Science Fiction and the Playing Fields of Eaton
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2006, 06:00 CDT
By Westfahl, Gary
Note: this essay was originally written to serve as the afterword in a projected collection of essays from the first ten years of the Eaton Conference.
In its early years, I experienced the J. Lloyd Eaton Conferences on Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature, long held every year at the University of California, Riverside, only as an awestruck spectator, listening to distinguished scholars as they analyzed works of science fiction and fantasy at the podium and fielded stimulating questions from the audience. Later, I became a regular speaker and panelist at those conferences, and by the mid-199Os, 1 was serving as a conference coordinator, along with George Slusser and Eric S. Rabkin. In the course of two decades, then, I observed the Eaton Conferences from all possible angles, and while I did not attend every gathering or listen to every presentation, I grew very familiar with, and fond of, those annual conferences. Further, when I began to co-edit volumes of essays from the conferences in the 1990s, I came to appreciate the Eaton Conferences not only as stimulating experiences in themselves, but also as the invaluable first stages in a process that ultimately led to the publication of essays that were sharpened and improved by the numerous forces that acted upon them.
Since 1999, however, the Eaton Conferences, and my relationship to them, have significantly changed: they ceased to be annual events, I found that I was no longer considered part of the Eaton family. I could not attend the one additional Eaton Conference that occurred in May, 2005, at the Science Fiction Museum in Seattle, and I now have no knowledge about any future plans for the Eaton Conferences. Still, those twenty years of Eaton Conferences had a significant and lasting impact on my career as a science fiction scholar and commentator, and I have found it rewarding to recall a number of my experiences there and to relate those experiences to some general observations about the genre of science fiction.
To a large extent, the Eaton Conferences resembled other conferences devoted to literary criticism: most of the people attending were academically trained scholars in English literature, ranging from graduate students to senior professors, and most of the conference schedule was reserved for presentations of their papers. In these ways, the Eaton Conferences were similar to the other two longstanding annual gatherings of science fiction scholars, the Science Fiction Research Association Conferences and the International Conferences on the Fantastic in the Arts. However, unlike other forms of contemporary literature, science fiction attracts the attention of some very different sorts of people, and founding Eaton coordinator George Slusser always worked especially hard to include representatives of those other groups, making for the unusually diverse and lively sessions that regularly characterized the Eaton Conferences.
In a paper originally presented at the 1994 conference, "Who Governs Science Fiction?," which later appeared in Extrapolation, I attempted to survey and categorize the different forces that control the genre of science fiction. I discussed Hugo Gernsback, who originally introduced the term "science fiction" to the world and still influences its usage; the writers and fans of the science fiction community, who have a powerful collective impact on the evolution of the genre; the general public, which determines what "science fiction" means as it is described in dictionaries; the publishing industry, which decides to label and market certain books as "science fiction"; and academic scholars, who regularly study, anlhologi/.e, and teach science fiction. Were I expanding the scheme today, I might divide the writers and fans into separate groups- since, as suggested by the separate literary awards now given by writers (the Nebulas) and fans (the Hugos), their interests are not always congruent; and I might divide the academic scholars into traditional literary critics and scholars from other disciplines- because scholars not trained to examine literature, such as historians and experts in political science, happen to be unusually active and visible in the study of science fiction and bring a distinctive perspective to their work. Finally, I might add, as a final group influencing science fiction, the scientific community, for several reasons. First, since science fiction is historically expected to maintain at least a semblance of scientific accuracy, scientists become the people who, in effect, make the rules; thus, years of learned complaints that it was impossible for elementary particles to be miniature planets with liny inhabitants drove that theme out of the genre, and scientific disdain for depictions of spaceships flitting from star to star, ignoring the fact that objects in this universe cannot travel faster than light, made ameliorative references to "warp drive" or "hyperspace" de rigueur in all stories of this kind. In addition, scientists since the days of Gernsback have regularly been asked to write articles for science fiction magazines, contribute Io science fiction anthologies, and participate in panels at science fiction conventions. Many scientists also read and were inspired by science fiction as children and continued to read science fiction as adults; and a number of scientists, like Fred Hoyle, Carl Sagan, Robert F. Forward, and Marvin Minsky, became science fiction writers themselves. In these various ways, then, working scientists have always had a strong impact on the genre.
Thus expanded, the list of forces influencing science fiction would be virtually identical to a list of the different groups of people who contributed to Eaton Conferences-so that the conferences became, in a sense, models of the ways that science fiction itself is crafted and shaped, and participating in those conferences provided a unique opportunity to observe firsthand the interactions that make the genre especially fascinating. Of course, the late Hugo Gernsback never attended an Eaton Conference-except in spirit, perhaps, whenever I discussed his contributions in my papers-but along with literary scholars, science fiction writers, fans, general readers, representatives of publishers, scholars from other disciplines, and scientists were all regularly observed at conferences.
Every Eaton Conference had a few science fiction writers, sometimes several of them, as guests or paper presenters. To be sure, noted writers may attend other conferences focused on contemporary literature, but typically they are delicately treated as honored special guests: perhaps they do a reading from one of their works or graciously consent to answer questions from the audience; they may even give a short talk about their methods of writing. But the science fiction writers at Eaton Conferences rolled up their sleeves and joined in the work of the other participants.
First, trained by years of experience in panel appearances at science fiction conventions (where informal panels are the principal activity), science fiction writers happily agreed to participate in panels at Eaton Conferences and invariably offered stimulating commentary related to the theme of that year's gathering. While only one of these panel discussions has been transcribed and published ("Building on Isaac Asimov's Foundation"), other fascinating dialogues were recorded and may someday be made available. In addition, a number of writers, not content to merely toss out a few comments during a panel discussion, stepped up to the podium to present papers themselves-and not just rambling monologues about their own careers, but genuinely probing analyses of their genre. Authors who have presented papers at Eaton Conferences include Poul Anderson, Greg Bear, Gregory Benford, David Brin, Samuel R. Delany, Sheila Finch, Robert F. Forward, James Gunn, Howard V. Hendrix, Larry Niven, Lewis Shiner, and Norman Spinrad; a few, like Benford and Hendrix, virtually became Eaton regulars.
Finally, when they were not on panels or presenting papers, the authors were usually listening to the other papers, ready to provide their own input during the vigorous question-and-answer sessions that invariably followed each paper. In my second paper that I nervously presented in 1988, for example, I argued that the heroes and villains in science fiction stories speak differentlythat villains, for example, tended to use longer words and more complex sentences; two of my examples were the heroic Jack Barren and the villainous Benedict Howards from Norman Spinrad's fiug Jack Barwn (1969). But Spinrad himself was in the audience, and he rose afterwards to object that he had quite deliberately made Barron a character who spoke in short, simple sentences-as is only befitting for a talk show host-but thought in longer, more convoluted sentences, better reflecting his true character and intellect. Needless to say, his remarks inspired some additional thoughts in the published version of the essay ("Wrangling Conversation") about possible limitations in my methodology.
Science fiction fans also were always welcome at Eaton Conferencesafter all, the man whose science fiction collection inspired the conferences, J. Lloyd Eaton, was himself a noted fan- and well-known personalitie\s from the science fiction community like Forrest J. Ackerman, Bruce PeIz, and Rick Sneary were visitors. While these people may not have been conversant with the latest critical theories, their knowledge of science fiction literature and film could be vast and impressive. Once, after Pilgrim Award- winning scholar Vivian Sobchack presented a provocative analysis of science fiction films at the 1983 Eaton Conference (later published as "The Virginity of Astronauts"), Forrest J. Ackerman-whose decades- long involvement with science fiction film has generated many articles and books and a unique collection of memorabilia-rose from the audience to politely note that he could, off the top of his head, think of a dozen or so science fiction films that in his opinion contradicted her thesis, and he proceeded to name a few of them. While Sobchack stood her ground in response to his objections, their friendly words of disagreement characterize the encounters between people from different worlds that could make an Eaton Conference especially memorable.
Since Eaton Conferences were locally advertised, it was always possible that members of the general public, unconnected to academia or the science fiction community, would wander in to see a favorite author and stay for the rest of the conference. Once a precocious twelve-year-old boy attended, listened to every paper, and asked every speaker a question. So, after Robert Philmus, then editor of Science-Fiction Studies, presented a lengthy exegesis of the works of Stanislaw Lem at the 1985 Eaton Conference (later published as "The Cybernetic Paradigms of Slanislaw Lem"). the lad boldly inquired, "Just who is Stanislaw Lem, anyway?""Out of the mouths of babes!" I thought at the time, and I have-not entirely in jest- since referred to his question as the single most profound question ever asked at an Eaton Conference. For the boy was unknowingly pointing out a crucial problem unaddressed in critical studies of Lem: while the author was then receiving a tremendous amount of attention from literary scholars, he was failing to attract a following in the science fiction community, and he was failing to become well-known to the general public. Thus, with his career solely supported by academic critics, Lem was destined to fade from view the moment that the constantly shifting tides of scholarly interest turned away from him-which is, more or less, precisely what happened during the 1990s. (It should be noted that when he read this anecdote, Eric S. Rahkin, who attended the session, did not remember the boy's question, but I remain convinced that it happened exactly as I described it.)
Eaton Conferences never attracted much attention from major publishers, since there were insufficient numbers of potential book buyers in attendance, but a lew of their representatives, like David G. Hartwell of Tor Books and Stewart Wieck of White Wolf Publishers, sometimes made an appearance. Also, one small publisher speciali/ .ing in science fiction criticism. Borgo Press, was for many years a prominent presence at Eaton Conferences, since founder Robert Reginald (known to friends as Mike Burgess) and his wife Mary Burgess always set up a table to display and sell their products, and Reginald participated in other conference activities as well, such as the annual presentations of the Eaton Awards and Milford Awards. Such people had an impact on Baton affairs as well. After Gregory Benford presented a paper about British science fiction at the 1990 Eaton Conference, Hartwell privately gave him his professional opinion of that literature-"downbeat novels with good characterisation"-which found its way into the published version of the paper ("In the Wake of the Wave" 154). And after hearing another one of my papers, on the history of science fiction art (later published as "Artists in Wonderland"), at the 1995 conference. Reginald complained that two of the artists I had focused on were not really major figures-and, with his professional awareness of the importance of cover art in selling science fiction books, he was undoubtedly correct, and his comments led to some revisions in (he published version of the paper.
Another element in the diversity of Eaton Conferences was the participation of scholars from fields other than literary studies. Such experts are usually attracted to science fiction primarily because of its contents-its unique locus on thought-provoking ideas and interesting portrayals of possible futures-rather than its virtues as literature, which is sometimes refreshing. Speakers at Eaton Conferences included scholars in areas such as anthropology, art, business, history, philosophy, political science, and religion, and their varied expertise was often a welcome addition to the proceedings. For example, when philosopher John Martin Fischer, aided hy Ruth Curl, introduced at the 1992 conference a carefully worded taxonomy of the types of immortality presented in science fiction (later published as "Philosophical Models of Immortality in Science Fiction"), other speakers embraced and employed their terminology-such as "serial atomistic immortality"-in their own papers on the subject.
Scientists frequently contributed to Eaton Conferences, from fields such as biology, computer science, mathematics, medicine, pharmacology, and physics. While several visiting scientists might be mentioned here, including computer expert Marvin Minsky, neurobiologist Joseph D. Miller merits special recognition as the scientist who most frequently and energetically participated in Eaton Conferences as a paper presenter, panelist, and audience member. With teaching and research experience at Stanford University, Texas Tech University, and the University of Southern California, earlier work for NASA's space shuttle program, and an encyclopedic knowledge of science fiction, Miller brought an especially useful background to the study of science fiction. In a paper at the 1994 conference (later published as "Popes or Tropes"), for example, he employed a battery of meticulous statistical tests in order to demonstrate beyond doubt that the stories in Ursula K. Le Guin and Brian Attebery's The Norton Book of Science Fiction did not truly represent the field's best work. And at the 1995 conference, when Marleen Barr's otherwise persuasive examination of sexist imagery in the artwork of the Apollo program (research that was later incorporated into her Genre Fission) cited a painting of a lunar astronaut in a spacesuit that displayed a prominent phallic bulge, Miller noted that the bulge did not represent subtle sexism, but was rather an accurate portrayal of a necessary design feature in the Apollo spacesuit.
To epitomize the sorts of creative-and sometimes combative- interactions that characterized the Eaton Conferences, I might recall the heated panel discussion about Star Trek that took place at the 1999 Eaton Conference. Judy Burns, who wrote an episode of the first series, along with scholars Daniel Bernardi and Vivian Sobchack, strongly defended Star Trek as an important force in many people's lives and as a significant forum for social commentary. On the other side, Gregory Benford and Joseph D. Miller, representing both the scientific community and the science fiction community, caustically derided Star Trek for its cliched plots and its indifference to science; interpreting the popularity of Star Trek as a sign of growing scientific illiteracy, Benford compared himself as a hard science fiction writer to a painter noted for brilliant use of color who discovers that his audience is going color-blind. As the discussion heated up, George Slusser and I as the moderators struggled to speak in moderate tones, acknowledging the value of Star Trek and rejecting efforts to marginalize the phenomenon even as we understood the opposition's argument that other works of science fiction attempt, and sometimes achieve, far greater things than have ever been attempted or achieved by any of the Star Trek series, films, or novels.
In providing several anecdotes about the input of writers, fans, general readers, representatives of publishers, other scholars, and scientists at Eaton Conferences, I do not wish to slight the contributions of literary critics, who as noted represented the majority of Eaton participants; indeed, the usual highlight of each Eaton Conference was a paper from the late Frank McConnell, an English professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who delighted guests with his erudite, far-ranging, and wildly amusing presentations. Nor do I wish to imply that the exchanges at Eaton Conferences characteristically involved other sorts of guests contradicting or upbraiding literary critics. For one thing, in their own papers and questions, critics frequently took issue with other critics at Eaton Conferences, or quarreled among themselves, as Leslie Fiedler and Eric S. Rabkin once fiercely debated the literary merits of the works of A. E. van Vogt. If my stories about past conferences focus on disputes, that may be only because conflict is more memorable tban concord. Still, as indicated by the title of the very first Eaton volume, Krulgca to Science Fiction, the Eaton Conferences were always more about building bridges than burning them, and along with the colorful controversies there have also been many moments of unexpected harmony among disparate conference guests. After that Star Trek panel, for example, the feuding participants all gathered for an amiable dinner al a Mexican restaurant; and published papers from the conferences are filled with appreciative references to audience members and their helpful comments and suggestions.
What I am hoping to convey is that Eaton Conferences were uniquely dynamic and interactive events that played a major role in creating the published versions of the conference papers. The question-and-answer sessions alter each \paper often generated such passionate and fascinating discussions that conference coordinators, reluctant to cut off debate, would allow the speaker and questioners to carry on, so that conferences sometimes fell hopelessly behind schedule. In addition, the later paper presenters would sometimes respond to previous papers and comments by reworking their own papers, either with a lew added references to newly absorbed ideas or with extensive revision. On at least two occasions, speakers on the final day of the conference slowly walked to the podium with haggard expressions and apologetically announced that they had stayed up very late the night before, entirely rewriting their papers to take into account what they had heard and learned from the first two days of the conference. For most paper presenters, though, the revision process took place after the conference, when they carefully examined the scribbled marginal notes they made regarding questions and observations from the audience and additionally considered the comments and suggestions of the conference coordinators-who listened attentively to the queslion-and-answer sessions while formulating their own reactions to the arguments presented. After the final papers were assembled as a manuscript and sent to press, they were of course subjected to the process of peer review, and the anonymous comments occasionally inspired some additional revisions, a traditional result of peer review. But Eaton papers were usually well received at that stage-in large part because, in effect, they had already been through a process of peer review that involved not only literary scholars but also experts from several different areas that are relevant to science fiction.
While the crucible of Eaton therefore functioned to forge superior science fiction criticism, I wish to suggest finally that the process was also analogous to the creation of superior science fiction. After all, what must science fiction writers do to earn a position of lasting importance in the field? They must earn the respect of their fellow writers, and they must be accepted by the science fiction community. They must be embraced by a public willing to purchase their books, and they must be embraced by publishers willing to publish those books. Their works must meet minimal standards of scientific accuracy, and they must be admired and analyzed by literary critics as well as by interested scholars in other fields. If this strikes some as an impossible agenda, it should be noted that there are a number of science fiction writers- ranging from H. G. Wells, Robert A. Heinlein, and Arthur C. Clarke to Ursula K. Le Guin, William Gibson, and Kini Stanley Robinson-who have managed to accomplish all of these things; and these are the writers who seem most likely to achieve literary immortality, as opposed to other skillful writers who have achieved recognition only for their scientific acumen or for their literary qualities. Witnessing the various constituencies of Eaton at work, therefore, allowed one to gain a better understanding of the diverse forces that strangely converge to produce science fiction.
I do not wish to disparage the other conferences devoted to science fiction-the Science Fiction Research Association Conferences and the International Conferences on the Fantastic in the Arts- since much good work has manifestly emerged from these gatherings. Still, based on my own observations, I believe that the Eaton Conference-with its commitments to attracting contributors from diverse fields and encouraging dynamic interaction and argument- represented a uniquely valuable sort of scholarly conference, and one that was uniquely relevant to the study of science fiction. For those who could not attend, it will always remain stimulating and enjoyable to read the end products of the Eaton Conferences-the essays in the critical anthologies co-edited by myself, George Slusser, Eric S. Rabkin, and others-but I can also testify that participating in the various stages of the journeys was just as rewarding as reaching those final destinations.
Works Cited
Barr, Marleen. Genre Fission: A New Discourse Practice for Cultural Studies. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 2000.
Bear, Greg, Gregory Benford, and David Brin. "Building on Isaac Asimov's Foundation: An Ealon Discussion with Joseph D. Miller as Moderator." edited by Gary Westfahi. Science-Fiction Studies, 24 (March, 1997), 17-32.
Benford, Gregory. "In (he Wake of the Wave: The British Science Fiction Market." In Science Fiction and Market Realities, edited by Gary Westfahl, George Slusser, and Eric S. Rabkin. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1996, 151-160.
Fischer, John Martin, and Ruth Curl. "Philosophical Models of Immortality in Science Fiction." In Immortal Engines: Life Extension and Immortality in Science Fiction and Fantasy, edited by George Slusser, Gary Westfahi, and Eric S. Rabkin. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1996, 3-12.
Miller, Joseph D. "Popes or Tropes: Defining the Grails of Science Fiction." In Science Fiction. Canonization. Marginalisation, and the Academy, edited by Gary Westfahi and George Slusser. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2002, 79-87.
Philmus, Robert. "The Cybernetic Paradigms of Stanislaw Lem." In Hard Science Fiction, edited by George Slusser and Eric S. Rabkin. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986, 177- 213.
Slusser, George. George R. Guffey. and Mark Rose, editors. Bridges to Science Fiction. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980.
Sobchack, Vivian. "The Virginity of Astronauts: Sex and the Science Fiction Film." In Shadows of the Magic Lamp: Fantasy and Science Fiction in Film, edited by George Slusser and Eric S. Rahkin. Carbondale. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1985, 41-57.
Westfahl, Gary. "Artists in Wonderland: Toward a True History of Science Fiction Art." In Unearthly Visions: Approaches to Science Fiction and Fantasy Art, edited by Gary Westfahi, George Slusser, and Kathleen Church Plummer. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2002, 19-38.
_____. "Who Governs Science Fiction?" Extrapolation, 41 (Spring 2000), 63-72.
_____. "Wrangling Conversation: Linguistic Patterns in the Dialogue of Heroes and Villains." In Fights of Fancy: Armed Conflict in Science Fiction and Fantasy, edited by George Slusser and Eric S. Rabkin. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1993, 35-48.
Gary Westfahl, who teaches at the University of California, Riverside, won the SFRA's 2003 Pilgrim Award for lifetime contributions to science fiction and fantasy scholarship. His recent publications include Science Fiction Quotations: From the Inner Mind to the Outer Limits and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders.
Copyright University of Texas at Brownsville Spring 2006
(c) 2006 Extrapolation. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
Source: Extrapolation
 |
 |
User Comments (0)
RSS Feeds