1955: ASIMOV BURIES THE HATCHET WITH - AND NOT IN - HYPERBOLIC REVIEWER HENRY BOTT

Ever the gentleman, Isaac Asimov moved beyond a pair of quite unfair reviews written 1955 issues of Imagination: Science Fiction and Fantasy by engineer and fiction writer Henry Bott. Reviews that must have been as painful as they were hyperbolic. After responding heatedly in an earlier issue, Asimov offers the friendly hand of peace in the April 1955 issue, which Bott and his publisher, William Hamling, having generated tons of free publicity in the science fiction world via these provocative reviews, accept with every show of the same gentlemanliness.  

Asimov's letter of conciliation appeared in the Editorial column, bookened by Hamling's comments:

Last month we presented an open letter by our book reviewer, Henry Bott, in reply to

an article by Isaac Asimov, in which Isaac took issue with Bott's reviews in Madge. We offered Mr. Asimov an opportunity to reply this month, if he so chose. He did. Forthwith, Isaac Asimov's open letter to Imagination‑

It seems that Henry Bott annoyed me with some of the things he said about me in his reviews which I thought were unfair and uncalled for. It seems also that I have annoyed him with some of the things I said in return. Well, that sort of thing can go on forever without much profit to anyone.

Instead I would like to return a soft answer. In fact, I would like to praise Henry Bott and point out that despite my own sour thoughts about him, he can indeed write a fair review. I am not too proud or stubborn to admit I was wrong in that respect and to apologize for that.

To make my point clearer, I would like to specify the review I mean and point out just why I think it is fair and decent.

On page 122 of the February 1955 issue of IMAGINATION, Mr. Bott reviews a book called LUCKY STARR AND THE OCEANS OF VENUS, by one Paul French.

Now Mr. Bott is not so crazy-wild about the book. He doesn't give it a rave review. He explains that in his opinion it is a juvenile which is suitable only for beginners in the field. He also expresses the thought that the book is not as good as juveniles written by authors such as Heinlein.

Asimov

Still, despite this, he is careful to point out that he thinks it "is far superior to the comic strip science fiction        pattern," that it"is entertainment in its way and it won't upset anyone." He also says that Paul French shows "inventiveness and a richness of imagination," and that "he could produce a superior piece of work if he could pay more attention to detail."

I am sure that Mr. French, on reading this review ,would feel quite good about the kind words and would feel no rancor at. all about the eminently fair criticism. In fact, I am sure he would say that he does his best to make his juveniles as good as Mr. Heinlein's, and that perhaps he will improve as he_. continues to try. He would also ask Mr. Bott to feel free—if he ever has the time—to give' him examples of just where he has fallen short in matters of detail. Mr. French would explain that he learned a great deal from helpful reviewers and editors in the past and hopes to continue learning in the future.

I am positive that Mr. French would say all this. The reason I am positive is that Paul French and Isaac Asimov) are the same person.

I feel certain that Mr. Bott knew this rather open secret and, under the circumstances, his review is all the more kind and fair.

I am very happy that Mr. Bott does not dislike my work quite as much as he himself seemed to think he did in last month's editorial. I certainly find that I, myself, do not dislike his work quite as much as I had thought I did.

I shall continue to write as well as I can and I feel sure that Mr.

Bott will continue to review books in this excellent combination of calmness and dignity, even when he doesn't like the book.

—Isaac Asimov

We're pleased to publish this conciliatory letter, with the knowledge that peace now

Hamling

reigns among all concerned. To give credit where it is due, Henry Bott, of course knew that Paul French. was an Asimov nom de plume. Matter of fact, we (blushingly admitted) I edited out a paragraph of the review containing a reference to this fact, because the review had to fit an allotted space. At any rate, it's nice to know that Hank's fairly favorable review spread enough balm into Gilead to still the troubled waters. See you next month.

wlh

This concludes our reprise of this incident from science fiction history.

 For off-trail science fiction, fantasy and horror 

- visit our website at https://futurespasteditions.com

THE HENRY BOTT-ISAAC ASIMOV FEUD EXPLODES WITH BOTT AND HAMLING RIPOSTE

After Isaac Asimov's response in the fanzine Peon to what he, fairly, perceived as book reviewer Henry Botts' personal attacks rather than legitimate criticisms in his column in the science fiction pulp magazine, Imagination, both Bott and Imagination's publisher William L. Hamling, leapt back into the fray with a riposte in an editorial the March 1955 issue.

THE EDITORIAL

 One of the regular departments in Madge is our "Science Fiction Library", in which each month Henry Bott reviews one or more of the current crop of science fiction books. This department renders a service to the reader in that it provides a critical review — complimentary or otherwise — upon which a reader may base his decision to purchase and read the books reviewed. From the book publisher's and author's position it provides free publicity for their wares.
   Those who review books are necessarily placed in a unique position; they are applauded by some, denounced by others — depending upon the opinions of the person who agrees or disagrees with the reviewer. For this reason reviewers of science fiction books should be chosen with an eye toward their background and/or qualifications.
    In Madge's case, Henry Bott was  selected because your editors believe him to be a highly qualified science fiction critic.    His background covers some nineteen years as reader, writer, and editor in the field. Coupled with this is his academic background with a mathematics major and his current position as Head of the Technical Writing Section, of one of our country's major scientific
equipment corporations. From technical and literary aspects Mr. Bott fills our book of qualifications for a science fiction critic-reviewer.
   We have elaborated in this regard because one science fiction writer who has had several of his books reviewed by Mr. Bott unfavorably — has felt piqued to the point of first questioning the identity of our reviewer in correspondence to this office, and later with a public protest of the reviews he has "suffered" in one of science fiction fandom's publications, Peon. The writer in question is Isaac Asimov.
    In his public protest Mr. Asimov  accuses Henry Bott (referring to him as "The Nameless One") of indulging in personal insult, and not being bound to accuracy and fact. Mr. Asimov further berates Mr. Bott as being a critic who substitutes invective for reasoning and personalities for analysis. Mr. Asimov also includes in his protest the lectural point that a reviewer ought not to imply that no one likes the book being reviewed, especially since the record indicates that thousands of copies were sold.
    For those interested in reading the full account of Mr. Asimov's protest, we feel sure copies can be obtained by writing to the editor of Peon, Charles Lee Riddle, 108 Dunham St., Norwich Connecticut.    Listed price of the publication is 10 cents.
    It is not our intention to attempt to prove that any book review given in our pages is necessarily gospel word on the subject, inasmuch as opinions differ. We do however take exception to a writer's attempts to nullify the effect (in his mind) of an unfavorable review by condemning the reviewer with untrue remarks.
Further, any reply to Mr. Asimov by Mr. Bott, we feel, should be made in the pages of this magazine, the source of Mr. Asimov's ire. We also extend to Mr. Asimov, if he should so desire, the opportunity to reply in the issue immediately following this one. Forthwith we present Henry Bott's open letter to Mr. Asimov:
   I am grieved that Mr. Asimov is perturbed about my dislike of his books. Ordinarily this would not disturb me greatly; a natural rancor must exist between author and critic.
    Mr. Asimov takes me to task, as the "Nameless One" for identifying the author with the book, and criticizing the former, not the latter. This accusation prompts me to reply to his criticism of a critic.
   I do not know Mr. Asimov. I know he has written numerous books. .1 have heard they have sold well. I know that many critics have praised his books.
   I do not dislike Mr. Asimov. I have read most of his books. I do not like his books. I do not think they are well-written, interesting, or worth bothering about.
    As a critic it is my privilege to say so.
    I do say so.
    Mr. Asimov is determined to force me to admit that his books are "good" even though we probably do not even agree on a definition for "good".
   Mr. Asimov, if the criterion of quality is necessarily measured by the number of sales, comic books would be "good", the Spillane material would be great, and. the vast majority of paperbacks would be magnificent. However, I do not concede that the interests or purchases of ten million morons indicates that makes those interests or purchases "good".
    By the same 'reckoning, the fact that thousands of your books have been purchased cannot make me believe your books are well-written. To paraphrase an epigram: "There is no such thing as a good or bad book. Books are well-written, or badly written. That is all." In my opinion, Mr. Asimov, your books are badly written.
    If I think that, as a critic, it is my duty to say so.
    I do say so.
                 —Henry Bott

   Any opinions held by your editors on the subject of Mr. Asimov's literary capabilities are not pertinent to the issue here. For as we see it Mr. Asimov has simply created an opportunity to express his indignation by descending to a personality level, one of the things he has accused Mr. Bott of engaging in. In concluding his protest Mr. Asimov wonders how an author can defend himself without opening himself to the charge of being a sorehead. We will not attempt to define a sorehead; however, it seems to us that a non-sorehead may be a writer who can take accolades and criticism —
gracefully.
               —wlh (William L. Hamling.)

[Asimov made his own parry in the next issue of Imagination. Read how the gentlemanly Asimov buried the hatchet and brought the feud to an end here at the FuturePast Editions blog magazine soon.]

Meanwhile check out our new website at FuturesPastEditions.com. 

Get 10 classic pulp magazine novels free in Kindle and at iTunes.

THE HENRY BOTT-ISAAC ASIMOV FEUD PART III: ASIMOV'S REPLY

Henry Bott's almost back to back 1954 reviews, in his column "Science Fiction Library" in the sf magazine Imagination, of the newest novels by Isaac Asmov, Second Foundation and The Caves of Steel had been, in Bott's own words, "venomous." He had slung around terms like "insipidity and dullness", and termed Asimov as "neither a writer nor a story-teller", "heavy-handed and ponderous",  a producer of "elephantine prose". Bott had found not one redeeming quality in what were hailed then and recognized now as two keystone classics of science fiction. Asimov , rarely one to fly off the handle, had held his peace after the first review. But with a second hatchet job following so closely on the heels of the first, even the good doctor felt he was entitled to protest, abet in his usual mild and cognitive form. Below, from the fanzine Peon, published by Charles Lee Riddle, Nov. 1954, is the Asimovian response:

WHY CAN'T THE AUTHOR MEET HIS CRITICS?

by Isaac Asimov

   I suppose there comes a time in the life of every novelist when he feels brought face to face with the messy problem of what to do about the critic who feels he has a license to indulge in personal insult, and does not feel bound by accuracy and simple fact.

   When that time comes, what can the author.do? His book is out. Custom allows it to be fair game for anyone who can crank up a pencil and make legible marks on paper. Custom draws no hard line between legitimate professional criticism on the one hand and fishwifery on the other.

   The science-fiction novelist, I am glad to say, is more fortunate than most. Such reviewers as Groff Conklin, P. Schuyler Miller, Villiers Gerson, Anthony Boucher, Damon Knight, J. Francis McComas, Robert L. Lowndes, L. Sprague de Camp, Mark Reinsburg, Sam Merwin, and George O. Smith, are gentlemen who have cut. their eye-teeth on science-fiction. What they do not know about the field has not been yet thought up. Most of them have the inestimable advantage of being able to write science fiction themselves, and they have turned out first-class stuff, too.

   In discussing a novel of which they disapprove, they point out succinctly what it is of which they disapprove. They balance that by such merits as they believe the novel to possess. Their language is restrained and they feel no need to salvage their own ego by personal attacks against a target which they know in advance to be in a poor position to defend itself.

   Unfavorable reviews from a reputable and capable critic are of the utmost service to the novelist. I have myself learned a great deal, by carefully considering some of the thumbs-down reviews of my own books, notably Anthony Boucher's comments on my Foundation books and George O. Smith's remarks on The Currents of Space. I did not agree completely with what they said, but I was very grateful to them for having said it. 

    Damon Knight, in particular, is a dissector of novels who has no parallel in science fiction. The pains he takes to illustrate his points, the care with which he achieves objectivity, and the cogency of his reasoning, makes every one of his reviews a virtual course in writing technique. His remarks may make the writer wince, but so does iodine on a cut.

    Unfortunately, we now come to a reviewer whom I shall refer to only as The Nameless One. The Nameless One, safe behind his barricade as "Critic" aspires, apparently, to be as witty and fearless as Damon Knight. He doesn't succeed, of course, because he substitutes invective for reasoning and personalities for analysis. He manages (and this be does admirably) to be inaccurate and insulting.

   In a review of one of my books, for instance, he states that although I am educated and articulate, I am neither a writer nor a story-teller. He doesn't say that Isaac Asimov is not a good writer; he says he is not a writer.

     He is welcome to his opinion, but how does he define the word "writer" now? Certainly I put words on paper. Certainly I sell my fiction. In the last thirteen years of my sixteen-year writing career, I have sold every word I have written, and to decent markets. On the whole, reader comment and reviewer comment has been kind to me. Will The Nameless One tell me what else I must do to be classed a "writer"? Not a "good writer" mind you; I lay no claims to that. Just a writer.

   In a review of another one of my books, The Nameless One states in rather shrill exasperation that someone must like my books because they pour out in an endless stream. He admits that some people may claim they like the book, but he insists they can't have waded through it. The implication, to me, is that no one can both have read the book and liked it; that The Nameless One does not understand how I could possibly get the book published. A person who knew nothing of me or my work but what he read in the review by The Nameless One might easily conclude that I got my books published by a combination of threats and bribery.

   What arc the facts? The novel he denounces in this manner was liked well enough by Horace L. Gold to be serialized in Galaxy Science Fiction. It was liked well enough by Walter

I. Bradbury to be published as a Doubleday novel. It was liked well enough by Truman M. Talley to be slated for publication as a Signet paperback. These three gentlemen read the books they buy, and they are not as easy to fool as The Nameless One may think.

    Do the readers approve of the book? In its first three months after publication, 28,000 readers bought the book. I dare say some of them knew what they were doing.

    Do the reviewers approve of the book? With Lee Riddle's kind permission, I would like to quote a random handful of reviews of [The Caves of Steel]. Bear with me.

    "...accomplishes something various science-fiction writers have been trying to do for a long while--it tells a first-class detective story in terms of a future and very advance technology. Even his robots are completely believable..."

--SATURDAY REVIEW OF LITERATURE

    "...a good fast-,moving murder mystery which will hold your interest right up to the last page. This is one you shouldn't miss."

--FANTASTIC UNIVERSE SCIENCE FICTION

    "...a first-class thriller--- The book has a fast pace and the inventiveness is logical and mentally stimulating."

---SOUTH BEND (IND.) TRIBUNE

    "...fascinating glimpses of the world to come."' -

  ---HONOLULU STAR BULLETIN

    "...the first wholly successful balanced blend of science fiction and the strict detective story."

-- -NEW YORK TIMES

"It's a first rate detective...story, too---a suspense novel that will leave you breathless."

---GALAXY SCIENCE FICTION

"...the tale...is an excellent suspense type thriller..."

---SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE

"...If you want reading to set you free from the shackles of every day drudgery, try this prescription...a copy...a comfortable chair and about four hours of reading time."

---FORT WAYNE (IND.) NEWS SENTINAL

"...It has remained for Isaac Asimov to write the purest sciencefiction-detective-story yet....an exceedingly good one."

---NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE

"...not only thrilling, but believable."

---BOSTON GLOBE

    You may think all this is beside the point and in a way it is. Even if everyone in the world loves a book, .a reviewer would have a perfect right to dislike it and say so.

    My point is that his dislike ought not to extend to the point of untruth. He ought not imply that the author is an imposter. He ought not imply that no one likes the book when that is palpably false. For God's  sake, he ought at least read the book, rather than the book jacket. The Nameless One devotes very little of his review to a description of the plot, and that very little is ludicrously wrong. 

    For instance, he states that in the book, the author takes the entire Galaxy, no less, for his sphere. Had he as much as glanced through the book, he would have noted that not only is the scene of action confined to Earth;. it is confined to New York City.

   Why am I writing all this? For a specific purpose. In writing this for PEON, I am addressing a small and reasonably select audience, an audience of fans interested -in Science-fiction.

    I have a question for them. What can an author do that will serve to point up gross inaccuracies in a review, perhaps downright malice, without laying himself open to the charge of being a sorehead?

    It's a problem that is particularly galling to me, since it has never been my practice to skulk in the corner with my finger in my mouth when someone is waving a fist in my direction.

    Oh, well....

     -Isaac Asimov

(Visit this blog again soon for the next installment of this account of the Bott-Asimov feud, for Bott's reply and that of Imagination's publisher, William L. Hamling. And wonder along with us if it was all a put-on to increase circulation.)

THE HENRY BOTT-ISAAC ASIMOV FEUD PART II: THE BOILING POINT

Science fiction writer and reviewer, Henry Bott's review of Second Foundation in the June 1954 issue of Imagination: Stories of Science Fiction and Fantasy, seemed more a trashing of author and book than any legitimate form of criticism then, and still reads that way today.

Bott's Filled with denigrating phrases unrelated to the content of the book itself that seemed calculated to injure the most impervious ego. Among them,  "neither a writer nor a story-teller", "heavy-handed and ponderous",  "elephantine prose", "endless philosophizing, (on a juvenile level)", "obscure sociological fantasies", "the soap opera of science fiction" and the clincher "it's not a good book!" Among other things, Bott seemed to have overlooked the fact that the Foundation series had been wildly popular with fans when it appeared in magazine form and readers were clamoring to see it in hardcover.

That these declamations must have been hurtful to even so resilient an ego as Asimov proclaimed his to be. But with his usual mildness of temper, Asimov maintained a dignified authorial silence. Everything might have blown over had Bott had left it at that one review. But Bott didn't stop there. Just three months later, in the September 1954 issue of Imagination, Bott struck again with an equally scathing review of author and material when he took on The Caves of Steel. This time Asimov could bear it no longer and boiled over, albeit in the rather mild and harrumphing way that might have been expected of him.

And here is that second Bott review that set Asimov off. Bott wrote:

"Doubleday ordinarily produces much of the best science fiction printed today. Your reviewer has tried to be objective in analyzing this novel, but . . .

"With that dubious beginning, I review another Asimov novel. ­Somebody must like his stories because they are published in an endless chain, but it is hard for me to see why. I think I shall be really "gone" if I must read another of these epics.

"The canvas is of course, the galaxy—nothing less. There is the robot and the super-empire.

"Using these ingredients in his inimitable way, Asimov hurls a furious barrage of words at the helpless reader. With Tom Swiftian naivete, characters move around in a really never-never world. Insipidity and dullness characterize the plodding story. This venomous condemnation of the story will not be shared by everyone, but then perhaps everyone has not read through the jungle of this sort of writing. When you have finished, you ask, "why?"

"The murdered Spaceman, a corpse in steel-roofed New York's vastness, is remembered by the robot detective and ... you fill in from there. I need coffee after this one!"

One might have  thought that after two such provoking reviews, with no stopping in sight, the publisher would have anticipated a negative response from Asimov and fandom in general. And there was one. But perhaps that was exactly what publisher William Hamling and reviewer Bott wanted. For such a controversy was bound to bring readers to their pages and, in a Ray Palmer like move (and Hamling was a Palmer protege), increase the magazine's circulation.

If so, Bott and Hamiling were right. Asimov  replied the very next month in Charles Lee Riddle's noted fanzine, Peon. More a rumination than a broadside, the piece, titled "Why Can't the Author Meet His Critics?"  was by turns incisive, insightful and philosophical. And it kept the subject on the front pages of the science fiction world.

(Of course, Asimov had the last laugh. Everywhere else the book was seen as a modern classic and is still regarded so, and taught, in college classrooms today.)

And watch for Asimov's reply to Bott on this blog next week.

THE ISAAC ASIMOV-HENRY BOTT FEUD OVER BOTT'S REVIEW OF SECOND FOUNDATION

In the June 1954 issue of Imagination Science Fiction, author and reviewer Henry Bott, in his review of Isaac Asimov's concluding volume in the Foundation trilogy, Second Foundation, set off a firestorm of controversy. He ripped the book up one side and down the other, defamed Asimov's ability as a writer and panned the book. Second Foundation needs no defense, and the elements Bott decried make it apparent that he perceived nothing of what Asimov was attempting to accomplish philosophically.  Bott was often perceptive in his book review column for Imagination, titled "Science Fiction Library." But less so in this instance, along with others who fail to perceive that the central them of the series lies in Mayor Salvor Hardin's assertion that, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." The original three books in the Foundation saga are about nothing else, showing various ways problems that seem certain to end in armed conflict can be resolved sans violence by an astute thinker with the right strategy via a kind of psychological and sociological akido. (Not surprisingly this was a theme close to the heart of the heart of the editor of Astounding Science Fiction, John W. Campbell Jr., who published the Foundation stories, and one that consistently turns up in the magazine's pages, as considered by many writers, throughout Campbell's tenure.) Asimov was understandably unhappy with such a slam review, and said so publicly in the popular fanzine, Peon. Bott and his publisher, William L. Hamling, would respond in the March 1955 issue of Imagination. The review that set off the controversy is below.

SECOND FOUNDATION
by Isaac Asimov. 224 pages. Gnome Press, New York, N. Y.
   It was with difficulty that this reviewer read this book and with even more difficulty that he wrote this review; certainly it will bring down the wrath of Asimov fans.
     Isaac Asimov is an ,educated, articulate man, but he is neither a writer nor a story-teller. Heavy-handed and ponderous, Asimov grinds out ream after ream of elephantine prose about his ridiculous "Galactic Empire," filled with endless philosophizing, (on a juvenile level) obscure sociological fantasies, and massive technological monologues.
     Hari Seldon, Bayta Darel, Han Pritcher and Arkady Darel'skitter about the Galaxy, involved in improbable activities in the improbable "Second Foundation" fighting desperately to save themselves from the villain to end all, the "Mule."
     Second Foundation is a sort of modern Graustark. Asimov's preoccupation with kingdoms and empires would have been quite fitting four decades ago, but now . . . What connection this has with science-fiction is hard to understand. Asimov's stories are the "soap opera" of science fiction. Not to be compared with the excellent "space opera" of Doc Smith or Campbell some twenty years ago!
    You might say, "Stop the vituperation—what's the story about?" I'll answer,. "Princesses and kingdoms, empires and galaxies and fairy godmothers. Even Mules! In short—nonsense!" Read it if you must, but don't say that you weren't warned — it's not a good book!

-Henry Bott 

 Asimov's disgruntled response in Peon, and. Bott's reply in Imagination, will be published here soon in a forthcoming blog post.