A Vast Space

I am mentally hovering over a vast conceptual space occupied by seven future histories written by six American sf authors. Beginning with Poul Anderson's monumental History of Technic Civilization and his earlier, shorter but surprisingly substantial Psychotechnic History, we look back to Anderson's predecessors, Heinlein, Asimov and Blish, and forward to his successors, Niven and Pournelle.

There are other future historians and other future histories by Anderson. However, these seven series can be considered as a group because four were edited by John W Campbell, two were written by Anderson and the last two incorporate collaborative writing, including contributions by Anderson. Anderson's Psychotechnic History addresses Heinleinian immortality and multi-generation interstellar spaceships and Asimovian robots and predictive social science. Pournelle's future history culminates in two novels co-written by Niven, with advice from Heinlein.

This makes the seven series sound like a single series. However, they remain seven distinct timelines. Common themes are:

(i) near future technological advances and social changes;
(ii) a period of interplanetary travel;
(iii) an FTL drive;
(iv) extrasolar colonization;
(v) interstellar imperialism;
(vi) the rise and fall of civilizations.

Heinlein, leading the way, concentrated more on (i) and (ii), reaching (iii) and (iv) only at the end of his original five volume Future History. (I do not accept any later volumes as valid continuations.)

Within this larger context, let me address two specific issues within Niven and Pournelle's The Mote In God's Eye (London, 1979). On p. 16, First Lieutenant Cargill, complaining about Engineer Sinclair's exaggerated Scottish accent, accuses him of speaking normally when he gets excited whereas, on p. 92, Cargill says that he sometimes cannot understand Sinclair when the latter is excited. So which way round is it?

P. 32 informs us that tramline end points are far from large masses whereas p. 97 informs us that the Alderson Point (presumably the same thing?) to a large star is within the star. (A spaceship's force field enables it to enter the star.)

More On American Future Histories

I listed four Campbell-edited future historians (Heinlein, Asimov, Blish and Anderson) but maybe should have included a fifth:

"H. Beam Piper was first and last a John W. Campbell writer, his first SF story, "Time and Time Again," appeared in Astounding in April 1946, and his last, "Down Styphon!," in Analog in November 1965."
-John F. Carr, "The Terrohuman Future History of H. Beam Piper" IN Bulletin of the Science Fiction Writers of America, Fall 1979.

However, returning to the authors that I do know something about, Poul Anderson not only wrote hard science fiction in the tradition of Robert Heinlein  but also, and completely independently of JRR Tolkien, wrote heroic fantasies derived from Norse mythology. These two literary traditions converged when Heinleinian sf writer Jerry Pournelle included "Sauron supermen" in his CoDominium future history.

In The Mote In God's Eye (London, 1979), Niven's and Pournelle's characters speculate as to whether isolated extrasolar colonists might not only regress sociologically but also evolve biologically. The concluding installments of Poul Anderson's Technic History address this question.

Mote presents its own distinctive version of hyperspace: instantaneous transit along "tramlines" (p. 32) between certain stars, with the usual restriction that this kind of travel is impossible from too deep within a gravity well. Travel time is necessary to and from tramline end points. By contrast, I think that the version of hyperspace in Anderson's Technic History is unique because it involves many instantaneous quantum jumps through normal, familiar, 3D space, not through any other kind of space.

We recognize Anderson-type world-building in the description of the New Caledonia star system on pp. 32-34 of Mote. I do not think that Heinlein did this? Direct Imperial rule of New Chicago after the defeat of its rebellion recalls the comparable situation on Aeneas in Anderson's The Day Of Their Return.

For the nationality of a space warship's Chief Engineer, Niven and Pournelle follow neither Heinlein nor Anderson but Star Trek:

"Like many engineering officers, Sinclair was from New Scotland. His heavy accent was common among Scots throughout space." (p.15)

How can a handful of writers create such fascinating texts? It continues to be a blast.

Relationships Between Future Histories

Maybe two groups of future histories overlap? On the one hand, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, James Blish and Poul Anderson were four Campbell-edited future historians. On the other hand, five particular future histories (maybe) form a literary sequence:

Heinlein, the Future History;
Anderson, the Psychotechnic History;
Anderson, the Technic History;
Larry Niven, the Known Space History;
Jerry Pournelle, the CoDominium History.

Anderson:

modeled the Pschotechnic History on the Future History;
made Rhysling from the Future History a guest in the Old Phoenix;
wrote one story set in the US Robots period of Asimov's future history;
wrote three stories set in the Man-Kzin Wars period of the Known Space History;
wrote one story set in the War World period of the CoDominium History.

Heinlein advised Niven and Pournelle on the first of their joint novels set in the CoDominium History. Niven and SM Stirling contributed separately to War World whereas Pournelle and Stirling contributed jointly to the Man-Kzin Wars. And I may have missed some details here.

Addendum: I did:

 Pournelle and Stirling contributed jointly to the Falkenberg period of the CoDominium History;
Niven adapted a Known Space story as a Star Trek animated episode and Alan Dean Foster adapted the episode as a prose story.

A Mixed Colony

Robert Heinlein wrote several short stories with a common future background, then compiled a Time Chart to keep the stories consistent. His editor, John W Campbell, published the Time Chart. Imitating Heinlein, Poul Anderson compiled a (different) Time Chart and set some stories in successive periods of it. Later, Anderson wrote several initially unconnected works that converged to form a third future history. Each installment in this "Technic History" is a substantial novel or short story. They are clearly not written to any formula despite what seems, when analyzed, to be a systematic approach to their subject-matters, e.g.:

Ythri discovered by human explorers;
Ythrians learning from humanity, going into space, later transporting van Rijn;
Gray, later renamed Avalon, explored by Ythrians and human beings;
Avalonian islands colonized by Ythrians and human beings;
an Avalonian continent colonized by Ythrians and human beings;
Avalonian Ythrians and human beings successfully resisting Terran imperialism;
much later, an Avalonian Ythrian spying for Ythri and Terra against a common enemy;
Dominic Flandry predicting that mixed species cultures like Avalon will build fascinating new civilizations.

Philippe Rochefort, a Lieutenant in the Terran Space Navy that attacks Avalon, disapproves of mixed colonies on the grounds that people should be what they are and stand by their own. Be what we are? But what can we become? On Avalon, Christopher Holm becomes, then is, Arinnian of Stormgate Choth - although he does experience some problems in making the transition. Tabitha Falkayn/Hrill, a third generation member of Highsky Choth brought up by Ythrians, has no problem about identifying with Ythri while acknowledging her humanity. She advises Arinnian:

"'...a man or woman who tries to be an Ythrian is a rattlewing.'"
-Poul Anderson, Rise Of The Terran Empire (New York, 2011), p. 502.

"'Can't have it on both wings, son.'" (p. 504)

I dislike Rochefort's idea of standing by your own. This seems to assume a conflict of interests with other groups. His ancestors on Terra suffered because of this attitude. He acknowledges that he is a human supremacist because mankind leads Technic civilization.

"'...my sort of people are the xenosophont's best friend. We simply don't want to imitate him.'" (p. 489)

What sort of people? Rochefort is under no obligation to imitate anyone but, if we makes it his business to disapprove of cultural mixing, then he is not the xenosophont's friend.

The Campbell Future Historians

John W Campbell, Editor of Astounding, later Analog, Science Fiction, published:

Robert Heinlein's Future History;
Isaac Asimov's Robot stories;
Asimov's Foundation series;
James Blish's Okie series;
Poul Anderson's Polesotechnic League series.

Therefore, I call Heinlein, Asimov, Blish and Anderson the four Campbell future historians. Heinlein's direct successors as American future historians are Poul Anderson, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. There are other future historians but these six form a literary sequence.

Campbell:

published Heinlein's Time Chart, thus encouraging him to continue writing the Future History;

because the Foundation was guided by Seldon's psychohistorical predictions, advised Asimov to imagine an event that confounds the predictions;

because the Okies traded with the germanium-based Oc dollar, advised Blish to envisage the collapse of the germanium standard;

when asked by Anderson what might succeed mammals as they succeeded amphibians and reptiles, suggested the biological supercharger that enables Anderson's Ythrians to combine intelligence with flight in terrestroid conditions;

suggested the supermetals-covered remnant of a planet blasted by a supernova that became Anderson's Mirkheim.

Need I say more?

Kipling & Co

Poul Anderson's collection, All One Universe (New York, 1997), includes articles on three individuals:

Johannes V Jensen;
Rudyard Kipling;
John W Campbell.

Unexpectedly, they "cross over." First, Anderson quotes Jensen's description of Kipling after interviewing him, although I am not sure what Jensen meant by describing Kipling's head as "...not large but singularly full..." (p. 156).

Secondly, the article on Campbell mentions the Campbell school of science fiction writers, including Robert Heinlein. Heinlein wrote detailed descriptions of fictitious futures. Anderson tells us that Kipling did this in his sf story, "As Easy as ABC," "...with the same eye for detail as would later distinguish the work of Robert Heinlein." (p. 157) I have read very little Kipling but have liked what I read although my reading has not included "As Easy as ABC."

Anderson also replies to George Orwell's criticisms of Kipling. Thus, we have now referred to three writers of technological dystopias:

in 1984, television is used to spy on the population;
in "If This Goes On -," television is used to fake miracles for a religious dictatorship;
in "As Easy as ABC," I gather, "...technology driv[es] the evolution of the managerial society..." (ibid.)

Pretty smart stuff.

John W Campbell

Poul Anderson reminisced about Astounding/Analog editor, John W Campbell, in "John Campbell" (All One Universe, New York, 1997). Anderson differentiates three generations of writers influenced by Campbell:

"...Jack Williamson...began working well before him but then came under his influence..." (p. 49);

the Golden Age (1938-1943) writers who developed under Campbell - Asimov, de Camp, Heinlein, Sturgeon and van Vogt;

the next generation, including Anderson whose first publication was in 1947.

My purely personal perspectives on these writers are:

I have not read much Williamson, although his The Legion Of Time is incoherent as a work on time travel;

I have argued several times that Asimov should have confined his attention to Robots;

I know de Camp almost entirely through one good time travel novel, Lest Darkness Fall;

I have read almost no Sturgeon and have not read what I have been told is a major telepathy novel, More Than Human;

van Vogt wrote space opera, including even something called More Than Superhuman;

I classify Heinlein, Asimov and Blish as "the Campbell future historians" because Campbell edited and strongly influenced Heinlein's Future History, Asimov's Robots stories and Foundation series and Blish's Okie series (this last would have remained a single story, not a series, without Campbell's input);

I further classify Anderson both as Heinlein's main successor and as a later Campbell future historian (apparently, Campbell gave Anderson the idea that became the Ythrians);

the Golden Age of sf included the Golden Age of superheroes because Superman, an sf character, first published in 1938, was immediately successful and widely imitated, generating a new genre.

I showed in some earlier posts that Anderson's A Midsummer Tempest contains much blank verse, one Shakespearian sonnet and several rhyming couplets, all disguised as prose. In conversation with Anderson, Campbell:

"...observed that all good prose has metrical structure and that more than half of Heinlein's Methuselah's Children [part of the Future history] is in blank verse." (p. 54)

Really? Methuselah's Children? I am not about to reread the novel to find out but it would be interesting to check on this sometime.

Anderson and Blish

For anyone who may have been following these posts chronologically, I have finished rereading The Winter Of The World and have started rereading The Avatar but meanwhile have posted "ASK Haertel" on www.jamesblishappreciation.blogspot.co.uk.

Both Blish and Anderson:

were serious hard sf writers;
were among the authors whose series were edited by John W Campbell;
felt obliged to present new rationales for standard sf props like FTL;
wrote future histories;
speculated about the future of society;
were agnostics who took religion seriously;
also wrote historical fiction and fantasy.

Differences:

Anderson was prolific, able to produce many works very quickly, whereas Blish's much smaller body of work was written at times, we understand, with considerable effort; 
Anderson not only wrote both historical fiction and sf but also synthesised them in several works;
Blish managed to combine the three genres of historical fiction, fantasy and sf in a single trilogy;
Blish's sf series are more closely interconnected as he develops related ideas in different directions.