Whose Cannon?

EDITORIAL Sheila Williams WHOSE CANON? In 2008, I participated in a panel discus- Kit Reed, Kate Wilhem, and numerous sion on an “SF Canon for Short Fiction” at other fine authors don’t appear in any of the annual Armadillocon in Austin, the volumes. Texas. We were asked to consider Luckily, we were a verbose group and whether there are “short stories and none of us were shy about suggesting who novellas that we all should have read, or merited membership in this club. Merri- is there no required reading in this form?” am Webster’s Dictionary defines a canon The program book said further: “Our pan- as “a: an authoritative list of books ac- elists will try to determine if there is a cepted as Holy Scripture b: the authen- canon, and talk about what to add to it or tic works of a writer c: a sanctioned or what should be in it.” Fortunately, no one accepted group or body of related works tasked us with the job of whom to leave <the canon of great literature>.” Science out of this imaginary canon. fiction is a young literature. It hasn’t Co-panelist Brad Denton wisely had the three hundred years that it took brought along a copy of The Science Fic- to collate the Christian Bible or the tion Hall of Fame, Vol., 1, which was edit- thousands of years that have con- ed by Robert Silverberg and published in tributed to the ossification of the “West- 1970. This is a collection of stories that ern Literary Canon.” predated the establishment of the Nebula As we moved into the sixties, seven- Awards and which the Science Fiction ties, and later, our panel discussion Writers of America selected by popular mainly seemed to consist of each of us vote. With authors like Stanley G. Wein- talking about lists of authors we enjoyed baum, Robert A. Heinlein, Theodore Stur- and then adding new ones as the next geon, Isaac Asimov, A.E. van Vogt, Lewis person’s list reminded us of someone Padgett (pseudonym of Henry Kuttner else. The conversation was chaotic, but and C.L. Moore), Clifford D. Simak, fun, too, and I don’t think we came with- Fredric Brown, Murray Leinster, Judith in a million miles of constructing an SF Merril, Cordwainer Smith, Ray Bradbury, canon. I don’t want to turn this editorial C.M. Kornbluth, Arthur C. Clarke, Alfred into an inventory of contemporary au- Bester, Damon Knight, Daniel Keyes, and thors, so I will resist naming names here, Roger Zelazny on its table of contents, it’s but we did come up with a huge roster of an excellent book that does a pretty good diverse and fascinating writers. job of representing a thirty-year period The urge to make lists of “the best SF from 1934 to 1963. Those who are inter- authors, books, and stories” seems to be ested in the history of SF, any writers who a compelling one. The need to jump all don’t want to reinvent the wheel, and over these lists and dash the daylights anyone looking for a great book should out of them with a hammer seems to be certainly include it on their reading list. equally strong. While these lists are om- As with any anthology, though, there nipresent, most recently they seem to be are some major omissions. Works by popping up like critters in a Whac-A- Frederik Pohl, Poul Anderson, Jack Mole machine. Last spring and summer, Vance, and Jack Williamson eventually two major news corporations joined the show up in volumes two and three. Sto- act by asking readers and listeners to ries by Andre Norton, Anne McCaffrey, help them come up with such lists. Sixty Kathleen MacLean, Zenna Hernderson, thousand NPR listeners winnowed a fi- 4 nalist list of 237 SF and fantasy books to While the Venn Diagram of works that a “Top 100 List” while readers of Great contributed to my development as an SF Britain’s Theguardian.com contributed reader and that I would, or would not, around five hundred suggestions to a list have put on these lists differs markedly of “favourite science fiction books.” from what appears at either news outlet, Both lists contain some wonderful I’m sure that your own diagram differs reading material. Indeed, I envy the per- significantly from mine and from these son who, because of these lists, will dis- lists as well. cover many of these books for the first Lists can be fun to draw up and fun to time. Naturally, each list also contains fight over, but there is a danger to them, quite a few works that have never im- too. They are exciting when they bring pressed me or that I have not yet read. new works to our attention, but it’s im- Alas, and perhaps unavoidably, each list perative that they not restrict our read- also omits copious amounts of quality ing. We know that a professor preparing a work from some of our field’s most dis- semester’s curriculum or an editor pulling tinguished authors. together the table of contents for an SF Neither list contains anything by Clif- survey anthology will encounter limits set ford D. Simak or Gregory Benford. Noth- by time and space. We can let their sug- ing by Octavia E. Butler, Robert Reed, gestions be guideposts if we want, but Kristine Kathryn Rusch, Nancy Kress, they only represent a sliver of the tremen- Neal Barrett, Jr., Karen Joy Fowler, dous material available to all of us. Rudy Rucker, Suzy McKee Charnas, and The SF canon will never be set in other major contributors to Asimov’s Sci- stone. The awesome responsibility for ence Fiction magazine. I would not want carving out a personal set of the “best either of these lists to define my own science fiction” is up to each and every tastes in science fiction. one of us, alone. H March 2012 6 Sheila Williams.

Load more