The Golden Age of Sci-Fi

One History and One Example

In a lot of ways, it’s an exciting time to be a sci-fi fan. The Golden Age of TV (which is in trouble, but I digress…) brought us lots of new options. And the big screen finally brought us a watchable version of Dune.

Good times.

We also have unprecedented opportunities to reflect on sci-fi history. So, not only are we moving in interesting directions, but we can also look back more clearly at what came before.

That brings us to the Golden Age of Science Fiction. And what an age it was! I recently read a couple of books relevant to the topic, and I’ll say a bit about them. One history of the era, and one example of a (lost) story.

Alec Nevala-Lee — Astounding

Nevala-Lee writes a book we could consider a history of the Golden Age. But he presents it in the form of a quadruple biography. And in it, he covers early 20th century U.S. sci-fi, counterculture movements of the era, and World War II. In doing so, he tells us most of what we need to know about the Golden Age.

Nevala-Lee’s narrative revolves first around John W. Campbell, the classic editor of Astounding Science Fiction (now called Analog Science Fiction and Fact). From there, the narrative moves into the life and times of three key authors who wrote for Campbell in his early years as editor — Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, and L. Ron Hubbard.

As a certified sci-fi nerd, I’ve heard many mentions of ‘Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein’ as the ‘Grand Masters’ of the Golden Age. And that’s quite correct. But Clarke was British, and he didn’t build his early career from within the immediate Campbell orb. Hubbard, however, did. Nevala-Lee focuses on him for this reason, and because he strongly influenced the early years of Astounding.

That said, while Nevala-Lee finds much to like about Asimov and Heinlein (among the problems), he clearly doesn’t care for Hubbard. He dislikes Hubbard the person, Hubbard the writer, and Hubbard the religious cult leader.

So, there’s that. Otherwise, I appreciate how Nevala-Lee manages to contextualize and explain the history of sci-fi — through these key figures — in a way that balances sympathy and critique. He especially does a nice job handling gender issues and social relationships among early authors and fans.

Any reader interested in sci-fi and its history — especially, but not only, the Golden Age — should pick this one up.

Robert Heinlein — For Us, The Living

Heinlein, of course, was one of those authors. He arguably developed sooner than the others.

However, he never actually got around to publishing his first novel, written all the way back in the late 1930s. He later mined the material for stories, especially in his Future History series. But the original work itself sat on the shelf. He never published it.

His estate published it in the early 2000s. How did it go?

In short, it’s a fine enough story. But I think we may find more of scholarly interest than interest to sci-fi readers. Heinlein wrote far better stories later in his life.

He began this one from a solid premise, asking what would happen if a person from 1939 moved 150 years into the future. This premise offers Heinlein a platform to make predictions about the distant future. And, more interestingly, to do so in a world where World War II hadn’t yet happened. It also offers him a rare early opportunity to imagine a world that implemented his own politics. At least his early politics.

But, as I wrote, Heinlein does better in his later work. For Us, The Living is clearly the work of an author not yet in his prime. For one, it’s preachy. Even for Heinlein. He fills pretty much the entire second half of the book with a single character lecturing the reader on Heinlein’s views on economics.

The first half, though, has a strong enough plot to make the second half worth it to the dedicated reader.

Then again, I’m also a Heinlein fan.

N.B.

This article contains affiliate marketing links.