Space Opera Fans discussion

The Oct/Nov Limited Pick is The Skylark of Space by E.E. "Doc" Smith. Please use this thread to post questions, comments, and reviews, at any time.

Official description:
Finding that his government laboratory coworkers do not believe his discovery of a revolutionary power source that will enable interstellar flight, Dr. Richard Seaton acquires rights to his discovery from the government and commercializes it with the aid of his friend, millionaire inventor Martin Crane. When a former colleague tries to steal the invention, not only the future of Dr. Seaton and his allies, but ultimately the entire world hangs in the balance!

The first of the great "space opera" science fiction novels, The Skylark of Space remains a thrilling tale more than 80 years after its creation.

"With the exception of the works of H. G. Wells, possibly those of Jules Verne -- and almost no other writer -- it has inspired more imitators and done more to change the nature of all the science fiction written after it than almost any other single work." -- Frederik Pohl

Please note that this book is out of copyright. You will find many different editions available for various prices, including as FREE ebooks. Shop wisely.

I recall enjoying this series back in the 70s and early 80s. I have tried multiple times more recently but just can’t get past the culture changes to even get a few chapters in. Your mileage is likely to vary - I’m far more picky about what I read these days than I used to be.

I read E.E. "Doc" Smith in the 1960s and 70s. The culture changes are distracting but in books by other authors of that time I've usually been able to continue reading. I have so many books either checked out or on hold from library I may not get to this but ordered the free kindle edition just in case since it's a relatively short fast read.

ETA Ordered the free kindle version because it's faster and easier than digging out my paperback copy (assuming I'm correct about where it is).

First post!

This title caught my interest because I read this around 1980 and vaguely remember being wowed by it. Just bought it for kindle.

I first started reading Smith back in the seventies when I was doing my BA. I think the Lensmen series was the first I read and then the Skylark. Thoroughly enjoyed Smith, Judith Merrill be damned.
Will post more once I have had a chance to check something in my copy of Skylark of Space.

Recalled that I wrote a review of this one earlier so I dug it out and here it is.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Not the greatest review in the world but such is life.

By the way, this is in the public domain and available for free at Project Gutenberg:

https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/20869

I read this back in the 70's. It was so influential that I had to snag the Gutenberg version and update it for Calibre, so I'd have it on my reader permanently. But... the Gutenberg version is from the original magazine serial back in 1928 and parts were strongly updated when the books were released. I'll comment a little about that as I read. But I haven't read this in 20-30 years, and I've *never* read the original/first version. So, diving in...

So, I can’t figure out how to show markup in this posting, so I’ll do it in text. Going from the 1928 version to the book I’ve got (Pyramid edition from 1958, 11th printing in 1976) I list changed text in ALL CAPS with a leading + for added text and a - for deleted text and a ± for changed…

The very first paragraph already shows some minor tweaks:

Petrified with astonishment, Richard Seaton stared after the copper steam-bath upon which +, A MOMENT BEFORE, he had been electrolyzing his solution of “X,” the unknown metal. -FOR as soon as he had removed the beaker +WITH ITS PRECIOUS CONTENTS the heavy bath had jumped endwise from under his hand as though it were alive. It had flown with terrific speed over the table, smashing -APPARATUS AND BOTTLES OF CHEMICALS +A DOZEN REAGENT-BOTTLES on its way, and -WAS EVEN NOW DISAPPEARING +STRAIGHT ON OUT through the open window. +HASTILY SETTING THE BEAKER DOWN, He seized his -PRISM binoculars and focused them upon the flying -VESSEL +BATH, WHICH NOW, TO THE UNAIDED VISION, WAS MERELY a speck in the distance. Through the glass he saw that it did not fall to the ground, but continued on in a straight line, -ONLY its rapidly diminishing size +ALONE showing the enormous velocity -WITH +AT which it was moving. It grew smaller and smaller -, AND in a few -MOMENTS +SECONDS disappeared -UTTERLY.

(Whew.) To me, this feels like an author fiddling and tightening his text, as he moves from a serialized magazine publications (call it an earlier draft) to a novel publication. It doesn’t feel like a publishing editor or copy editor, but I’m guessing.

Anyone know -- did this come out in hardcover? My Pyramid paperback lists copyrights for 1928 (Experimenter Publishing Company), 1946, 1947, 1950, 1958 (Edward E. Smith, Ph.D.), with a Pyramid publication (NOT copyright) in 1958 and eventually my edition (11th) in 1976. When was the first paperback?

So this is way too much detail for most of the book. I’ll be reading the original, and comment when I spot notable passages.

There may have been an edition from Gnome Press back in the fifties. See if I can find out for sure.

1946 from the Buffalo Book Co, whom I have never heard of.

More (significant) changes, paragraphs 3 & 4:

-HE WAS aroused -FROM HIS STUNNED INACTION by the entrance of his -COLORED laboratory helper, -AND +HE silently motioned him to clean up the wreckage.

“What’s happened, Doctah?” asked the dusky assistant. --> “What happened, doctor?”

More (probably author-based) tightening, and some much-needed cultural updating. Personally, I can’t hold the original against Doc Smith, since we’re talking 1928! And, in 18 years (I assume) he looked back on it and said, “Ooo, that didn’t age well. Let’s adjust it a little.”

READ THIS!

The romantic sub-plot (and probably plenty of other stuff) is SERIOUSLY enhanced in the rewrite. It still exists in the original, but there are whole chapters... Wait...

KINDLE offers multiple versions of Skylark. No wonder, it’s free from Project Gutenberg. I snagged a copy and am massaging things, BUT I am coming to discover that the newer edition is MUCH better. How can you tell if you’re reading the 1928 free copy or the newer edited and enhanced copy? On the Kindle page, look at the “Read Sample” button. Here are sample texts from the end of Chapter I crossing over to the start of Chapter II:

-- 1928 --
He came to himself with a start. He switched on the lights and saw that it was ten o’clock. Simultaneously he recalled that he was to have had dinner with his fiancée at her home, their first dinner since their engagement. Cursing himself for an idiot he hastily left the building, and soon his motorcycle was tearing up Connecticut Avenue toward his sweetheart’s home.

CHAPTER II
Steel Becomes Interested

Dr. Marc DuQuesne was in his laboratory, engaged in a research upon certain of the rare metals, particularly in regard to their electrochemical properties. He was a striking figure.


-- 1976 --
(lots of new text, ended by)
“What a stupid jerk! If she doesn’t give me the bum’s rush for this I’ll never do it again if I live to be a million years old!”

II
As evening came on and the fireflies began flashing over the grounds of her luxurious Chevy Chase home, Dorothy Vaneman went upstairs to dress.



On the KINDLE page, I found 8 different editions. The “Gateway Essentials 321” edition had the proper text, but used English-style quotes (single quotes for dialog passages). The $0.99 edition by (no publisher that I can figure out, has Doc Smith’s picture on the cover) has both the modern text and the proper quote marks. Given the serious story enhancement, THAT is the version I’ll be reading.

Sorry for spamming and overflowing things. I'll try to put a lid on it now.

Jay wrote: "Sorry for spamming and overflowing things. I'll try to put a lid on it now."

Personally I considered all the stuff you posted interesting. My copy is the 1958 Pyramid books edition and it does say revised on the page where the publishing info is contained. I think there is a special name for that page but damned if I know what it is. Not sure but the issues of Amazing Stories may be on a site I frequent. Should check that out, possibly tonight if I go there to read an issue of Super Detective Library.

Jay wrote: "Sorry for spamming and overflowing things. I'll try to put a lid on it now."

I also thought it was interesting. (Edit: and a lot of work. Thanks for that!) Can you tell if the revised version is from 1958 or 1976? It seems to me that words like “colored” would still be in play in ‘58 but removed in the 70s.

I’m also finding this interesting. I might have to try one of the revised versions. The original is what I tried to reread and found so dated it wasn’t comfortable.

I am not too bothered by dated material. I had to read enough of it in University English courses that it doesn't faze me anymore. I accept it was written when standards were different and go from there.

C. John wrote: "I am not too bothered by dated material. I had to read enough of it in University English courses that it doesn't faze me anymore. I accept it was written when standards were different and go from ..."

That never occurred to me as the reason why dated material doesn't really bother me. Who knew reading historical documents and classic literature would help when reading older SF? When an outdated element is first introduced I can be a bit distracted then it's, "Oh, that's the way it is," and read on.

Consulting another Skylark fan (my wife) she'd heard that Doc Smith was in a writer's group, and he consulted them as he upgraded his magazine serial for book publication. An unnamed female member of the group help him considerably by fleshing out major elements of a romantic arc and other character-building portions.

No source for this rumor, and no idea which revision we're talking about here. Confirmation or additional info would be great.

Gotta say though, I got in about 10 chapters in the (1928) magazine serial, and the revised-and-updated version is a much more engaging read.

Smith actually wrote the original novel in collaboration with a lady by the name of Lee Hawkins Garby. She helped with the romantic elements in the early part of the novel and was the wife of one of his classmates, later neighbour, Carl Garby. Smith was working on his PhD at the time. Garby, for some reason doesn't usually get credit on the paperbacks, though she actually gets credit in the Amazing Stories serialization back in 1928.

By the way, Smith's nickname of "Doc" comes from the fact that he did have an actual Ph.D. (in chemistry). Most sci-fi writers at that time didn't.

Chapter 13

Blackie DuQuesne really is a great villain. Doc Smith always had superb villains, and each of them had their own unique qualities -- magnificent in their own ways, and simultaneously hideous to anyone “good” and “right.” The DuQuesne/Seaton rivalry has the feel of a pair of English gentlemen, as evidenced here in chapter 13:

DuQuesne has now been revealed as the worst sort, a thief, murderer, kidnapper of Seaton’s true love. They’re hundred of light years from any Earthly authority, and while Seaton is ready to abandon the man to die in space, the team has higher ideals. Even Seaton admits that the man is “smart as Satan and strong as a bull . . . and if there’s any possible one thing he is not, it’s a liar.” So they have the villain make a promise and then… they take him at his word. And if I recall correctly from my previous reading, DuQuesne is true to his word! A black-hearted villain, and also a gentleman.

I couldn’t suspend my disbelief for this in a modern novel, but somehow in this older work – it works (at least for me).

Jay wrote: "…and if there’s any possible one thing he is not, it’s a liar.”..."

Reminds me of the line from Avengers: Endgame, “My father is many things; a liar is not one of them.” I wonder if Markus and McFeeley are EE Smith fans.

And of course, if you have read the fourth and final book, "Skylark DuQuesne", you know what happens to him in the end.

Yeah, without giving away any of the ending of Skylark DuQuesne, I was very happy that it was true to the character Smith set up. No sell-out, no sudden turn-around, no redemption (in DuQuesne's mind, he was always correct -- he didn't need redemption!) I was very satisfied.

The one trick that Smith used, and that won't be apparent in this book as it is the first, is how there seems to be a conclusion and then at the beginning of the next book you discover all is not what it seemed. This means that the books can be read as standalones. Actually if memory serves the first time I read them I think I read them out of order. I presumed Skylark Three was the third book in the series, going by the titles.

I made that mistake too! I read Skylark of Valeron second, because Skylark Three was obviously the third in the series.

An interesting item on Smith. Back in the late sixties (1968 I think) two ads appeared bearing the names of a number of Sci-fi authors. One supported the involvement of the US in the Viet Nam war while the other opposed it. Smith's name is on neither ad. I don't know if he took the same stance as Gordon R. Dickson and refused to sign either or he was simply not asked. I notice that Judith Merrill was involved with this effort thus I could believe the latter reason. The ads appeared in the second issue of International Science Fiction and in an issue of Galaxy.

One thing I want to comment on is Seaton's girlfriend, Dorothy Vaneman. She comes across in the book as a very capable young lady. In fact I believe DuQuesne remarks that she is more useful in an emergency than the hireling provided to him by the company he is working for. This is somewhat atypical of the era methinks. Often, though there were exceptions, the women in a story where there to be rescued by the hero.

I trust all who read it enjoyed this book. I want to clear something up. I have made references to Judith Merrill and my attitude towards her is due to "Doc" Smith. Many years ago the Science Fiction Club at the university/college I attended had Ms. Merrill as a guest at an event. She was a particular favourited of the presidient of the club. While chatting to her I happened to mention my fondness for Smith and her reply was "that's your problem". Even our club president had to admit that she had insulted me.

C. John wrote: "I trust all who read it enjoyed this book. I want to clear something up. I have made references to Judith Merrill and my attitude towards her is due to "Doc" Smith. Many years ago the Science Ficti..."

Oof, literary snobs, what can you do? Sure seems like she rubbed people the wrong way. Harlan Ellison clearly despised her, too. Which is par for the course for Ellison, but she was one of the few people he vilified in his writing.

C. John wrote: "... Many years ago the Science Fiction Club at the university/college I attended had Ms. Merrill as a guest at an event. She was a particular favourited of the presidient of the club. While chatting to her I happened to mention my fondness for Smith and her reply was "that's your problem" "

Ouch!
Many years ago knew someone in creative writing who was one of the few who had a work selected to be read and critiqued by Grand Poobah Award Winning Science Fiction Writer. He dismissed her work. Not exact quote but he said it was like something written by Anne McCaffrey living on a horse farm in the middle of nowhere in rural Ireland and she should write something better. Pretty much everyone laughed. Most were McCaffrey fans. They were laughing at him. She was able to pay for college and take courses like writing for fun while in vet program because she raised and trained horses on family farm that could be described as in the middle of nowhere. Most knew this.
I lost touch with her but years later learned she was at one of the top stables in the US.

I'm rather late in finishing the book especially as I was partly instrumental in the group reading it. My only excuse is that I was busy reading the Lensman books for the umpteenth time.
All of that said, I did really enjoy this even though it was only 4 years ago I read it.
I have to agree with a number of the comments above regarding the dated-ness of this book, and it not really affecting my enjoyment. Maybe that is my age, and my experience of seeing and experiencing so many changes myself, I can appreciate that things were different when these books were written, and so accept them for what they are/were.
I also have to agree that given the books are not much short of a century old, there are a number of "enlightened" attitudes as C. John comments.
All in all an enjoyable read 📚

As soon as I get Skylark DuQuesne read I intend to re-read the Lensman books and then onto his other writings. I think I have everything except for the article "Catastrophe" that he had published in Astounding. This doesn't include the stories that are someone finishing off something he started writing.

C. John wrote: "As soon as I get Skylark DuQuesne read I intend to re-read the Lensman books and then onto his other writings. I think I have everything except for the article "Catastrophe" that he had published i..."

Still making my way through the "Lensmans", then I'll come back to the Skylarks I think.

Tempted to one day start reading Smith in order of publication, even if I do have to jump around somewhat. Just not sure how to approach those books that have bits and pieces originally published at different times.

Thinking on what I posted above and I thought about one potential drawback. The second Lensman book was actually written after the others. It was done to provide a link between the first and third books. Triplanetary was not originally part of the Lensman universe but a lot of fans wrote to Smith saying it should be and he agreed with their reasoning.

C. John wrote: "Thinking on what I posted above and I thought about one potential drawback. The second Lensman book was actually written after the others. It was done to provide a link between the first and third ..."

Wow I didn't know that. It does explain quite a bit. I've just finished Grey Lensman, which I thought was really good and the best so far, easily !!