The Man Who Invented the Science Fiction Paperback 99
HughPickens.com (3830033) writes "Clay Latimer writes at IBD that Ian Ballantine, called by many the father of the mass-market paperback, helped change American reading habits in the 1940s and '50s founding no fewer than three prestigious paperback houses — Penguin USA, Bantam Books and Ballantine Books. But Ballantine's greatest influence on mass culture was publishing science-fiction paperback originals, with writers including Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury, Philip K. Dick, Theodore Sturgeon, and Frederik Pohl and publishing the first authorized paperback editions of J.R.R. Tolkien's books. "These were great classics of world fiction," says Loren Glass. "He published in original form some of the greatest works in the golden age of science fiction. One of the interesting things about Ballantine is that he was not only a businessman trying to make money in books; he was a student of literature and publishing, and something of an intellectual."
Turning serious science fiction into a literary genre ranks among Ballantine's greatest feats. Prior to Ballantine Books, science fiction barely existed in novel form. He changed that with the 1953 publication of "Fahrenheit 451," the firm's 41st book. "That was obviously a key moment in the history of science-fiction publishing," Glass says. In 1965, when Tolkien's rights to his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy lapsed, Ace Books published his books without paying royalties and Tolkien responded by conducting a personal campaign against Ace. Tolkien began to urge the fans who wrote to him to inform them that the American copies were pirated: "I am now inserting in every note of acknowledgement to readers in the U.S.A. a brief note informing them that Ace Books is a pirate, and asking them to inform others." Ballantine quickly bought the rights and included Tolkien's back-cover note: "Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living authors will purchase it and no other.""
Turning serious science fiction into a literary genre ranks among Ballantine's greatest feats. Prior to Ballantine Books, science fiction barely existed in novel form. He changed that with the 1953 publication of "Fahrenheit 451," the firm's 41st book. "That was obviously a key moment in the history of science-fiction publishing," Glass says. In 1965, when Tolkien's rights to his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy lapsed, Ace Books published his books without paying royalties and Tolkien responded by conducting a personal campaign against Ace. Tolkien began to urge the fans who wrote to him to inform them that the American copies were pirated: "I am now inserting in every note of acknowledgement to readers in the U.S.A. a brief note informing them that Ace Books is a pirate, and asking them to inform others." Ballantine quickly bought the rights and included Tolkien's back-cover note: "Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living authors will purchase it and no other.""
"...will purchase it and no other" (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been wondering what was behind that note for about 40 years. Thanks for the background on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could have, you know, looked it up in the appropriate places. [wikipedia.org]
But HP summarized it with some details that I was not aware of before. Sounds like a modern social media campaign, done entirely by postal reply.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well you could have looked those details in using Google : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pre-internet, that sort of thing happened all the time.
I think this is probably the hardest thing for post-internet people to understand. If you saw or heard someone make a reference to a literary work and didn't recognize it yourself (but could still tell it was referencing something), you had to track down someone who knew where to look. Reference desks at libraries basically existed to fulfill this function.
Re:"...will purchase it and no other" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"...will purchase it and no other" (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, much of Slashdot's appeal is being exposed to interesting information I wouldn't see otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Were you even born yet when those paperbacks came out? I was 13 or 14, old enough to buy them with money from my paper route (remember those?) and read them.
If I had thought of it (recently) before reading this story, I would have looked it up. But I've wondered about lots of things for periods measured in years, just not all of them concurrently and continuously.
Re:...and single-handedly responsible (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, not only have you no dreams, you don't want anyone else to have any, either.
Re: (Score:3)
>No, the point is that we have EVOLVED to live on Earth. We cannot fly either, planes can fly and we can fly in them.
That is the point, is it not? We did not evolve to fly, but we have built machines that make it possible for us to fly within them. Similarly we did not evolve to live on Mars, but it seems like a very tractable problem to build machines there that we can live within. Might not be to most people's tastes, but we've got plenty of shut-ins on Earth, and most city dwellers have very little
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, exactly, the logical solution is to live underground. Or in thick-walled structures whose windows face away from the equator so that they never get line-of-sight with the radiation spewing sun. Ideally in a canyon or facing mountains that will mostly block line of sight with the sky as well. Doesn't mean you can't go outside for a walk, or have mirrors giving you a reflected view, you just want to limit your direct exposure to the sky. How is that so different than the many, many people who spend
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not pretending it will be easy - it will be one of the most difficult undertakings our species has ever attempted. But isn't that all the more reason to attempt it? Big projects inspire us, and bring us together as a people. When Sputnik 1 orbited the Earth, or when Apollo 11 landed on the moon, people around the world watched in awe. Some with fear obviously, the Cold War's fear-based narrative was in full swing, but nonetheless many on all sides basked in admiration of what humanity had accomplishe
Re: (Score:2)
Your pessimism has the same value as the thoughts of those who claimed, with equal justification, that traveling faster than 50 mph would be fatal.
The arguments for the survival of mankind in the face of a meteoric extinction event have been made many times, and no amount of solving problems on earth will save humanity from such a disaster. The same argument applies to colonizing other star systems.
Go ahead, perfect your little mud puddle. Other people will build the future without you.
Re: (Score:2)
Radiation is not easy to protect against.
Sure it is. Earth is closer to the sun but gets less radiation at its surface because it has a thicker atmosphere.
A few feet of water on top of a dwelling would more than compensate for this. If the entire biodome had
a few feet of water on top, you would get a nice glow when the sun was shining which would probably
look very similiar to a foggy day on earth. There are many places on earth where foggy days like that
are pretty much constant and we survive just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Which reply would that be? Looks like a pretty good discussion, with valid points from nearly all the participants.
nods head in approval (Score:2)
> Sci-fi nerds think they'll ride on a spaceship and live on Mars, and we all sincerely nod our heads in approval.
> I dream about the leisure society with basic income and healthcare for all
Nodding my head in approval.
"rebuild America's economy, rebuild America period (Score:2)
>. And over turning our entire economic system is such a popular dream
It got president elected to two terms.
"If we're going to rebuild America's economy, then we've got to rebuild America, period" - Barack Obama
To rebuild something - a carburetor, a car, or a house, you first have to tear it apart, so Obama's done half the job.
no, HE thinks/sells that it's broken. Polls and al (Score:2)
>. And anyways, you're implying the system is broken, otherwise why rebuild it?
No, Obama said that, so HE thinks, or rather sells, the idea that America is fundamentally broken. What he, Mitt Romney, or Rick Perry actually believes is anyone's guess; they're speeches are driven by polls, not principals.
On the other hand, Bush Jr would tell you exactly what he thought - no matter how stupid it was. I imagine his PR people were face-palming daily. Then you have Chris Christie, whose PR people are probabl
s/they're/their/ s/principals/principles/ (Score:2)
I should use the preview button, or pay attention to what autocorrect is doing.
Iain Banks (Score:2)
I dream about the leisure society with basic income and healthcare for all, because we already have the technology and resources to do so. But that makes no sense, we'll live on Mars, that makes sense.
Actually it does make sense to live on some other planet, and eventually other solar system. If an extinction level event occurs on the Earth (and our geological record contains several of these) humans will survive and then there is the longer term problem of the death of the sun but we have quite a while before we need to worry about that.
I would also dispute that we have the technology to provide basic income and healthcare for all. Healthcare costs are spiralling out of control everywhere...partly b
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution is still happening. We have plenty of geological evidence of that as well.
No we don't - we actually have recorded documentation written by humans that evolution is still occurring. The geological record is not accurate at anything close to that resolution. However the process is slow enough that I strongly suspect that we will still be 'humans' no matter how different we end up from what we are now and that our species will be the one renamed as "primitive human".
As for health care costs spiraling out of control, you honestly don't think that's because of out of control insurance, lawsuits, and top-heavy bureaucracy?
Yes, it is because of that too. The medical industry could certainly be more efficient. However the cost to develop
Re: (Score:2)
Space is dead, it's over, finished. We're not going anywhere. Fundamental science shows this. I suspect you're not exactly rational about this, and you think we'll find some sort of sci-fi "technology" that will cleverly go around all the limits fundamental science shows us.
I disagree with your conclusion but I do think that space is probably a waste of resources at this time.
We currently have a HUGE excess of resources on this planet. If we can stop spending it on blowing
each other up we have enormous potential. Just think of what we could accomplish if the entire world's
military budget could be spent on medical research or space research. The USA budget alone could
easily fund a generational ship. Heck, an aircraft carrier is halfway there already. So I wouldn't say
it's
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And all we have is written human documentation of your "extinction level event".
No - we have ample evidence in the geological record: mass extinctions where a huge fraction of species die off e.g. the Permian mass extinction which makes the end of the dinosaurs seem positively tame. More than that we have plausible mechanisms to cause such events: meteorite impact, massive volcanic eruptions and catastrophic (but natural) climate change and there is evidence to support the fact that all of these have occurred in Earth's past. Indeed I'm surprised that you believe in evolution if you h
Re: (Score:2)
Healthcare costs are spiralling out of control everywhere...partly because of the huge money going into medical research at the expense of other science.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
You seriously think we spend more figuring out how to cure people than how to kill them? Snicker, snort. Most of the money that we think we spend on health care (even or perhaps specially in philanthropy) is actually spent on advertising, padding pockets, et cetera.
Health care costs are spiraling out of control in the USA because of greedy people who are hiding behind insurance companies and pharma corps. That's really it. Follow the money, that's a concrete benefit of capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously think we spend more figuring out how to cure people than how to kill them?
You seriously think much military money goes into scientific research rather than engineering and building bigger/faster/better guns, bombs, planes etc.
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously think much military money goes into scientific research rather than engineering and building bigger/faster/better guns, bombs, planes etc.
You don't understand that research is how they figure out how to build that stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it does make sense to live on some other planet, and eventually other solar system. If an extinction level event occurs on the Earth
Most extinction level events that could happen on earth would be easier and cheaper to safeguard against while still living here
than by moving to mars. For instance, a deep sea colony would be cheaper and easier than a colony on mars and would
provide most of the the same safeguards as a colony on mars.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually it does make sense to live on some other planet, and eventually other solar system. If an extinction level event occurs on the Earth
Most extinction level events that could happen on earth would be easier and cheaper to safeguard against while still living here than by moving to mars. For instance, a deep sea colony would be cheaper and easier than a colony on mars and would provide most of the the same safeguards as a colony on mars.
"This AGW thing makes me want to switch to alternative forms of energy" "You naive lefty dreamer! That's nutty and impossible! Anyway, if AGW becomes a problem, we'll just move the human race to another planet."
Re: (Score:2)
Sci-fi nerds think they'll ride on a spaceship and live on Mars, and we all sincerely nod our heads in approval.
I dream about the leisure society with basic income and healthcare for all, because we already have the technology and resources to do so.
Both seem like worthy dreams to me, but the obstacles are very different.
The obstacles to colonizing Mars are merely physical - and we've been engineering our way around physical limitations since Oog first realized he could swing a tree branch to give himself a fighting chance against the things that wanted to eat him. Physics doesn't care if you make an end-run around your current limitations.
A leisure society though - that would likely require fundamentally altering the economic systems under which we c
Re: (Score:2)
I believe I answered that question quite well in the remainder of the paragraph: active opposition by the individuals who control the vast bulk of the wealth and power in our society. There's been bloodshed in the streets many, many times in our history as we try to displace them - and yet inequality and abuse by the powerful is almost as rampant as it's ever been. I don't think it's insurmountable challenge, but I think it's considerably more challenging than putting the same sorts of tin-cans we already
Re: (Score:2)
Sure we do - we can drive at supersonic speeds now, and fly at hypersonic ones. Granted we mostly don't, it's terribly inefficient and there just aren't that many situations where the tradeoffs are worth it - but we *can* do it.
One of the points of getting off Earth is that we *know* that planets are incredibly fragile things - lots of things could destroy life on Earth, even more could easily destroy just us. Our own actions included. And if that's the only place we live, that will be the end of us. Com
Re: (Score:2)
Well, those land speed records weren't broken on rails - what would you call the process? And I pointed out *why* we don't as well - efficiency has become more important than speed. Along with the rise of video-conferencing and other technologies that make faster transport less relevant. Faster != better.
You seem to be suffering from the delusion that technology advances symmetrically and in only one direction, when that obviously is not the case. Yes, our fastest passenger planes are a bit slower today
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Concorde was an economic failure. Being able to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
which is apparently the thinking behind manned lunar landings.
Re: (Score:1)
The internet is not going to make living on Mars any easier. The internet is just a bunch of wires strung together, and has been around since the 1960s.
Yes, but the internet will ensure that when people do live on Mars, they will be able to send innumerable selfies back home.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the points of getting off Earth is that we *know* that planets are incredibly fragile things - lots of things could destroy life on Earth, even more could easily destroy just us. Our own actions included. And if that's the only place we live, that will be the end of us. Comparatively few things could destroy life on two planets, and most of those would be rendered relatively toothless by the enclosed ecosystems necessary to sustain life on Mars.
The enclosed ecosystem on mars will most likely be considerably more fragile than earth and even if you assume that you have a self-sufficient
colony on mars, the most likely cause of annihilation which is manmade war probably wouldn't spare mars. We would probably be better off
spending our resources trying to get everyone to get along. Unfortunately this is a social problem not a technological one so it's a bit harder
to crack but there is still plenty of space and resources on earth, it would be better to
Re: (Score:1)
Any species that stays on one planet is just waiting for extinction. Oh and to the earlier ac - we are in a major extinction event right now, didn't you notice?
First nation/corporation to settle space wins. At this stage it looks like the Chinese.
Space starions and space arcs are feasible, even with our current technology.
Growth in an enclosed system is limited. Spread it into space and the limits come much later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...believing they'll ride on a dragon's back and live in a magical castle, we give them therapy and some pills.
I recently returned from a vacation, and drove home from the airport to return to my house filled with small robots, vision-enabled game consoles, and mechanized automatons of all kinds. I guess I need some pills.
Sci-fi nerds think they'll ride on a spaceship and live on Mars
No, I don't think I will live on Mars, but I think that some human will, someday. The ultimate distinguishing feature of a human is the extent to which it modifies itself and its environment, so I find it perfectly reasonable to expect that the hostilities of another planet can be overcome with th
Re: (Score:1)
... Sci-fi nerds think they'll ride on a spaceship and live on Mars, and we all sincerely nod our heads in approval. ...
No, we just thought that we would be able to fly around the world in a couple of days, carry a pocket telephone that could reach the whole world and own a personal computer that would fit in an extra bedroom. But no-one would believe us and they called us stupid. Of course none of that happened ...Oh! Wait! 8-)
I owned dozens upon dozens from all three (Score:2)
Thank, you, Sir, for making my high school and university days ever so much more enjoyable by putting out literally hundreds of books for me to read. And thank you to the authors for publishing through those houses, so that I could afford to buy so many.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowadays, if it wasn't for the airlines I would rarely read a dead tree novel. During the flight, I tire of explaining my 1st edition Kindle is not a remote control aircraft landing device.
Re: (Score:2)
You first edition kindle has wifi AND a cell phone....
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. I used to have to wait for them to show up in the used bookstores, where I could afford them. I figure I got about 20 books for the price of 1 by waiting for used instead of buying hard covers as soon as they came out. :)
Poor memory leads to hyperbole (Score:1)
"Prior to Ballantine Books, science fiction barely existed in novel form." Not quite! Don't forget Mary Shelly, Jules Verne, HG Wells, Arthur Conan Doyle (he wrote more than Holmes) and so on. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_fiction for more.
Paperbacks did lead to a tremendous explosion of readers and authors and I do thank Ballantine for that!The first modern SciFi I remember reading in high school was a paperback ("Nerves" by Lester Del Rey) -- it got me hooked! But try some of the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many authors wrote their novels episodically for newspaper or magazine printing, not just SF authors. Charles Dickens comes to mind, and it's evident in the extremely boring, dragged out nature of his work.
Paperbacks, being the form of affordable literature, lead to an explosion of all types of books as a richer populace met declining book prices. "Barely existed" properly refers to all forms of the written word, not just science fiction.
Thomas Jefferson drove himself nearly to bankruptcy, and a significant
Not the case. Copyright was valid. (Score:3, Informative)
Ace Books DID pirate LotR books.
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/... [kirkusreviews.com]
In 1993, a court found that the reasoning which the publishing house used to produce their own editions was flawed: where they reasoned that the lapse of a copyright renewal indicated that it was a de facto forfeiture of rights, the court disagreed. The opinion noted that provisions within a 1909 copyright law did protect the rights of the original copyright holder: While " 'forfeitures are never to be inferred from doubtful language.' Washingtonian Publishing Co. v. Pearson, 306 U.S. 30, 42, 59 S.Ct. 397, 403, 83 L.Ed. 470 (1938), this rule need not be relied upon: the 1909 Copyright Act makes no provision anywhere for forfeiture of copyrights of aliens because of distribution of their works without a copyright notice."
Which does not mean that Tolkein was not a dick and a two-faced bigoted stuck-up asshole.
Tolkien was not interested in seeing his books in paperback form: "When he called up Professor Tolkien in 1964 and asked if he could publish Lord of the Rings as Ace paperbacks, Tolkien said he would never allow his great works to appear in so 'degenerate a form' as the paperback book."
...
It's interesting to see that Tolkien utilized the fanbase that he so abhorred to fight back against the unauthorized editions. He was also correct: The incredible publicity that the row received, which pulled in efforts from the Science Fiction Writers of America, helped to grow the fervent readership for the tales from Middle Earth. It's also ironic that while Tolkien had resisted so " 'degenerate a form' as the paperback book," it was in that format which they first appeared and grew in popularity within the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting details ! Thanks for the info. about Tolkien's view on paperback and a bit of the context.
Only on /. (or reddit) can you get down-voted for pointing out the inconvenient facts
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite.
On slashdot it may yet return to a positive number. On reddit it would be couple of million in the negative by now.
retcon much? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of these authors that was writing before 1950 was Robert Heinlein who first published in 1947 and had established serious science fiction by the mid 1950's.
What lead to the popularization of science fiction, arguably, was the technological innovation in print. That is, printing paperbacks was cheap enough so that even if very few books sold, it was still possible to at least break even. The advent of the paper back is like the advent of direct to video movie. Lower risk, more titles, profits are driven by the few that sell well, the rest are pulped.
So this is what those publishing houses invented. Pulp Fiction [wikipedia.org].
Re:retcon much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If H.G. Wells was the granddaddy then Jules Verne was the great-granddaddy. And it seems like Leonardo da Vinci did a lot of speculation on what the future might bring even though he wasn't an author, and so did probably many others. I would think it had a lot more to do with practical matters like literacy and the economics of writing, printing and distributing books than the lack of things to write about. It might have been totally off like the predictions of flying cars, but people has always liked to im
Re: (Score:3)
Robert Heinlein was first published in 1939.
And frankly, the rest of your thesis is equally off base. SF and SF magazine were already well established by the beginning of the war. And you're wrong about the "pulps" - those predate WWII as well. And... well you spelled Heinlein's name correctly, so kudos for that.
In the same vein Ballantine didn't invent paperback books (those were invented in the 1850's) or
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, what made printing cheap was the mass market paperback - not paperbacks (which existed for a long time
extra bonus story (Score:2)
So what's the story here? Is it about a publisher, or about a copyright infringement? Should I comment on one, or both? Why does it require 300 words?
I admit that either story holds some interest for me, but both together deliquesce that effect and leave me flustered and flummoxed.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's the story here? Is it about a publisher, or about a copyright infringement?
If Tolkien's rights had lapsed then there was was no copyright infringement, just a guy who screwed himself by not keeping track of his creations.
Hence, he had to resort to writing angry missives on the back of later printings instead of taking Ace to court.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the courts eventually decided it was copyright infringement, at least according to a post up the page and this, https://www.kirkusreviews.com/... [kirkusreviews.com] though it took quite a while and really the battle was waged in the court of public opinion and the judgement from the court of public opinion forced Ace to not do any more editions, selling what they had, and give some royalties to Tolkien.
Ballantine wasn't the only one (Score:1)
More than anyone else, Judith Merril probably did more to get NY publishers to take genre fiction seriously.
BB vs Ace (Score:1)