On the Erasure of SFF History
Aug. 23rd, 2020 03:02 pm I wrote a long post on FB inspired by a conversation from a friend who recently rewatched the DS9 ep "Far Beyond the Stars" and was under the impression that its portrayal of SFF publishing practices was accurate. So:
A Crash Course in the History of Black Science Fiction by Nisi Shawl (2018). Shawl finds stuff going back to the 1850s because of course she does. I think I read something that this and her ongoing columns at Tor will be a book at some point. http://www.nisishawl.com/CCHBSF.html
The Battle of the Sexes in Science Fiction by Justine Larbalestier (2002). Similar to Merrick but using way more fanzine titles and convention listings to find women. She also looks at how some women sf authors purposely misrepresented themselves to make themselves seem more groundbreaking in a "hostile" field even as they were being actively promoted by women editors like Judith Merril and others in the 1940s and 1950s. https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Sexes-Science.../dp/081956527X
Cait rants about the erasure of science fiction history:
One of my problems with the current resistance to canon-formation and its associated gate-keeping is how it contributes to the erasure of science fiction as literature and to genre fandom. It perpetuates the myth that SFF is a literature created by and for cranky white dude incels, which the Puppies embraced wholeheartedly back in 2014. The insistence that women writers are new, that black writers are new, that lgbtq+ writers are new, all feeds into this intellectual myth that is harmful not just to the evolution of the field but actively erases our own history. (This is also why ISTFG every ten years someone has to write an article like "omg did you know women wrote before 1970"? Like motherfuckers Margaret Cavendish did The Blazing World in 1666 and Mary Shelley did Frankenstein in 1818! (Also obligatory rant as to how within the field itself there is/was a tendency to try to actively write Mary Shelley out because she didn't do "real science fiction" which is why The Wesleyan Anthology of SF--A TEXTBOOK--tried to position freaking Jules Verne and Nathanial Hawthorn as the progenitors of SFF like that makes any damn sense! Ahem.)
Further, science fiction studies has historically made a point of creating a Great Men narrative since the 1959 meeting at the MLA which ratified an honest-to-god "canon" of 106 SFF titles that were worthy of note; Mary Shelley and Leigh Brackett were the only women on that list. However, in formally making this critical argument as to what SFF as a literature of ideas entails effectively othered SFF fandom for over a half century and even today very seldom see discussions of genre fandom in any of the SFF journals or meetings--and then you don't see it in fan studies either because that discipline has been eclipsed by media studies that evokes a very specific sense of fandom activities that are biased towards fanfiction and transformative activities historically performed by women though it does include a limited sense of curative activities by dudes. ANYHOW.
Which is all to say that the history of science fiction publishing specifically in America--and I differentiate this from the fan cultures of other countries because those are significantly different and I only know bits of their publishing histories, eg. in the UK the import of American SF magazines was limited until the companies began printing UK editions there which would have totally different content in each issue which means to track specific writers you end up with a bibliographic mess. But if you look at who is present demographically in various contexts you do see women and other marginalized groups, but the problem is that because of the acceptance of the "myth" of SFF as white dudes you just don't see widespread knowledge or acceptance as to who was actively publishing even when the material is right frigging there. Instead you get an excess amount of "why this is unusual" or "there was only one writer" or "it's not *really* SFF" and it's all frigging bullshit.
TL:DR SFF is and always has been more than white dudes and if more effort was actually made to read older stuff rather than dismiss it out of hand you would see how very different our history is.
ETA: AND ANOTHER THING: Something "Far Beyond the Stars" alludes to but doesn't quite get at is how common it was to not know what SFF authors or fans looked like. This is why Alice Sheldon wrote as James Tiptree Jr. for like 20 years and people genuinely thought she was a dude until she was outed as female. Ditto the Carl Brandon Hoax (in which two white dudes pretended to be a black dude). There weren't author photos on SFF publications until very late, like, 1980s, so you wouldn't know what writers looked like unless you went to cons and saw them. Similarly, until like the last 20 years there was some systemic prejudice against SFF fans and such so that a number of people really went out of their way to hide who they were.
One final example of history erasure: Everyone lost their gd minds over the "historic" nomination of the AO3 Fanfic Archive for a Hugo in 2019. However, I know that fanfic was nominated for Hugos at least as far back as 1974 because reference is made to it in Star Trek Lives! (1975). But again with forgetting our history.
Bibliography and recommended reading:
ETA: AND ANOTHER THING: Something "Far Beyond the Stars" alludes to but doesn't quite get at is how common it was to not know what SFF authors or fans looked like. This is why Alice Sheldon wrote as James Tiptree Jr. for like 20 years and people genuinely thought she was a dude until she was outed as female. Ditto the Carl Brandon Hoax (in which two white dudes pretended to be a black dude). There weren't author photos on SFF publications until very late, like, 1980s, so you wouldn't know what writers looked like unless you went to cons and saw them. Similarly, until like the last 20 years there was some systemic prejudice against SFF fans and such so that a number of people really went out of their way to hide who they were.
One final example of history erasure: Everyone lost their gd minds over the "historic" nomination of the AO3 Fanfic Archive for a Hugo in 2019. However, I know that fanfic was nominated for Hugos at least as far back as 1974 because reference is made to it in Star Trek Lives! (1975). But again with forgetting our history.
Bibliography and recommended reading:
Partners in Wonder: Women and the Birth of Science Fiction, 1926-1965 by Eric Leif Davin (2005). Quantitative study of women writers in the pulp age that identifies over 200 women writers. https://www.amazon.com/Partners-Wonder.../dp/0739112678
Speculative Blackness: The Future of Race in Science Fiction by Andre M. Carrington (2016). Looks at black writers and fans through 1920s to 2000s. I think it's a little weak and would have been better served with additional archival research, but I think it was his thesis and am willing to cut him some slack. https://www.amazon.com/Speculative.../dp/0816678960
A Crash Course in the History of Black Science Fiction by Nisi Shawl (2018). Shawl finds stuff going back to the 1850s because of course she does. I think I read something that this and her ongoing columns at Tor will be a book at some point. http://www.nisishawl.com/CCHBSF.html
Afrofuturism Rising: The Literary Prehistory of a Movement by Isiah Lavender III (2019). He goes back to the eighteenth century to reclaim Phyllis Wheatley for the genre and I need to read this. https://www.amazon.com/Afrofuturism-Rising.../dp/0814255566/
The Secret Feminist Cabal: A Cultural History of SF Feminisms by Helen Merrick (2009). She does a dual history of 20th c. SFF publishing dual with fandom, though her scope is limited since she only looks at a handful of fanzine titles which I think misrepresents a quantitative study that could be way bigger. https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Feminist.../dp/1933500336
The Merril Theory of Lit'ry Criticism: Judith Merril's Nonfiction by Judith Merril ed. Ritch Calvin (2016). SPEAKING OF JUDITH MERRIL let's talk about a major woman editor who literally founded the Year's Best Science Fiction anthology series in 1956 that created the model for the anthologies that continue today. She really got screwed over literally in the field because her ex-husband Fred Pohl made a big fucking deal about how much she slept around despite the fact that they were both in an open marriage, but she's the one that got punished for it. In way too many histories if she gets name-dropped its to mention who she published and then who she slept with. Grr. https://www.amazon.com/Merril-Theory-Litry.../dp/1619760932
The Future Is Female! 25 Classic Science Fiction Stories by Women, from Pulp Pioneers to Ursula K. Le Guin: A Library of America Special Publication ed. Lisa Yaszek. Yaszek reprints a lot of older material from the 1910s to the 1960s and is now doing a full series for LoA because she's awesome. https://www.amazon.com/Classic-Science.../dp/1598535803
See also Galactic Suburbia: Recovering Women’s Science Fiction (2008) where she lays out the case for recovering women sff writers. (I love her so much.) https://www.amazon.com/Galactic-Suburbia.../dp/0814251641/
And finally, The Cambridge History of Science Fiction ed.
by Gerry Canavan and Eric Carl Link (2019). It has extended essays on all this, but even I haven't read it because they did it through Cambridge and it costs $125. SIGH. Another reason we end up in erasure feedback loops is because too many scholars fall into the academic trap and put together books that most people are never gonna buy because of the pricetags. SIGH AGAIN. https://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History.../dp/1107166098