I don't have to single out a book, I wanna single out a person

[nancylebov]

Inspired by
If you had to single out one book as having done the most damage to F&SF, which one would you pick?, I'm nominating Roger Elwood as the person who did the most damage to the field. He produced a huge number of mediocre (except that they had Lafferty stories) original anthologies, and the non-theme original anthology market hasn't recovered even though it's been decades.

In the original thread, a number of people nominated _Atlas Shrugged_ as the most damaging book, but I can't see much influence from it. What am I missing?

Comments

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I can't see much influence from it. What am I missing?

I think it (and its descendants) caused a number of people to dismiss the whole genre as the playground of naive political propagandists. If I see another libertarian u/dystopia in this lifetime I shall fwow up!

[madfilkentist]

Atlas Shrugged is hardly "naive political proaganda." In any case, although it has science-fictional elements, few people think of it as part of the science fiction genre. Anthem might be a different matter.

Regarding the main question, the answer depends on what you identify as the worst damage that has been done to the genre. My answer is the conflation of "sci-fi" and science fiction, of movies with big special effects with fiction that at least tries for scientific coherence. So my answer, if we must focus on a book, would be Armageddon 2419 A.D. by Philip Francis Nowlan, the novel which introduced Buck Rogers to the world. What was done with it wasn't Nowlan's fault, of course; and the fact that so many people think of science fiction as "Buck Rogers stuff" isn't the fault of the Buck Rogers movie-makers.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

Terry Goodkind, for one.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

The Rand probably because her popularity seemed to give her adherents validation for the culture of the selfish elite and its political offshoots. That viewpoint imbedded in bad novels that copied Rand didn't do much for the field in the eyes of mainstreamers. (I once saw a scathing reference in an old magazine about Rand-inspired bad fiction, which surprised me because I didn't remember any...but I suppose they sank like stones.)

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

As for a person, hard to say. I actually think Star Trek may get credit for doing the most damage to the commercial end of publishing It demonstrated that you could get tons of money from licensing cheap adventures based on media properties. These types of books now take up about half the shelf-space for SF in any chain book store.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

On the other hand Star Trek introduced SF to a wider audience. The convention attendance, even the number of conventions, pre and post Trek are striking. Even though the Science Fiction club I am a member of focuses on the literary it was probably founded as a result of Star Trek. It was founded in 1968.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

What really crowded up the sf shelves was the fantasy trilogies, the illegitimate descendants of the illegitimate Sword of Shannara, which demonstrated that Lord of the Rings could be reduced to formula and endlessly replicated.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

These types of books now take up about half the shelf-space for SF in any chain book store.

People keep saying that, so periodically I check. Generally I find that tie-in books take up about 15% of the shelf space devoted to f&sf. Not trivial, but not half.

Atlas Shrugged

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Not sure why this one either. Possibly because it inspired a lot of folks to think they could write political allegory as science fiction in a rather heavy handed fashion.

Political allegory in SF is hardly a new phenomenom, and it works very well at times. 1984, and Brave New World being the archetypical examoples of modern times. Indeed, I would argue that science fiction is at its best when it explores questions about our modern society and challenges us or inspires us. Ted Sturgeon's Venus Plus X, many works of RAH, and others fit this category.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate the difference is to compare Heinlien'swork published in his lifetime, which placed storytelling as paramount, and the posthumously published novel For Us, The Living. Atlas Shrugged is much more like the second, and its success opened the door to other such works.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

It is a silly question to start with. I answered with Atlas Shrugged partially because it has the moral value of Mein Kampf. It is at heart a call for one group of humans to hurt the rest of humanity. The reason it didn't work was because the people attracted to such a call are generally not successful captains of industry or important in any sense.

But the primary reason I picked it is because I hate picking up what I think will be an interesting SF book full of big new ideas and finding it is actually a libertarian propaganda piece. I hate getting fooled like that and that is as close to damage to SF that I can think of since it is impossible to quantify what has or has not damaged the field. And it may or may not be SF, but Atlas Shrugged certainly inspired most of that type of writer from L. Neil Smith to John Ross. Libertarian fiction was the primary reason I stopped my subscription to Analog.

[madfilkentist]

Garbage like this simply has to be answered directly. There's no use even pretending to have a polite argument.

Mein Kampf is a call to brutality and to the violation of people's rights. Atlas Shrugged is based on the principle of non-initiation of force. The claim that "a call for one group of humans to hurt the rest of humanity" is simply a lie.

If anyone was brought to it with the notion that it was an SF book, that clearly was not the fault of the author or the publisher. It has SF elements, but as I already stated, it was not published and is not generally regarded as a science fiction book.

Two of the libertarian stories in Analog were my "The Unfood" and "A Breach of Security." I'm proud to have done my part to help drive Mishalak away.

Roger Elwood

[dsgood.livejournal.com]

You forgot to mention Laser Books.

[cathyr19355.livejournal.com]

I can't see much influence on the field of fantasy and SF from "Atlas Shrugged" either. If anything, I think "Battlefield Earth" hurt us more, because that book is ballyhooed as being SF, while, to my knowledge, "Atlas Shrugged" is not.

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

Okay, people, it's like this. The influence of Atlas Shrugged on SF is primarily visible in the range of "right-libertarian" SF -- the name Neil Smith comes to mind, but there are quite a few others. You can generally recognize them more readily as Heinlein-influenced, but they'll cite Rand if given a chance.

[(Anonymous)]

Umm, you have a mismatched variable type error here. The question asks for "one book". So which one book edited by Roger Elwood did all this damage?

- Captain Button

[(Anonymous)]

Oops, I read the body of the entry, but not the title.

I die.
My death certificate has a memory glitch when the computer files it, creating an AI computer worm which takes over the world and exterminates inefficient humanity, and all die.
Oh, the Embarrassment!