Just so everyone know's what's what.
The first fathers of science fiction, Wells, Verne, and the now-forgotten Olaf Stabledon, wrote for a general audience and were admired and respected as much (or as little) as any other writers. However, the next generation of science fiction writers, including figures like Edgar Rice Burroughs, A. Merritt, and Robert E. Howard, wrote boy’s adventure fiction. Beloved as these stories are to fans like myself, they were comicbookish, aimed at children, and dealt with their themes in a childish way.
These stories are, in my fanboy opinion, simply great, but simply not great art.
- John C. Wright, The Fall and Rise of Science Fiction
Now, I may disagree with Wright's assertion that Howard's (and Burroughs' & Merrit's) fiction were "comicbookish" and "dealt with their themes in a childish way." I could offer my grievances, but the guy's allowed to have an opinion. Nor can I really argue with "These stories are, in my fanboy opinion, simply great, but simply not great art." That too is fine. He's stating it's his "fanboy opinion," and since art is a monstroustly subjective subject, what is "art" to him might not be art to another person. What's more, it's his personal blog. It isn't an introduction to a collection of Robert E. Howard stories. Thus, he's perfectly within his rights to say this, especially when he unequivocably says that this is just his opinion, not an assertation of fact, or even the majority opinion. In short, I disagree, but that's all: I'm not going to launch any sort of crusade against him for the crime of disagreeing, am I?
So far, I don't share his opinions, but I'm not going to call him out on them. I might challenge them - what on earth is "childish" about "Beyond Thirty," "The Moon Pool" and "Worms of the Earth?" - but in the manner of debate and discourse. John C. Wright is not wrong - I just disagree. However, his assertion that the three authors wrote "boy's adventure fiction," and especially "aimed at children"? That I take exception to: not because I have a problem with children's fiction (I still love Lloyd Alexander, after all), but because it's just plain incorrect.
None of those authors wrote their stories with children in mind. They wrote for the adult market. Neither the original publications, nor in their letters, do they ever say they're targeting pre-pubescents. Weird Tales was a magazine for adults, and an exceedingly controversial one at that. Brundage's salacious and violent covers were about as cosy and unconfrontational as Hustler.
Does Mr. Wright seriously expect me to believe that this:
Was aimed at children? This wouldn't be aimed at kids now, let alone in the 1930s.
Howard, Merritt, and Burroughs were writing for the same audience age group as Stapledon, Wells and Verne. The only argument that they could be "boy's writers" is that as the years went on, boys started to read them for themselves. Dumas, Haggard, Sabatini and Stevenson weren't writing their stories for boys, but for adults. If they got lumped into the "boy's adventure fiction" ghetto, then that's because the literati lumped them there, much like how they lumped all science fiction with Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. It's just plain wrong.
So, hopefully people can see and recognize the difference in what I'm talking about. I disagree with Wright about viewing the authors as dealing with their themes in a "childish" manner, as well as the "great art" question, but that's a matter for debate, not a matter of saying he's wrong. But saying that authors were writing for a market they were not writing for, especially when his whole argument hinges on it? That's not on.
As regards Burroughs and Howard, my 80 year old father remembers voraciously reading the works of those authors, and the Weird Tales magazines, starting when he was about 9 years old. My Dad used to buy Weird Tales and a coke at the corner store. I always thought the 30's pulps were aimed at the adolescent market, perhaps my understanding is misinformed by my father's recollections.
ReplyDeleteBurroughs and Howard wrote ripping yarns, which I thoroughly enjoy.
I'm rather surprised to see Wright post something like that. My suspicion is that his opinion is based solely on a poor memory of these authors and their works rather than any malice.
ReplyDeleteAs I said on your Facebook page, John C. Wright's knowledge of the history of SF isn't really good. He is like a lot of uninformed English speakers, who seem to think that there was no SF between Verne and Wells. Wells was "a generation later"? Possibly, but JH Rosny Ainé, COINED the caveman genre and INVENTED many of the SF tropes. Rosny wrote stories with cavemen, aliens, pockets- in-time, lost worlds, vampires, men-beasts, etc...YEARS before the anglophones. 'Les Xipéhuz' is Rosny's first story, it had cavemen figthing against aliens... and was published in 1887.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I have a hard time to understand how anyone with half a brain could honestly think that "Worms of the Earth" or "Red Nails" would have been written for children.
Seems logical
ReplyDeleteC. S. Lewis:
ReplyDelete"Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
As regards Burroughs and Howard, my 80 year old father remembers voraciously reading the works of those authors, and the Weird Tales magazines, starting when he was about 9 years old. My Dad used to buy Weird Tales and a coke at the corner store. I always thought the 30's pulps were aimed at the adolescent market, perhaps my understanding is misinformed by my father's recollections.
ReplyDeleteThat may well be true, but watching violent sex-filled R-rated movies before you're in the single-digits doesn't mean Aliens and Predator were aimed at children. Weird Tales may well have been aimed at, and read by, young boys, but they were not the target audience.
I'm rather surprised to see Wright post something like that. My suspicion is that his opinion is based solely on a poor memory of these authors and their works rather than any malice.
That's my thinking too. Hanlon's Razor and all that. Still, it's rarely a good idea to work from dim memory when you're making arguments.
As I said on your Facebook page, John C. Wright's knowledge of the history of SF isn't really good. He is like a lot of uninformed English speakers, who seem to think that there was no SF between Verne and Wells. Wells was "a generation later"? Possibly, but JH Rosny Ainé, COINED the caveman genre and INVENTED many of the SF tropes. Rosny wrote stories with cavemen, aliens, pockets- in-time, lost worlds, vampires, men-beasts, etc...YEARS before the anglophones. 'Les Xipéhuz' is Rosny's first story, it had cavemen figthing against aliens... and was published in 1887.
By the way, I have a hard time to understand how anyone with half a brain could honestly think that "Worms of the Earth" or "Red Nails" would have been written for children.
My thoughts exactly. Heck, I can't think of *any* Conan story that would be suitable for kids, be it for philosophical content, or the sheer amount of violence and nudity. That's not to say all Howard is inappropriate for kids - plenty of comedies and a few action stories are fine - just that they aren't aimed at kids.
Seems logical
I hope so.
"Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
An excellent quote, Scott, and one I hold dear to me. It proves that children's literature need not be considered "inferior" to adult literature, and how the desire to appear mature and grown-up is in itself the highest mark of immaturity. That said, this isn't why I take issue with labelling those authors as "children's authors."
All I'm saying is that Howard, Burroughs and Merrit weren't writing for children. Not that adult is inherently superior, just that one audience is different from another, and that those three authors were writing for a different audience than Wright is asserting. I hold The Chronicles of Prydain, The Hobbit and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in very high regard, after all. But I'm not going to argue that they were targeted at an adult audience when they weren't.
kids in the 30s were made of sterner stuff
ReplyDeleteCheck out the comments on Wright's site. Someone else called him on this. He concedes the point.
ReplyDeletekids in the 30s were made of sterner stuff
ReplyDeleteHeh, well they were!
Check out the comments on Wright's site. Someone else called him on this. He concedes the point.
He needs to do more than that. The idea of Merritt, Burroughs and Howard writing for children brings the entire post down.
Still, I can't be too hard on him, he just seems a bit forgetful in his old age.