Science Fiction Studies |
#70 = Volume 23, Part 3 = November 1996Science Fiction in Academe
Aristocracy, upper middle class, lower middle class, lower class; warriors and priests, merchants and shopkeepers, servants and laborers. There was a time when warrior-aristocrats disdained education for themselves (other than training to arms), though valuing such educated men as could be of service to them, men who in their turn were proud not to be "ignorant as a lord," though happy to enjoy the advantages brought them by their association with, and de facto membership in, the ruling class. Since time immemorial, higher education has always been either a means of entering the higher classes or an embellishment for those born to wealth and power. Quality, slick, pulp—terms I learned in high-school English. It was only later that I learned that the term "quality magazine" originated not out of respect for the intellectual level of The Atlantic, The Century, Scribner's, and Harper's, but as a short form of "magazines for people of quality." The big slicks—The Saturday Evening Post, Collier's, The American, Cosmopolitan— were the magazines of the great American middle class, respectable enough in that they represented, if not prosperity plus cultural refinement, at least prosperity and good behavior. And then there were the pulps, with their garish covers, cheap paper, and correspondence-school advertising, obviously attractive only to lower-class readers of little education and low-brow tastes and obviously fit only to be ignored by educated readers. You studied English, first of all, to learn to speak and write correctly—that is, so that your speech and writing would not mark you as at best uneducated, at worst as of lower-class origin. You studied literature to achieve cultural refinement, to be counted among those who read The Atlantic rather than The Saturday Evening Post and so among those who had risen above the crass materialism of ordinary people. Of course, neither you nor your teachers put such motives into words: the coupling of culture and wealth, or at least of culture and prosperity, went unchallenged, unexamined except by highbrows, ridiculous people pretending to be superior to and disdainful of the culture of cultured people. The entrance of science-fiction courses into the curriculum in the 1960s was accompanied by a good deal of fanfare. When Mark Hillegas inaugurated his course at Colgate, "the English department was not wildly enthusiastic; but the Administration was happy because the course attracted publicity in the form of newspaper articles across the country, including The New York Times and The National Observer."1 When my own course began in 1969 I received a visit from a reporter that resulted in a full-page gee-whiz story in The Terre Haute Tribune, and between 1962 and 1969 there had been similar stories in numerous newspapers in various parts of the country. The fanfare arose first from astonishment that colleges would teach pulp fiction and then from the general acceptance of the argument that a number of works in the literary canon (works included in the reading list for the course) could be classified as science fiction and that much present-day science fiction, even though originally published in pulp-paper magazines, was much more serious than the generality of popular fiction. The courses were seen by the reporters and their readers as making a kind of breakthrough, as breeching the walls of the literary establishment so that worthwhile books different from those students had been restricted to could be studied. In sum, this was progress. (On the other hand there were and are those for whom science fiction is fiction to be studied with emphasis on what it reveals about the culture that consumes it.) SCIENCE-FICTION STUDIES grants that supernatural and mythological fantasy, which it considers irrational fantasy, has much in common with the rational fantasy of science fiction, and it regards utopian fiction as rational fantasy and so a subgenre of science fiction.2 The annotated list of courses featured in this special issue therefore includes courses in which the subject matter is labeled utopia or fantasy as well as those in which it is labeled science fiction. It occurred to me, while preparing this special issue, that courses labeled utopia might well, if only because no one would think of utopian fiction as pulp fiction, have quietly entered the curriculum at various colleges even before the fanfare of 1962. Not knowing whether or not this was true, I wrote to Arthur O. Lewis, Associate Dean Emeritus of the College of the Liberal Arts, Pennsylvania State University, who in 1976 compiled and distributed the Directory of Utopian Scholars,3 to ask what he could tell me on the matter. Dean Lewis replied as follows:
Although the evidence Dean Lewis presents is, as he says, rather sketchy, it confirms my hunch sufficiently for us to suppose that the entrance of utopian courses into the curriculum (which met with some opposition but did not stir up as much controversy as that of science-fiction courses) eased the way for science-fiction courses. Sam Moskowitz of course deserves the credit for teaching the first college-level course in science fiction, but it should be noted that this was an extension course carrying no credit toward a degree and with the primary purpose of introducing students to the world of science-fiction professionals. Mark Hillegas established the first regularly scheduled, credit-carrying course at Colgate in 1962. In the same year Arthur Lewis at Penn State, as noted above, taught a course in utopias and Bruce Franklin at Stanford taught science fiction as the topic of a topics course which not long after became a regularly scheduled science-fiction course. Jack Williamson inaugurated his course at Eastern New Mexico in 1964. Tom Clareson's course at Wooster began in the Spring 1969 term. The four notes that follow have been abstracted from syllabi distributed to students in the 1960s and have been shaped to resemble the entries in the annotated list of present-day courses featured in this special issue of SFS:
California. Stanford University, Stanford
Indiana State University, Terre Haute
We may sum up this little history by saying that a few utopian courses were taught before 1962, that sf courses began in 1962, and that both spread gradually in the 1960s and rapidly in the 1970s. The credit for originating this special issue belongs to my co-editor, Arthur B. Evans. I was at first dubious about its feasibility, but was eventually persuaded that it would be worth the labor involved in producing it. We are grateful to all those who submitted course descriptions and/or essays on the teaching of science fiction, utopian literature, and fantasy, with special thanks to those who assisted in the gathering of the course descriptions. Most of the latter are named in the listing itself; among those not so named are Lyman Tower Sargent, editor of Utopian Studies, and Colleen Stumbaugh, moderator of the SF-LIT on-line discussion group. —RDM. NOTES 1. Mark Hillegas, "The Course in Science Fiction: A Hope Deferred," Extrapolation 9:18, May 1968. This article is concerned primarily with the opposition in English departments to science-fiction courses, and so is pessimistic about the possibility of sf courses ever being common in English departments. 2. Utopian courses sometimes emphasize the history and sociology of utopian communities rather than utopian fiction per se, but we feel that their relationship to science fiction is still close enough to warrant including them in our list. We should perhaps also add here that most utopian courses include at least some works from the present-day commercial category known as science fiction. 3. The first edition of the Directory listed 107 scholars; the fifth edition, which will be published in Utopian Studies, perhaps in the Fall 1996 issue, will list about 900.
|