SF Criticism Mad Lib

[womzilla]

To do this as a proper MadLib requires putting most of this article behind an LJ Cut, but I know you all are brave enough to go through.

So. Pick a major figure or event of 1940s or 1950 science fiction and the magazine in which it was published.

So, how well does it fill in this blank?

The lack of angry fans storming the offices of magazine over event blank blank blankety-blank suggests that scientific rigor wasn't a high priority with the readers.

When james_nicoll originally wrote that sentence way back on Sept. 14, he had "the Analog offices over the Dianetics and Dean Machine articles (and the related stories from authors who knew where Campbell's itchy spots were)". But when I read it, I immediately substituted "Astounding" and "any story by A. E. van Vogt or L. Ron Hubbard". One could also suggest "Amazing"/"the Shaver Mysteries" or "Weird Tales"/"its continuing popularity".

Of course, Astounding itself was never the most popular sf magazine of its day, so "scientific rigor" was never more than a substream of a secondary outlet. The myth of "hard science of the Golden Age" is lacking in evidentiary support.

I think James does have his arms around a different interesting point, one he's made before--that modern sf writers are tending to shy away from areas of current sf science exploration. I think the people who believe that the science in science fiction must be rigorous are in fact a major cause of this shying-away.

Updated: to correct a baffling thinko.