I have for several days been assembling every article,
review, comment, and letter to the editor I have ever written as a first step
in creating a multi-volume collection of my published and unpublished papers,
for offer on Amazon as e-books. [I am
well aware that this is the sort of thing that serious scholars do for actually
important thinkers like Marx and Freud, after the big wheels are dead, but
since no one is ever going to do this for me, and I have nothing better to do,
and it costs virtually nothing to produce an e-book, and there is vastly more
memory storage in the cloud than will ever be used up, why not?]
This morning, I surfaced a little cache of things that I
thought had gone missing, including the long, rather angry letter I wrote to Astounding Science Fiction in 1953
defending Aristotelian logic against the proponents of something they called
Null-A, or non-Aristotelian Logic. this
brought back a flood of memories, which I thought I would share with you on a
lazy Sunday morning.
When I was a boy, I was an avid reader of science fiction. In those days [i.e., the 1940's and early
50's] there were two leading monthly sci fi magazines -- Astounding Science Fiction and Galaxy. I had a subscription to Astounding Science Fiction for a number of years, and read stories
by all the famous sci fi authors -- Robert Heinlein, A. E. van Vogt, L. Ron
Hubbard, and the rest. I actually was a
subscriber when Hubbard published his two-part article on a new theory he
called Dianetics, which was a rather fantastic fusion of Freud and the brand
new subject of Cybernetics. When I read
the first part of the Dianetics article, I thought it was a brilliant satirical
send-up, but the second part made it clear that Hubbard was deadly
serious. The core idea was that the
human brain had vastly more computing power than was being used, because early
childhood traumas [which Hubbard dubbed engrams] were clogging things up. Hubbard proposed that by a process that
sounded rather like a spoof of psychoanalysis, one could be led by Dianetic
auditors to go further and further back into one's childhood, clearing out
engrams as they were encountered.
Eventually one would become a "clear," with a superhuman
intelligence and a brain as powerful as a computer [which in those days was
pretty primitive, by the way.]
Well, very soon Dianetic Auditors started popping up, hanging
out their shingles and offering for a pretty penny to assist the gullible in
rooting out those pesky engrams.
Naturally, the new therapy took root fastest in California, which then,
as now, was open to anything new and flashy.
The great appeal of Dianetics was that it was faster and cheaper than
psychoanalysis, and did not require embarrassing discussions of one's feelings
about one's mother.
Eventually, Hubbard and his epigones got into trouble for
practicing medicine without a license.
His first response was to relocate to a ship far enough off the coast of
California to be in international waters, where U. S. laws did not apply, but
that proved unmanageable. Then Hubbard
had a flash of brilliance, the sort of idea that earns you the title of
"genius." Medicine might be
regulated by state law, but not religion. Hey, presto, the medical treatment known as
Dianetics became the religion of Scientology.
As medicine, it was quackery, but as religion it fit right in, and besides,
the First Amendment drew no invidious distinctions among religions. And so, a little article in Astounding Science Fiction gave us Tom Cruise.
As I grew older, I stopped reading science fiction and
started reading detective stories, to which I became, and remain to this day,
addicted. In 1960 or so, when I was a
resident tutor in Winthrop House at Harvard, Frederick Dannay came to speak to
the annual dinner for graduating seniors.
[At least I think it was Frederick Dannay, but it might have been
Manfred Lee. The two of them co-authored
the Ellery Queen Mysteries, and one of them -- Dannay or Lee -- had a son in Winthrop
House who was graduating.] Dannay said
something that stuck with me all these years, because it perfectly resonated
with my own experience. No one, he said,
is ever a real fan of both science fiction and detective fiction at the same
time.
Harvard's Widener Library in those days had a fabulous
collection of detective stories, donated, according to the bookplates, by some
generous alum who knew that Harvard students needed a break from the
greats. I read my way through Agatha Christie,
Josephine Tey, Ngaio Marsh, Rex Stout, Dashiell Hammett, John Dickson Carr,
Carter Dickson [John Dickson Carr's other nom
du plume -- he had two lead characters, Dr. Gideon Fell and Sir Henry
Merrivale, so he needed two authorial names], and the rest. That and the three weekly movie shows at the
University Theater kept me sane as I delved into the arcana of Hume and Kant.
The letter to Astounding
was not my first appearance in print.
That honor goes to a letter I wrote as a seventeen year old Sophomore,
calling on President James Bryant Conant to step down from his high position
because he had said that he would not hire a communist. [He did
say that he would not fire one if one were discovered on the Harvard faculty,
which in those days was considered pretty daring.] The letter triggered a very funny confusion
of myself with an up and coming History professor named Robert Lee Wolff, a
confusion that continued for ten years.
The whole story, with supporting documents, will appear eventually in
the multi-volume collection.
"When I read the first part of the Dianetics article, I thought it was a brilliant satirical send-up, but the second part made it clear that Hubbard was deadly serious."
ReplyDeleteDo you think so? I've never been sure. I mean, it's clear that he wanted enough other people to take it seriously to make him rich-- but as to whether he was in on the joke or not isn't obvious to me.
"No one, he said, is ever a real fan of both science fiction and detective fiction at the same time."
An interesting thought, and I can see why it could be true. As it happens, though, I started with Asimov's Elijah Baley/ Daneel Olivaw robot-detective novels and Sherlock Holmes at just the same time. Followed the science fiction path rather than the detective path thenceforth, but at the time it didn't seem odd to me to enjoy them both. (Yes, I know that "fan" is a qualitatively different thing from "person who enjoys.")
Boy, I don't know. His science fiction writing suggested that he had a certain intelligence, and it sure sounded like a spoof. Lord, do you suppose he started it as a satire and suddenly realized he could cash in on it? That would be so awful! But the switch to Scientology was so manifestly a dodge that maybe he was kidding all along. Thank heavens we don't have more information about Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammed! Maybe they were all con artists, although Jesus certainly paid a heavy price for telling a joke, if that was the case.
ReplyDeleteBreaking news: Thatcher is dead
ReplyDelete