Inside Science Fiction: Second Edition by James Gunn (book review).

Released in 2007, ‘Inside Science Fiction: Second Edition’ by James Gunn is becoming a hard book to come across but worth seeking out if you can get it at a decent price as he gives his views across the entire range of SF, including looking from the non-SF to the SF viewpoints as he has straddled both sides of the fence using his material from several years. As such, he looks at his own role, teaching SF, the media usage in film and TV and the impact of SF on society.

Gunn does repeat the message that SF is dying but we’ve seen that happening for years and even I’ve been smitten enough to be writing an article on the subject. More of that later.

For his second chapter, he does point out that the likes of Verne, Wells and Poe were not Science Fiction fans or readers, although I would argue that other than themselves, there wasn’t much SF about anyway. I think, under similar circumstances, I would be cautious about reading other SF writers just in case I ‘borrowed’ their ideas even unintentionally. It isn’t as though Verne and Wells didn’t read each other’s novels as they did commented on them as Gunn showed in his earlier non-fiction books.

It’s very interesting seeing Gunn looking at giving lectures on the subject of Science Fiction at university as serious literature. Equally, I found he also points out something I wrote here independently years ago that SF absorbs and uses aspects of other genres. I could give an argument that SF and certainly fantasy might be the oldest genre if you take into account mythologies. Then again, there’s always an argument about whether storytelling is about the human condition, social commentary or entertainment. SF covers all of this but it is the quality of the storyteller as to whether it should be considered as ‘literature’ and that really is up to the individual than an institution. SF’s strength comes from expressing ideas in fictional form, something that is mostly lacking in other genres.

The problem with Gunn’s exploration of SF films and TV is that it will always beholden to the date written. He also has first-hand experience of how his story ‘The Immortals’ was turned into a TV film and then a series, the latter I’ve reviewed and in agreement with him. The original film isn’t readily available to compare to the series but he says was better. He’s right to some extent that much of TV SF at that time was written by people who didn’t really understand SF although his list of good SF TV series at the end of this section should certainly have been expanded into a chapter to counter-balance things he wrote earlier. Oh, if you’re looking for Heinlein’s ‘Universe’ novella, you might it easier to get a copy of ‘Orphans Of The Sky’ and one of the odd books of his I haven’t read and need to remedy.

I’m not entirely convinced Gunn’s look at TV SF is that inclusive. Nary a comment on ‘Doctor Who’ and with the Century 21 TV series, focuses on ‘Space: 1999’, hardly the Anderson series best when you consider the likes of the superior ‘Thunderbirds’ and ‘UFO’. Current SF showrunners are certainly more SF savvy and can certainly differentiate on quality. I do agree with Gunn that fewer SF writers get involved with film and TV but that’s mostly because they can see how much it can get changed in the transition for all manner of reasons.

His history of the trips to the Moon does illustrate how quickly boredom set in for the latter Apollos and not keeping up the public enthusiasm and had a drop of finance because of it. Gunn does point out that the American public were citing other things that should have had financial attention and yet so many spin-offs from the space programme ultimately went towards them, including computer advancement. Think of that with any potential trips to Mars which there and back will be at least 4 years. It certainly needs to ensure that there is a better PR job or showing that we all benefit from any space programme. Had we kept going after Apollo and not just space stations, we might have had manned flights to Mars by now.

Interestingly, Gunn points out how little money he has made from his Science Fiction books and to many writers it is a secondary job because you can’t live off it and makes far less than writing fantasy. These last few chapters of this book should be required reading. It certainly makes less money than film or TV series. I do wonder if this is contributing to our current situation where SF is in the doldrums. Further back in the book, Gunn also points out that the audience for SF film and TV series is not the same as those who read it and that certainly needs to be addressed.

Keep your notebook handy because there is a long list of books to check out in case you missed any.

All right, there is an age limitation with this book but, as I said earlier, if you can seek out a copy, it is worth a read as many of the issues Gunn discusses are still going on, showing they haven’t really changed and certainly need more thought. You would be wondering why other authors haven’t tackled similar subjects. I haven’t read them all but there certainly aren’t enough books looking at written SF and authors a little fearful of repeating what Gunn said, despite the fact the book has been out-of-print although I bet they certainly have read it. So should you.

GF Willmetts

November 2021

(pub: Scarecrow Press, 2007. 249 page indexed enlarged paperback. Price: ??. ISBN: 978-0-8108-5714-8)

check out publisher: www.scarecrowpress.com