The Cultural Gutter

dangerous because it has a philosophy

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." -- Oscar Wilde

Even When They’re Wrong, They’re Right

James Schellenberg
Posted February 17, 2004

What is science fiction good for? One answer: to speculate on what the future might be like. But I would argue that the game of science fiction is only sometimes about predicting the future. Sure it’s fun to invent flying cars and moonbases, but as even these two examples show, the predictive track record of the genre is notoriously bad. The real year 2001 had relatively little spaceflight but rather astonishing advances like the Internet that even Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke didn’t imagine when they made their little movie nearly 40 years ago. In another famous example, Ray Bradbury’s book-burning society of Fahrenheit 451 has not yet come to exist (fingers crossed).

It’s Bradbury’s book, as a failure of prediction, which precisely illustrates why I think that science fiction is so important.


The main question of the genre has always been: how will we live as human beings? Fahrenheit 451 uses a what-if scenario, book-burning, to make us examine key issues about society, the price of freedom, and so forth. If we become complacent about intellectual liberty, we already know some of the psychological consequences, having been warned by Bradbury. Cautionary tales such as Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, 1984, and The Handmaid’s Tale have become well-known because of the force of their warnings, but they don’t need to come true to remain worth reading. It has been, after all, 20 years since the date Orwell forecasted for Big Brother, and we need the adjective “Orwellian” more than ever.

I would also argue that science fiction gets power from its entertainment value. A well-written story can grab our sympathies and make us forget everything else and return us to our life with a changed perspective. A superior story can take a serious issue and be memorable and informative and fun all at once. And the best works in the genre tend not to give definitive answers to these issues, but rather focus on dramatizing them. Some of the most essential questions frequently addressed in the genre:

•What does it mean to be human? A basic question, but one that gets more pertinent every day. Should we be cloning humans? Does an artificial intelligence have the same rights as us? How are our relationships affected by control over emotions and biology? Will corporate research into genetics lead to loss of freedom with regard to our bodies?

•What is the nature of reality? Another basic question. Can we trust our senses? If the computing power exists to create a seamless virtual reality, how would we distinguish it from real life? What do dreams mean?

•How should we deal with new technology? This question is perhaps not so interesting and is often dealt with by-the-by when sf stories talk about the first two questions. Will machines take over the world? Not likely, but it makes for an easy scare.

By addressing these questions, science fiction is a survival manual for the future. Not by way of exact prediction of what’s to come, but more by way of a constant examination and re-examination of this side and that side of an issue. What’s more, it’s fun to read!

Of course, not every sf book will live up to these lofty ideals. And different authors prefer to write a different mix of the profound and the entertaining. My reviews will try to measure how a particular book lives up to the possibilities of the genre and whether the author’s apparent goals have been fulfilled. All of my reviews will be based on the idea that science fiction is worth reading and evaluating.

Comments

3 Responses to “Even When They’re Wrong, They’re Right”

  1. Martha
    February 20th, 2004 @ 12:36 am

    The use value of sf, or any literature, is a big question.
    SF is also valuable because it comments on, and shows us the present, with some modifications to displace us and make us look at things anew. One sees the differences in the created worlds, before the similarities between scenarios depicted and our own lives. Aren’t they wrestling with the same existential issues that we do? (As Mr. Schellenberg pointed out). Why do so many aliens have two legs, two arms, a head with two eyes? Why would we assume life would evolve elsewhere as it has here, unless we are really wanting to talk about, and to know about, us?
    That future, and our present, even our past, get all mixed together. Don’t we already have the burning of books, the (shadows of) religiously-inspired, government control of woman and reproduction, and the oversight of Big Brother?
    SF is a space where new ways of thinking about now can be explored.

  2. Lt. Mike Raspberry
    February 20th, 2004 @ 4:26 pm

    I think we would be remiss if we didn’t also highlight the scientific aspect of SF. The genre at its best acts as a narrative laboratory where theoretical models (theories) are introduced and tested. True, Orwell and Bradbury never owned lab coats or wore pocket protectors (though their fans might), but they certainly conducted experiments. Like any good working scientist they began by asking themselves the enduring question – What if? What if books were banned? What if Big Brother always watched? Not only that but they theorized and wrote about potential outcomes. Readers meanwhile, acting as peer review, sat in judgment of these newly created possible worlds. Does that seem far-fetched? Could that ever happen? As it turns out the truly worthwhile SF writers in my mind are, not surprisingly, also those whose theories are most plausible given the evidence. Like our best physics, the best science fiction not only describes the present but also most accurately predicts the future. That has to be a good thing!! Now if we can only get the National Research Council of Canada to fund more Sci-Fi writers.

  3. sundre
    February 23rd, 2004 @ 12:21 pm

    Speculative fiction is multifunctional literature. It has so many worlds to work with. This one, the universe it’s in, and the universe next door, just to start with. And at its best, it is literature.
    Good fiction engages the reader. It stimulates, it thrills, it irritates, amuses, or delights. But great literature changes the reader. Science fiction challenges its audience. It asks questions, and demands answers and action. Prepare. Prevent. Make it happen. The future is only a moment away.
    I think it’s the promise of possibility that I find so seductive.

Leave a Reply





  • Support The Gutter

  • The Book!

  • Of Note Elsewhere

    The Gutter’s own Carol infiltrates Teleport City‘s limits to contribute to TC’s Space: 1999 series with her piece on aliens and what big jerks they are. “Space: 1999 taught me two valuable lessons. The first is that space is depressing and best represented by the color taupe. The second is that, with few exceptions, aliens are jerks.”

    ~

    The Dartmouth College Library ahs scans of the oldest extant comic book, Rodolphe Töpffer’s
    “The Adventures of Mr. Obadiah Oldbuck” (1837). (via @SoxOnTheBrain)

    ~

    At Graveyard Shift Sisters, Carolyn looks at Lizzie Borden’s Born In Flames (1983) and the character, Adelaide Norris. “Born in Flames was revolutionary for its time, and I think it is still relevant today. This film has many layers, with both a speculative as well as a science fictional representation of a parallel universe that denies oppression. One of the main characters, Adelaide Norris played by Jean Satterfield, came to the forefront for me because of her race and role in the story. Adelaide is one of the key characters who pulls the female troops together. With the help of her mentor Zella, played by civil rights lawyer Flo Kennedy, this young Black and gay woman tirelessly researches, advises, and recruits women to fight the good fight for equality.”

    ~

    A video tribute to interactive VCR games including: Nightmare (1991), The Fisherman VCR Bible Game (1989), Rich Little’s Charades (1985), Wayne’s World VCR Game (1992), Star Trek: The Next Generation VCR Game (1995) and Skull and Crossbones (1988). (Thanks, Beth!)

    ~

    At The Los Angeles Review Of Books, Suzannah Showler writes about the complexity of the reality tv show The Bachelor and her complicated love for it. “I love The Bachelor the way I love most things, which is to say: complicatedly. On the one hand, I think it’s a fascinating cultural product, one I find great delight in close-reading. But I also love it, frankly, because I just like watching it. I think it’s top-notch entertainment, and I will straight up hip-check my politics out of the way, and give up many hours of my life, in the name of being entertained.” (Via @idontlikemunday)

    ~

    At Comics Alliance, Chris Sims recounts that time the Punisher battled Dr. Doom. “It starts off with Dr. Doom kicking it in an extradimensional conference room set up by Loki to coordinate mass villainy, where he is just ripping into the Kingpin for being unable to kill the Punisher….Thus, in a sterling example of the ‘well then why don’t you do it’ school of super-villain cameraderie, Dr. Doom, a man who built a time machine in his basement, heads off to try his luck at fighting the Punisher, a man who has a gun. He does this, as you might expect, by luring him to a quarry and — after a brief exchange between a Doombot and a minigun — attempting to blow up his van with a tank.”

    ~

  • Spilling into Twitter

  • Obsessive?

    Then you might be interested in knowing you can subscribe to our RSS feed, find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter or Tumblr.

    -------

  • Weekly Notifications

  • What We’re Talking About

  • Thanks To

    No Media Kings hosts this site, and Wordpress autoconstructs it.

  • %d bloggers like this: