peter Graham.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Ford A. Thaxton
Give me a break...
Troy can you keep the ass kissing down a bit.
Captain Infinity
In article <5u4thh$r...@knot.queensu.ca>
3c...@qlink.queensu.ca (De Castellvi Jaime M) wrote :
>Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) wrote:
>: : Either way, is good for Zathras.
>:
>: Just so you use the right tool; we wouldn't want a malfunction. But if
>: something is good for Zathras, is it necessarily always also good for
>: Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras,
>: and the others? Inquiring minds.
>
>Zathras can only speak for Zathras. Zathras cannot speak for Zathras,
>Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras or Zatras. For
>knowings of Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras,
>Zathras, Zathras, you must ask Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras,
>Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras. Asking, you will know.
Asking is not Knowing. Knowing is Knowing. Asking is Asking. Being
Told is Learning, and Learning is Knowing, if not Forgetting.
**
Captain Infinity
Captain Infinity
In article <5u4j1v$k...@knot.queensu.ca>
3c...@qlink.queensu.ca (De Castellvi Jaime M) wrote :
>Oh, I went soft on it, so it was just $36.95 CAN, and then I have an Avid
>Reader愀 Discount at Coles which knocked off another 15%, as otherwise I
>couldn愒 afford it either. That being said, it is probably the best spent
>$30 plus I扉e shelved out in a long, long, long time. I still get a
>hard-on when I think about it. And I扉e recommended the book to several
>people since (I read about it in "Analog" review myself).
"Shelved out" is either a wonderful double-entendre, or the best darn
typo I've seen all week. :-)
**
Captain Infinity
weimere.te...@ohsu.edu
In article <3409C1...@earthlink.net> "Ford A. Thaxton" <for...@earthlink.net> writes:
>From: "Ford A. Thaxton" <for...@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: Straczynski is Tolstoy
>Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 12:10:37 -0700
>Give me a break...
>Troy can you keep the*********down a bit.
Ford, give the rest of us a break. Shut up.
********************************************************************
** Weimere@ OHSU.EDU * Overdrawn at the Memory Bank. **
********************************************************************
De Castellvi Jaime M
Captain Infinity (Innf...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOCK.com) wrote:
: >: : Either way, is good for Zathras.
: >:
: >: Just so you use the right tool; we wouldn't want a malfunction. But if
: >: something is good for Zathras, is it necessarily always also good for
: >: Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras,
: >: and the others? Inquiring minds.
: >
: >Zathras can only speak for Zathras. Zathras cannot speak for Zathras,
: >Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras or Zatras. For
: >knowings of Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras,
: >Zathras, Zathras, you must ask Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras,
: >Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, Zathras. Asking, you will know.
:
: Asking is not Knowing. Knowing is Knowing. Asking is Asking. Being Told is
: Learning, and Learning is Knowing, if not Forgetting.
:
: **
: Captain Infinity
Zathras... forgot.
Joseph C. Larkin
Ian A. York (iay...@panix.com) wrote:
> In article <5u4nv1$j...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
>
> Anyone want to name some great sf about Deja Vu?
This thread came up before. Check deja news.
Joe Larkin
Joe Larkin