Dangerous Visions and New Worlds
An anthology looks back at science fiction's New Wave.

Like many American kids, I grew up reading science fiction. Since I was born in 1970, that meant the tales I took in were frequently filled not just with spaceships and time travel but with psychedelic drugs, radically reimagined gender roles, thinly veiled metaphors for Vietnam, and genrified updates of the modernists' literary experiments. I grew up, in short, in the shadow of the New Wave, a movement that shook up science fiction with countercultural ideas.
The best thing about Dangerous Visions and New Worlds: Radical Science Fiction, 1950–1985, an uneven but often incisive anthology of essays from PM Press, is that it covers the New Wave moment without limiting itself to the New Wave movement. The most talented New Wave writers are covered here—there are essays on J.G. Ballard, Octavia Butler, Barry Malzberg, and others—but so are TV tie-ins and porny paperbacks, showing how such ideas seeped through society.
The editors also understand that not every experimentalist was on the political left. One of the best essays is Nick Mamatas' appreciation of R.A. Lafferty, a rock-ribbed Catholic reactionary whose wonderfully bizarre stories "were simply too weird for either the literary or popular tributaries of the 'mainstream.'"
Robert Heinlein shows up too, though he was a stalwart of the old guard that the New Wave was challenging. One essay contrasts two memorable novels about extraplanetary anarchist communities: Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and Ursula LeGuin's The Dispossessed. The author finds more differences than similarities between Heinlein's individualist anarchism and LeGuin's collectivist kind. But both books were products of the same historical moment, and—I speak from experience—both could have similar effects on a young reader.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Having taken Sci-Fi classes, and even some classes with actual Sci-Fi authors, I never did like the terms "New Wave". It applied to other genres but not to science fiction.
There definitely was an Old Guard era where everything was about rocket ships and pluckiness and originally published in Boy's Life, but in large Science Fiction was about not having rules. A better term is Speculative Fiction. So how can there be a new wave of radicalism when the genre itself was about breaking out of the mold? Asimov wrote I, Robot. Clarke wrote Childhood's End. Heinlein wrote Stranger in a Strange Land. Maybe they seem stodgy now, but they were ground breaking at the time.
Trippy social mores, experiments with bizarre political systems, gender bendering, novel marriage customs, they were all there. Novels praising the all-oppressive state along with novels exalting radical anarchism. If you could trip it someone had written it. Hippies in space. Codgers in space.
In one sense it was New Wave because it went over the head of the critics and Hollywood, in another sense it was just a continuation of the radicalism that was always there.
" but in large Science Fiction was about not having rules."
Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke were all conventional writers, typically responding to the cold war. What set the new wave apart was their response to the changes of the 60's and their willingness to experiment with the form. Think Ballard's 'Crash' or Burroughs' cut-up method.
While hippies were lapping up Eastern philosophy in the 60's and mostly getting it all wrong, Zelazny was brilliantly lampooning religion by extrapolating it to its logical conclusions in Lord of Light and Creatures of Light and Darkness. Heinlein was just replacing religion with socialism with his free love and the 'thou art God' bullshit.
I would attribute a considerable amount of my libertarian bent from reading Zelazny as a kid.
Where do you read socialism in Heinlein? Granted, his did support End Poverty In California (EPIC) in his younger, naive days, but most of the Sci-Fi of his I read was pretty Libertarian.
"Where do you read socialism in Heinlein?"
Isn't there loads of Leninism in Moon is a Harsh Mistress?
Leninism was all about taking over the Earth. The Moon Is A Ha4sh Mistress was about breaking off from the Earth. I'd say that's one big difference.
"Leninism was all about taking over the Earth."
That's Marxism. Leninism is about the formation of a vanguard party to lead the revolution. He called it the Bolshevik party.
Which means the Leninists were also for taking over theEarth, just for themselves.
I know from history. Which means the Loonies were neither Marxists nor Leninists.
TANSTAAFL!
IE,YP! {I eat, you pay}
The unstated principle of most of the statists.
IS!YD? (I Shoot! You Dig?) is the Libertarian refrain.
Clint Eastwood's variation on a theme:
https://youtu.be/s2w9X_tHU7k
Not mentioned in this article is Jack Chalker, another sci-fi writer of the era that is worth a look (the GOD Inc. series in particular).
I will have to pick up that series. I loved Chalker's Well World series (the original 5, anyway). His idea that devout socialists would eventually choose to embrace diversity by genetically tailoring the population of entire planets into identical hermaphrodites was waaaay ahead of its time.
I'll have to dig up the well world series. That's one I never read.
A decent (and bizarre) stand-alone was "And The Devil Will Drag You Under", where Heaven was a university and Satan was a philosophy professor who lost his tenure.
Nice that at least the Amazon listing mentions - albeit in passing - Harlan Ellison, whose Dangerous Visions anthologies broke rules and let "New Wave" authors write stories they thought were too out there for even the pulps and sci-fi zines.
Science fiction has always been about bending the rules, whether of physics or society. And speculative fiction bent THOSE rules.
Oh please. The New Wave was about bringing perversion, sex, and perverted sex into science fiction. Exhibit A, Harlan Ellison. Exhibit B, Samuel R. Delany. Exhibit C, James Tiptree Jr. Exhibit D. "If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister?" Et cetera, et cetera. Oh, and don't forget neoMarxism.
"and perverted sex"
... was everywhere in the 60s. Why should science fiction be immune from its charms? And neo Marxism was a thing in the 60s too. So was tecbnophobia and environmentalism.
Don't forget New Worlds under the editorship of Michael Moorcock {Elric, Jerry Cornelius.}
https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/new_worlds
Young Libertarian me loved me some Norman Spinrad - Agent of Chaos, Bug Jack Barron.
I honestly stopped reading Sci Fi after I was about 30. Grew up reading Asimov, Bradbury (is he really sci fi) and Clarke who was my favorite by far. Asimov was dead wrong with psycho history foundation stuff, and Clarke was a bit off with his later 2001 spin offs. I seem to recall an author James P Hogan and "Inherit the Stars" which was probably the last in my mind at least good sci fi book and it was written in 1977. Sci fi died with Apollo
The Three Body Problem trilogy by Liu Cixin is something you might like. I was struck by how good it was immediately and my interest was sustained throughout. None of the padding and treading water that a lot of multi volume novels have. He's worked as an engineer and politically conservative so you might appreciate that.
I will do that, thank you.
Funny but this article had me really thinking about all the sci fi I read as a kid (most of it was pulp 50's stuff..I was born in the early 60's). I must have missed the last 30 years in sci fi.
Jesse can be forgiven for imagining there was more than one "anarchist" in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. He was in diapers when it came out. In fact Luna ends up with local politicians and even a congress. Murdering the enemy was decriminalized during the emergency, as during all wars. "The Moon..." probably did a lot more than Atlas Shrugged to demoralize the Soviet State. Soviet conservatives (not Heinlein) immediately propagandized libertarians as anarchists, which in every newspaper language means violent communist assassins.
In fact Luna ends up with local politicians and even a congress.
Which the novel presents as a betrayal of the revolution's ideals (albeit a possibly inevitable one). At the end the narrator, unhappy with such trappings of civilization, is ready to light out for the asteroids.
"The editors also understand that not every experimentalist was on the political left."
I remember reading a quotation from author Michael G. Comey who disliked the New Wave and was puzzled, amused, or disturbed to find some of his writing was considered New Wave.
The old school science fiction contributed to science education. Everything I knew about physics as a child I learned from Lester Del Rey.