I have a couple of friends who hate science fiction. They
told me they don't like having to know a whole Bible of context before actually
getting to the meat of the characters. And that is a perfectly legitimate
criticism of the genre. Generally speaking Science Fiction and Fantasy won't
have as much character development as other genres. Sometimes it will choose to
focus on interesting characters (as evidenced by the television series Firefly)
but for the most part they devote more time to develop the concept and universe
they function in. I couldn’t tell you much about the main character in The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch
and yet I am constantly singing its praises (much to the annoyance of all my
friends). However some friends have still asked for recommendations from me
despite disliking the genre.
In preparation for this essay I Googled why some people
would hate Science Fiction (beyond the reasons mentioned). I ended up bumping
into a blog post from 2007 that tried to explain the author’s disdain for the
genre. It left me feeling frustrated and angry. Mostly because it revelled in
the stereotype of sci-fi writers and fans (basement dwellers with questionable
hygiene, it was all very original in its social satire).
But there were a few criticisms that someone unfamiliar with
the genre might have. So all the while I’ll be waving the flag of science
fiction and making recommendations here and there. That said my recommendations
might be limited by what I’ve read or watched myself.
Defining Science Fiction
This is a hard thing to write about. Science fiction covers
a vast array of topics and unlike its sibling genre fantasy it sometimes
chooses to define its fantastical elements with real world logic rather than an
invented logic. From a young age I was told that science fiction is about
humanities fears about science. Well that can be true, a classic example of
this is Frankenstein, a scientist
makes a breakthrough discovery but neglects to take responsibility for it and
said discovery runs amok. But one the flip side you have science fiction that
doesn’t chastise science. Star Trek
for instance is all about a positive view of the future and technology. So now
we’re back to square one.
I find a much better definition of the genre is: it’s about
how a strange idea would have implications for humanity. Whether or not we see
this impact upon all of humanity is irrelevant. It is all about humanity. For
instance Frankenstein makes a
supposition that has implications for all of humanity, the idea of artificial
humans. I find this definition works for every story I’ve read. In order to
build up a solid definition of what the genre is it might be a good idea to
look at the classics.
Recommendations
The Time Machine
by H.G. Wells
War of the Worlds
by H.G. Wells
Brave New World by
Aldous Huxley
Frankenstein: The
Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley
False predictions
Some people charge science fiction writers with the
incredibly difficult task of predicting the future. How well do they fare?
Pretty poorly. 1984 did not see the arrival of a totalitarian government in the
UK and the space programme was crippled by 2001. How can we possibly take the
fiction seriously when the facts have been disproved?
Here’s the thing. Science fiction is fiction. It is a writer
telling a story it is not a prophecy. Robert A Heinlein is not Nostradamus. Even
if the writer prided themselves on accuracy, like Asimov and Clarke, what their
stories posit is mere speculation. In the cases of them you could argue that
the only reason their predictions didn’t come true is because science and
technology became more capitalist. I won’t say that’s a bad thing. Many
incredible advances we use today we made by corporations and made personal
products not industrial ones (such as the case with I, Robot).
Put aside the idea that the writer is trying to predict the
future, because for the most part, they aren’t. They are trying to tell you a
fantastical story in a way they can see as being feasibly possible, and
sometimes that requires you put aside your knowledge of how history turned out.
When was the last time a romance writer was lampooned for not bringing together
couples in the real world?
Recommendations
I don’t think I can make recommendations for this section.
Instead I will post a trailer for a series of documentaries I watched called Prophets of Science Fiction.
Too little or too much science?
It’s in the title, but what do people make of it? Well this
is something that troubles a lot of readers. Science fiction in film and
television frequently waves aside the science in favour of saying “it’s the
future; we’ve accomplished this, deal with it”. And that’s not necessarily a
bad thing! Sometimes when an author tries their hardest to show off the science
in their stories, the fiction suffers. Writers of hard science fiction
(Larry Niven, Joe Haldeman, Isaac Asimov) have to make sure they don’t end up
writing a text book. It isn’t easy.
Of course the alternative is just to say “screw it, future
science is way too complicated to bog down the story”. That’s a fair point. But
in the information age it’s easy to check on simple facts.
With this the question is: what do you want as a reader? How
much does the scientific plausibility matter to you? I would advise looking up any material you're thinking about reading; tvtropes.org has a decent article about this called Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness.
If you want someone who knows what their talking about when it comes to science
then it’s probably advisable to stay away from Gene Rodenberry’s body of work.
If you don’t care to have scientific principle peppered throughout the story
then The Forever War is probably not
for you.
Harder science
recommendations
The Forever War by
Joe Haldeman
Foundation by
Isaac Asimov
I, Robot by Isaac
Asimov
Softer science
recommendations
The Three Stigmata of
Palmer Eldritch by Phillip K Dick
Dangerous Visions
edited by Harlan Ellison
Stranger in a Strange
Land by Robert A Heinlein
The semi-naked damsel
Oh boy. This is usually a fantasy trope but science fiction
certainly has its share of scantily clad women. I’d be lying if I said it
didn’t exist in some science fiction. There is definitely some male gaze in a
lot of Phillip K Dick’s work and I’d argue that it works against it.
Now if you were to look up pulp science fiction covers you’d
be well on your way to understanding what tentacle hentai is, and you’d be
worse off for it. Seriously, we thought Japan is weird, we were weirder.
Thankfully today science fiction magazines have a lot more dignity. The stories
handle the topics of sexuality with a lot more tact and maturity rather than
just “hur dur boobs”. As with any genre the only stories and novels people
remembered were the ones worth remembering as such you’d have a hard time
finding the rampantly exploitative in the local library.
But I’m sick and I get a giggle out of crap like this, if
you’re prepared to laugh at the old sensibilities they can be amusing. So if
you’re demented, sexist (homophobia and racism also feature for bonus points!)
or both you can pick these up on kindle.
I guess I’ve already made my recommendations here. Look up
the covers on Google, find one that looks fun and ridiculous and see if the
title is available as an e-book. I’ve never read any sci-fi for its portrayal
of sex but if I were to choose examples I would say the best I’ve seen yet
were: The Forever War by Joe Haldeman
(although I think it could have handled homosexuality better) and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (in
which sex is always cheap and love is absent).
Cliché
Really think of what comes to mind with a clichéd science
fiction story. The first things that come to mind are probably laser toting
rubber forehead aliens, a poor understanding of science often exemplified by
technobabble, shiny leotards being the height of fashion, one ancient bit of
technology still being lugged around in the space ship. Having carefully
selected my science fiction reading I can confirm that so much of this isn’t
true.
The Martians in Stranger
in a Strange Land look nothing like humans and don’t carry lasers. The
fashion in Brave New World is all
artifice and superficiality, and it varies from class to class. The scientific
understanding in The Forever War is well
realised and relevant to the story.
So let’s look at something riddled with rubber forehead
aliens, technobabble and leotards. Star
Trek and its various incarnations are guilty of these clichés but I can
happily watch it because that’s not the focus of the show. I like Star Trek: the Next Generation because
each episode focuses on new dilemmas that are often a reflection of some part
of human history. It ain’t too shabby. The only reason we notice science
fiction clichés more is because most of the clichés have to do with aesthetics.
Rubber forehead aliens? Aesthetic. Shiny leotards? Aesthetic. Shiny bleeping
computers? Aesthetic. Technobabble? Erm… OK you got me there.
If you actually take a look at the story telling instead of
the aesthetics chances are you’re going to find something more unique than your
giving credit for. This is why so much of my friends and family don’t
understand why I love Babylon 5, it
looks cheap, and laser toting aliens are prevalent in it but good Lord the
story is brilliant.
And let’s quickly get the whole rubber forehead thing out of
the way. Science fiction shows are infamously tight for a budget. A quick way
around this is to glue bubble wrap to someone’s face and call them king of the
Clantoons or whatever. Some might see it as a copout but you try making a
realistic Cthulhu on a shoestring budget. As for lasers, we use them today, in
industry (the most common being Carbon Dioxide lasers). The reason they are not
weapons is because it’s not practical for them to be weapons. Yet.
Any of the texts I've put as recommendations would easily count as avoiding the clichés of science fiction. Some other notable examples include We Can Remember it for You Wholesale (The Collected works Volume five) by Philip K Dick, Battle Royale by Koshun Takami, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, and also The Mammoth Book of New SF usually has some good stories.
And this is where I conclude the ranting.
Chances are some of your favourite films are science fiction
anyway. Examples include WALL-E, The Matrix, Jurassic Park, The Hunger
Games and Transformers. These
aren’t considered science fiction by so many people; they consider them family
films and action films. Well if that is the case then I guess Jennifer Lawrence
needs to give back her Saturn award, The
Matrix should stop appearing on ‘best sci-fi films’ lists, Spielberg should
throw out his Hugo award, and the creators of WALL-E need to have a MAJOR clear out of their trophy shelf.
No comments:
Post a Comment