into Lilliput . On the strength of it we had several lunches in LâEscargot, long and alcoholic lunches, as were then a perk for both writer and editor. LâEscargot has gone through several transmutations, even an unfortunate one as nouvelle cuisine, but it was a mystery then that often we were the only people eating there at lunchtime. In the evenings it was crammed.
Â
A visiting American said, did I read science fiction? I offered Olaf Stapledon, H. G. Wells, Jules Verne, and he said it was a good beginning. Then he gave me an armful of science fiction novels. What I felt then I have felt ever since. I was excited by their scope, the wideness of their horizons, the ideas, and the possibilities for social criticismâparticularly in this time of McCarthy, when the atmosphere was so thick and hostile to new ideas in the United Statesâand disappointed by the level of characterisation and the lack of subtlety. My mentor said, But of course you canât have subtlety of character, which depends on a cultural matrix, if the hero is pioneering engineer Dick Tantrix No. 65092 on the artificial planet Andromeda, Sector 25,000. Very well, but I have always felt that a sci-fi novel is yet to be written using density of characterisation, like Henry James. It would be great comedy, for a start. But if what we do get is so wonderfully inventive and astonishing and mind-boggling, then why repine? In science fiction are some of the best stories of our time. To open a sci-fi novel, or to be with science fiction writers, if youâve just come from a sojourn in the conventional literary world, is like opening windows into a stuffy and old-fashioned little room.
My new tutor said he would take me to a pub where science fiction writers went. He did. It must have been the White Horse in Fetter Lane, off Fleet Street. There was a room full of bespectacled lean men who turned as one to look warily at meâa masculine atmosphere. No, the word suggests a sexual lordliness. âBlokeishâ, then? No, too homespun and ordinary. This was a clan, a group, a family, but without women. I felt I should not be there, though chaperoned by my American, whom they knew and welcomed. What they were was defensive: this was because they had been so thoroughly rejected by the literary world. They had the facetiousness, the jokiness, of their defensiveness. I babbled absurdly about Nietzscheâs Superman, and the Revelations, and they were embarrassed. I like to think the great Arthur C. Clarke was there, but he had probably left for the States by then.
My disappointment with what I thought of as a dull group of people, suburban, provincial, was my fault. In that prosaic room, in that very ordinary pub, was going on the most advanced thinking in this country. (The Astronomer Royal had said it would be ridiculous to think that we could send people to the moon.) What these men were talking about, thinking about, were satellite communications, rocketry, spacecraft and space travel, the social uses of television. They were linked with people like themselves across the world: âThe Earth is the cradle of Mankind, but you cannot live in a cradle for ever.ââKonstantin Tsiolkovsky. âWe are living,â said Arthur C. Clarke, âin a moment unique in all historyâthe last days of Manâs existence as a citizen of a single planet.â My trouble was that I didnât have mathematics, physicsâcouldnât speak their language. Because of my ignorance, I know I have been cut off from the developments going on in scienceâand science is where our frontiers are, in this time. It is not to the latest literary novel that people now look for news about humanity, as they did in the nineteenth century.
When lists are made of the best British writers since the war, they do not include Arthur C. Clarke, nor Brian Aldiss, nor any of the good science fiction writers. It is conventional literature that has