On Science Fiction History

by Clark Ashton Smith


I have read the symposium on science-fiction the Winter 1949 issue with great
interest. Since you have summed up so ably in your editorial the main deductions
to be drawn, I will content myself with a few footnotes, so to speak. For one
thing, it struck me that most of the contributors (Dr. Keller excepted) failed
to emphasize sufficiently the historical aspect of the theme and were too
exclusively preoccupied with its contemporary development. Yet surely, for the
proper understanding of the genre and of fantasy in general, some consideration
should be given to its roots in ancient literature, folklore, mythology,
anthropology, occultism, and mysticism.

	I was quite surprised that no one mentioned Lucian, Apulcius and
Rabelais among the forefathers of the genre, since all three are of prime
importance. Lucian was a satirist and skeptic who, in the form of imaginative
fiction, endeavored to "debunk" the religious superstitions and contending
philosophies of his time; being, one might say, somewhat analogous to Aldous
Huxley, who in turn has satirised modern science. Apuleius, borrowing a plot
from Lucian in The Golden Ass, expressed, on the other hand, the power and
glamor of a sorcery that was regarded as science by the moiety of his
contemporaries; and his book, in its final chapter, plunges deeply into that
mysticism which is seemingly eternal and common to many human minds in all
epochs. The omission of Rabelais is particularly surprising, since he was not
only the first of modern satiric fantaisists, but also one of the first writers
to develop the Utopian theme (so much exploited since) in his phalanstery of
Theleme--which, I might add, is the only fictional Utopia that I should
personally care to inhabit!

	Another thing that struck me was the ethical bias shown by some of the
contributors, a bias characteristic of so many science-fiction fans, as opposed
to the devotees of pure fantasy. Such fans are obviously lovers of the
imaginative and the fantastic more or less curbed in the indulgence of their
predilections by a feeling that the fiction in which they delight should proceed
(however remote its ultimate departure) from what is currently regarded as
proven fact and delimited natural law; otherwise, there is Something
reprehensible in yielding themselves to its enjoyment Without entering into the
old problem of ethics plus art, or ethics versus art, I can say only that from
my Own standpoint the best application of ethics would lie in the sphere where
it is manifestly not being applied: that is to say, the practical use of
scientific discoveries and inventions. Imaginative literature would be happier
and more fruitful with unclogged wings; and the sphere of its enjoyment would be
broader.

	What pleased me most about the symposium was the prominence given to
Wells and to Charles Fort, and the inclusion of your anthology, Strange Ports of
Call. I could mention books, out of my own far from complete reading of
science-fiction, that were missed or slighted by the contributors. Of these,
Huxley's After Many a Summer Dies the Swan is perhaps the most salient from a
literary perspective. It is a gorgeous and sumptuous satire on the results of
self-achieved immortality. Leonard Cline's The Dark Chamber could be mentioned,
too, since it depicts with singular power the retrogression of a human being to
the primal slime. Incidentally, one ought to mention Lucian's True History, for
it contains what is probably the first inter- planetary tale, a fantastic
account of a voyage to the moon. And sometimes I suspect that Freud should be
included among the modern masters of science-fiction! But one could multiply
titles without adding anything of permanent literary value and significance.


[Originally from: Arkham Sampler, Spring 1949. This version from: Planets and
Dimensions, Ed. Charles K Wolfe. Mirage Press 1973.]