John W. Campbell

[huxley]

did anyone ever read him. i watched the movie "the thing"
he created that story . i was wandering if he made good books??

 

[steve12553]

I read Who Goes There? which both versions of the movie The Thing were based on and I really enjoyed it. I've got at least one more of his stories in a one of the anthologies but either I've not got around to reading them or it just didn't stick with me.

 

[j d worthington]

Here's a link to give you a general idea of his bibliography:

John W Campbell

Once he began editing Astounding Science Fiction in the late 1930s, his own fiction took a back seat to his editorial role in the development of the field. However, if you want a good look at what JWC's work was like, The Best of John W. Campbell is a good place to start. He's certainly not for everyone, as he was heavily into the physics aspects of things, often to the overriding of the storytelling; yet some of his work can be quite good, such as "Twilight", "Who Goes There", and some of his earlier work. Some of his best is the work he did under the pen name Don A. Stuart.

Campbell's main influence, however, was his guidance of the field away from the patterns followed by most writers in the 1920s and early 1930s, when it tended to be either all science with a thin coating of story, or all story, with very poor science. (There were, I hasten to add, exceptions, such as Jack Williamson, Clifford Simak, Lester Del Rey, and Stanley G. Weinbaum. For a good selection of sf of the 1930s, try Before the Golden Age, ed. by Isaac Asimov, or Science Fiction of the 1930s, edited by Damon Knight.) Campbell insisted on a good grounding in science (or at least pseudoscience), and genuine speculation from that basis, but he also wanted literate fiction, and it was Campbell as editor that first encouraged Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke (as far as American sales, anyway), C. M. Kornbluth, L. Sprague de Camp, and several other of the luminaries of the "Golden Age" of science fiction.

 

[Foxbat]

I agree that Campbell leaves behind a fine legacy (mostly in his editing career) but I did enjoy Who Goes There. You can still find this story in quite a few anthologies doing the rounds and it's certainly worth a read

 

[huxley]

thanks guys

 

[BAYLOR]

He didn't like Phillip K Dicks stories .

 

[BAYLOR]

Here's a link to give you a general idea of his bibliography:

John W Campbell

Once he began editing Astounding Science Fiction in the late 1930s, his own fiction took a back seat to his editorial role in the development of the field. However, if you want a good look at what JWC's work was like, The Best of John W. Campbell is a good place to start. He's certainly not for everyone, as he was heavily into the physics aspects of things, often to the overriding of the storytelling; yet some of his work can be quite good, such as "Twilight", "Who Goes There", and some of his earlier work. Some of his best is the work he did under the pen name Don A. Stuart.

Campbell's main influence, however, was his guidance of the field away from the patterns followed by most writers in the 1920s and early 1930s, when it tended to be either all science with a thin coating of story, or all story, with very poor science. (There were, I hasten to add, exceptions, such as Jack Williamson, Clifford Simak, Lester Del Rey, and Stanley G. Weinbaum. For a good selection of sf of the 1930s, try Before the Golden Age, ed. by Isaac Asimov, or Science Fiction of the 1930s, edited by Damon Knight.) Campbell insisted on a good grounding in science (or at least pseudoscience), and genuine speculation from that basis, but he also wanted literate fiction, and it was Campbell as editor that first encouraged Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke (as far as American sales, anyway), C. M. Kornbluth, L. Sprague de Camp, and several other of the luminaries of the "Golden Age" of science fiction.

He ended up alienating Heinlein , Asimov and the rest.

 

[j d worthington]

He ended up alienating Heinlein , Asimov and the rest.

Not entirely. There was a distance, it is quite true, because of certain tendencies Campbell exhibited, but nearly all -- even those who were at odds with him throughout their careers during his life -- retained a great deal of respect for him and his contributions to the field, and regretted that distance.

Oh, and however he felt about Dick's work, his unvarnished sentiments about Phil Farmer's were memorable, to say the least, and not in a favorable way....

 

[BAYLOR]

Not entirely. There was a distance, it is quite true, because of certain tendencies Campbell exhibited, but nearly all -- even those who were at odds with him throughout their careers during his life -- retained a great deal of respect for him and his contributions to the field, and regretted that distance.

Oh, and however he felt about Dick's work, his unvarnished sentiments about Phil Farmer's were memorable, to say the least, and not in a favorable way....

I didn't know that he disliked Farmer's work too, not a surprise.

Was he important to science fiction in the early years? I would have to say yes but the evolution of science fiction that he helped usher in left him behind. Byt the 1950's and 60's he was way out of step with the genre and by the time of his death in 1971 he was a relic .

As far as I know he never accepted one of Dick's stories for Analogue . After Campbell died an award was created in his honor. The John W Campbell Memorial Award? I could be mistaken here but I think It's first recipient was Phillip K Dick. Pretty Ironic .

 

[BAYLOR]

I read Who Goes There? which both versions of the movie The Thing were based on and I really enjoyed it. I've got at least one more of his stories in a one of the anthologies but either I've not got around to reading them or it just didn't stick with me.

Ive read Who Goes There and I liked it . Ive read a few other stories by him and found them to be underwhelming.

 

[j d worthington]

Ive read Who Goes There and I liked it . Ive read a few other stories by him and found them to be underwhelming.

I would have to look up the first recipient of the Campbell Award, but if I remember correctly, you're right. As for his other fiction... some of it is, I think, forgettable. Others are rather good. Some of his humorous sf had an influence on Asimov's Donovan and Powell stories (among others); and some stories, such as "Twilight", are simply very powerful mood pictures well worth savoring for their poetic use of language and imagery... not the sort of thing one usually thinks of with Campbell, but definitely there.

 

[Randy M.]

First recipient was Barry Malzberg, but the same applied. Malzberg was writing fiction of a type that Campbell probably wouldn't have cared for at all.


Randy M.

 

[J-Sun]

And then Dick won the third one. Indeed, about half the winners (or more) seem like studied insults.

I don't think Campbell would have cared for the award at all, in concept, regardless of winners. He'd either declare a winner or let his readers do so and wouldn't appreciate a juried award (which, with whatever exceptions, always tends to the pretentious and minor - the anti-Campbellian). Nor does it make any sense for it to "memorialize" a magazine editor, however many brilliant serials he edited, with a novel-only award. It's just the Harry Harrison/Brian Aldiss award with Campbell's name stuck on it, which was intended to be a nice gesture given Harrison's strange, but strong, fondness for Campbell.

My thoughts, as far as Campbell the editor: this is a guy who published Dune and broke McCaffrey to SF readers in the 60s or whatever. I don't actually care for McCaffrey but these aren't the moves of a completely rigid and washed-up editor. Still, it's true that his work of the late-30s and 40s was what made him perhaps the greatest editor ever. Between being boxed in by F&SF and Galaxy and perhaps due to his fascination with Dianetics[1], Astounding became a bit more limited and some good authors reduced or ceased their contributions. By the 60s, Pohl was probably the best editor but Campbell was still no slouch.

As far as Campbell the writer: his editorial fame has almost completely eclipsed his writing fame but he was two of the best half-dozen writers of the 30s with "Campbell" space opera that could go toe-to-toe with Hamilton, Smith, and Williamson as well as "Stuart" stories which could go toe-to-toe with Weinbaum. The entire The Best of John W. Campbell is full of good stories but even it doesn't entirely supersede The Cloak of Aesir (which I have read) or presumably Who Goes There? (which I have read most of, including the title story, obviously, but don't actually own a copy of). I think his major Arcot, Morey, and Wade series sort of plummets over its course but the first story is classic and the first volume is essential. I've never read the belated sequel stories to The Mightiest Machine but that Arne Munro tale is great fun. The Ultimate Weapon is a classic. The Penton and Blake stories (Isaac Asimov's favorites) are very 30s tales and kind of strain... well, the ossification of my own brain, I guess, as I never read them young, but they're really neat and I can see how they'd light up readers of the time. Compare those and The Moon Is Hell and you get a sense of what range (and development) he had, as it's a hard-nosed gritty story of survival told in realistic terms. In his writing, you get the competent man, the love of gadgets and gizmos, the cosmic scope, the psi powers, the focused scope, the problem solving, the optimism tempered with an awareness of our existence within vast space and time, etc., and see that brought into the magazine he edited.

A major figure with significant contributions who was never dull - sometimes infuriatingly so.

[1] I wonder how serious that was and how much he was (a) messing with people as he often did and (b) taking a page from Palmer who had shortly before boosted Amazing's circulation tremendously with the sensationalized "Shaver mysteries." But Campbell definitely did have an interest in "alternate views" and "methods of overcoming" like van Vogt and others.