Quote:
Originally Posted by ASEI
Two cliches that sort of get on my nerves:
The future is depicted either as a grimy nearly hopeless dystopia designed to overload you with misanthropy and guilt for the "sins" of mankind. Or as a sugar-coated cartoon utopia where a few imaginary plot devices have gotten rid of practically all conflict or realistic human nature, and everyone accepts the presented culture without dissent. That anything could exist apart from the two wild extremes seems to escape many authors.
|
God, yes!
Who said an SF future must be utopian OR dystopian??
I MUCH prefer reading about futures which are neither. In Peter Hamilton's, Larry Niven's, Alastair Reynolds' stories set centuries from now there is still social inequality, crime, terrorism, conspiracy theories, religious nuts and airhead heiresses, but most people exist in neither bliss nor despair, mostly just minding their own business. IOW, not too different from present. With certain differences, of course: "Life is a drag, and then you rejuvenate and do it all over again!" is how one Hamilton's character defines middle-class rut.
[Edit]: I realize this thread is about movies, but SF books do this far too often also.