But I gotta talk about this. I have a problem. My problem is with the term science fiction.
An article came out on io9 today talking about how Battlestar Galactica should not be called science fiction, rather social fiction. The key reason being that it was really about society, as opposed to science.
Excuse me , but WHAT THE FUCK.
This is the problem I have with the term science fiction. It is such a loaded and subjective term.
To be honest I couldn't give a fuck whether BSG is science, social, or speculative fiction. The problem I have is that people seem to think that science fiction deals with science.
Here's what I'm thinking. Science fiction doesn't often have much to do with science.
If things termed "science fiction" really had to do with science, Star Wars would be called Spiritual Fiction. there's no science in Star Wars.
There, I said it.
There's no science in Star Wars. If you took away the ships and alien worlds, you'd have a war movie that's about people coming to terms with their family, and their spirituality. Let it sink in a minute before you throw up.
BSG? The original was a riff on Exodus. The current version? Yeah, I'd call it "societal fiction" if we're holding it up to the standards in question.
Buck Rogers? Nothing to do with science. It's just an imaginative setting to do a story about alienation within one's own world.
Blade Runner? very little to do with science. More a morality play about staring into the abyss. One could even argue that it is reactionary to the exploratory nature of science.
Jurassic Park? Science? Oh, barely. More an ethical dilemma regarding technology than science by far.
2001: a Space Odyssey? A little science, but really, come on. It's yet another morality play about the dangers of science
Alien/Aliens/More Aliens? It's a fucking bug hunt.
Terminator? Please. So rife with paradox, science implodes on contact with Terminator plotlines.
So what about Star Trek? Arguably the most "science-y" science fiction series in popular history?
Backdrop. One big fucking backdrop. There's very little science to speak of. Star Trek capitalizes on scientific notions to be sure, but employing scientific rationale within the stories? How often is it logic, deductive reasoning, or experimentation that solves the problems in Star Trek? Someone please make a list of the star trek episodes where science either saves the day, or comes out on top? If that were the case, wouldn't Spock be the main protagonist of Star Trek? And Data, for TNG?
One could argue that every time someone re-routes the sub-space manifold to send the ionic waves back towards the mysterious power source, thus sealing the rift in the space time continuum, and rescue the stranded crew, science is being employed. But is that science being employed, or merely technology?
Honestly, if you set that same story in present day, it's pretty much a matter of someone giving traditional tools alternative functions. Thinking outside the box, I guess. I suppose one could call that scientific. I guess. Maybe. Possibly.
So you might be wondering just what does ol' GP consider science fiction? What is canon to him?
You really want to know?
I'm not thrilled about saying this, but to me, Contact is one of the closest approximations of Science Fiction film I can think of. Let's do a quick examination of the story. A scientist, along with some other scientists discover a signal. the signal is determined to actually be information in the form of schematics. These scientists build the machine the schematics describe, and test it out. the first test fails, due to human error. the second test is apparently a success and the scientist conducting the experiment is thrilled, but upon conclusion of the experiment, there is no proof, and thus the scientist is labeled a nutjob by her peers. However, in the very end, it appears they may be some empirical evidence after all.
Please understand that I love what we all call "science fiction". I just would like what I say to mean what I'm thinking of when I say it.
I don't have an answer to my question. I'm not trying to one up anything here. I wish I had solution to my problem, but Unrealistic Setting Fiction and Improbable Technology Fiction both sound like ass.
Please argue, discuss, list your ideas of what you believe true "Science Fiction" to be.
p.s.- I wanted to say something about Dune, but I was too tired to try and summarize it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
The very concept of science fiction is semantically loaded and vague... Wouldn't it be an interesting world if we could go back in time and not introduce it.
I think this has never bothered me. Here are reasons:
1) I read the term as "The Science is Fictional", not "Fiction about Science". Think about the opposition you often hear regarding Science Fiction vs. Science Fact.
2) If you apply the same relaxed logic you use when defining musical genres, then everything works out okay too. Songs you'd classify as "Electronica" don't have to be about the instruments they're played on any more than "Country" songs all need to be about living in the country (although in the latter case, common themes emerge--but aren't these themes just tools, like instruments?). The genre is just a canvas, or actually, an after-the-fact generalized classification.
3) I am a level 10 Chillaxer.
So is this why the Sci-Fi Channel is changing its name to SyFy? (And I use the word "why" in that sentence very loosely.)
I always thought that the term "science fiction" was just a handy way to distinguish it from other genres in fiction--not that it was necessarily "science" based.
For example, what's the difference between science fiction, fantasy, and romance?
Science fiction usually has
-lasers
-space ships
-robots
-a book cover that features scantily clad alien women who are humanoid enough to have enormous "fun bags" that force them to stand sway-backed because their freakishly large breasts throw their balance off
Fantasy usually has
-swords
-magic
-dragons or some other fantastic creature
-a book cover that features scantily clad elven women who have enormous fun bags that force them to stand sway-backed because their freakishly large breasts throw their balance off
Romance usually has
-knock me down and fuck me shoes
-a handsome, rich, asshole
-a handsome, rich, nice guy
-a book cover that features a scantily clad woman who has enormous fun bags that force the shirtless, manly man mugging her to contort himself over her because her freakishly large breasts throw both their balances off
Of course this doesn't work if the aforementioned character with the fun bags is armed with BOTH a laser and a sword and is tooting around the universe in her spaceship with her sidekick--a purple, talking unicorn ("HEEEYYY!"), having guilt-free sex with both the asshole and the nice guy.
P.S. I hated "Dune". I thought Paul Atreides was a big crybaby.
SyFy... I just... but... this is not the answer, you pile of retarded gibbons!
I think we're actually all in agreement here. Again. Am I right in thinking that when you say you have a problem with the term science fiction, Panic, it's with people being completely anal about it in the popular press? I'd totally agree with that.
When you say "true science fiction", I guess I think of hard scifi, like Vernor Vinge or Carl Sagan--That's probably Pony's "fiction about science", as well.
But yeah, a huge majority of scifi has nothing to do with science at all. I think a lot of the value there is that scifi/fantasy allows for completely malleable backdrops to do things with character development and story that you can't do within the constraints of reality in regular, boring fiction. At the very least it's a way to tell the same stories but from a different perspective than what we live in. Take that Time Travellers Wife book. It's a love story, but the guy had to travel through time in order to tell it. Harry Potter has a lot of great themes and social issues that could be told without the magic, but what kid would want to read that? Can you take the morality play from Bladerunner and put it in say, Wyoming? :D
I guess I seriously don't understand what the big deal is, especially in an age where Geek Is The New Black. Look at the gynormous range there is in FICTION. Why can't there be a range of genres in SciFi? Douglas Adams, Carl Sagan, Audrey Niffenegger--keep the damn name, lose the stigma.
I totally dread mentioning it, but... this is a much huger problem for
comics. I mean, come on. Who's got a worse and more unfair stigma due to a shitty name than comics.
No wai!!! Hi, lady!
Someone sincerely needs to write that book.
Way, Mr. FB! Blame Mr. Gal and Mr. Pony for this outrage. :-)
Hey, welcome, mri!
Yes, good thoughts, comrades. The genre refers to the trappings and tools. The story, however, is always about boobs, and has little or nothing to do with the genre. Unless you're Carl Sagan, and you misunderstand what the name of your genre implies, and you end up writing a tedious but scientifically accurate story that feels like homework.
Comics' public image is screwed, forever, and they deserve it. It's fine, though.
I agree that the genre can stand some differentiation. I will immediately begin work on a Science Fiction short story that focuses less on space ships and robots, and instead uses as a backdrop simpler technologies, such as batteries and hinges and tape.
Also, will someone please link to a picture of knock me down and fuck me shoes?
And I'm totally gonna pull a Marvel, but if you grab this thread here--well what if Rick Astley wasn't Rick Astley? Who would be the hero of his story, and how would you even begin to write that unless he were a cylon or clone or somesuch... Here's why we have science fiction, no?
Mr. Pony--any shoe store worth its salt will carry the aforementioned shoes. Just look for the ones that have heels so high and sharp that wearing them should give you a nose bleed. Oh, and bonus points for reptile skin accents, the color red, skinny straps, and toes pointed enough to damage someone's kidneys if you kicked them wearing those shoes.
No! Rick Astley is a cylon???
Tell me more!
We're getting sidetracked by fuck-me-shoes.
I knew inviting MRI was going to be trouble. I told Pony, but no...
OK folks. New contest. Someone draw us some fuck-me-shoes.
I agree with great sadness regarding the comics. It's such a bummer to tell people that you study and teach comics.
They always look at you for a second and say "When we were kids, my cousin and I used to trace Beetle Bailey and make him have sex with Blondie. Is that what you are talking about?"
You know, I'm not an avid comic book fan but it irks me when people look down their noses at sf, comics, or whatever. Like their IQ just skyrocketed because they read the most recent NY Times bestseller. Give me a break.
Not to drag the topic back down to fuck-me shoes but here are some examples. Platform soles are optional but you get extra points if you can run in them (while shooting your laser beam gun) and not give yourself a black eye.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/flickrgrit/1397746043/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/petertoro/2746733040/
fuck-me-shoes-cross-reference.
Post a Comment