Positive Science Fiction?

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Neal Stephenson said:
(from "Innovation Starvation", in the World Policy Journal)
Speaking broadly, the techno-optimism of the Golden Age of SF has given way to fiction written in a generally darker, more skeptical and ambiguous tone. I myself have tended to write a lot about hackers—trickster archetypes who exploit the arcane capabilities of complex systems devised by faceless others.

Believing we have all the technology we’ll ever need, we seek to draw attention to its destructive side effects. This seems foolish now that we find ourselves saddled with technologies like Japan’s ramshackle 1960’s-vintage reactors at Fukushima when we have the possibility of clean nuclear fusion on the horizon. The imperative to develop new technologies and implement them on a heroic scale no longer seems like the childish preoccupation of a few nerds with slide rules. It’s the only way for the human race to escape from its current predicaments. Too bad we’ve forgotten how to do it.

In short, Stephenson suggests that the direction of fiction in recent years is in part responsible for the technological ennui we face. This, however, is something that can be fixed.

Enter Project Hieroglyph, from Arizona State University's Center for Science and Imagination - a site for collaboration among authors, scientists, engineers, and artists to collaborate on ambitious visions of the near future that are not all about how we are set for ruination. A quick scan of the member list includes the likes of Neal Stephenson, Cory Doctorow, Elizabeth Bear, Rudy Rucker, and Greg Benford. Ultimately, the intent is for products of the site to go into a HarperCollins anthology of fiction and non-fiction, set to be published in 2014.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
It not only technology that we frown upon in our fiction. We frown upon society and institutions as well.

David Brin said:
(from "Our Favorite Cliché — A World Filled With Idiots…", in Locus Online perspectives)
The Euro-American fable has always featured an individualistic style. When the public pays for a fantasy experience, riding the shoulder of some bold hero or heroine, each customer wants to identify with a protagonist who is special, unique, or at least interesting in some way that departs from run-of-the-mill, batch-processed humanity. Even when the character seems unremarkable, he or she is marked as singular and fascinating by virtue of being the one whose thoughts and experiences we share.

That’s the magic of “point of view.”

While individuals get our empathy and sympathy, institutions seldom do. The “we’re in this together” spirit of films from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s later gave way to a reflex shared by left and right, that villainy is associated with organization. Even when they aren’t portrayed as evil, bureaucrats are stupid and public officials short-sighted. Only the clever bravado of a solitary hero (or at most a small team) will make a difference in resolving the grand crisis at hand.

This rule of contemporary storytelling is so nearly universal that it has escaped much comment – because you never notice propaganda that you already agree with. In other words, the reflex is self-reinforcing. A left-leaning director may portray villainous oligarchs or corporations while another film-maker rails against government cabals. But while screaming at each other over which direction Big Brother may be coming from, they never seem to notice their common heritage and instinct — Suspicion of Authority (SOA) — much in the way fish seldom comment on the existence of water.

Indeed, one of the great ironies is that we all suckled SOA from every film and comic book and novel that we loved… and yet, we tend to assume that we invented it. That only we and a few others share this deep-seated worry about authority. That our neighbors got their opinions from reflexive, sheeplike obedience to propaganda. But we attained ours through logical appraisal of the evidence.

No, you did not invent Suspicion of Authority. You were raised by it.

No wonder, then, we have a pessimistic attitude.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Ben Bova's Grand Tour novels about humanity's exploration and expansion into the rest of the solar system is filled with intrigue and action, but is ultimately positive, IMHO.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Certainly, there are exceptions to the trend. The Spider Man movies, for example, each have a scene where the people of New York stand up and help Spidey. The world, in that moment, is not filled with idiots. Normal folks just lack the particular skills or abilities needed to deal with the crisis directly. But, they are still effective, even crucial, in helping the hero.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
The sort of cynicism you demonstrated there is part of the problem. It creates self-fulfilling prophecies of failure.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Then "True ART" is a sub-genre of expression that has lost meaning and relevance, such that it can be ignored for our purposes. Real* art imitates life. And real life is only sometimes depressing, confusing and expensive. At other times real life is uplifting, enlightening, and cost-effective.

In addition, we are discussion genre works, which are generally excluded from the realm of "True ART" by those who assert they know what it is - genre is a crutch, they'll tell you, and thus no piece of "True ART" will be under discussion here anyway.

More to the point, though, "True ART" has empirically proven to not be an economically viable genre during the artist's lifetime. It doesn't make bestseller's lists, or movie deals. It is thus self-limiting as art, given that art's purpose is not pretension, but communication - your book isn't art if nobody ever reads it! So, I would expect authors to bite the bullet of enlightened self-interest, and create works that people actually want to read.

Thus, we can largely leave your "True ART" out of the picture. Can we move on, then, to something a tad less curmudgeonly?




*Noting that "real" and "true" are not synonymous in this kind of discussion - "true" is a matter of theoretical definition, "real" is a matter of practical reality.
 

Joking aside (I do not thinking true art exists let along that it must be depressing, confusing and expensive), cynicism sells because it can pass itself off as "informed worldliness" and optimism can easily be dismissed as naive. Those will be difficult perceptions and social trends to overcome, creating economic hurdles for this project. How does the project propose to overcome these issues?
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Those will be difficult perceptions and social trends to overcome, creating economic hurdles for this project. How does the project propose to overcome these issues?

YOu might be correct for a new author - you have to be extraordinarily talented to really buck the trend. But, did you see the names? Doctorow. Bear. Stephenson. Rucker. Benford. I would not be surprised if David Brin gets in on it, as I learned of it from his G+ feed. We're talking a stack of Hugo, Nebula, Campbell, and other awards and nominations. These are all "best selling" authors with long-proven track records, not new, fresh faces. These folks all have followings who will buy their works sight-unseen, just because they wrote it.
 

Remove ads

Top