Book review: Science Fiction An Oral History edited by D. Scott Apel

 

Science Fiction An Oral History edited by D. Scott Apel 

 269 pages, Paperback
Published  January 29, 2019 by The Impermanent Press

*Read in one-sitting on the train to visit Ojai*

I became familiar with this book for obvious reasons, the author used the recording for this to build out a book on Philip K. Dick, and a few months ago I reviewed that book the Dream Connection. Edited by D. Scott Apel, these books grew out of interviews he did in college with Kevin Briggs during the 70’s. The book titled “An Oral History” is true but as much as I enjoyed it and learned from it I can think of many better histories, but I suppose I should go a little deeper. I think the value of this book is not a history of the genre but a snapshot of the attitudes of creators at the time.

The book has a great list of authors they interviewed who were active in the Golden Age (1930-1960) and New Wave (1960-1980) eras, and the point of view are set in the amber of the 70s when they were done.  There is a shorter Philip K. Dick interview, the longer version is complete in The Dream Connection. It also features Theodore Sturgeon, Fritz Leiber, Roger Zelazny, C.L. Moore, Leigh Brackett, Norman Spinrad (1973 and 1989), and Robert Anton Wilson.

The Catherine Moore one was the interview I was most excited for, but it is obvious that she was older, and didn’t have the best memory. Since I just read her super sharp letters from the 1930s to HP Lovecraft. My favorite interviews were Brackett and Spinrad. Not a surprise as those are authors I love. There is a lot of love in the book for Henry Kuttner, but one I found very interesting for a Leigh Brackett quote about Kuttner’s role in her rise. “So I started sending in these first feeble efforts and Hank was reading for Dorsey. He took a special interest in me because I was writing science fiction, and went out of his way to give me personal help, personal criticism; To tell me where i went wrong you talk about writing courses The funny thing was that Hank used to be able to tell me what I did wrong, but he couldn't tell me how to do it right. I had to find that out myself.” Keep in mind she would go on to mentor Ray Bradbury. Never lose sight of the tradition. Writers passing on skills is how this genre got built.

The best element of this book is the opinions and point of view that we not have 50 years to reflect on. I laughed out loud at Norman Spinrad saying “…a guy like Donald Wollheim has no taste at all no literary taste.”  I mean Wollheim never published Spinrad, so it may have been some sour grapes at the time. Spinrad also gave a useful definition of Science Fiction. “Science fiction needs two things. A lot of people try to introduce the label speculative fiction I use that too, but I use it in a little different way. What I consider “speculative fiction” is anything that is literally science fiction, that has an inherent quality of being science fiction, in other words, that's about the “could be but isn't; that's the possible.” that includes 1984 it includes Pynchon, it includes Vonnegut”

I love this take on the genre as a whole that pitches a wide tent, to include genre novels that are not considered such by literary snobs.

As Phil Dickian, there are two quotes worth the book alone. Phil had a small readership at the time and didn’t get mentioned often in the greats. This was far before the respect came. Check out what Theodore Sturgeon said in 1977.

“I've really only gotten together with him (Philip K. Dick) twice before once was when I lectured in Fullerton, but I couldn't spend much time with him. Another time he came up to my house; he just blew in like a NW Gale, surrounded by flying icicles and withered leaves; He roared in and out, and that was that. On the other hand, I've read a lot of what he's written and I am profoundly impressed by it. He is one of the great talents around. It's a wild talent, but there's a reason for that, too. I think he's on the very verge now of confronting who he really is. The kind of thing that Phil Dick does reaches very deeply into his readers, and actually dictates their actions and their thoughts to a great degree.”

Norman Spinrad in 1973 is more ahead of the game.  “The perfect example is Philip K Dick now Philip K Dick is a better writer than Kurt Vonnegut, in my opinion. The body of his work is far more impressive than the body of Kurt Vonnegut’s work. We think perhaps when the literary history of the 20th century is written, that Philip Dick will be regarded as one of the most important writers of the century, probably I think he'll be remembered and read long after Vonnegut. Maybe not. I think Vonnegut will last, too. But I think the relationship that Dick is considered a minor writer and Vonnegut considered a major writer will reverse itself in time simply because the body of Philip K Dick’s work outweighs the body of Vonnegut’s work if you really look at it in my opinion. There's an example though Philip K Dick is stuck with the label, so he's obscure, his works come out with peeled eyeballs on the cover, and don't get reviewed in serious places, and he isn't regarded seriously by serious critics. In Europe it's different in Europe Dick is probably more highly regarded than Vonnegut.”

He may have underestimated Vonnegut’s staying power, but he was dead on correct about PKD, which was quite impressive before Scanner or VALIS.

Over all this book is riddled with typos, which doesn’t bother me, it has a self-published lazy feel to the production. The material is good for uber-nerds, but if you are someone who wants to have 40 non-fiction books on the genre I would rush to ge this. I personally happy I have for the quotes in this review alone.