(no subject)

[oyceter]

Thoughts sparked by the discussion on kijjohnson's LJ on that old sci-fi versus fantasy thing, as well as I, Robot the movie versus Asimov books.

I was reading an NYTimes article on the I, Robot movie, which mainly discusses how the movie goes through the old action movie evil artificial intelligence out to conquer the world schtick, rather than staying with Asimov's usually peaceful and rather logical robots. (one reason why I'm not going to see the movie -- sure, make an evil robot movie, but why refer to Asimov if one is not going to stick with Asimov?)

I wonder why sci-fi is generally thought of as forward looking. Granted, there's that whole future thing, but haven't lots of papers been written about how sci-fi generally reflects the fears and concerns of the time the book or story was written? I always think of sci-fi as more now-oriented than future oriented, because so much of it is extrapolation of present day problems. In part, people laud sci-fi for being good social commentary, and isn't that by definition very firmly in the present day? Also, I don't think social commentary is limited to the futuristic setting, although in general, sci-fi seems to have been more engaged with the socio-political than fantasy. But I'd say Harry Potter does do a good deal of social commentary as well, despite the pseudo-medieval wizarding world setting. And from the commentary I've seen on Laurie J. Marks' Fire Logic, it deals very much with issues like war and its broad impact on society and on individuals.

Also, I wonder why this argument always pops up, or seems to? I mean, who cares if something is backwards looking? I don't understand -- do the sci-fi supporters disregard historical fiction as well? Obviously I am biased, since I am mainly a fantasy fan and have read little golden age sci-fi. I usually only read sci-fi if it comes highly recommended because I'm mostly interested in interiority and in character. I don't know. I just think it's a rather silly argument, given that a lot of the speculative elements in sci-fi can be given a fantasy spin (immortality, alien life forms/races, religious governments, etc.) by just switching the "scientific" rationale to a magical one (i.e. Asimov's psychohistory or whatever it's called vs. Card's idea of torches and reading heartfires).

The clinging to the social commentary thing is what gets me the most. I feel that if a book has something to say on the human condition, it doesn't really matter how forward or backward looking it is.

Comments

[anneth.livejournal.com]

I was reading an NYTimes article on the I, Robot movie, which mainly discusses how the movie goes through the old action movie evil artificial intelligence out to conquer the world schtick, rather than staying with Asimov's usually peaceful and rather logical robots. (one reason why I'm not going to see the movie -- sure, make an evil robot movie, but why refer to Asimov if one is not going to stick with Asimov?)

This month's Wired magazine has two articles about I, Robot - one about Asimov's legacy and the other about Will Smith. I was alternately amused and irked by the former article, as it described the Asimovian robot (even used the story about Robby the robot as an example) ideal and then wet itself about how fabulous the movie's going to be. And yet, the previews for the movie have all be of the Evil Robots try to conquer the world/only one guy, our plucky hero, doesn't trust them/the Evil Robots try to kill him! variety. If that made sense.

The other article, about WS - very lame. Wired's totally pandering to the non-techy audience these days.

[oyceter]

I haven't gotten to our copy of Wired yet, though the boy's read it (he wants to see the movie. Why, why does he want to see these movies??). I thought the movie looked kind of cool, and then, like you said, it turned into evil robots vs. plucky Luddite hero guy.

Come to think of it, it's funny how reactionary a lot of the sci-fi action movies are.

Part of the reason I stopped reading a lot of sci-fi was because there were so many dystopian futures. Me, I like technology and the internet and everything. I think there was an interesting article posted on [Unknown site tag] a while back on how sci-fi is losing the teenage audience because of the dystopian, things-were-better-back-then bent.

[livinglaurel.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I think that whole "sf is forward-looking/fantasy is backward-looking" rap is so people don't feel guilty reading sf. It's mature! and pragmatic! and logical! not like infantilizing fantasy, &c &c.

When you look at all the seminal sf books, they're fantasies anyway -- Frankenstein, the Time Machine, Jules Verne....I think a lot of this came from John W. Campbell, who famously insisted that he wanted an sf story written today to be a typical adventure story 200 years from now that people could read straight. Which depends a lot on extrapolation, future prediction, and future histories. But when you think about the great advances in human history -- did people "predict" penicillin? radio? the personal computer even? Don't think so.

I think Le Guin is the one who's always said science fiction is descriptive, not prophetic; of course it describes the here-and-now, because that's when it's written. But remember all the "Well gee guess Orwell was wrong about America turning into a totalitarian country in 1984, ha ha!" crap in 1984? Did it stop people from reading Orwell? Nooooo. Orwell just reversed the digits of the year he was writing in, 1948. And a lot of his book describes what he saw going on all around him already.

Also, if you go back and read a lot of prescriptive-type "this is what the future will be like" sf from, say, the early sixties, your hair will turn white. Leave predictions to Rand. That's not what sf is about.

//rant pant rant pant//

[oyceter]

It's the geek genre hierarchy ;). Sci-fi looks down on fantasy, everyone looks down on romance. It annoys me greatly, because not only do I have to defend the genres I read from literary fiction fans, but also from other genre fans!

I think the descriptive, not prophetic bit is right on the nose. Plus, there's that entire steampunk subgenre, which is, er, not exactly looking into the future, and the whole alternate history subgenre, etc. Hanging on to the social commentary thing for validation is sort of silly, imho, because in the end, a good story is a good story, no matter the genre.

[livinglaurel.livejournal.com]

Yes! and ha, forgot about steampunk, there (and actually one of my favorite reads was I think Aldiss's book about vampires on a steamboat). It's weird to see genre hate in genre communities, but I guess it's like the infighting in the military, or something -- OUR branch is best. ((rolls eyes))

a good story is a good story, no matter the genre

Amen.

Vampires on a steamboat

[oursin.livejournal.com]

? George R R Martin's Fevre Dream? - paddlewheel steamer on the Mississippi.

Re: Vampires on a steamboat

[livinglaurel.livejournal.com]

That must be it, duh (most of my books are boxed up in my parents' garage in Santa Fe, not here).

[oursin.livejournal.com]

I didn't know where to start on this one, and had various other things preoccupying me yesterday so didn't get into the debate, but I couldn't help thinking of all that 'forward-looking' sf that assumed that The Future would be the White Suburban 1950s, only bigger, better and more technologically advanced. Way forward-looking, yeah?

[oyceter]

Heh heh -- it's like my issue with sci-fi and the lack of minorities in the far flung future (or the assumption that only Europe and America will somehow colonize planets).