Groff Conklin disappointment

When I noticed Groff Conklin was being discussed
the other day, I recalled having seen a science
fiction paperback and focusing on artificial
intelligence edited by him.

Going up into the Tower Room and then getting
on a high ladder to hunt the book up, I finally
spied it. The title is SCIENCE-FICTION
THINKING MACHINES. It is a .25 cent Bantam
Book (#1352) vintage 1955. Some readers may
be interested to learn that the cover
illustration was painted by the great
Richard Powers, a fact which for many
paperback collectors would add greatly
to the book's allure.

Anyway, lettering on the cover includes
statements such as "Man or his inventions --
which will inherit the earth?" and "Here are
12 astonishing and prophetic stories..."
and "Edited by Groff Conklin."

Now, my reading the latter led me anticipate
that there would be a piece of writing
by Mr. Conklin included, perhaps an introduction
of a few pages, or, if not that, then at least
a brief paragraph or two introducing each
story, the way some editors of anthologies
favor.

To my disappointment, I could find nothing
at all written by Editor Conklin. Of course,
I suppose I have no right to claim that I
was cheated, because I must admit there is
no implied warranty I know of to the effect
that when one buys a book saying "Edited by,"
there must be something inside written by the
editor.

Even so, there usually IS something of
that sort present, so I hope newsgroup
readers will excuse my expression of
disappointment.

Yes, it is easy enough to find other
books edited by Mr. Conklin, with passages
which he himself wrote. However, that
particular fact is not very satisfying,
because I really wanted to see what Mr.
Conklin would say, in 1955, about "thinking
machines."

Since no one questions the fact that Groff
Conklin was a SF editor of considerable
vision, I simply desired to evaluate --
looking back almost fifty years -- any
written evidence of his powers of prediction
regarding artificial intelligence.
(Amittedly a reasonable case could be made
that Editor Conklin showed that by his
selections rather than his own words.)

Also, one might ask, what does "edited
by" really mean here? In the first
place, the twelve stories Mr. Conklin
included had already been published
(and naturally edited before publication)
in various SF periodicals between 1940
and 1954. Since many are written by
distinguished SF authors such as
Asimov, Sturgeon, Simak, Walter
Miller and Eric Frank Russel, and some
were no doubt edited by renowned editors
such as John Campbell and H. L. Gold, it
is unlikely that Mr. Conklin himself did
further editing when these stories
where chosen for the anthology.

Nor can it be claimed that Mr. Conklin
was discovering unknown work by any of
the great writers, because, as I have
already said, the stories by Asimov
and the others mentioned had already
appeared in well-known SF periodicals.

As a result, it seems to me that
"Selected by Groff Conklin" would
be a bit more up-front as a cover
blub than "Edited by Groff Conklin."

Knowing as I do that Mr. Conklin was
a gentleman of unimpeachable integrity
and would probably not lower his standards
"just for the money," my disappointment
leaves me curious about the reasons behind
the circumstances I have outlined above.

Mr. Webster, would you like to step up
to the rec.collecting books podium and
clarify this matter for us?


Mr. Palmer
Room 314 (in the upstairs office)

"Bill Palmer" wrote in message
om...

Since no one questions the fact that Groff
Conklin was a SF editor of considerable
vision, I simply desired to evaluate --
looking back almost fifty years -- any
written evidence of his powers of prediction
regarding artificial intelligence.
(Amittedly a reasonable case could be made
that Editor Conklin showed that by his
selections rather than his own words.)

Or that he showed his wisdom by refusing to make predictions!

I have always been bemused by the fact that Asimov, who was bright and
imaginative and well-informed, completely missed the possibility that
technology would evolve toward millions of tiny computers rather than one
humongous one. Once he got started on the Multivac series, of course, he
could not easily reverse his premise without canceling his meal ticket.
Still...

Also, one might ask, what does "edited
by" really mean here?

I am moved to ask a different sort of question. How much say did Mr. Conklin
have about the format of the book _or_ the copy on the wrap?

Remember that in 1955 science fiction was considered pulp literature. Quite
possibly the _real_ editor told him, "Give me 12 stories, 175 pages, with
$xxx budget for rights; we'll pay you $200 and bill you as editor." Take it
or leave it.

You mentioned Mr. Conklin's integrity and your disappointment. You may be
judging him by a standard that would have been unrealistic in 1955. If most
readers expected "edited by" to mean no more than it meant in this case, his
behavior did not represent a compromise of his integrity; just a business
transaction, normal by the standards of the day.

On 25 Aug 2004 14:32:09 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:


Mr. Webster, would you like to step up
to the rec.collecting books podium and
clarify this matter for us?

As I suspect most people here realize, the editor of a reprint
anthology, regardless of subject or genre, chooses stories either from
his own library of primary sources or (less frequently) from a list
given them by the publisher, or by contacting a list of established
authors and letting them know they're assembling a book.
Occasionally, the editor contacts an agent/agency and asks what's
available from their stable of authors. They then write contracts and
obtain permissions. All this after they've sold the idea for the
anthology to a publisher in the first place, and getting both
financial and space commitments. Original anthologies are a
completely different matter; since Conklin never did one, though, I'll
refrain from giving details.

In Conklin's case, he read extensively in the field, effectively
everything published in the sf/fantasy/horror fields* (he was the book
reviewer for GALAXY SF from 1950-55) and kept notes on what had been
published in US and European magazines, as well as material that
predated the advent of the SF magazines in 1926. He liked themed
anthologies, and the task of assembling one was, due to the
organization of his notes, fairly simple.

In this specific case, had you bought the original hardcover, you
would have found not only a six-page introduction by Conklin, but
brief section intros and slightly more brief story intros. Not to
mention another eight stories, all divided into three sections:
robots, androids, and computers. This was, as far as I have been able
to find out, the very first time a selection of stories about
computers was published, and in 1954, at that.

Most of the paperback reprints of Conklin's hardcover anthologies are
abridged to one degree or another. In this case, Bantam decided not
only to cut 2/5 of the stories, but all introductory material as well.
Conklin had no control over this, and it may very well be the reason
he only sold paperback rights to Bantam for this one book.

This is one of his least-reprinted books. Bantam did two printings,
one in 1955, and the second, under the Pathfinder imprint, in 1964.
As far as I've been able to ascertain, there was never a UK edition.

Does this answer your question?



*This was at a time when it was possible for someone to do this.
Since assembling anthologies freelance was his career from 1946 until
his death in 1968, he considered it necessary research - not to
mention the fact that he simply loved to read the stuff.

On 25 Aug 2004 14:32:09 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

Now that I've given you (and anyone else interested enough to read it)
a substantive reply in general, let me address a few specifics. Don't
think I'm fooled at all by your contrived show of interest, I
recognize bait when I see it. But there might actually be someone out
there in RCBland who really IS interested in this, and so I'll answer
for their benefit. I don't care whether you read it or not, frankly.

Since no one questions the fact that Groff
Conklin was a SF editor of considerable
vision, I simply desired to evaluate --
looking back almost fifty years -- any
written evidence of his powers of prediction
regarding artificial intelligence.
(Amittedly a reasonable case could be made
that Editor Conklin showed that by his
selections rather than his own words.)

Whoever told you that it was the editor's - ANY editor's - job to
"predict" anything over and above what his readers might be willing to
pay to read? Nor, I will add, is it the job of the sf writer - ANY sf
writer - to predict anything other than what his editor might be
willing to buy. Hugo Gernsback notwithstanding, the purpose of
science fiction is the same as the purpose of any other kind of
fiction - to entertain. Anything else that happens is gravy.

Nor can it be claimed that Mr. Conklin
was discovering unknown work by any of
the great writers, because, as I have
already said, the stories by Asimov
and the others mentioned had already
appeared in well-known SF periodicals.

Untrue; you don't know what you're talking about. In just this one
specific book, of the nine heaviest hitters (Anderson, Asimov,
Clement, Leiber, Miller, Russell, Simak, Sturgeon and Tenn) only
Asimov's story had been previously reprinted, and that was in his 1950
Gnome Press _I, Robot_ collection. In this case, Asimov revised the
story especially for Conklin. The Leiber is, in fact, its first
appearance, having been a script written specifically for television.

Finding unknown treasure by well-established writers was, in point of
fact, Conklin's greatest skill as an editor. Even in competition with
the Healy and McComas _Adventures In Time and Space_, in which they
had access to stories from the Campbell ASTOUNDING that Conklin
didn't, he *still* managed to produce not only a bigger anthology
(_The Best of Science Fiction_, Crown 1946), not only one as
well-regarded as it still is and the staple of library shelves for
decades after it was published, but he managed to get it into print
*first.* None of the stories in the two books are repeated, but many
of the same names are. In every case, Healy and McComas had first
choice; that Conklin was able to find stories - nearly all of them
reprinted there first - that were some of the best those authors had
done, and which have been reprinted over and over.

As a result, it seems to me that
"Selected by Groff Conklin" would
be a bit more up-front as a cover
blub than "Edited by Groff Conklin."

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Editors do a lot
more than re-writing stories for original publication and changing the
titles. Quite frequently, they assemble anthologies and single-author
collections.

Don't try this crap with me again, Palmer. You're not good enough.

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:46:11 GMT, "Jonathan Sachs"
wrote:


Or that he showed his wisdom by refusing to make predictions!

Well, that wasn't what he was interested in doing. He wanted to put
together anthologies that people would enjoy reading, not try to
out-do Criswell. Science fiction isn't anout prediction anyhow, it's
about speculation, which isn't the same thing (as I'm sure you already
know). The only people who think it is about prediction are those who
have absolutely no clue as to what sf is.

I have always been bemused by the fact that Asimov, who was bright and
imaginative and well-informed, completely missed the possibility that
technology would evolve toward millions of tiny computers rather than one
humongous one. Once he got started on the Multivac series, of course, he
could not easily reverse his premise without canceling his meal ticket.
Still...

Hey, he had his spaceship pilots check their math using slide-rules,
too, don't forget. NOBODY predicted PCs in those days. Hell, nobody
really predicted solid-state electronics.

I am moved to ask a different sort of question. How much say did Mr. Conklin
have about the format of the book _or_ the copy on the wrap?

Well, in the case of the original, probably a reasonable amount. I
think he was perfectly content to let the publishers do the
jacket/cover art (he was a big fan of Richard Powers, I'll point out),
and he probably had some say on the jacket copy, but most of that
stuff is put together by marketing. Could he have "forced" something
he wanted on the publishers? Probably, but as well-regarded as he
was, he almost certainly wouldn't have had to. He made a lot of money
over the years for his various publishers, and they'd have been happy
to let him have pretty much anything he wanted.

Some of the paperback houses who reprinted his hardcovers did, in
fact, allow him to do the abridging, but in the case of Bantam Books,
they did it, taking out most of the lesser-known names. Damn shame,
as those were some of the better stories.

Remember that in 1955 science fiction was considered pulp literature. Quite
possibly the _real_ editor told him, "Give me 12 stories, 175 pages, with
$xxx budget for rights; we'll pay you $200 and bill you as editor." Take it
or leave it.

Nah. Don't forget that Conklin was a perennial library favorite.
Kirkus always gave his books rave reviews, as did the other library
journals, Any publisher who brought out a Conklin anthology (in
hardcover, those were the days before public libraries commonly
shelved paperbacks) could depend on thousands of sales automatically.
His 1955 Gnome Press book, _Science Fiction Terror Tales_, sold out
its print run of 5000 copies very quickly, and remains one of the
rarest - if not THE rarest - Gnome title. He was the king in those
days.

Vanguard, who did the original hardcover edition of _Science Fiction
Thinking Machines_, pretty much gave Conklin carte blanche when it
came to the books he did for them, as did Crown Books. He did very
well for them. Bantam - who knows? I don't know who was running the
sf line it at the time, as Ian Ballantine had long since left, but
they didn't do a terribly good job cutting the book and they never got
another chance.

On 25 Aug 2004 14:32:09 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

When I noticed Groff Conklin was being discussed
the other day, I recalled having seen a science
fiction paperback and focusing on artificial
intelligence edited by him.

Going up into the Tower Room and then getting
on a high ladder to hunt the book up, I finally
spied it. The title is SCIENCE-FICTION
THINKING MACHINES. It is a .25 cent Bantam
Book (#1352) vintage 1955. Some readers may
be interested to learn that the cover
illustration was painted by the great
Richard Powers, a fact which for many
paperback collectors would add greatly
to the book's allure.


Assuming that you don't apply bleach or otherwise vandalize the book.

Anyway, lettering on the cover includes
statements such as "Man or his inventions --
which will inherit the earth?" and "Here are
12 astonishing and prophetic stories..."
and "Edited by Groff Conklin."

This is known as "cover copy".

Now, my reading the latter led me anticipate
that there would be a piece of writing
by Mr. Conklin included, perhaps an introduction
of a few pages, or, if not that, then at least
a brief paragraph or two introducing each
story, the way some editors of anthologies
favor.

Why would you assume this? I've edited several anthologies and unless
I'm specifically asked to do otherwise by the publisher or feel that
the concept of the book itself requires some introductory remarks, I'm
quite content to let the stories speak for themselves.

To my disappointment, I could find nothing
at all written by Editor Conklin. Of course,
I suppose I have no right to claim that I
was cheated, because I must admit there is
no implied warranty I know of to the effect
that when one buys a book saying "Edited by,"
there must be something inside written by the
editor.

Well, you got one right thus far...


Even so, there usually IS something of
that sort present, so I hope newsgroup
readers will excuse my expression of
disappointment.

Nonsense.


Yes, it is easy enough to find other
books edited by Mr. Conklin, with passages
which he himself wrote. However, that
particular fact is not very satisfying,
because I really wanted to see what Mr.
Conklin would say, in 1955, about "thinking
machines."

Why? Mr. Conklin was neither an engineer involved in computers, nor
was he trying to upstage the AMazing Kreskin. He was an anthologist
and reviewer and a damned good one.



Since no one questions the fact that Groff
Conklin was a SF editor of considerable
vision, I simply desired to evaluate --
looking back almost fifty years -- any
written evidence of his powers of prediction
regarding artificial intelligence.
(Amittedly a reasonable case could be made
that Editor Conklin showed that by his
selections rather than his own words.)

*yawns* Oh, I see... You're just trolling Bud. Be careful what you ask
for, Palmjob; you're out of your depth here.


Also, one might ask, what does "edited
by" really mean here? In the first
place, the twelve stories Mr. Conklin
included had already been published
(and naturally edited before publication)
in various SF periodicals between 1940
and 1954. Since many are written by
distinguished SF authors such as
Asimov, Sturgeon, Simak, Walter
Miller and Eric Frank Russel, and some
were no doubt edited by renowned editors
such as John Campbell and H. L. Gold, it
is unlikely that Mr. Conklin himself did
further editing when these stories
where chosen for the anthology.


Nor can it be claimed that Mr. Conklin
was discovering unknown work by any of
the great writers, because, as I have
already said, the stories by Asimov
and the others mentioned had already
appeared in well-known SF periodicals.


Well known? "Unknown" and "Super Science" were well-known in the
1950s? What do you base this interesting claim on?



As a result, it seems to me that
"Selected by Groff Conklin" would
be a bit more up-front as a cover
blub than "Edited by Groff Conklin."

So write to Bantam and ask for your quarter back.

Knowing as I do that Mr. Conklin was
a gentleman of unimpeachable integrity
and would probably not lower his standards
"just for the money," my disappointment
leaves me curious about the reasons behind
the circumstances I have outlined above.

Mr. Webster, would you like to step up
to the rec.collecting books podium and
clarify this matter for us?

Pretty damn clear to anyone that's not a complete idiot. The book was
originally published by Vanguard and apparently the paperback house in
a bid to save money and unable to anticipate that fifty years later
some nutjob would pitch a fit about it, excised the introduction. Nice
try, Palmjob, but there are far too many people here that know you for
what you are. Fortunately, I type rather quickly and you didn't cause
more than a waste of about thirty seconds.

Cheers,

John

In article , Bud Webster
wrote:

On 25 Aug 2004 14:32:09 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

Now that I've given you (and anyone else interested enough to read it)
a substantive reply in general, let me address a few specifics. Don't
think I'm fooled at all by your contrived show of interest, I
recognize bait when I see it. But there might actually be someone out
there in RCBland who really IS interested in this, and so I'll answer
for their benefit. I don't care whether you read it or not, frankly.

I missed the original bait as I have cut WAY back on UseNet time & only
open authors apt to interest or inform me. But having read your replies, I
was suddenly inspired to mention that I was still a child when I was
reading Groff Conklin anthololgies & for better or worse, he with Judy
Merrill & the Davenports greatly helped shape my tastes to this day. I
look forward to a chance to read your book about the gent.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:14:02 -0700,
(paghat) wrote:


I missed the original bait as I have cut WAY back on UseNet time & only
open authors apt to interest or inform me. But having read your replies, I
was suddenly inspired to mention that I was still a child when I was
reading Groff Conklin anthololgies & for better or worse, he with Judy
Merrill & the Davenports greatly helped shape my tastes to this day. I
look forward to a chance to read your book about the gent.

Thanks, Pags. Youse is a mensch. After a fashion.

Conklin had a lot to do not only with my taste in reading material,
but in the way I write my own sf and fantasy; my goal is always to
write the kind of story I'd have wanted to find in a Conklin antho.

Bud Webster wrote in message . ..
On 25 Aug 2004 14:32:09 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

Now that I've given you (and anyone else interested enough to read it)
a substantive reply in general, let me address a few specifics. Don't
think I'm fooled at all by your contrived show of interest, I
recognize bait when I see it. But there might actually be someone out
there in RCBland who really IS interested in this, and so I'll answer
for their benefit. I don't care whether you read it or not, frankly.

Why all the incivility, Mr. Webster?

Since no one questions the fact that Groff
Conklin was a SF editor of considerable
vision, I simply desired to evaluate --
looking back almost fifty years -- any
written evidence of his powers of prediction
regarding artificial intelligence.
(Amittedly a reasonable case could be made
that Editor Conklin showed that by his
selections rather than his own words.)

Whoever told you that it was the editor's - ANY editor's - job to
"predict" anything over and above what his readers might be willing to
pay to read?

No one told me such a silly thing. It may be
my own fault, but you have entirely missed my
context. Sometimes sf editors in their
introductions DO toss out predictions
of one sort or another, and I wanted to see if
Mr. Conklin had done that. I did not mean to
imply that was his job to do so.

Nor, I will add, is it the job of the sf writer - ANY sf
writer - to predict anything other than what his editor might be
willing to buy.

I am not so sure about that. There are many
types of sf writers. For instance, Murray
Leinster has won lasting fame for having
written the first story which predicted
something like PC's and the net. Of course,
we could not expect him to get the names
right in the mid-1940's, and his "PC"'s
are called "logics." Further, he made the
same understandable error that many writers
continued to make ten or twenty years after
Leinster wrote "A Logic Named Joe": he assumed
that the "logics" would all be wired to some
sort of super databank, or "tank," as he
called it. So, perhaps he did not feel it
was his job to predict, but he got closer to
hitting the nail on the head regarding
the net and PC'S than any other writer I
am aware of did for many years after Leinster
(real name Jenkins) wrote that amazing tale.

Hugo Gernsback notwithstanding, the purpose of
science fiction is the same as the purpose of any other kind of
fiction - to entertain. Anything else that happens is gravy.

I think you are stretching things. Yes, I
suppose in one sense, we have to be
entertained or we stop reading. Yet, when
I think of pure entertainment, I think of
writers such as E. R. Burroughs, E. E.
Doc Smith, and E. C. Tubb. It seems to
me that writers such as Samuel F. Delany,
(the late) Walter Miller, and Thomas Disch
would like to think they do a bit more than
merely entertain.

Nor can it be claimed that Mr. Conklin
was discovering unknown work by any of
the great writers, because, as I have
already said, the stories by Asimov
and the others mentioned had already
appeared in well-known SF periodicals.

Untrue; you don't know what you're talking about. In just this one
specific book, of the nine heaviest hitters (Anderson, Asimov,
Clement, Leiber, Miller, Russell, Simak, Sturgeon and Tenn) only
Asimov's story had been previously reprinted,
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now you are putting words in my mouth.
I did not say any of them had been
"reprinted." I said they had "already
appeared in well-known periodicals,"
and I hope you will spare me from
citing the entire copyright page
to prove my point. All those
publications were very well read
by sf fans in those days, so it is
safe to assume that if there were
any surprises in the anthology in
question regarding tdhe famous authors
above, they were only surprises to
readers who were -- in 1955 --
latecomers to the genre.

and that was in his 1950
Gnome Press _I, Robot_ collection. In this case, Asimov revised the
story especially for Conklin. The Leiber is, in fact, its first
appearance, having been a script written specifically for television.

Finding unknown treasure by well-established writers was, in point of
fact, Conklin's greatest skill as an editor. Even in competition with
the Healy and McComas _Adventures In Time and Space_, in which they
had access to stories from the Campbell ASTOUNDING that Conklin
didn't, he *still* managed to produce not only a bigger anthology
(_The Best of Science Fiction_, Crown 1946), not only one as
well-regarded as it still is and the staple of library shelves for
decades after it was published, but he managed to get it into print
*first.*

(almost q.v. THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE FICTION).

None of the stories in the two books are repeated, but many
of the same names are. In every case, Healy and McComas had first
choice; that Conklin was able to find stories - nearly all of them
reprinted there first - that were some of the best those authors had
done, and which have been reprinted over and over.

As a result, it seems to me that
"Selected by Groff Conklin" would
be a bit more up-front as a cover
blub than "Edited by Groff Conklin."

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Editors do a lot
more than re-writing stories for original publication and changing the
titles. Quite frequently, they assemble anthologies and single-author
collections.

Don't try this crap with me again, Palmer. You're not good enough.

It is hard for me to understand why you can't
say your piece without bristling with incivility,
Mr. Webster. My approach to Usenet is that
posters should strive to stir up thinking.
Are you suggesting that I have not done that,
and that this forum would have been better off
had I not written my original article and had
not you and the other gentleman responded?
Exactly WHAT is your beef, Mr. Newsgroup Churl?


Mr. Palmer
Room 314

Bud Webster wrote in message . ..
On 25 Aug 2004 14:32:09 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

[...] Snip of lots of interesting material
that was just posted on this thread.

Does this answer your question?

Yes, it does. Basically, my wonderful little Bantam
with the fascinating Pwoers cover is a "chop job."
Well, maybe sometime I will run across the hardcover
(it is not in the Tower Room) and then I can read
Conklin's six page introduction that you mentioned.


Mr. Palmer
Room 314