the imaginative conservative logo

science fiction

Do you want to rule a world? Blow apart a sun? Test a theory of community? Explore the very depths of depravity? End slavery and misery? Destroy all empires?

It is possible. . . At least in the imagination.

The proper study of man is everything. The proper study of man as artist is everything which gives a foothold to the imagination and the passions. [C.S. Lewis, “On Science Fiction”]

As it surrounds us now and resides, specifically, in no medium, we take science fiction for granted. Though we have lost the “new frontier” aspect of science fiction as exploration of other worlds, we have certainly thrown ourselves into exploring the limits—at least technologically and scientifically—of this one. I am typing this very essay on a gadget that Steve Jobs imagined even better than did Star Trek and its “futurism.”

Brave New WorldDuring the first half of the twentieth century, however, what came to be known as science fiction was nothing short of disreputable to almost all literati and to the American public at large. It was considered low-class, childish, and quasi-pornographic. Associated with pulp, science-fiction books usually appeared on drugstore shelves next to ribald sex stories, romances, and comic books. Aside from a few prominent novels—such as Brave New World—science fiction remained suspect to most, and only highly regarded by a few. Those few could be truly fanatic and evangelical, meeting at various times of the year at what would become known as conventions, writing and mailing newsletters, and trading books and novels whenever possible. The detective/mystery author, Sharon McCrumb, has written two mysteries set at early science-fiction conventions, and, at least to this author, described the culture perfectly.

All this shunning and disrepute, however, served the new genre well as it grew mightily and without the restrictions that mainstream publishing placed on so much of the fiction of the time, especially in New York, where neither Jews nor Catholics were much welcomed in respectable publishing. Decentralized and unconnected to any single urban center, science fiction writers could be anti-ideological, anti-conformist, and subversive of WASPish norms. They could explore any thing, any setting, and any personality or community in any situation. Truly, the possibilities were endless. Geniuses such as C.S. Lewis, Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, Alfred Bester, and Robert Heinlein found themselves at the center of a new movement, one that allowed for the flourishing of imagination. Through their own speculations about what could be, science fiction also witnessed a grand critiquing of what was—especially in response to the rise of totalitarian and terrorist ideologies.

Before the term “science fiction” became the go-to-term for the genre, those in favor and those against employed other names and terms such as fabulist, speculative fiction, pseudoscience fiction, and scientifiction. Frankly, these terms serve just as well as the one that became the norm, and each reveals the expansiveness and possibilities of such literature. During the 1950s, though, Lewis, Bradbury, and Sam Moskowitz promoted the concept of science fiction. As the term only slowly became acceptable (mostly as it became profitable), the literati trashed science fiction for its supposedly childish desire to escape. As Lewis so cuttingly responded:

That perhaps is why people are so ready with the charge of ‘escape.’ I never fully understood it till my friend Professor Tolkien asked me the very simple question, ‘What class of men would you expect to be most preoccupied with, and most hostile to, the idea of escape?’ and gave the obvious answer: jailers. The charge of Fascism is, to be sure, mere mud-flinging. Fascists, as well as Communists, are jailers; both would assure us that the proper study of prisoners is prison. But there is perhaps this truth behind it: that those who brood much on the remote past or future, or stare long at the night sky, are less likely than others to be ardent or orthodox partisans. [Lewis, “On Science Fiction”]

In the post-modern world of inhumane horrors—all quite real—what sane person would not want to escape?

As Lewis understood it, the literati only wanted to comment on life’s banality and dreariness, while those who love science fiction want to dream dreams. For every realist in New York City, perhaps, two romantics lurked in the fields of Illinois or in the pubs of Oxford.

Never shy about promoting what matters most in the world, the University of Chicago—arguably the most daring and interesting institution of higher learning in the western world of the 1950s—sponsored a major academic symposium on the meanings of science fiction on February 8, 1957. Unfortunately, few details about the logistics or the origins of the conference remain in the public record, but a student of the profound British, Roman-Catholic theologian, Ronald Knox, edited four of the conference papers and published them two years later as a small book, The Science Fiction Novel (edited by Basil Davenport, 1959). Revealing the sheer diversity in thought and makeup of science fiction, the conference featured Robert Heinlein, Robert Bloch, C.M. Kornbluth, and Alfred Bester. Each spoke lovingly but critically of the rising genre, noting where it had succeeded, where it had failed, and, perhaps most importantly, where it had failed to recognize its failure.

2007 Hugo Award

2007 Hugo Award

It is fascinating to read through the arguments made in 1957, as science-fiction fans (the hardcore kind) in 2015 make the same arguments, noting the same successes, failures, and failures to recognize failures. Last year, as some readers of The Imaginative Conservative probably know, the Hugo nominations imploded over the behavior of certain fans claiming to act (rather rudely and inappropriately, at least to my mind) for ideological reasons. At The Imaginative Conservative, some of the very artists we have studied and promoted were caught in the middle of this. Winning a Hugo after that horrible fiasco might prove itself, today and tomorrow, more a badge of dishonor than honor. Only time will decide such things.

Hopefully, the science-fiction community can move beyond this and quickly.

Though the divide—especially as understood today and over the past several decades—is often couched in left-right terms, it really reflects a division over those who want to continue science fiction as an open-ended genre and those who believe a certain pattern and tradition set by those pioneers of the 1930s-1950s should still be followed. Is it new and improved or merely new? I was recently quite taken with a young writer, David Forbes. Though openly leftist, Mr. Forbes writes well and thinks even better. If nothing else, Mr. Forbes’s recent essays should serve as a warning. We fall into the old habits of unthinking tradition only at the peril of our imaginations and our art.

There is no doubt that the very genre of science fiction allowed genius—such as that of Lewis and Bradbury—to thrive, so did the very ostracism of the WASPs of New York City. Science fiction not only allowed the genius to be genius, it also encouraged the very individual excellence of each writer to flourish against the deadening conformity of its day.

Armed with imagination against the dread conformity of the market, science fiction can do the same for us today.

The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
4 replies to this post
  1. Great article, thank you. The field of science fiction still holds a conceptual future for us all, even for us having a conservative world view. Writers like Heinlein and CS Lewis have indeed influenced the book-reading public with their relatable views on future societies, change and tradition.

    That said, it’s true that the field of science fiction for a long time has been a leftist field of interest. We’ve had the LeGuins and the Dicks, and to this you could supply editor figures like Ellison, Butler, Pohl etc. Be that as it may; for nothing says that this must always be the case. For instance, in the 1940s the right-winger John Campbell dominated the field as editor. And big name authors like Heinlein, Herbert, Howard, Lovecraft, Borges, CS Lewis, Bradbury and Pournelle were of the conservative kind. And now it may be time for a resurgent right-wing in sf. Why? Because the left-leaning tendencies have been too strong lately.

    I’m not saying that I will lead the way ahead conceptually but I do have opinions on sf and fantasy, conceived from a conservative point of view. The current hullaballo aside, to me it’s like this: since way back I’ve been an avid reader of science fiction and fantasy. During this activity I’ve sometimes thought about ways to conceptualize it, to get a grip on the field at large. Finally, last year, I came to think of a radical conservative way to structure my reads. I thought: would it be possible to have Tradition in the form of traditional values as an angle to look at 20th century sf and fantasy? Could a comprehensive study of “right-wing sf” be written thus, gathering my views and aspects of writers like Heinlein, Frank Herbert, C. S. Lewis, Tolkien, Lovecraft, E. R. Burroughs, Lovecraft, Howard, Pournelle and Bradbury?

    At least, I set out to write the essay on these grounds and now it’s been published by a certain publishing house. As far as I know this is a unique study as such, being a right-winger’s look at the phenomenon — because, all the other sf pundits are lefties or at best “neutral”.

    Among other things, the book explains why figures like Heinlein and Herbert et al can be seen as men of the right. Some people today, some over-wrought lefties, have a tendency to say that they were left-leaning.

  2. This is a great article. The early movement of science fiction was dominated by great reactionary minds such as Bradbury, Lewis, Heinlein, and Law. Throughout the ’70’s and ’80’s, the equilibrium shifted, and we had a good deal of left-leaning writers (many of them very good writers such as LeGuin, Delaney, and Ellison), and they were of the more serious types. Their ideas, while I may personally disagree with, were rendered in artistic and compelling literary creations. Throughout the ’90’s and into the modern day, sci-fi and fantasy (SFF) has become ideologically radicalized by far-left writers and critics who do all they can to stamp out the more reactionary writers. The resistance to the Hugo fiasco (often referred to as the “Sad Puppies” scandal) was a result of this ideological stranglehold on the Hugo participants and moderators. You may disagree with their methods, but their message proved true. The ‘ruling elite’ of the modern SFF movement have no interest in allowing dissenting opinions to flourish in their own, self-contained and self-serving bubble. What the puppies did was call into question the very nature of the award and the awarding process and the Hugo’s, in their stupidity, proved their entire point by awarding ‘No Awards’ to the winning entries–all of whom, by the way, fairly won by the criteria set forth by the Hugo’s themselves.

    Besides that, I think you’ve missed a great opportunity to expose your readers to some of the finest conservative writers to come out of the movement, and indeed out of the post-modern period of literature in general. Two writers, specifically, come to mind. The first is Gene Wolfe, who I would argue is the most original and underappreciated literary genius of the modern era. The Book of the New Sun, often regarded as his magnum opus, I would set alongside the greatest works of 20th century literature. It is an incredibly complex linguistic and literary puzzle which uses a plethora of meta-narrative techniques to examine the role of tradition, mythology, and, ultimately, God in both our personal and public life and history. A stunning work of theological, philosophical, and literary importance which very few books could ever hope to achieve.

    The other great writer who I have yet to see mentioned frequently is R.A. Lafferty-a fiercely satirical fabulist who examines the spiritual life and its conflict with the modern world through an utterly unique style and method. Describing Lafferty is difficult, as his work is uniquely his own, but a general comparison would be the satirical and severity of Flannery O’Connor married with the imaginative whimsy of Lewis Carrol or ruminating works of Borges.

  3. I take issue with the idea of a leftist being a great thinker. To be a leftist is to desire the oppression of others, not liberation. To be a leftist is to be willfully blind to the significance and benefits of religion and therefore free thought.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: