There used to be an axiom of “proper” science fiction, that
unless the scientific content was pivotal to the story – i.e., the story would
not work without it – it was not science
fiction. It may have been the great John W. Campbell who said it, though
I’m not sure. This yardstick says the literate SF writer – and by default reader – must be up on the science and
theory of the day if they are to participate in a very special and singular
genre.
Fast forward to today, and the SF writer is sometimes
conscious of the need to “dumb it down” if he or she wants to sell stories. Twenty
years ago, the Hollywood journalist covering shows of the mid-90s for the UK
title Science Fiction and Fantasy Model
Review, when discussing the second season of SeaQuest DSV, commented “I preferred this show when there was some
science with the fiction,” and that really sums it up. The mantra of Hollywood
has long been dumb it down, sex it up,
and never mind reality. Has this invaded the hallowed halls of literary SF
too?
It takes only a cursory pass through the literature of the
present generation to realise hard science has made something of a withdrawal from
the field – oh, it’s certainly there, but it’s perhaps the opiate of a
minority, and a considerable part of the “SF” reading public is neither
scientifically educated nor wants to be.
That’s a sweeping thing for any commentarist to say, but
work through a current issue of Apex,
Fantasy and Science Fiction, or Albedo One or a dozen others, and you
will quickly spot a certain formula – which is also generally reflected in the
up-front submission guidelines of many markets.
For instance, Asimov’s say: “In general, we're looking
for "character oriented" stories, those in which the characters,
rather than the science, provide the main focus for the reader's interest. […] A
good overview would be to consider that all fiction is written to examine or
illuminate some aspect of human existence, but that in science fiction the
backdrop you work against is the size of the Universe.”
Far from the science being firmly in focus, to connect with
the modern reader the first proviso is characterisation. Relationships and
interactions take priority over stylistic devices and writing quality for the
power to involve. In many a case one would be forgiven for seeing exactly what
the old axiom actually forbade – a story which will operate perfectly well in
any other setting, and for which a science fiction context is merely the
exotica of background. Or, that strangeness and encounters with the unexplained
– with no real attempt to explain them – have become more attractive, more
easily digestible, to the general reader.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing, there are many terrific
stories to be told which are a theme from other contexts transposed to science
fiction. I don’t say this is a universal situation either, but when looking at
the reading public in general one might think it. Technology is now
omnipresent, there has perhaps been little that is genuinely cool about it in
generations. Oh, we have gadgets, what is the modern kid without his
super-mega-clever-fast-new phone? But how many of them could tell you how it
works? Or care? Perhaps very few have ever really understood the workings of
the devices of convenience around us, but it would seem Asimov’s “cult of
anti-intellectualism” has taken a grip of iron and we are happy to accept the
products of science while proudly eschewing its methods (to paraphrase Carl
Sagan.)
If telling a story in which the science is obliged to be
front and centre – a story which hinges upon a discovery and which can only be
comprehended and dealt with in that context – one walks a fine line between the
sort of narrative which catches a reader and a piece which “reads like a
lecture.” If the story is dumbed down it loses its integrity as science fiction
by the old definition, and may not even work at all. Does this mean the story
should not be told? That is has
become an idea badly suited to today’s market? If so, this is a dire commentary
on a field which used to pride itself on its namesake. An old article
discussing the shift from Golden Age adventure to serious, reflective
speculation described it thus: “[there were] too many ‘rattling good stories’ being
told and not enough thinking going on.” We seem to have come full circle and
would far rather rattle than think.
Perhaps the most telling comment that can be made on this
point is that a dedicated magazine now exists to fulfil the role for hard
science and technology inside the now more widely-defined science fiction genre
– Compelling Science Fiction, whose brief foregrounds these aspects
as part of story structure. The genre seems capable of infinite subdivision,
and its own origins and most sophisticated former selves have simply become
facets of a more comprehensive whole. Whether this is a good or bad thing is
perhaps, ultimately, irrelevant to all but academics studying the nature of the
genre, as it is dictated by the market forces – which allow it to exist at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment