Science fiction doesn't have to be gloomy, does it?

[Disinfo Agent]

'The future can be worrying to consider at the best of times. But with a global economic crisis looming, a war on terrorism and the continuing threat of climate change to ponder, the future looks bleak indeed. It's at times like these that people seek escape in the pages of popular fiction. But anyone looking for a better future in science fiction is in for a shock.' The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/sep/24/science.fiction.fantasy.horror)

Do you find this picture of contemporary science fiction to be accurate? Or is it perhaps just that all the good uplifting stories have already been told? Or something else?...

Please do read the full article. It's not long.

[tdvance]

I just started Niven's latest, with Ed Lerner, Juggler of Worlds. It doesn't seem so gloomy--of course, there are bad things going on, it's an adventure story. But they are problems being solved rather than something inherently hopeless about the future. The story, based on reading the reviews of it, is about how the puppeteers (named for how they look) are actually puppeteers (in how they manipulate Earth and other societies).

[Drunk Vegan]

"Gloomy" stories are the very basis of fiction. No one wants to read a story where the characters are not in conflict and where problems don't exist.

Even supermarket tabloids recognize that essential fact, which is why they are covered with smear stories about the problems of celebrities.

There is no genre that is essentially optimistic IMO. At least, no genre worth reading.

I like the quote about science fiction though:

"The salvation of humanity lies in science fiction, if we are to be saved at all."

(forget who said it, Clarke or Heinlein probably.)

[filrabat]

<Imagines going back to 1950, and writing a science fiction story about Paul and Jane Johnson, and their two kids Brian and Becky in the year 2000. All have portable telephones that fit in your hand and use it to gossip to their friends. Paul and Jane use the computer to pay their bills and post on message boards (Paul, on his antique card board; Jane on her food and cooking board; the kids post on the board of their favorite bands). Paul uses his Blackberry to keep in touch with the wife and to keep in touch with his office and clients while on the road.

Exciting Sci-Fi story, Huh?

[ravens_cry]

"Gloomy" stories are the very basis of fiction. No one wants to read a story where the characters are not in conflict and where problems don't exist.

Even supermarket tabloids recognize that essential fact, which is why they are covered with smear stories about the problems of celebrities.

There is no genre that is essentially optimistic IMO. At least, no genre worth reading.

I like the quote about science fiction though:

"The salvation of humanity lies in science fiction, if we are to be saved at all."

(forget who said it, Clarke or Heinlein probably.)
Actually, CONFLICT is the basis of all fiction, not gloominosity. Gloominess is a story that says "We are going to heck and there ain't a thing we can do about it." Conflict can be when the hero wins the day through the power of magic rainbow love. the basic fact is he won, and to win, others have to lose. Conflict. Though it started much earlier, I think we really gave up on the Golden Science fiction of flying cars and lunar vacations after 2000 happened, and nothing happened. Of course, for years before, no one would dare WRITE such a piece, except as parody, affectioned and otherwise. But we always dreamed, maybe, just maybe, soemthing would happen that would allow all those dreams to come true. we would have our rocket packs,and our space-mobiles. Robots would do our bidding. Instead we got the Roomba, and rocket packs are at best a novelty and space travel for the schmuck is even more distant, if ever attainable.
One of my favorite science fiction universes is the one from Ghost in the Shell:Stand Alone Complex. It is such an ordinary place. People live there lives, cities are not a smoking wreak, it isn't a dystopian/cyberpunk/Shadowrun future, it is just. . . a future. Nor does everyone go around in spandex and rings. The Major being a notable exception. It is by no means a Golden Age, for the purposes of Drama, corruption is rampant, but it isn't Iron Age comic gritty, it is more subtle then that. Cybernetics is incredibly advanced, yet it doesn't turn you into a Borg-clone freak, it's normal. It actually looks like something someone would want to buy. It looks like a product, rather then an exercise in art direction.
I want to write a story like that.

[tnjrp]

I have the impression that by sheer weight of numbers, the truly dystopian futures in science fiction do outrank the truly utopian. That said, the article gives a bit of an impression that the darkness is now distinctly prevalent trend even tho there are several rather good (and not too naïve) recent utopian scifi works, with Iain M Banks probably being the best known modern proponent with his Culture novels. And even many books conceived as dark (much of cyberpunk is usually seens as "dark and gritty", for example) are not still truly dystopian the way 1984 is.

[Nowhere Man]

Gloomy SF has been around for decades. Witness "Quietus" by Ross Rocklynne, "With Folded Hands" by Jack Williamson, half of Connie Willis's output, and darn near anything purchased by Gardner Dozois when he was misediting IASFM.

Sounds to me like the writer found what he was looking for, and since it supported his thesis, stopped looking.

Fred

[Ilya]

I have the impression that by sheer weight of numbers, the truly dystopian futures in science fiction do outrank the truly utopian. That said, the article gives a bit of an impression that the darkness is now distinctly prevalent trend even tho there are several rather good (and not too naïve) recent utopian scifi works, with Iain M Banks probably being the best known modern proponent with his Culture novels. And even many books conceived as dark (much of cyberpunk is usually seens as "dark and gritty", for example) are not still truly dystopian the way 1984 is.

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.

[Ilya]

One of the commenters on the OP "Guradian" article posted Jetpack or IM? (http://www.benjaminrosenbaum.com/blog/archives/2007_05.html#000484) -- a very good observation IMO on the difference between "butch" (jetpack) and "femme" (IM) approaches to technological development. Although I must point out that "butch" approach was much more constrainted by laws of physics.

And make sure to look at Dec. 1900 "Ladies Home Journal" list of predictions (http://www.yorktownhistory.org/homepages/1900_predictions.htm). It's almost supernaturally prescient -- at least compared to most futurist predictions from that time.

[Romanus]

I feel like the author is treating SF as something separate from "regular" literature, which I don't feel is the case. The reason I read *any* fiction isn't to be inspired or uplifted, it's to feel like I'm going somewhere. Whether it's optimistic or not is incidental.

[tdvance]

Spider Robinson's "The Free Lunch" is most definitely not distopic. I found that one a good read when I was sick with some bug I got off a cruise ship that had me (and many other passengers I talked to) down for two weeks several years ago.

[Drunk Vegan]

I think the very fact that a lot of science fiction takes place in distant futures and far away worlds suggests that it is optimistic by its very nature, regardless of what happens in that setting.

A true pessimist would take a look around at our society and conclude that we won't be lasting more than 25 years. 50 tops.

[Abbadon_2008]

Conflict and struggle are the basis for good stories.

I like gritty and moody tones, but not overwhelming despair. There should be glimmers of hope and success to keep the characters (and the readers) going.

And SF allows for romance, humor, and a sense of wonder to the story.

So, no. Gloom does not need to be the main ingredient. A mixed bag, I think, is best.

[novaderrik]

how boring would it be to have a movie set 500 years in the future where everything always goes right and all the aliens are our friends?
it would be more PBS children's show than science fiction.

[Abbadon_2008]

how boring would it be to have a movie set 500 years in the future where everything always goes right and all the aliens are our friends?
it would be more PBS children's show than science fiction.

It could, alternately, then become a soap opera.:whistle:

'The Days of Our Galaxy'
"The Guiding Pulsar"
"Melrose Space"

[Disinfo Agent]

Oh no, not that! (http://www.bautforum.com/fun-n-games/74195-please-please-no-9.html) ;)

[novaderrik]

It could, alternately, then become a soap opera.:whistle:

'The Days of Our Galaxy'
"The Guiding Pulsar"
"Melrose Space"
but for it to be a space soap opera, that would mean that not everything goes right all the time. in fact, almost nothing would ever go right.
and i think we've already got a soap opera in Space- it's called Battlestar Galactica.

[tnjrp]

Who said an SF future must be utopian OR dystopian??Err... Nobody?

For myself, I was merely ruminating on the extreme ends of the spectrum, based on the article's view that science fiction is dark and gloomy.

[Ilya]

Who said an SF future must be utopian OR dystopian??

Err... Nobody?

For myself, I was merely ruminating on the extreme ends of the spectrum, based on the article's view that science fiction is dark and gloomy.

An awful lot of people commenting on OP article in The Guardian seem to assume that. Some defend dystopian SF "because utopias are boring". That certainly implies not recognizing there is something in-between. Others keep bringing up Ian Banks' books, which ARE utopian (or as close to utopia as you can get and still have a story). Again, there is conspicuously little mention of "neither" stories, which would make much stronger argument IMO.

[tdvance]

OT I just watched a dystopia on DVD: THX1138 (yes, for the first time--I'm late I guess). It was actually pretty entertaining (and 1970's style strange). TV/Movies seem to be heavier on the dystopia than books, for some reason.

[tnjrp]

An awful lot of people commenting on OP article in The Guardian seem to assume thatWell, I must say I didn't read the comments, only the article itself.
Again, there is conspicuously little mention of "neither" stories, which would make much stronger argument IMO.It may be that it's simply easier for the participants to agree that certain examples of science fiction are dystopian (or apocalytic) and others are utopian in nature than to debate the relative gloominess of the large grey area between.

A case in point: Alastair Reynolds is very often seen as an author firmly in "the dark side", at least for his Revelation Space cycle. OTOH he himself states the stories have a strong hopeful undercurrent which will become obvious once you've read the entire cycle up to the novella Galactic North.

[eburacum45]

One person's utopia could be another person's dystopia. Fiction with a transhumanist element can seem to describe a future full of shiny happy people living hedonistic lives while the posthumans take care of the real business of living.

But for others it promises a denial of freedom and of everything that makes human life distinctive: the setting of goals, conflict, achievement, the exercise of sovereignty without deference to more powerful beings.

Some people will not be happy in a future which includes transhuman entities; that is one of the reasons there are stories to be told about such a future. And there are other stories too; conflicts between such entities can cause suffering too, and lead to heroic events involving ordinary people.

[tdvance]

"One person's utopia could be another person's dystopia." Fahrenheit 451--where visitors to his home resisted Montag's attempt to talk up books.

[Ilya]

Well, I must say I didn't read the comments, only the article itself.
It may be that it's simply easier for the participants to agree that certain examples of science fiction are dystopian (or apocalytic) and others are utopian in nature than to debate the relative gloominess of the large grey area between.

A case in point: Alastair Reynolds is very often seen as an author firmly in "the dark side", at least for his Revelation Space cycle. OTOH he himself states the stories have a strong hopeful undercurrent which will become obvious once you've read the entire cycle up to the novella Galactic North.
Don't remember if it is in Galactic North or somewhere else, but Reynolds summarized Revelation Space thus: "In the long term, humanity is doomed. But we still have several thousand pretty good years ahead of us."

[Vultur]

One person's utopia could be another person's dystopia.

Definitely. I always found Clarke's Thalassa (from "The Songs of Distant Earth") to be a singularly undesirable place to live. No real challenges, nothing really happening, no strong beliefs ... no wonder that world didn't produce geniuses! (Clarke says there are simply too few people for real technological advancement ... but without any challenges, why would it happen anyway?)

[Drunk Vegan]

One person's utopia could be another person's dystopia. Fiction with a transhumanist element can seem to describe a future full of shiny happy people living hedonistic lives while the posthumans take care of the real business of living.

This is true. I once knew a vapid MTV generation girl in college who thought that Brave New World was a "lovely story about a great future."

My jaw dropped.

[Ilya]

"Brave New World" is only a dystopia if you look at it from outside. Everyone in it really is happy. It is artificially induced happiness, but most of them do not know it, and those who know, don't care.

And I also had met people who said they would not mind living in "Brave New World". No decisions to make, your job is tailored to your psyche so you are never bored (well, both are tailored to each other, but end result is the same), no depression, and plenty of consequence-free sex. This appeals to a certain type of personality -- underrepresented on BAUT, but in fact very common.

[vonmazur]

I read "Marching Morons" by Kuttner and Moore years ago, along with Blade Runner, that was enough to convince me....

Dale

[Ilya]

Convince you of what?

[springa]

"Brave New World" is only a dystopia if you look at it from outside. Everyone in it really is happy. It is artificially induced happiness, but most of them do not know it, and those who know, don't care.

And I also had met people who said they would not mind living in "Brave New World". No decisions to make, your job is tailored to your psyche so you are never bored (well, both are tailored to each other, but end result is the same), no depression, and plenty of consequence-free sex. This appeals to a certain type of personality -- underrepresented on BAUT, but in fact very common.

I've heard the same thing - some people definitely consider the "Brave New World" future a utopia rather than a dystopia.

[jokergirl]

I don't consider "Brave new world" a particularly good book, be it interpreted as utopia or dystopia.

;)

[KaiYeves]

I hate dystopias.

[Ara Pacis]

I suspect the article was directed at mainstream culture, which as another poster mentioned, seems more dystopian/apocalyptic. Personally, I think it's a combination of real world resource pressures coupled with various popular religious eschatologies all wrapped up in a self-reflective post-modern mindset. Actually, dystopian might be the wrong word, I think it's more about a cultural capitulation through cynicism.