[Did you meet us at Comic Con? Read this to see what we’re all about!]
by Gideon Marcus
I've discussed recently how this appears to be a revival period for science fiction what with two new magazines having been launched and the paperback industry on the rise. I've also noted that, with the advent of Avram Davidson at the helm of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, the editorial course of that digest has…changed. That venerable outlet has definitely doubled down on its commitment to the esoteric and the literary.
Has Davidson determined that success relies on making his magazine as distinct from all the others as possible? Or do I have things backwards? Perhaps the profusion of new magazines is a reaction to F&SF's new tack, sticking more closely to the mainstream of our genre.
All I can tell you is that the latest edition ain't that great, though, to be fair, a lot of that is due to the absolutely awful Heinlein dross that fills half of the August 1963 Fantasy and Science Fiction. See for yourself:
Turn Off the Sky, by Ray Nelson
Things start off strong with a tale of love and loss in a future of abundance, unemployment, and political apathy. Abelard Rosenburg, a blue-painted, black-skinned, bearded Beatnik is unswervingly committed to the cause of pacifistic anarchy, "sharing his burden" of leaflets to whomever will read them. Then he meets the beautiful Eurasian, Reva, last of the capitalists, who plies the oldest profession in a virtually moneyless society. Passion and polemics ensue.
Beautifully illustrated by EMSH, Turn Off the Sky was apparently written in 1958. Davidson held it in reserve for just the right moment. In fact, the story has that broodingly whimsical quality that marked the work of Avram Davidson at his finest – if I didn't know Ray Nelson was a real person (something of a superfan), I'd suspect this was an old work Davidson snuck in under a pseudonym. It certainly feels like something from the last decade, albeit a progressive work from that era. I liked it a lot. Four stars.
[Walter Breen of Berkeley tells me that this version is expurgated. That means they took the sex out. So much for F&SF being combined with the old Venture mag…]
Fred, by Calvin Demmon
This joke vignette is something you might enjoy telling at your next dinner party. I smiled. Four stars.
T-Formation, by Isaac Asimov
Things start to go downhill at the third-way mark. The Good Doctor has been floundering a bit lately, and his latest piece on very big numbers is both abstruse and not particularly exciting. I did appreciate his discussion of Mersenne numbers and the Fibonacci sequence, however. Three stars.
Ubi Sunt? by R. H. Reis and Kathleen P. Reis
A couple of months back, Brian Aldiss wrote a poem about how modern astronomy has killed the Mars of Burroughs. This new poem by the Reis' covers the same ground. Three stars.
Glory Road (Part 2 of 3), by Robert A. Heinlein
Last month, I covered the beginning of a promising though uneven new Heinlein serial. It began with a compelling account of one of the first veterans of our newest war (the one in Vietnam) and then declined (with some bright spots) into a fantasy novel that was a pale shadow of Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions. It ended with our hero and his heroine, both having pledged their love for each other, tilting lances at their former benefactor, who had thrown them out for not having sex with his family.
Yes, you read that right.
How does this exciting lead-up resolve? With a disappointing, "After resolving the situation, our heroes hung out in their benefactor's steam bath and chatted." I'm not leaving anything out. That is pretty much how Part 2 begins. Then it meanders into a dialogue between the protagonists that reads as if Heinlein had a conversation with himself in the shower (before he'd entirely woken up), and someone transcribed the result.
It's bad. It's unreadable. It's the worst Heinlein I've ever read, and I'm a fan (though Podkayne of Mars and Stranger in a Strange Land sorely tested that status). Truth be told, I gave up ten pages in. Let me know if it gets better, but having skimmed some of the later pages out of morbid curiosity, it didn't look like it.
One star.
The Censors: A Sad Allegory, by T. P. Caravan
Another half-page joke piece. Not as good as the first one. Three stars.
Sweets to the Sweet, by Paul Jay Robbins
Undistinguished, middle-aged man in a loveless marriage resorts to the occult to make his mark. In the course of his studies, he discovers he's really a fantastic creature of unknown lineage, requiring just the right spell to express his true form.
This first piece by newcomer Robbins is at once half-baked and overdone, very much a freshman work, and you'll see the conclusion a mile away. Two stars.
So, once again, F&SF has oscillated into the negative end of the spectrum, and I can't help being tempted to echo the actions of a fellow reader, whose letter Davidson had the bravery to publish:
Lately, I and my friends have been somewhat disappointed with F&SF. Mr. Davidson leaves something to be desired as an editor. Therefore, I am declining your kind offer to renew my subscription to your magazine.
E. Gary Gygax, Chicago, Ill.
[P.S. Did you take our super short survey yet? There could be free beer/coffee in it for you!]
The Heinlein does *not* get better. While he might pull a six-foot rabbit out of his hat, I'm not really expecting the next (last?) installment to get any better.
I have to agree AND disagree with your assessment of "Turn Off the Sky."
I agree that it is very good. Indeed, I would give it at least a full five stars. It's one of the most brilliant stories I've read in a long time.
What I disagree about is your statement that it reads like something from the last decade. To me, it reads like something written in the future. I get that feeling from only one other writer: Cordwainer Smith. (And one story by Fritz Leiber, "Coming Attraction.")
I didn't hate the Heinlein, although it's certainly not very good. It looks like this novel is going to be an excuse for yet another endless series of dialogues outlining the author's philosophy.
There is a Smith-like quality to the Nelson, I agree. But the Beat-iness, which I appreciate, is getting a little dated.
Walter Breen of Berkeley tells me that this version of Turn off the Sky is expurgated. That means they took the sex out. So much for F&SF being combined with the old Venture mag…
I'm sure Walter Breen put in more sex than Avram Davidson ever took out.
Great story, though. Reminded me a bit of Brave New World.
Face it, the Feghoot was the funniest story in the issue. And it wasn't all that good.
I really don't know what to make of "Turn Off the Sky". I can certainly see why it appealed to Davidson, and it did hold my attention. I'm just not sure if I liked it.
I didn't much care for "Fred". It didn't amuse me in the least. Maybe I'm just an old grump, but it was wasted space to me.
Dr. A could surely have dealt with very, very large numbers in a more engaging way. And he left out one of the most interesting things about Fibonacci numbers. He did say that they relate to the Golden Ratio, but failed to say how. If you divide a Fibonacci number by its immediate predecessor, you get an approximation of the Golden Ratio. The larger the pair, the closer approximation. That's more interesting than all the other stuff he went on about.
The Heinlein. Ye gods, the Heinlein. The "banter" between Oscar and Star was utterly horrible. The scene with Pug was all right, I guess, and the way they got off the roof into the tower was clever, but beyond that? I will say that the abruptness of the first chapter this month is probably because nobody would print any of the intervening material. And I did like the summary being in Oscar's voice instead of the usual third-person omniscient narrator. Can he save this novel? I have my doubts.
"The Censors" just left me with a shrug. It was one of those puffy little pastries that are 99% air and you're never sure if you've actually eaten it. I forgot it by the time my eye had moved beyond the final period.
"Sweets to the Sweet" could have been better than it was, in the hands of, say, Fritz Leiber. As it was, it was predictable and far too long.
I'm not quite prepared to go so far as the letter-writer with the odd name (honestly, who gives their child the initials EGG? He'll never amount to anything.), but it might be time for Davidson to hand over the reins to someone a little more conventional.
Your lineup for this issue includes "Glory Road (Part 1 of 3)" — it is of course (Part 2 of 3). I could make a number of feeble jokes about how you must have gotten a defective copy that accidentally reprinted last month's installment, or that Davidson ran Part 1 over again just to see if anyone was still reading it and would notice . . . but I won't. (Oh, I just did. Never mind.)
Problems of your rating system: you give out a total of twenty stars for seven pieces, so a perfectly respectible average of 2.86 stars. But some of the Good stuff is page-or-less, and the one really Bad stuff entry takes up about half of the issue. It's too bad your system doesn't have some way to weigh for wordage, though I don't have any solutions.
Also: reminded of the old formula — "Start with keg of wine, add cup of sewage, result: keg of sewage. Start with keg of sewage, add cup of wine, result: keg of sewage."
Not that I found the Heinlein nearly as dire as you did, though it's certainly minor — I am enjoying it more than I did STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND.) But I do have the sinking feeling that RAH is going to prove capable of sinking even beneath this level over the next few years. Maybe I'm wrong.
My system is not a straight average of stars over pieces. I do take length into account, though it's also not stars x pages / total pages either because a brilliant vignette is worth more than its length.
In my system, this issue got 2.7 stars.
Precog or reminiscence? Re Glory Road I hear Davidson in a review boasting that he couldn’t finish Clockwork Orange
Davidson is an odd duck, to be sure!