Curse You, Neil Armstrong! (Did he kill science fiction?)

Conceptual Fiction ^ | Ted Gioia

[jalisco555]

Forty years ago this week, science fiction writers were media celebrities—at least for a few hours. When Neil Armstrong stepped on to the surface of the moon on July 21, 1969, his “giant leap for mankind” was not just a fulfillment of President Kennedy’s promise of a lunar expedition before decade’s end. It also validated the starry-eyed dreams of a legion of pulp fiction writers.

Long before NASA was founded, the ABCs of sci-fi (Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke) and others of their profession had been chronicling the exploration of the universe in works of imaginative fiction. The moon landing was their shining moment, and the public recognized it as much as did the writers themselves. When the TV networks sought out talking heads for their coverage, science fiction writers were on the top of their list.

At the moment that Eagle landed, Arthur C. Clarke was sitting next to Walter Cronkite. Earlier that day, the writer told millions of viewers, during an interview with Harry Reasoner, that the space mission was a “down payment on the future of mankind.” After the moonwalk, Cronkite engaged Clarke and Robert Heinlein in their favorite activity— speculation about the future. The sci-fi veterans could hardly have been more optimistic. Heinlein refused to put limits on where space travel might lead. “We’re going out indefinitely,” he proclaimed.

ABC countered with Isaac Asimov and Frederik Pohl, pulp fiction veterans, interviewed by Rod Serling. Ray Bradbury, for his part, had always been more partial to Mars than the moon in his writings, and he proved to be the spoilsport of the day. Bradbury walked out on David Frost’s Moon Party, a peculiar British TV concoction which countered the news coverage of the historic events with strange entertainment, featuring everything from Englebert Humperdink to a discussion on the ethics of the lunar landing involving A. J. P. Taylor and Sammy Davis, Jr. Bradbury was so moved by the Apollo landing that he was in tears. The irreverence of Frost’s coverage was more than he could bear.

Of course, on this night Mr. Bradbury had no shortage of invitations. After leaving Frost’s “party,” he took a taxi to CBS’s studio, where the author was interviewed by Mike Wallace. “This is an effort to become immortal,” Bradbury proclaimed. How? “We’re going to take our seed out into space and we’re going to plant it on other worlds and then we won’t have to ask ourselves the question of death ever again.”

The grand predictions made that day proved premature, to say the least. Sure, the Apollo program was a success—even dodging a bullet with the aborted Apollo 13 trip to the moon, which unexpectedly turned into the most heroic chapter in the space race saga. But Apollo proved to be the end of manned lunar expeditions, and not the beginning of the age of space exploration. Who would have guessed that, after Apollo 17 in 1972, no more astronauts would travel to the moon. Here is one measure of how quickly things changed: a decade later, when people spoke of the moonwalk, they were usually talking about Michael Jackson’s dance steps.

Few people suffered from this turn of events more than science fiction writers. The whole sci-fi community should have been crying along with Ray Bradbury on July 21, 1969. As space exploration disappeared from the front pages, sci-fi lost much of its glamour and most of its readers. I would guess that half of the stories in this genre during the period leading up to the Apollo landing dealt with outer space. How could these same writers adapt to a world where rockets and astronauts had lost their luster? The authors, for the most part, stuck to their favorite plots of space exploration, but the stories rarely had the same pizzazz as before.

With the benefit of hindsight, we should probably admit that the landing of Apollo 11 was the end of the glory days of sci-fi. With the conclusion of the Apollo program, NASA became just another government agency, more bureaucratic than heroic. It is all too telling that the Challenger disaster of 1986 was the next time that rocket ships captured the attention of the general public. And the last time I encountered a space explorer on the front page, the “celebrity” in question was Lisa Nowak, the NASA astronaut who allegedly drove 900 miles wearing a diaper as part of a plot to attack a romantic rival with a BB gun. The case has not gone to trial, and Nowak has vehemently denied the news reports about the diaper. Tawdry, yes . . . but not quite up to the level of Dune or The Foundation Trilogy.

In the interim between the astronauts with The Right Stuff and the tabloid-ish story of Lisa Nowak, readers turned to other kinds of fiction. Amazing Stories, which enjoyed circulation of 50,000 during the mid-1960s, had seen it drop to 12,000 by the time of the Challenger disaster. The magazine folded in 1995, and subsequent revivals have been unsuccessful. Galaxy, which achieved circulation approaching 100,000 under Pohl’s editorship in the early 1960s, shut down in 1980. A revival in the mid-1990s lasted only eight issues. Many other sci-fi magazines and publishers fell by the wayside during this same period.

Let’s be honest, science fiction writers are much like stock market forecasters. When their predictions come true, everyone listens. Yet when the prognostications fall flat, their audience disappears. The space race was that rare moment when these writers seemed to be on the mark. So many of their other stories—about time travel, telepathy, alien invasion, nuclear holocausts and the like— never came true (thank goodness!), but for a brief period the rocket ship tales seemed plausible. The two most powerful nations on the planet were focused on getting off the planet. The scribblers who had been dreaming about just this state of affairs looked like sages.

Successful predictions about the moon date back at least to Jules Verne and his 1865 novel From the Earth to the Moon. Here Verne correctly anticipated that the United States would be the country to launch the first lunar mission, and also pinpointed that Florida would make the best launch site. He guessed the right crew size—three astronauts—and also came very close to the truth in his descriptions of the dimensions of the space capsule and the duration of the voyage to the moon. Few science fiction works have been more prescient in their anticipation of later history.

After Verne, almost every major science fiction writer tackled a moon story at some point. Lunar classics include H.G.. Wells The First Men in the Moon, Robert Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Arthur C. Clarke’s A Fall of Moondust. Clarke’s most famous work, 2001: A Space Odyssey, also relies on the moon for a key plot twist—a large black slab found near Tycho is the first evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life, and its discovery sets in motion the rest of the story. Yet it's worth noting that, seven years before Clarke’s book, Clifford Simak developed a comparable theme and set it in the exact same crater in his whimsical The Trouble with Tycho.

When the moon became just another piece of abandoned real estate, like much of Flordia after the subprime meltdown, the psychological impact on sci-fi was devastating. Many grand predictions had been made about the future of space exploration by these visionary authors. But not one of them would have dared to make this prediction—namely, that 35 years after the Apollo program, no trip would have been made to any of the other planets in the solar system, and no one would have the gumption to send an astronaut—or even a dog or chimpanzee— back to the moon.

Science fiction is experiencing a bit of a comeback these days, but the moon plays a low profile in the renewal efforts. The literary establishment has discovered Philip K. Dick. His novels are now included in The Library of America, and he represents a striking case study in how a once scorned author can be rehabilitated. Yet it is revealing that Dick rarely needed rocket ships to work his magic. While his peers were imagining trips to the moon during the 1960s, Dick had figured out there were other ways of taking a trip— ones that came packaged in little envelopes. His “alternative reality” concepts have held up well long after space exploration became passé.

Even so, it’s hard for science fiction fans to look at the full moon every month, and write it off as a failed cause. It’s been downhill for forty years, but it wouldn't take much to turn things around. I think it’s safe to say that, if we ever sent a team of astronauts to Mars or beyond, NASA and their suppliers won’t be the only sector of the economy to get a boost. A few dreamers toiling away at their word processors might get a few more minutes of fame.

[devane617]

I’ve read Sci-Fi for fifty years, and still dream of writing Sci-Fi. I see the field as strong as ever, but I agree with another comment that felt a negative impact when Fantasy was lumped in with Sci-Fi. I caount the days until the next issue of Asimov, and Analog are available.

[Tanniker Smith]

When Neil Armstrong stepped on to the surface of the moon on July 21, 1969, Everyone else can wait for the 21st, if they want to. I'll be celebrating the 20th like I always have.

[KevinDavis]

Have him find a way talk to Buzz Aldrin personally..

[irishjuggler]

Nothing can kill good science fiction except that lack of reading among the young. So few kids read now.

Exactly. The '50s were a golden age of science fiction because there were so many kids reading. At the peak, were something like 10 or 15 science fiction magazines buying short stories and novellas. Kids read more then because they didn't have video games, internet, 300 channels of cable TV, etc.

[BuffaloJack]

> “Random Crap” would have been a good choice.
Totally agree !!!

[MarkL]

I agree, Neil Armstrong killed science fiction... It was a huge disappointment to me when he proved that there were no Barsoomian maidens on the moon... Oh, wait. That was Mars. Well, it doesn't matter. Why waste my time reading fictional books if there aren't any beautiful maidens on Barsoom?

Mark

[Batrachian]

"Never mind the Constitution was written where our founders never thought that we would launching rockets... I put it under the science clause in the Constitution..."

Do you oppose the space program because "it's not in the Constitution"?

Would you abandon space to our enemies, the Chinese and the Russians? Does it not matter to you that the future is in space and if we abandon it then we have no future as a nation? Do you really want the universe colonized by others while we Americans (we would not deserve the name) stay home in the cradle because we where to cheap, or too backward, or too afraid to go?

I would like to believe that the same drive that caused our ancestors to leave Europe and colonize a new world still exists within us, because if not, then we're finished as a people. We would have no future worth speaking of, and America would be, eventually, a footnote in history. Do you want to join that side of the argument that would relegate our once-great nation to being a footnote, or would you rather say that we as Americans have the will and the strength and the courage to lead our kind in the greatest adventure of all.

If we turn our backs on the future then we'll have no future.

[dragnet2]

Even so, it’s hard for science fiction fans to look at the full moon every month, and write it off as a failed cause. It’s been downhill for forty years

Wrong.

Our space craft have gone into the solar system, taking images and collecting date never before seen, data never imagined...In addition to modern optical telescopes and digital imaging, which has provided us historic, stunning data and images, since the Apollo missions.

Who would have believed we'd see images like this of another planet, just years after the Apollo mission?

Clouds above the rim of "Endurance Crater" in this image from NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity. These clouds occur in a region of strong vertical shear. The cloud particles (ice in this martian case) fall out, and get dragged along away from the location where they originally condensed, forming characteristic streamers. Opportunity took this picture with its navigation camera during the rover's 269th martian day (Oct. 26, 2004). (NASA/JPL)

[KevinDavis]

You asking the wrong person... I think that NASA is the only Government agency (besides the military), has given us the biggest bang for our buck...

[MarkL]

I do not think that the economy got a boost from Space Exploration at all. At most it redistributed the wealth thru tax & spending and pork barreling.

We also had important improvements, not only to technology, but to our daily lives as well.

For instance,

Mark

[MarkL]

As an aside, Armstrong was/is a world-class jerk.

I don't know anything about that, but as for the jokes than many make about Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin (like the running gag in Monty Python), Aldrin is a crackerjack engineer who came up with many of the tools and procedures that are still used in the space program to this day. For instance, he's the one who came up with the idea of the underwater simulators for training for EVAs.

Mark

[x]

My gut wants to agree, but I have to wonder if it's right.

You had a great generation of SF writers from the 1930s to the 1960s, but who came up to replace them?

Even if the writers had been there, SF followed the rest of the culture in the move from reading magazines and books to watching films and videos.

Moreover the great fascination with space -- so strong in the early years of NASA -- couldn't be sustained whatever happened.

Like modelmaking or ham radio, the golden age of SF writing came and went. But the genre survives in other media.

[Poe White Trash]

>>> Contemporary Science Fiction is the most anti-American of genres for the lion’s share of this material is about how hellish the future will be. <<<

If by “contemporary” you mean “since about 1966,” you’d be correct. The feminist faction was especially annoying — Russ, Triptree, Leguin.

[Poe White Trash]

>>> As space exploration disappeared from the front pages, sci-fi lost much of its glamour and most of its readers. <<<

Is this guy bonkers? He completely forgets the sci-fi and fantasy publishing gluts that accompanied and extended well after 1.) the Tolkien/LOTR phenomenon of the mid-60s and 2.) the _Star Wars_ phenomenon that started in 1976. I read a LOT of both genres in the 70s-80s, and was never at a loss to find almost anything I wanted in print... and at the local B Daltons or Waldenbooks.

>>> readers turned to other kinds of fiction. Amazing Stories, which enjoyed circulation of 50,000 during the mid-1960s, had seen it drop to 12,000 by the time of the Challenger disaster. The magazine folded in 1995, and subsequent revivals have been unsuccessful. Galaxy, which achieved circulation approaching 100,000 under Pohl’s editorship in the early 1960s, shut down in 1980. A revival in the mid-1990s lasted only eight issues. Many other sci-fi magazines and publishers fell by the wayside during this same period. <<<

And yet, during the same period old standbys like _Analog_ and the _Magazine of Fantasy and SF_, along with newcomers like _Asimov’s SF_ did just fine.

>>> Science fiction is experiencing a bit of a comeback these days, but the moon plays a low profile in the renewal efforts. The literary establishment has discovered Philip K. Dick. His novels are now included in The Library of America, and he represents a striking case study in how a once scorned author can be rehabilitated. <<<

P. K. Dick was “discovered” decades ago. The mainstream character of his last couple of books — e.g., _Transmigration of Timothy Archer_— certainly helped. As did the critical success of _Bladerunner_. I saw academic press compilations of lit crit essays about P.K. Dick back in the mid-80s.

What mad universe is Ted Gioia from?

[Oztrich Boy]

Elitist intellectual critic slumming in the SF Ghetto and applying his wisdom.

Bradbury walked out on David Frost’s Moon Party, a peculiar British TV concoction which countered the news coverage of the historic events with strange entertainment, featuring everything from Englebert Humperdink to a discussion on the ethics of the lunar landing involving A. J. P. Taylor and Sammy Davis, Jr. Bradbury was so moved by the Apollo landing that he was in tears. The irreverence of Frost’s coverage was more than he could bear.

"You darn kids get off my lawn!"

[sig226]

IMO, fiction in general is in the tank. It has been for quite a while. Is the audience bored or is the product boring? I’d say a mix of both.

Other media, specifically interactive games, compete with written fiction. It’s one thing to imagine yourself the hero of a short story or a novel. RPGs offer their audience the opportunity to be the story, rather than read it. The technology to improve the RPG experience improves daily. Given an amusing narrative and some clever partners, the games offer a method of story telling that automatically conforms to the perspectives of the audience and reinforces their ideologies.

It deprives the storyteller of his audience, but the players fall asleep because they’re exhausted, not because they’re bored.

[texas booster]

Just got my latest Analog in the mail today.

My father read sci-fi all over the world while in the military. Passed on a love for reading to me.

I appreciate hard science fiction, but have spun off into other genres.

Perhaps gift subscriptions to Analog are needed this Christmas.

[FreeManWhoCan]

Thanks for the link!

[FreeManWhoCan]

Thanks.

[Osnome]

Really!
I did not know that TANG was invented by the space program, I thought that the astronauts merely drank that lousy stuff.

As for the nutrition bars, well that looks like blatant merchandising.