"Founded on a Base of Proven Science and Logical Theory..."

[beamjockey]

Ansible led me to Rob Hansen's effort to put online Novae Terrae, Maurice Hanson's classic UK science fiction fanzine; browsing it, I found "Petition for Science" in the February 1937 issue.

Donald G. MacRae, author of the petition, writes:

Those who aren't among our band but who are in agreement with the views as expressed in the petition which follows might send in their names to us in the usual manner of petitions. [...] Briefly the petition tries to point out to the Editors that there is a lack of really original science in the average story and that, unless a story is exceptionally well written - Lovecraft, C.A.Smith, etc. - it should be grounded on either a good basis of factual science from which logical theories are drawn, or, it should build up a logical science of its own - John Taine and others are good examples of this - from a basis that is not generally accepted.

And the text of the petition:

THE GLASGOW SCIENCE FICTION LEAGUE,
36 Moray Place,
Glasgow S.1.,
Scotland.

The Editors,
'Amazing Stories',
'Thrilling Wonder Stories',
'Astounding Stories'.

Dear Sirs,

The Science Fiction readers who have signed this letter are united on one main principle - that if their favourite form of reading is to make any progress in the world of literature all the stories that are to be produced must, except a few stories of unusual merit but erroneous science, be founded on a base of proven science and logical theory instead of the all too prevalent type that contains neither accurate science nor good writing.

It is our deep desire that this petition shall have some favourable effect on you, the magazine Editors.

We are,
Etc.

I don't think Mr. MacRae ever achieved satisfaction. But his crusade is still being fought, wherever fans express a hunger for decent science in their SF-- such as corners of rec.arts.sf.written, or occasionally on james_nicoll's blog. I suppose that every time an editor sits down to read a slushpile, the battle begins anew.

We'll probably still be kicking this question around on the day the last science fiction story is published.

Comments

semi-premature semi-announcement

[apostle-of-eris.livejournal.com]

Next Windycon seems to have declared itself to be concerned with “Hard Science”. I assume they mean physics and chemistry and like that.
But . . . more to the point for many of our friends, what science is particularly difficult? Neutrino detection is not easy. Gravity wave detection is even worse. Meaningful investigation of genuinely unaccountable aerial phenomena is very hard in other ways. (I'm a fan of Jaques Valee.)

So . . . What is “Hard Science”? We have about eight months to turn over the question.

Re: semi-premature semi-announcement

[beamjockey.livejournal.com]

Neutrino detection is not easy.

Sailing around the world is not easy, but it can be done by applying well-understood technology. The same is true for neutrino detection. (At least for mu and electron flavors. The tau neutrino is much more difficult-- but it has been detected.)

Figuring out the connection between thoughts and neurochemical activity? That's hard. Why do fools fall in love?

Of course, the "hard" in "hard science" doesn't mean "difficult." Not in the SF context.

[charlie-meadows.livejournal.com]

"...the day the last science fiction story is published."*

When will this occur? Inquiring Delphi panels want to know!


* Not necessarily the same as "the End of History", or even "the End of Physics", both once predicted to have occurred by now...