How do I get the bad taste out of my brain?

Where to even begin? I was really excited to see Science Fiction and the Theatre by Ralph Willingham, and then I read it. To say that I was mildly appalled and disappointed would be a severe understatement. Granted, this book was published in 1994 at the height of big musicals, and more tellingly, on the tail of theatre's attempts in the late 80s to be seen as a scholarly discipline on equal if apologetic footing with literature. Unfortunately, even taking these two elements into account, it perpetuates a series of misunderstandings about both the theatre (though it was in fact written by a theatre scholar) and science fiction.

By now I hope I’ve managed to start erasing the academic myths regarding sf and performance on both sides of the disciplinary fence. With little existing material on the subject however, it’s disturbing to have this book as the near sole representative of scholarship and criticism on the subject. Specifically, it furthers stereotypes concerning both performance and science fiction as larger wholes. To thoroughly cover all that is wrong in this text would be impossible and possibly result in an aneurysm for me.

But a few of the more outrageous and absurd assertions need to be shared:

• “In this chapter, which outlines the history of science fiction drama, we shall see that two principal factors have kept the genre in the background of dramaturgy: the theatre’s persistently frivolous treatment of science, and the inability of science fiction theatre to develop the cult following that has been the lifeblood of science fiction prose.” (10)
• “ Despite these signs that science fiction is welcome on today’s stage, the most reliable gauge of what has actually been accomplished is still the original scripted play” (33). 
• “In summary, most of the existing science fiction scripts seem superficial in comparison with the achievements of the genre’s narratives. They lack the imaginative depth, complexity of plot, variety of characters and action and, most important, the universally humanistic concerns that characterize great science fiction” (34). 
• "Science fiction is a particularly ripe source of comic material. Because the genre’s literature has so few basic premises, they have become worn and clichéd with excessive use.. . .A comic approach can eliminate the staging problems that tend to crop up in science fiction” (102).

No. Just no.

And yes, he sort of just ignores production design as a contributing element of science fiction for any performance. This pretty much eliminates re-examinations of canonical material with an sf lens.

Willingham has also failed to see a paradox in his argument. He states that sf theatre isn't commercially successful, thus the lack of it. The dangerous implication being that theatre is only successful if it’s commercially viable. In terms of sf  in the past (and people should feel free to correct me here) the more commercially successful the more denigrated it is because that means it's "popular." This has changed over the years and is not necessarily true of the sf tradition in the US and certainly doesn't reflect it at all in places other than the US. Willingham omits even an acknowledgement that the tradition of sf is vastly different overseas--one not grounded in the much denigrated pulp tradition--nor does he acknowledge a very different model for performance in Europe.

These are just a few of the more egregious statements made. If anything, this book manages to insult both sf and theatre alike. This tells me that more material needs to be placed out there for practitioners and scholars alike.

I need a tequila shot for my intellect just to get that taste out of there.