# Science Fiction is Not About Science



## bazz cargo

All genres of fiction are an exploration of the human species. Science Fiction has a special place, especially the speculative versions, in pointing out the folly making poor decisions. Mad Max is a warning of what will happen when we finally crash the world economy.

Science Fiction is the perfect place to explore gender issues, slavery, corporate greed and misinformation. Don't knock sci fi, it will save the world.

As an example of exploring tricky subjects I recommend a book that is so dated in attitudes and still thought provoking, and emotionally provoking. 
R A Heinlien's Farnam's Freehold. It is an historical document and as such will offend anyone looking to be offended. 

Anyone writing fiction to make a point?


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord

My thoughts on stories with morals (that make a point): It's not something to avoid, but at the same time you don't want to write it from the position of knowing all the answers. There's a lot of stories I've read that seem to be written from a position of "What if a society was based on X?"  or "What if X worldview was taken to it's logical extreme?" I like those stories. They are organic and ring true. And you're right, sci-fi is a great place to write these types of stories. 

What I don't like is stories and that seem to have been written from a position of, "How do I get my audience to believe X?"  or, even worse, "What 'message' can I talk on to this story?" Those kinds of stories ring false.

 C. S. Lewis said something about how a moral should "arise from the whole cast of the author's mind" as opposed to being "skimmed from the surface of his consciousness." So, in short, don't avoid depth, but don't be condescending about it.


----------



## Olly Buckle

> Don't knock sci fi, it will save the world.



I was going to say 'I doubt this', but I don't, I don't believe it. It is like any other form of fiction, it is read by those who like the underlying message, and that message can be of any type, just framed in an sf form. There is almost no similarity between a Heinielin, a Bradbury and an Asimov; between a space opera and a story like 'Day of the triffids'. I don't think that fiction of any sort converts many, it may well reinforce their ideas, but if it is opposite to them it is unlikely to be read, and the precepts can be very different.

C,S. Lewis's cast of mind was as a committed Christian, he probably saw it as a basic truth rather than a cast of mind, but 'The last battle' is just the sort of story with a message that as you say, 'rings false', and I agree with you, the 'message' nearly always detracts from the story, in fact I can't think of a case where it doesn't.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord

Hmm interesting that you think The Last Battle's message was a detractor. I always thought that book was a good example of incorporating a moral well. Other good examples I'd think of: Farenheit 451, Descent Into Hell, The Man Who Was Thursday (excepting the final chapter), and The Little Prince. The bad examples that come to mind are That Hideous Strength (also by C. S. Lewis), Pilgrim's Progress, and anything by Frank Peretti. 

I think Lewis' point was that morals that arise naturally out of the story are more likely to be true than morals tacked onto it for the sake of "making a point." So, in Mad Max, like the OP mentioned, the "moral" is implicit in the story events as opposed to being hamfisted into them. That makes a good story, and (possibly) a good moral.


----------



## Plasticweld

Without a message there is no purpose for a story.   Storytelling, myths are all  forms of teaching, the Bible uses parables to tell a story.  It makes me wonder why you would read anything if you only viewed it as entertainment not learning or expanding your horizons.  

A good writer/storyteller puts you in situations and environments you would never experience on your own. Just being a dumb country boy, I can't think of a better way to add depth to your character, or put you in a place where you have to your examine your values.


----------



## epimetheus

Some sci-fi is about science. Artemis by Andy Weir is a good example - explores the practicalities of a moon base with current technology. The author said that the science ideas came first then he built a story to showcase them. And it turned out to be an OK story. 

I got my morals from Babylon 5 and Star Trek TNG so i'm biased towards sci-fi. But we've been exploring and developing morality through story at least since the Classical Greek dramas, probably much longer, so it's no surprise the tradition continues in newer genres.


----------



## bdcharles

bazz cargo said:


> Anyone writing fiction to make a point?



I like to explore relationships in my writing, particularly toxic ones, with a vague view to illustrating how and why such relationships arise and what we can do about them. I also like moral grey areas (who doesn't?) in which traditional good and evil are rather abstract concepts, and where the characters discover that morality itself is, for better or worse, little more than a bioevolutionary side-product.

The fact that I let all this play out in fantasy dragon land is mostly an aesthetic decision.  But I do also try and emphasise the escape-friendly nature of my literature. I want it to be entertaining as well as enriching. We'll see how that goes.


----------



## epimetheus

bdcharles said:


> The fact that I let all this play out in fantasy dragon land is a largely aesthetic decision.



All the worlds are a stage...


----------



## JustRob

No, I am not writing any fiction currently, but the story that I'm not writing asks a lot of questions about the human state. Is it inherent within us or is it simply our way of dealing with the normal circumstances that we encounter? Science fiction enables us to change those circumstances and contemplate how human behaviour might change as a consequence. As such the fictional science is just a means to an end, just one device that I use in my story, which is why I am not inclined to place my work squarely in the science fiction genre even though my readers tend to. 

Writers are just as likely to indulge in geographical fiction to isolate their characters from everyday life, but I am unaware of geographical fiction being regarded as a genre despite it being used so often. Why does it matter whether characters are cast away on a fictional desert island while sailing the seas in a ship or cast away on a fictional time while sailing through time in a timeship? Why is one just a plot situation and the other a genre if they tackle the same human issues? The science fiction cult classic film _Forbidden Planet_ was (vaguely in my opinion) based on Shakespeare's _The Tempest, _but then one man's science is another man's magic, so they say ... or were they both just about human psychology?

While writing my story, certainly the later parts of it that I have never completed, I didn't give much thought to how much it mirrored existing science fiction stories but was more concerned where it lay in relationship to works like _The Admirable Crichton_ and _The Blue Lagoon_, but the fictional science enabled me to extend the issues much further than stories like those could and that's all it did.

Stories about people with handicaps struggling to maintain their position within human society are in vogue it seems, but with science fiction one can move to the other end of the spectrum and explore the problems that people with abilities beyond those of normal humans might face. I described my novel _Never Upon A Time_ as a fairy tale because the full trilogy eventually went beyond normal fairy tales and asked whether it actually was possible to "live happily ever after" if the characters became virtually immortal. Even that was just a facet of the story though, which again is why I tire of discussing science fiction as though it were only ever a genre rather than sometimes just a plot device to be used sparingly.


----------



## Terry D

All fiction, regardless of genre, makes a point. It can't help but do so, because you have to give your characters some sort of morality -- as weak, up-side-down, or golden, as it may be -- or they won't be very interesting characters. How the conflicting moral points of view sort themselves out through your story will be the 'point' that is made. Some writers start out with that point in mind while others let it develop organically. I don't usually have a message in mind to start, just a central conflict.


----------



## bazz cargo

Consider the old mcguffin. Youngster pushed out of home and meets a mentor. Yeah, I know it has whiskers but if done well it works. With a bit of Sci Fi background it becomes a chance to explore the steps between sheltered child and streetwise adult. How much of a writers own thoughts and feelings are used and how much imaginative moral twisting is down to the plot and whatever occurs in the moment. Always did like the moment, it often surprises me.


----------



## Olly Buckle

epimetheus said:


> Some sci-fi is about science. Artemis by Andy Weir is a good example - explores the practicalities of a moon base with current technology. The author said that the science ideas came first then he built a story to showcase them. And it turned out to be an OK story.



Have you come across 'Other days, other eyes' by Bob Shaw? A series of stories about the development of 'slow glass', a substance that is not transparent, but transmits light, excellently done.


----------



## moderan

Bob Shaw was a tremendous writer. He also had a spacefaring race that used only wood, and the premise worked in terms of his science. SF is not ABOUT science but it damn well should have it and have it accurate. Otherwise it's fantasy. The two have been lumped together since Del Rey helped destroy bookstore sf by pushing the Sword of Shannara in favor of the rest of their excellent catalogue.
Sci-Fi is the stuff with nuclear monsters and other b-grade dreck, to us fen. The term is pejorative. The OP betrays surface knowledge.


----------



## bazz cargo

Consider my ass well and truly kicked. I love weird monsters, sexual politics dipped in bigot juice, laser gun shoot-outs and spaceships that can turn right angles near the speed of light. My own, personal, prejudice is towards accurate science but I still enjoy Star Wars. I'm at home with pejorative.  





moderan said:


> Bob Shaw was a tremendous writer. He also had a spacefaring race that used only wood, and the premise worked in terms of his science. SF is not ABOUT science but it damn well should have it and have it accurate. Otherwise it's fantasy. The two have been lumped together since Del Rey helped destroy bookstore sf by pushing the Sword of Shannara in favor of the rest of their excellent catalogue.
> Sci-Fi is the stuff with nuclear monsters and other b-grade dreck, to us fen. The term is pejorative. The OP betrays surface knowledge.


----------



## velo

I would say it like this- all forms of entertainment are explorations of the human condition.  The ones we like more resonate with some part of us more than other bits of entertainment do.  

When we write stories starring animals or object, we anthropomorphise them.  When we write about people we often put them in slightly or greatly unusual situations to see how they react.  Every story is an exploration of self.


----------



## Plasticweld

Good science fiction makes the impossible seem possible.


----------



## epimetheus

Olly Buckle said:


> Have you come across 'Other days, other eyes' by Bob Shaw? A series of stories about the development of 'slow glass', a substance that is not transparent, but transmits light, excellently done.



No, i'll add to the ever growing list.


----------



## JustRob

Surely the disciplines of science are a way of using certain fundamental aspects of the human condition, those that drive us to try to find relevance, meaning and structure in everything that we perceive, even though in some people the process may be substantially subconscious. Our brains make models of what we perceive as reality and scientists just happen to go to great lengths to create very carefully thought out models, but even so they are still only models. Therefore to say that science fiction is really more about the human condition than about science is to say very little.

Inevitably (Oh no, not again!) I feel obliged to refer to my own writing experiences, but then that's the human condition for you. It is perpetually debatable whether it is possible to pass information backwards in time, so stories that depend on this device can't really be classed as bad, good or even maybe hard science, so they often get labelled as "speculative", which ironically boils down to meaning "potentially dependant on information not yet available". The irony is in the fact that the debate itself is about whether even information from the future could already be available somehow, in which case the word "speculative" ceases to imply "unfounded" as some might intend it to and the debate goes nowhere. 

My favourite example of divisive science fiction is the film _Interstellar_ jointly written by Christopher and Jonathan Nolan. Jonathan studied relativity in some depth in order to write the story but apparently distanced himself from the ending that Christopher wrote because he doubted that information could be passed backwards in time across an Einstein-Rosen bridge, i.e. wormhole, from inside a black hole. I guess that must be classed as speculative hard science and a bridge too far for him then. I was amused to discover that I apparently based my own story substantially on ideas from several works by the Nolan brothers that I didn't watch until some time after I had conceived and written it, so I clearly sided with Christopher in practice and didn't even feel the need to find a black hole to acquire my information about their work from the future.

I don't expect you to believe my peculiar perception of my writing experiences and I have mentioned them here simply to make a point, that the human condition is about personal experiences and perceptions whereas what we call science is more about consensus. Between personal experience and hard science there is a third grey region of speculation. A science fiction story may move the conventional boundaries between these three regions, for example by declaring some speculative phenomenon such as travel faster than light to be practical hard science, or it can position itself somewhere in relation to these regions without moving their boundaries, as my story about passing information backwards in time did by confining the experiences to just a small group of characters whose personal experiences were the only evidence of the phenomenon. There are so many possible ways of mixing up the cocktail of personal experience, speculative science and hard science along with artificially shifted boundaries between them that it is virtually impossible to nail down science fiction as a clear genre, which is why personally I don't.


----------



## Theglasshouse

I agree with bazz cargo and just rob and and others that said that morality plays a big part. Since morality is in the progress of the human race, and the promise to solve problems. It's similar to other genres without a doubt (fantasy) just like Stars Wars blended them.


----------



## bazz cargo

So where do we stand on Poul Anderson's High Crusade? The novel, not the crap USA film. 
Shannara...post apocalypse adventure featuring genetically divergent versions of humanity and living machine based tech. Hmm.... 
I had toyed with the idea of a  rock band on tour round the solar system, Spinal Tap meets HHGTTG with some James Bond in the mix.


----------



## Olly Buckle

bazz cargo said:


> So where do we stand on Poul Anderson's High Crusade? The novel, not the crap USA film.
> Shannara...post apocalypse adventure featuring genetically divergent versions of humanity and living machine based tech. Hmm....
> I had toyed with the idea of a  rock band on tour round the solar system, Spinal Tap meets HHGTTG with some James Bond in the mix.



If you could incorporate a touch of 'I Love Lucy' and 'Sabrina the teenage witch' into that you could have something to please the entire family.


----------



## luckyscars

bazz cargo said:


> All genres of fiction are an exploration of the human species. Science Fiction has a special place, especially the speculative versions, in pointing out the folly making poor decisions. Mad Max is a warning of what will happen when we finally crash the world economy.
> 
> Science Fiction is the perfect place to explore gender issues, slavery, corporate greed and misinformation. Don't knock sci fi, it will save the world.
> 
> As an example of exploring tricky subjects I recommend a book that is so dated in attitudes and still thought provoking, and emotionally provoking.
> R A Heinlien's Farnam's Freehold. It is an historical document and as such will offend anyone looking to be offended.
> 
> Anyone writing fiction to make a point?



Most of my work addresses important contemporary sociological/political issues and certainly all of it 'makes a point' (or tries to) and yet I do not write science fiction and have almost no interest.

Probably every writer thinks 'their genre' is the most powerful at 'exploration of the human species'. Otherwise why write it? But just because your story is set in the future or talking about 'an issue' doesn't make it useful.

You specifically point to the feature of 'the folly making poor decisions' as being the signature theme of science fiction. And sure, I buy that, but at the same time I can immediately think of HUNDREDS of non-sci-fi stories that address 'the folly of bad decisions' and also do so very well. King Lear? Of Mice And Men? Bridget Jones's Diary? Atonement? Plenty of historical fiction illustrates this theme in the narrower context of the collapse of society, if that's important. I mean, anything set during the last days of World War II would do it. Or Rome. Or Jonestown. I could, with enough skill, write a fictional story set during the last days of the Roman Empire and make it equally as powerful/culturally relevant as Mad Max or anything else - provided the reader is able to get over the togas and sandals and draw the parallels.

As for the other 'save the world' issues - Does any science fiction address slavery as 'perfectly' as 'Uncle Toms Cabin'? If so I haven't encountered it. And as far as what resonates on these issues, I'd pick realism over speculative any day. YMMV there, of course, but I do not feel not reading much science fiction grants me less insight on future problems. It's the opposite actually. Because when I read something that addresses a future issue by revisiting a past or present event (even if its totally fictionalized) I feel greater emotional investment. Being able to understand the background of a story set either now or during a time period I can be familiar with and know 'really happened' makes me more interested than something mostly or entirely envisioned in a world I am incapable of entirely comprehending.

What Science Fiction _does_ seem to offer is a way to address modern ideas (technology, climate change) in a context that requires virtually no nuance. You don't have to read between the lines much or at all to know that a book about a race of intelligent robots rising up and killing their human masters in 2030 is going to be about the potential dangers of technology in the near future. But that is not a thematic matter but one of plot... 

...and, more importantly, the _themes_ of that science fiction book may well be mirrored in horror or any number of other books! What's the _thematic_ difference between intelligent robots rising up and killing people and an oppressed slave class guillotining a bunch of aristocrats? There does not appear to be any major difference, yet one is 'science fiction' and the other may well be Historical fiction. Are both not equally well placed to address the underlying point? I think they are.


----------



## JustRob

luckyscars said:


> What Science Fiction _does_ seem to offer is a way to address modern ideas (technology, climate change) in a context that requires virtually no nuance. You don't have to read between the lines much or at all to know that a book about a race of intelligent robots rising up and killing their human masters in 2030 is going to be about the potential dangers of technology in the near future. But that is not a thematic matter but one of plot...
> 
> ...and, more importantly, the _themes_ of that science fiction book may well be mirrored in horror or any number of other books! What's the _thematic_ difference between intelligent robots rising up and killing people and an oppressed slave class guillotining a bunch of aristocrats? There does not appear to be any major difference, yet one is 'science fiction' and the other may well be Historical fiction. Are both not equally well placed to address the underlying point? I think they are.



Yes, to an extent conventional stories can cover the themes that science fiction does, but my point is that adding a touch of science fiction to a story enables one to take the issues further into the underlying concepts without the constraints placed on them by our reality. This is how science fiction has in the past addressed issues that haven't arisen in practice until decades later. As a mathematician I favour the _reductio ad absurdum_ ("reduce to absurdity") approach to contentious issues. It doesn't necessarily resolve them but it does demonstrate that they are subject to context and that if that context changes over time then society's attitudes must also change or even should immediately. 

A good example (not taken from my own work this time) was the episode of _Star Trek_ that depicted two alien races who were in perpetual conflict because they were different, but the difference was in fact ludicrously insignificant to the viewer. Both had skin that was half black and half white, but which sides of their bodies were black and which white differed between them. This effectively reduced the racial issue of skin colour to the same level as discrimination against people who are left-handed. Left-handedness was historically regarded as sinister, quite literally from the Latin word for "left", while right-handed people were regarded as dexterious, from the Latin word for "right". This old prejudice exists in other languages as well, e.g. the French word "gauche", literally meaning left but also used to signify ineptitude. Science fiction can easily equate skin colour discrimination to petty bias about handedness in a way that more conventional stories can't.

No, I can't end without mentioning something from my own work of course. (Do I sense distant groans?) The many worlds model of reality now seems to be widely favoured within the theoretical science community, so even though it may be considered speculative it can hardly be regarded as a fantastic concept when used in fiction. There is however the view that reality is highly sensitive to very small differences and that therefore these parallel realities must differ enormously, but I have doubts about that. Not every flap of a butterfly's wings affects the weather significantly, so the so-called butterfly effect is probably a rarity rather than the norm. The alternative would be that none of us could ever make any plans about tomorrow today and yet we do because we have confidence that reality usually smooths out the minor perturbations in events. Hence I consider it reasonable that parallel realities can exist with only minor differences from the one that we experience.

In my writing I introduced a (presumably) fictional element, what one could call a memetic virus, that enabled people to recall events from other realities as though they had lived those lives consecutively rather than simultaneously. Again how we experience reality and the passage of time is debatable anyway, so this is no big deal to the philosophical mind. In fact it relates closely to Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence. Having never studied Nietzche's ideas I don't know what his views on free will were, but if one allows free will alongside awareness of one's eternal recurrence then many moral issues arise. Yes, the astute reader could certainly anticipate what the theme of such a story _might_ be but it would be difficult to know which I chose to pursue. The long story potentially spanning a trilogy of novels is like an extension of the _Groundhog Day_ theme but with long term issues.  I'll give just one example here.

A woman is aware that in another reality she married a particular man and that they raised a son whom they loved. However, that man has not been affected by the virus, so in their current reality is unaware that any of that happened. Also, in that other existence he eventually succumbed to Alzheimer's, so she spent many years living with a man who no longer knew that they were married or that they raised a son. In her current life she works with the man, so they know each other well as work colleagues and meet every day, but that is all. This situation gives enormous scope to explore her feelings in terms of morality, love and responsibility, not just towards her one time husband but also towards their son, who will only exist in that reality if she follows the same path again. She has learned about her true feelings from that "previous" marriage and also has feelings for another man. Even if she considers that death has already parted her from her first husband, so she has no moral obligation to marry him again, that doesn't resolve the issue concerning their not yet conceived son. This plot extends issues about such things as marital fidelity and the rights of the unborn child beyond anything that a conventional story could contrive, I suspect. How I tackled these issues in my story lies in the fragments of the two subsequent novels that I never completed, so you'll have to speculate about them for yourself.

Perhaps it is possible to contrive conventional plots covering every possible issue, but adding a little -- and I do mean just a little -- science fiction can enable one to go straight to the heart of the subject. Tackling the issue in the somewhat absurd context so created then gives the reader pause for thought about similar issues in reality, just as the conflict between the half black half white and half white half black races did in _Star Trek_.


----------



## luckyscars

JustRob said:


> Yes, to an extent conventional stories can cover the themes that science fiction does, but my point is that adding a touch of science fiction to a story enables one to take the issues further into the underlying concepts without the constraints placed on them by our reality. This is how science fiction has in the past addressed issues that haven't arisen in practice until decades later. As a mathematician I favour the _reductio ad absurdum_ ("reduce to absurdity") approach to contentious issues. It doesn't necessarily resolve them but it does demonstrate that they are subject to context and that if that context changes over time then society's attitudes must also change or even should immediately.
> 
> Perhaps it is possible to contrive conventional plots covering every possible issue, but adding a little -- and I do mean just a little -- science fiction can enable one to go straight to the heart of the subject. Tackling the issue in the somewhat absurd context so created then gives the reader pause for thought about similar issues in reality, just as the conflict between the half black half white and half white half black races did in _Star Trek_.



My comments were not addressing your post but the OP's, but in any case I vehemently disagree that science fiction is in any way better placed to speak to any issue or concern than other genres.

I don't know anybody who learned not to be a racist from Star Trek (I should say I don't know anybody who gets their moral views predominently from fiction anyway, but let's pretend they do) but I do know that Uncle Tom's Cabin was able to forward the case for abolition in the USA tremendously and that it is not a sci-fi book but a novel of Social Realism. Indeed, science fiction hardly existed back then. I also know that books by authors like Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, Steinbeck and a host of others contributed hugely to a shift in social attitudes. None of them dabbled in futurism or any sort of 'imagine this...' speculation. They depicted the real world 'as it is'. The vision of the future came not from the book but from the reader. By exposing present injustices the reader can still get a strong sense of future possibility. The writer does not need address it in that case.

Look, if you are a science fiction author then I don't doubt for a moment that you can and do have lots of important things to say and that your work has the ability to 'save the world'. That's fine - no value judgments. But to even use the word 'perhaps' regarding the influence of 'conventional plots' is simply foolish. So is suggesting that science fiction has some kind of express lane to 'the heart of the subject'.  It is foolish because it seemingly ignores the fact that literature has been creating 'pause for thought' for millennia now and science fiction is relatively a new invention. 

Point is this: If I want to promote awareness of issue like climate change I _could_ write a science fiction novel describing/speculating on the world under rising sea levels thirty years or whatever from now. But I _could _equally, and with no lesser impact, simply write about how climate change is _already _hurting people. I could write about how small islands are afraid of losing their existence. I could write a story about a polar bear being pushed further south and its conflict with a small Siberian town. I could write political thriller fiction about the fossil fuel industry and how they have bought out the political system. So there are many ways, hundreds, I could write about environmental destruction without going anywhere near some tired version of 'Earth 2045'. 

I am not saying which is better. I am saying it isn't an issue whose dramatic impact depends on the speculative and that few/any existential issues are uniquely accessible by certain genres. Speculation may drive it home, it may not, but to state science fiction is a superior route speaks to at best a bias in those who write it and at worse a lack of imagination.


----------



## epimetheus

luckyscars said:


> I should say I don't know anybody who gets their moral views predominently from fiction anyway, but let's pretend they do



Where do you think people get their morals from, then?


----------



## bazz cargo

Hi Lucky,
I hadn't expected such an emotive response to my mental wheel-spinning. Daedalus? How about the Roman and Greek Pantheons? I suspect the existence of Science fiction can be traced back to the fireside stories of why thunder happens. 

I'm noodling about how Sci Fi has an unexpected depth and how it is as good as and not how it is superior to other genres. The 'what if' and 'what happens next' formula works just as well in all cases. If you or anyone else writes Sci Fi it does not make you a second class writer. The one thing Sci Fi does well that other fictions struggle with is stepping into the future to examine the result of decisions made now. Other genres can do this but I am lazy so I take the easiest route.   





luckyscars said:


> My comments were not addressing your post but the OP's, but in any case I vehemently disagree that science fiction is in any way better placed to speak to any issue or concern than other genres.
> 
> I don't know anybody who learned not to be a racist from Star Trek (I should say I don't know anybody who gets their moral views predominently from fiction anyway, but let's pretend they do) but I do know that Uncle Tom's Cabin was able to forward the case for abolition in the USA tremendously and that it is not a sci-fi book but a novel of Social Realism. Indeed, science fiction hardly existed back then. I also know that books by authors like Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, Steinbeck and a host of others contributed hugely to a shift in social attitudes. None of them dabbled in futurism or any sort of 'imagine this...' speculation. They depicted the real world 'as it is'. The vision of the future came not from the book but from the reader. By exposing present injustices the reader can still get a strong sense of future possibility. The writer does not need address it in that case.
> 
> Look, if you are a science fiction author then I don't doubt for a moment that you can and do have lots of important things to say and that your work has the ability to 'save the world'. That's fine - no value judgments. But to even use the word 'perhaps' regarding the influence of 'conventional plots' is simply foolish. So is suggesting that science fiction has some kind of express lane to 'the heart of the subject'.  It is foolish because it seemingly ignores the fact that literature has been creating 'pause for thought' for millennia now and science fiction is relatively a new invention.
> 
> Point is this: If I want to promote awareness of issue like climate change I _could_ write a science fiction novel describing/speculating on the world under rising sea levels thirty years or whatever from now. But I _could _equally, and with no lesser impact, simply write about how climate change is _already _hurting people. I could write about how small islands are afraid of losing their existence. I could write a story about a polar bear being pushed further south and its conflict with a small Siberian town. I could write political thriller fiction about the fossil fuel industry and how they have bought out the political system. So there are many ways, hundreds, I could write about environmental destruction without going anywhere near some tired version of 'Earth 2045'.
> 
> I am not saying which is better. I am saying it isn't an issue whose dramatic impact depends on the speculative and that few/any existential issues are uniquely accessible by certain genres. Speculation may drive it home, it may not, but to state science fiction is a superior route speaks to at best a bias in those who write it and at worse a lack of imagination.


----------



## Theglasshouse

Those are good points luckyscars on morality being the key to good fiction ( my interpretation). What I got from bazz Cargo's post is that morality is the best way to write fiction and conflict. Morality or the human condition is key to all stories whether it involves science or magic or is real. The author determines how big a role morality plays in their story which should be to elicit emotion.


----------



## luckyscars

epimetheus said:


> Where do you think people get their morals from, then?



Is that really a question? I think I got mine from my parents/grandparents, friends, people I know, listening to recordings of speeches by certain public figures, certain passages in the Bible (which may or may not be fiction depending on your point of view), people I met volunteering at a hospice, people I have worked with volunteering for the Democratic Party and a local trade union, and four decades of general common sense/empathy. A lot of morality is to do with the physical makeup of the brain as well.

Fiction can absolutely be a source of moral learning but IMO it's just one of many things - notice I said _​predominantly_? But if powerful fiction was enough to change a person's moral compass on its own we could cure racism by forcing everybody to watch Schindler's List. We all know that doesn't work. Fiction is great at developing partially-formed inclinations into actions and giving context to ideas, but to designate it as being a source of morality is nought but a delusion of self-important authors. We are here to tell stories, not preach.


----------



## luckyscars

bazz cargo said:


> Hi Lucky,
> I hadn't expected such an emotive response to my mental wheel-spinning. Daedalus? How about the Roman and Greek Pantheons? I suspect the existence of Science fiction can be traced back to the fireside stories of why thunder happens.
> 
> I'm noodling about how Sci Fi has an unexpected depth and how it is as good as and not how it is superior to other genres. The 'what if' and 'what happens next' formula works just as well in all cases. If you or anyone else writes Sci Fi it does not make you a second class writer. The one thing Sci Fi does well that other fictions struggle with is stepping into the future to examine the result of decisions made now. Other genres can do this but I am lazy so I take the easiest route.



Thank you for the clarification, Bazz...

My issue is with any argument that seeks to propose that any given genre is better than another at addressing moral issues. Some genres are better than others at telling certain stories to certain readers, but when we get into the arena of making sweeping judgements regarding broad issues of the human experience, I don't think that is true.

I do accept that isn't what you meant however you did state that "Science Fiction is the perfect place to explore gender issues, slavery, corporate greed and misinformation. Don't knock sci fi, it will save the world." and actually used the word 'special' and implied that sci-fi was literature that 'made a point'. 

For we writers who are passionate about addressing the issues mentioned above but who write just plain old literary fiction, I am sure you can appreciate this sure _sounds _like an argument that science fiction can do what we do better because of some natural advantage. It suggests that the only (or at least the most effective) way to speak to the future is to write about it in concrete terms when I actually think that writing about contemporary or historical events and letting the reader do the navel-gazing on what might happen can often be just as, if not considerably more, effective. Like how Orwell was able to warn Western readers in 1945 about a prospective future of Stalinist authoritarianism through telling a story about animals on a farm based on a recent historical event. It's not science fiction, but it explores a future issue.


----------



## epimetheus

luckyscars said:


> Is that really a question?



Of course, why wouldn't it be? The questions we think too obvious to even ask are often the most interesting ones.



luckyscars said:


> I think I got mine from my parents/grandparents, friends, people I know, listening to recordings of speeches by certain public figures, certain passages in the Bible (which may or may not be fiction depending on your point of view), people I met volunteering at a hospice, people I have worked with volunteering for the Democratic Party and a local trade union, and four decades of general common sense/empathy. A lot of morality is to do with the physical makeup of the brain as well.



Fair say we can reduce that down to three sources: other people, scripture and innate. 

No doubt other people are a source of morality, but stories are a big part of that. We can just tell kids Nazis are bad. Or we could tell them some stories from the concentration camps and let them think for themselves. I think the stories would have significantly more impact.

I once read an interesting article about a particular classical Greek play portraying the slaughter of a city for failing to pay tribute by Athenian (i think) soldiers, which the city had voted in favour. After the play, it is said the citizenry regretted their collective decision. The play acyually changed their morality. 

Morality isn't a static thing, it has always been changing and developing - stories are an excellent way of exploring and developing that space. Part of the process of developing morality. 

The truth of the bible is irrelevant: it communicates morals through story. When it does just list them, nobody remembers - people don't generally remember there were actually 611 commandments, not just ten. 

We agree on the innate part of morality, so no need to discuss that component. 



luckyscars said:


> *Fiction can absolutely be a source of moral learning but IMO it's just one of many things - notice I said ​predominantly?* But if powerful fiction was enough to change a person's moral compass on its own we could cure racism by forcing everybody to watch Schindler's List. We all know that doesn't work. Fiction is great at developing partially-formed inclinations into actions and giving context to ideas, *but to designate it as being a source of morality* *is nought but a delusion* of self-important authors. We are here to tell stories, not preach.



On first reading the bolded parts seem to contradict each other - but perhaps you are making a distinction between moral learning and morality? In that case the question is what do you consider a source of morality? 

All i can tell you is that i did predominantly get my morals from fiction - sci fi in particular. Let's just say i was born on the wrong side of the tracks and was growing up to be amoral. Those stories were the only thing providing a counter weight to the influence of 'friends' at that time. 

It's quite possible some people will prefer one source of morality over another as variation is the human way. Or maybe i'm the weirdo...


----------



## luckyscars

A lot to unpack. Rather than get into the weeds I am going to hone in on one point you made that I think illustrates the nature of disagreement:



epimetheus said:


> Morality isn't a static thing, it has always been changing and developing - stories are an excellent way of exploring and developing that space. Part of the process of developing morality.



^ Agree completely, but development of morality is entirely different from origination of it. You asked me where, if not fiction, people get their moral compass from and I answered that. You are right that fiction is an excellent place for development of moral instinct into an intellectual world view. I have not and would never argue otherwise - it is one reason why I write. But in order for that development to happen the genesis has to be there already. 

Holocaust fiction only works if the reader already has the view that Jews are human beings and that violence against people on the basis of race/religion is wrong. But some people don't accept that basic premise. Some people think climate change is a lie and that coal companies should be allowed free rein. Some people think women are sexual objects or that people in the LGBTQ+ community don't deserve fundamental rights. These people are not necessarily a fringe minority or psychopaths. 

When I say that fiction cannot be (or at least is very unlikely to be) a force in the creation of morality I am speaking about the creation of a certain moral compass in a person previously without one (or what you and I would call a broken one). Conversion of a racist to somebody who is potentially open to the possibility of accepting a black person, etc. That, to me, is the only definition that makes sense when we talk about 'getting morality'. And no, I don't believe this aspect comes from reading a storybook, at least not often enough to be significant. I think that's naive and a vanity of writers who see themselves as pioneers of moral truth as opposed to simple translators of it.

I cannot think of an occasion I have read a book and had a wholesale change of heart on a fundamental moral issue and I do not believe many people really do.  You certainly don't hear from terribly many committed Nazis who say they read some novel and that was the main driver in what changed them. What seems to usually happen is the combination of personal experience with some direct interaction with hard evidence happens (such as living through record-setting heat for a climate change skeptic, or getting to know a Jewish person for the Nazi). What happens is they may become conflicted. The doubt starts to germinate. At which point they _might_ read a book (or watch a movie, or a documentary, or see a play) which seals the conviction.

So yeah, morality can and is often refined and 'developed' through stuff like reading science fiction or hearing Holocaust stories. But it's nonetheless a form of confirmation bias: When we read we are usually looking for things that affirms and articulates in a powerful way what we already, on some level, are aware of. And, to drag back to the OP, that feature is not unique to a genre.


----------



## epimetheus

luckyscars said:


> A lot to unpack. Rather than get into the weeds I am going to hone in on one point you made that I think illustrates the nature of disagreement:



I think you have nicely honed into where our opinions diverge.



luckyscars said:


> ...but development of morality is entirely different from origination of it.



I'm not sure it is. We agree there is some innate moral drive in humans, and also that, as in any biology, there is variation. A dislike of killing is implicit in most of us (but not all). But most of us would kill in given contexts - that context will vary, but most would kill to save their child, for instance. So there is a legitimate question of where we draw the line. The biological origins of our morality are too vague for the social structures we have created - we need other means of developing and creating morality.

I see it somewhat analogous to language. Sure there is a biological instinct within us to communicate; we might call that the seed of language, but it is not the same as the plethora of branches in the human language tree.

To keep slightly on topic we could consider the morality of killing an AI. For most people this is still sci-fi talk but people in the business are really thinking hard about it, including ethicists specifically trained to tackle the issue. There is already significant groundwork created for them, with stories such as those Asimov penned. 

As for people suddenly becoming good because they read a story - well, most people cite religions as the source of their morality. As an atheist i would discount it actually coming from god(s), but rather the content of that religion - nearly always encoded in story.


----------



## Olly Buckle

Morality doesn't really develop, it changes, a lot of what was not okay in 1700 is okay now, and vice versa, but it is not really through a process of development and reason. A lot of fiction is about defining what is okay and what is not, and it may help people to decide where they stand, not by converting them, but by getting them to think about things they may not have considered before.


> Conversion of a racist to somebody who is potentially open to the possibility of accepting a black person, etc. That, to me, is the only definition that makes sense when we talk about 'getting morality'.


That is an extremely personal definition, I can easily imagine someone who thinks conversion of a person open to accepting other races to one willing to defend his racial purity could well be seen as 'getting morality' by some, in fact it is, I have seen Louis Theroux interviewing them.

I think 'Morality' is like a bunch of other human traits, it exists everywhere, but no two cultures do it the same way, language is another great example. It's something a multicultural society seems to have trouble coping with, unsurprisingly, not that I see that as an argument against multicultural societies, only a difficulty. The stuff of fiction.


----------



## luckyscars

epimetheus said:


> I'm not sure it is. We agree there is some innate moral drive in humans, and also that, as in any biology, there is variation. A dislike of killing is implicit in most of us (but not all). But most of us would kill in given contexts - that context will vary, but most would kill to save their child, for instance. So there is a legitimate question of where we draw the line. The biological origins of our morality are too vague for the social structures we have created - we need other means of developing and creating morality.



Again, I just don't think 'creating' is the right word for that.

Creating is "the action or process of bringing something into existence." If a dislike of killing is implicit in all of us then it _cannot_ be something that one learns about from a book, science fiction or otherwise.

Developing the inherent dislike of killing into public support for, say, banning the Ku Klux Klan (because they kill people) is something you could say a book might be capable of doing and I could agree. But that has nothing to do with _creating_ new morality. It has everything to do with _applying existing _morality. There's nothing morally 'new; that comes to exist when dealing with the Klan. Rather it is applying a preexisting position (in this case the dislike of killing) to eliminating a group that holds an incompatible moral view (in this case the acceptance of killing) and there's your 'context'.  

Anyway, I respect your view and the civility of your debate. I just don't think we are using language the same and it comes down to semantics.


I see it somewhat analogous to language. Sure there is a biological instinct within us to communicate; we might call that the seed of language, but it is not the same as the plethora of branches in the human language tree.

To keep slightly on topic we could consider the morality of killing an AI. For most people this is still sci-fi talk but people in the business are really thinking hard about it, including ethicists specifically trained to tackle the issue. There is already significant groundwork created for them, with stories such as those Asimov penned. 

As for people suddenly becoming good because they read a story - well, most people cite religions as the source of their morality. As an atheist i would discount it actually coming from god(s), but rather the content of that religion - nearly always encoded in story.[/QUOTE]


----------



## luckyscars

Olly Buckle said:


> That is an extremely personal definition, I can easily imagine someone who thinks conversion of a person open to accepting other races to one willing to defend his racial purity could well be seen as 'getting morality' by some, in fact it is, I have seen Louis Theroux interviewing them.



Olly, I agree... If it isn't clear, I think the whole concept of obtaining morality like its some sort of Holy Chalice is inherently absurd. I don't think hardcore racists, nurtured that way and with fully-developed adult brains (and egos) ever really lose their racism although it might shift in terms of how it manifests. I am however addressing epimetheus's position using his/her own logic, which is that one can derive morality through reading books and which I find to be inherently idealistic and simplified...


----------



## Olly Buckle

> As for people suddenly becoming good because they read a story



Years ago my next door neighbour, Jim, read Mien Kampf and was completely converted to fascism, that makes him a convert to good in many eyes, does that count? He was not the only one, though it seems to be going out of fashion nowadays. ( Or don't you count that as a work of fiction ? )


----------



## luckyscars

Olly Buckle said:


> Years ago my next door neighbour, Jim, read Mien Kampf and was completely converted to fascism, that makes him a convert to good in many eyes, does that count? He was not the only one, though it seems to be going out of fashion nowadays. ( Or don't you count that as a work of fiction ? )



Your neighbor Jim already was a fascist. Probably why he decided to read it in the first place. Mein Kampf simply nurtured (of 'developed' to use the word bandied about this thread) his preformed ideas and gave him the 'intellect' to articulate. 

The book itself isn't particularly responsible and it doesn't make sense to suggest it is. Otherwise every human being who read it would become a fascist - I have read it myself out of curiosity. Nobody is immune from propaganda/influence but its got nothing to do with creating morality from a blank slate.


----------



## bazz cargo

I have yet to read Mein Kampf, it is on my list. I did find a Youtube vid of The Rivers Of Blood speech. It is amazing how such an intelligent, articulate man could be so wrong. 

Morals are slippery little buggers, never could keep mine in a box. Logic is a useful tool but I like facts, which is strange for a fiction writer.

Racism... Whatever berk that came up with this pseudoscientific nonsense that even sensible people nod along too should be publicly pilloried and mocked. Git.

I started this thread to sing the praises of Sci Fi, it is amazing where it has gone.


----------



## epimetheus

luckyscars said:


> Creating is "the action or process of bringing something into existence." If a dislike of killing is implicit in all of us then it _cannot_ be something that one learns about from a book, science fiction or otherwise.



But it's not implicit in all of us. We know in eras gone by we were exceptionally violent, people were far more willing to visit death upon another than today. Something has changed. I would say something has been created.



luckyscars said:


> But that has nothing to do with _creating_ new morality.



I'm still not sure what you think creates morals then. You cited people as one source of your morality. Do people create morals? Or are morals never created, only innate?



luckyscars said:


> Again, I just don't think 'creating' is the right word for that.



How about evolution rather than creation? From the prehistoric origins  we have evolved a heightened moral sense to the point our ethics today are unrecognisable and incompatible with those of the ancient past, analogous to the development of new species.

I could say evolution is a process of creation, but from another perspective one could say nothing has been created, rather just refined.


----------



## -xXx-

bazz cargo said:


> Anyone writing fiction to make a point?


yes.
fiction(s).
point(s).



bazz cargo said:


> I started this thread to sing the praises of Sci Fi, it is amazing where it has gone.


Sci Fi _changed, changes, will change_
my life.
Undeniably.
Undeniably for the better.

_*sing(s) the body electric*
*et al*_


----------



## luckyscars

epimetheus said:


> We know in eras gone by we were exceptionally violent, people were far more willing to visit death upon another than today. Something has changed. I would say something has been created.



Nah. Which eras exactly are you talking about and where? Do you think if you were to compare abduction and rape levels of, I don't know, present-day South Africa with those of Victorian Britain saying 'in eras gone by we were exceptionally violent' makes any sense? How about comparing the Middle East of the Islamic Golden Age to the Middle East of modern Jihadist hell? Of course not. 

In case you think I am cherry picking extremes, it doesn't even make sense to compare the same geographical location, unless you want to say New Orleans, Chicago or Detroit were more violent places in 1805, 1886, 1903, 1925 or even as late as 1955 than in 2009. Some places are bad now that were good once and bad another time, and some places are better now that were hellholes once upon a time.  All this really suggests to me is that human beings have not changed a whole lot. Perceptions and circumstances have.

It's frankly a nonsense argument because (1) There's zero data and no credible way to obtain data for the past and (2) Even if there was, it proves nothing about relative morality and probably everything about fluctuating approaches to policing, education and other socio-economic factors. None of which have nothing to do with either morality or writing.



> I'm still not sure what you think creates morals then. You cited people as one source of your morality. Do people create morals? Or are morals never created, only innate?



No I don't think morals are innate. I do think morals come from people, certainly to a far greater extent than books, which was what initiated this debate. I thought I made that clear in the earlier post but if I did not I apologize: Upbringing and culture - otherwise known as the people surrounding you - forms morals, with the side-influence of external events that may or may not be avoidable.

I'm not a social scientist, but it seems pretty obvious bad parenting, toxic friendships, together with poverty and/or a traumatic event or two (war, abuse, famine etc) will generally create a morally undeveloped adult. That happens irrespective of how many books are read whereas loving parents, healthy relationships, a stable financial environment and avoidance of bad shit will generally have the opposite effect.



> How about evolution rather than creation? From the prehistoric origins  we have evolved a heightened moral sense to the point our ethics today are unrecognisable and incompatible with those of the ancient past, analogous to the development of new species.
> 
> I could say evolution is a process of creation, but from another perspective one could say nothing has been created, rather just refined.



Sidestepping semantics, I agree that evolution has a role. We are genetically predisposed toward empathy, altruism, teamwork, etc. But being predisposed to morality isn't the same as having it. Ghandi and Hitler were both human beings and examples of how being genetically predisposed to 'a heightened moral sense' often does result in very different outcomes. So no, I don't think human evolution can be considered relevant regarding the source of an individual's moral or ethical health.


----------



## epimetheus

luckyscars said:


> It's frankly a nonsense argument because (1) There's zero data and no credible way to obtain data for the past and (2) Even if there was, it proves nothing about relative morality and probably everything about fluctuating approaches to policing, education and other socio-economic factors. None of which have nothing to do with either morality or writing.



It's documented in the scientific literature. If you prefer videos to articles, this one is good. You'll notice that it is not considered a simple fluctuation of the factors you cite. The raw data can be found here if you're interested in analysing it yourself.

Despite popular perceptions the evidence suggests living in the least violent period of human history. 

A few specific examples that won't be included in violence statistics cited above include the fact slavery wasn't generally considered immoral until a few centuries ago (Aristotle gave a famous defence of slavery). Mass graves of infants have been found next to Roman brothels (birth control consisted of killing the infant once born).  A married woman can now be raped by her husband, it is not his given right.

Do you really contend that morality has not changed?



luckyscars said:


> No I don't think morals are innate. I do think morals come from people, certainly to a far greater extent than books, which was what initiated this debate. I thought I made that clear in the earlier post but if I did not I apologize: Upbringing and *culture* - otherwise known as the people surrounding you - forms morals, with the side-influence of external events that may or may not be avoidable.



Yes, culture. Of which literature in particular forms a part, and story-telling in general forms a significant part. People tell stories, sowe could say people obtaining morality from stories is no different from saying people obtain morals from other people. 




luckyscars said:


> 'm not a social scientist, but it seems pretty obvious bad parenting, toxic friendships, together with poverty and/or a traumatic event or two (war, abuse, famine etc) will generally create a morally undeveloped adult. That happens irrespective of how many books are read whereas loving parents, healthy relationships, a stable financial environment and avoidance of bad shit will generally have the opposite effect.



I don't deny those things are all factors. Unfortunately i could find no data, so we will have to rely on anecdote. Stories have provided access to thoughts and ideas otherwise unavailable to certain people. This has happened to me, and at least one other person reading this thread. Maybe we could set-up a poll - i think it happens more often than you realise. 

But i don't see why this is so contentious to you - we agree that morals come from people, and surely we agree that stories come from people. But stories are a powerful medium, it's why authorities that set themselves up as moral authorities (usually religions), communicate their ideas nearly invariably with story.





luckyscars said:


> Sidestepping semantics, I agree that evolution has a role. We are genetically predisposed toward empathy, altruism, teamwork, etc. But being predisposed to morality isn't the same as having it. Ghandi and Hitler were both human beings and examples of how being genetically predisposed to 'a heightened moral sense' often does result in very different outcomes. So no, I don't think human evolution can be considered relevant regarding the source of an individual's moral or ethical health.



Sorry, i meant to use the word evolution in this context only as an analogy, not in a literal sense. Although perhaps, with meme theory, there could be a literal sense in which morality does evolve (but not biologically).


----------



## Theglasshouse

People were by and large less violent without the mass generation of popular culture spread by technology. Now there are easy ways to influence people. Literature is the opposite, it has values and tries to give their version of a moral truth. So much little kids and others in some countries are encouraged to read stories and songs with strong morals. That is when they are kindergartners. I believe Kholberg (harvard professor and psychologist of moral education) was the ones that said individuals such as Jesus Christ, Gandhi, and others are exceptional individuals since they fought for the advancement of morals through civil rights movements and others. When they are at the highest level of moral stages off life. The study was successful, and he was well known for his moral education theory. It just couldn't predict asian people, and their progress through the moral stages he observed.

Today morality in fiction according to historical period if language was acquired by many tends to explain it as a less violent form and less visceral form of entertainment.

The Victorian era was a great example. Books are forms of education. Without it we would not have morals or schools teaching them. Movies entertain and movies seek to to make money because of capitalist society. Books on the other hand rely on truths, and emotion to teach. TV does the same, but values transmit easier when tvs compete for people's attention. Who need to relax. They want a quick fix.

What is commercialized more are movies (sex and violence are in a lot of movies). Books make people more culturally aware and bring rich wisdom. In Japan they have a education program. I don't know if it has been implemented yet. Children of all ages including high school read a book once a week for a whole year. Japanese people come off as friendly people as they are taught in their culture. I have heard some second hand references that they are friendly to outsiders for instance.

There was this famous science ficiton work, where war is explored as part of messages sent around the world. There are no messengers in that society. Newspapers I think were banned.

But Plato's cave depicts a grim picture I admit. How to fix the problem of balancing entertainment and giving the wrong education to all sort of people. This riddle hasn't been solved.

Aristotle said it could teach society when he did his defense or antithesis to Plato's arguments. At first movies did have a couple of laws when been produced by the movie industry to prevent people from being offended. But that no longer exists. The government of the united states even prevented propaganda, of what nature I dont know.

Socrates liked what Homer had accomplished. He admired his work so much he stated it before his own demise. His works were perhaps the first work of fiction taken seriously.


----------



## -xXx-

luckyscars said:


> ...relative morality...


_*starts new p*nk band*
*theme album:*
*clone drone breakfast with einstein*_


----------



## -xXx-

Theglasshouse said:


> ... Movies entertain and movies seek to to make money because of capitalist society. ...
> 
> ... What is commercialized more are movies (sex and violence are in a lot of movies). ...



movies _can_ normalize.
books _can be_ interactive.
reader visualizes.
reader processes.
reader stops/proceeds/discards.

movies _can be _designed to be <sensory> immersive.
science is beginning to "share"
biochemical-neurological (psychological)
mechanisms and methodology.
_<insert most established dogmas here>_

check epigenetics.
check minnesota starvation-recovery experiment.
check passive vs active attention states.
check psychology of music/sound.
check visual perception in cognitive processing.
then watch _wizards, bakshi_.
_*steps back from the most obvious abuses
employing cinematography*_

*sci fi *permits an author to construct a context
within which to explore scenarios
as the reader desires to engage.

i personally know individuals
that learn _from movies_
how to leverage
"immoral business models".

they also use _movies_
to enmesh victims/hostages
from which they derive
maintenance of lifestyle. 

they watch repeatedly.
movies _are_ sensory montage.
conscious awareness
of what has been presented
and how
may take substantial
time and energy
to "unpack".

point being,
some *frameworks* encourage/permit
independant/individual processing -
some discourage/prohibit/employ
method devices.
do i want a masochist
*to treat *me *as they wish to be treated*?
no.
will i watch that exploration in movie format?
not by preference.
do i want it droning in the background
while i am doing something else?
absolutely not!
will i read any number of sci fi scenarios
exploring concepts surrounding
the above.
absolutely!

*sci fi/slipstream *embodies
symbolic, cultural, social and economic
potential.
*positive potential, imho.*

_*animates some tattoos*
*picnics on the velt*
*avoids Friday & Stepford like the plague*
*observes j norman/lange aficionados offworld*
*has read mein kampf et al*
*is not fascist*
*not even a little bit*
*repeats post #40 like a mantra*_


----------



## Terry D

There's no such thing as 'innate morality'. The entire idea of morality is a human construct which has evolved from our response to genetic traits passed down from our primate ancestors. Primates evolved to live in familial groups and are pre-programmed for behaviors which benefit the group. That programming still rattles around in our genes today. As human self-awareness progressed from the caves into villages and beyond, those positive social behaviors began to be expressed in language, and, later still, to be codified. Those behaviors are what we call morals today, and they are not the same for every social group. We learn our morality from birth on.


----------



## luckyscars

epimetheus said:


> It's documented in the scientific literature. If you prefer videos to articles, this one is good. You'll notice that it is not considered a simple fluctuation of the factors you cite. The raw data can be found here if you're interested in analysing it yourself.
> 
> Despite popular perceptions the evidence suggests living in the least violent period of human history.
> 
> A few specific examples that won't be included in violence statistics cited above include the fact slavery wasn't generally considered immoral until a few centuries ago (Aristotle gave a famous defence of slavery). Mass graves of infants have been found next to Roman brothels (birth control consisted of killing the infant once born).  A married woman can now be raped by her husband, it is not his given right.
> 
> Do you really contend that morality has not changed?



First of all, I never referred to 'simple fluctuations'. Nothing about this subject is simple. 

I cannot watch the video, but I did read the articles and found nothing there that could possibly prove that human beings have become more moral. The article was chiefly about war. In citing that kind of statistics to support a 'We are more moral now because we have less war' claim you are entirely ignoring the fact that many (most?) examples of severe immorality involve no physical violence whatsoever. 

Fraud is a good example of blatant immorality that will not be counted in your statistics. How about street crime? Child abuse? Theft? Vandalization? I am fairly sure there were no Nigerian scammers or Russian hackers a couple hundred years ago. On the other hand, I am also sure there were a lot more pirates and highwaymen.

So were there _more _pirates in 1819 than there are now Russian hackers in 2019? Because we would need to run those numbers and compare them... We would need to run those numbers and compare them AND THEN(!) find some way to decide if a Nigerian scammer is more or less moral than a Dickensian moneylender We would also need to figure out how to measure the frequency of immoral acts that are typically not reported (and certainly historically have not been) and therefore not measurable. Did people lie and cheat and tell mean jokes more a hundred years ago than they do in 2019? Less? The same? 

 Do you see how absurd this sounds? Be advised I never said that we are less moral now. Because I don't know that. I also never said that morality has not changed over time in terms of _character_. In the past, blasphemy was considered the height of criminality. Today it is not. On the other hand there is no doubt that spousal rape was far more common back then. On the _other other _hand in years gone by you didn't have many instances of schoolteachers in American classrooms living in fear of their students murdering them & their classmates. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. So yes, the manifestations of our morality have certainly changed....but overall levels of 'goodness and badness' have not.



epimetheus said:


> Yes, culture. Of which literature in particular forms a part, and story-telling in general forms a significant part. People tell stories, sowe could say people obtaining morality from stories is no different from saying people obtain morals from other people.



We could say that, but there's no real proof that it happens on a significant scale, is there? I'm not drawing absolutes, I am talking in generalizations. And, generally, I don't see any evidence that a book (or even several books) have the power to make people more moral. 

More intelligent, maybe, and with intelligence comes a greater likelihood of being, for instance, more economically successful, and there is evidence that economic security facilitates a more ethical lifestyle (you have to be rich enough to afford charity) though, again, it's not that simple. For every Bill and Melinda Gates there is a Bernie Madoff. 

I want to say that books form a valid part of an individual's overall maturity. Which could be related to betterment of their morality but by no means needs to be and inferring that it is a key driver is baseless.



epimetheus said:


> I don't deny those things are all factors. Unfortunately i could find no data, so we will have to rely on anecdote. Stories have provided access to thoughts and ideas otherwise unavailable to certain people. This has happened to me, and at least one other person reading this thread. Maybe we could set-up a poll - i think it happens more often than you realise.



I'm sure a poll on a writer's forum would probably agree with you. I am equally sure that a poll on a writer's forum cannot be applied to a population of billions. I could refer to anecdote too, and tell you that some of the kindest, most decent people I have ever met were functionally or entirely illiterate - which is true. So what?



epimetheus said:


> But i don't see why this is so contentious to you - we agree that morals come from people, and surely we agree that stories come from people. But stories are a powerful medium, it's why authorities that set themselves up as moral authorities (usually religions), communicate their ideas nearly invariably with story.



It's only contentious to me because your reasoning is beyond flawed. I am happy to say that books form some part of moral advancement if we are talking in terms of society at large. The Enlightenment proved that. The problem is you are not saying that. You are saying that it is commonplace for readers to derive a great part of their personal moral character from the books they read. If that is the case, it must surely work both ways, in which case I guess the stories I have written from the sympathetic point of view of murderers must make me, as an author, part of the problem.


----------



## -xXx-

luckyscars said:


> ...  You are saying that it is commonplace for readers to derive a great part of their personal moral character from the books they read. If that is the case, it must surely work both ways, in which case I guess the stories I have written from the *sympathetic point of view of murderers *must make me, as an author, part of the problem.



are they placed within a sci fi framework?
_*wonders*
*for real*_


----------



## JustRob

luckyscars said:


> But to even use the word 'perhaps' regarding the influence of 'conventional plots' is simply foolish. So is suggesting that science fiction has some kind of express lane to 'the heart of the subject'.  It is foolish because it seemingly ignores the fact that literature has been creating 'pause for thought' for millennia now and science fiction is relatively a new invention.



I defer to your evidently greater knowledge of the subject, which is actually well outside my personal comfort zone, as I have often explained. However, while "science fiction" may be a relatively new term in the field of literature this style of writing has effectively existed for a very long time as "romance", that older term simply meaning "not realistic" as opposed to being about affections between couples as it does now. Also, speculation isn't really futuristic just because a subject isn't understood yet. For example, people have been speculating about paranormal phenomena for an extremely long time and ghost stories can hardly be seen as futuristic.

I was intrigued to discover, when I had my strange apparently precognitive experience involving _Don Quixote_ and Cervantes, that he had actually written that novel to persuade writers to move away from writing old fashioned romances and to focus on modern novels based on realism. The idea that precognition is possible is of course itself now regarded as a romantic notion by many people, so to use _Don Quixote_ for a practical demonstration of it in reality was typical of the devious way that my mind works, suggesting that romance and realism are in fact subjective concepts rather than concretely distinct as Cervantes apparently saw them.

I think that it is a shame that the term "romance" as a genre has shifted in meaning and has been superseded by much more specific terms such as "science fiction" and "fantasy". Science is just a particular way of looking at reality and fantasy implies an extreme regardless of what one is looking at, but romances in the old-fashioned sense cover all aspects of the human condition, which is itself real but not simply physical, regardless of science and everyday experiences. The response to the OP probably should then be that science fiction is about the human condition because it is one form of romance, using the old meaning for that genre name. As an example of the mess that genre names have got into, all those currently popular stories about werewolves are romances, to use the old genre name, but nowadays they are probably regarded as fantasies even though they require scientifically fictional components and often seem to involve romantic, in the modern sense, relationships as well.

So, it isn't that science fiction is not about science but that romance is not specifically about science, but it often uses fictional science to achieve its purpose and nowadays gets labelled as science fiction as a result. No doubt Cervantes would therefore also have argued against the need for science fiction had he lived in our time rather than centuries ago, so that certainly isn't a new issue, just a new genre name. Personally I never saw my own story as science fiction but as an old-fashioned romance, but one has to move with the times and terminology even when they move in an illogical direction, it seems, and as a consequence one ends up in discussions like this one, so please pardon my Quixotic manner.


----------



## epimetheus

luckyscars said:


> First of all, I never referred to 'simple fluctuations'. Nothing about this subject is simple.



Yes, i added the simply to your statement about fluctuations and i apologise for adding a potentially emotive word to our debate.




luckyscars said:


> Fraud is a good example of blatant immorality that will not be counted in your statistics. How about street crime? Child abuse? Theft? Vandalization? I am fairly sure there were no Nigerian scammers or Russian hackers a couple hundred years ago. On the other hand, I am also sure there were a lot more pirates and highwaymen.
> 
> So were there _more pirates in 1819 than there are now Russian hackers in 2019? Because we would need to run those numbers and compare them... We would need to run those numbers and compare them AND THEN(!) find some way to decide if a Nigerian scammer is more or less moral than a Dickensian moneylender We would also need to figure out how to measure the frequency of immoral acts that are typically not reported (and certainly historically have not been) and therefore not measurable. Did people lie and cheat and tell mean jokes more a hundred years ago than they do in 2019? Less? The same?
> 
> Do you see how absurd this sounds? Be advised I never said that we are less moral now. Because I don't know that. I also never said that morality has not changed over time in terms of character. In the past, blasphemy was considered the height of criminality. Today it is not. On the other hand there is no doubt that spousal rape was far more common back then. On the other other hand in years gone by you didn't have many instances of schoolteachers in American classrooms living in fear of their students murdering them & their classmates. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. So yes, the manifestations of our morality have certainly changed....but overall levels of 'goodness and badness' have not._.



Yes, the data we have is only from war, because these are the most reliable stats we have extending back millennia. 

But if the data is insufficient to reach a conclusion, as you suggest, then we cannot make the claim that overall 'goodness and badness' have not changed: you don't get to have it both ways. Unless you have data to the contrary, then please share.

I think this is the same video - if not it's the same person on the same subject so should be pretty similar.

[video=youtube;ramBFRt1Uzk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk[/video]




luckyscars said:


> We could say that, but there's no real proof that it happens on a significant scale, is there? I'm not drawing absolutes, I am talking in generalizations. And, generally, I don't see any evidence that a book (or even several books) have the power to make people more moral.



True i have no data to back this up. I doubt any such data could exist, given how ill-defined are morality, culture, literature etc. But a lack of evidence cuts both ways. We don't know it does, we don't know it doesn't, we are both talking from opinion.




luckyscars said:


> More intelligent, maybe, and with intelligence comes a greater likelihood of being, for instance, more economically successful, and there is evidence that economic security facilitates a more ethical lifestyle (you have to be rich enough to afford charity) though, again, it's not that simple. For every Bill and Melinda Gates there is a Bernie Madoff.



What is that evidence? I'd like to see it so i know what strength of evidence you deem satisfactory since you disregarded the data i gave before (not that's there's anything wrong with demanding rigorous evidence).




luckyscars said:


> I'm sure a poll on a writer's forum would probably agree with you. I am equally sure that a poll on a writer's forum cannot be applied to a population of billions. I could refer to anecdote too, and tell you that some of the kindest, most decent people I have ever met were functionally or entirely illiterate - which is true. So what?



We lack data, so i thought we could get some for a bit of fun. Of course it's a biased sample, nothing to take remotely serious, but it's always interesting to get as many perspectives as possible.



luckyscars said:


> It's only contentious to me because your reasoning is beyond flawed.* I am happy to say that books form some part of moral advancement if we are talking in terms of society at large.* The Enlightenment proved that. The problem is you are not saying that. You are saying that it is *commonplace* for readers to derive a great part of their personal moral character from the books they read. If that is the case, it must surely work both ways, in which case I guess the stories I have written from the sympathetic point of view of murderers must make me, as an author, part of the problem.



We basically agree then, but i believe it more common than you believe. Neither us can provide actually data to quantify this either way (unless you do have some), so all we have are our opinions derived from personal experience.


----------



## luckyscars

epimetheus said:


> But if the data is insufficient to reach a conclusion, as you suggest, then we cannot make the claim that overall 'goodness and badness' have not changed: you don't get to have it both ways. Unless you have data to the contrary, then please share.
> 
> True i have no data to back this up. I doubt any such data could exist, given how ill-defined are morality, culture, literature etc. But a lack of evidence cuts both ways. We don't know it does, we don't know it doesn't, we are both talking from opinion.



It actually doesn't cut both ways...

Otherwise known as Russell's Teapot: In any situation where there exists reasonable doubt as to whether something has changed it is incumbent - always - on the person making the claim to provide the proof.

If I was claiming that people's farts are smellier now than they were in 1975 because we eat more garlic and then when you doubt my 'evidence' my response to you is to say "well neither of us has any real data, we're both just talking from opinion" you would hopefully think I am bonkers. But you could not prove it.

Opinion is fine but it is plain disingenuous to assert, as you have repeatedly in this thread, that what you are claiming is scientifically proven and that I would need to prove you are wrong when you have done nothing to prove you are right or even close to right. 



epimetheus said:


> What is that evidence? I'd like to see it so i know what strength of evidence you deem satisfactory since you disregarded the data i gave before (not that's there's anything wrong with demanding rigorous evidence).



You mean...the evidence that being a kind and generous person is harder if you are poor? 

I don't know where to start. I don't suppose many dirt poor people are donating to food banks or running marathons for charity or volunteering as aid workers or fostering children or worrying about 'giving back to society' do you?

I could give you evidence if you want, but all you have to do is Google 'link between poverty and murder rate'. Or 'link between poverty and human trafficking'. Or 'link between poverty and family breakdown' and so on.


----------



## luckyscars

JustRob said:


> I defer to your evidently greater knowledge of the subject, which is actually well outside my personal comfort zone, as I have often explained. However, while "science fiction" may be a relatively new term in the field of literature this style of writing has effectively existed for a very long time as "romance", that older term simply meaning "not realistic" as opposed to being about affections between couples as it does now. Also, speculation isn't really futuristic just because a subject isn't understood yet. For example, people have been speculating about paranormal phenomena for an extremely long time and ghost stories can hardly be seen as futuristic.
> 
> I was intrigued to discover, when I had my strange apparently precognitive experience involving _Don Quixote_ and Cervantes, that he had actually written that novel to persuade writers to move away from writing old fashioned romances and to focus on modern novels based on realism. The idea that precognition is possible is of course itself now regarded as a romantic notion by many people, so to use _Don Quixote_ for a practical demonstration of it in reality was typical of the devious way that my mind works, suggesting that romance and realism are in fact subjective concepts rather than concretely distinct as Cervantes apparently saw them.
> 
> I think that it is a shame that the term "romance" as a genre has shifted in meaning and has been superseded by much more specific terms such as "science fiction" and "fantasy". Science is just a particular way of looking at reality and fantasy implies an extreme regardless of what one is looking at, but romances in the old-fashioned sense cover all aspects of the human condition, which is itself real but not simply physical, regardless of science and everyday experiences. The response to the OP probably should then be that science fiction is about the human condition because it is one form of romance, using the old meaning for that genre name. As an example of the mess that genre names have got into, all those currently popular stories about werewolves are romances, to use the old genre name, but nowadays they are probably regarded as fantasies even though they require scientifically fictional components and often seem to involve romantic, in the modern sense, relationships as well.
> 
> So, it isn't that science fiction is not about science but that romance is not specifically about science, but it often uses fictional science to achieve its purpose and nowadays gets labelled as science fiction as a result. No doubt Cervantes would therefore also have argued against the need for science fiction had he lived in our time rather than centuries ago, so that certainly isn't a new issue, just a new genre name. Personally I never saw my own story as science fiction but as an old-fashioned romance, but one has to move with the times and terminology even when they move in an illogical direction, it seems, and as a consequence one ends up in discussions like this one, so please pardon my Quixotic manner.



I hope you don't think I was being rude/arrogant with what I said, Rob. I certainly don't have any greater knowledge. And, having read this post, I agree with all the points you made here.


----------



## Olly Buckle

The thing about all these genres is that they merely describe the surface story, Don Quixote and Gulliver were political commentaries, not just romances, or 'fiction' as we call them now, Chaucer wrote poetry, sure, but he probably got himself tortured and executed for what he wrote once Henry got rid of Richard. The consequences of political writing are not so extreme nowadays, at least, not where I live, but if your views are too far from the norm they can still be unpleasant if the story is too immediate, sometimes easier to get a point across if you take it far from the here and now. Science fiction does that well, great political writing sometimes.


----------



## epimetheus

luckyscars said:


> It actually doesn't cut both ways...
> 
> Otherwise known as Russell's Teapot: In any situation where there exists reasonable doubt as to whether something has changed it is incumbent - always - on the person making the claim to provide the proof.
> 
> If I was claiming that people's farts are smellier now than they were in 1975 because we eat more garlic and then when you doubt my 'evidence' my response to you is to say "well neither of us has any real data, we're both just talking from opinion" you would hopefully think I am bonkers. But you could not prove it.



Russell's teapot applies to claims that are unfalsifiable, such as the existence of an utterly undetectable teapot somewhere in space. While i acknowledge there is no data to support the story claim, and it would be hard to gather any such data, that is not the same as the phenomena being impossible to prove one way or another - just very difficult.

But you are right in terms of burden of proof. It is for me to provide data, which i have acknowledged several times is currently lacking. I would say, though, that the claim is not nearly as absurd as you claim. There are people (like myself), who report developing morality through engaging with stories, and there's the scientific framework of meme theory in which it could work. Scholars in psychology have also floated this idea before too. 

Not evidence, no. But not absurd either.

If you claim farts are smellier now than in 1975 because garlic consumption has increased then all we need to do is conduct some experiments to confirm garlic indeed makes stinky farts, then measure the quantity of garlic consumption per capita then and now - data very likely to exist. Bonus points for identifying the causal agent in garlic that causes the stink. I might think you strange for being interested in farts, but not bonkers.




luckyscars said:


> Opinion is fine but it is plain disingenuous to assert, as you have repeatedly in this thread, that what you are claiming is scientifically proven and that I would need to prove you are wrong when you have done nothing to prove you are right or even close to right.



I have repeatedly acknowledged a lack of data. I have only made one empirical claim and that was regarding the improvement of morality in humanity over time. I provided evidence for that claim, which you rejected. Please cite where i have otherwise asserted what i have said is scientifically proven.




luckyscars said:


> You mean...the evidence that being a kind and generous person is harder if you are poor?
> 
> I don't know where to start. I don't suppose many dirt poor people are donating to food banks or running marathons for charity or volunteering as aid workers or fostering children or worrying about 'giving back to society' do you?



Where i come from rich people are stereotyped as being greedy. The first thing that came up when i googled was this research, claiming poor people are more charitable, but i don't have time to hunt down the original article. But the main reason i wanted you to provide the evidence was to see what quality of evidence you deem sufficient for such debates.


----------



## Newman

bazz cargo said:


> All genres of fiction are an exploration of the human species. Science Fiction has a special place, especially the speculative versions, in pointing out the folly making poor decisions. Mad Max is a warning of what will happen when we finally crash the world economy.
> 
> Science Fiction is the perfect place to explore gender issues, slavery, corporate greed and misinformation. Don't knock sci fi, it will save the world.
> 
> As an example of exploring tricky subjects I recommend a book that is so dated in attitudes and still thought provoking, and emotionally provoking.
> R A Heinlien's Farnam's Freehold. It is an historical document and as such will offend anyone looking to be offended.
> 
> Anyone writing fiction to make a point?



If you analyze carefully, all good sci fi is about relationships and underlying theme / premise.


----------



## bazz cargo

Another thought... I wonder how many modern inventions are based on old Sci Fi gadgets. Did Star Trek Provide a template for the mobile phone? Did HG Wells foretell the Laser Beam? Will Mary Shelly have the last laugh? 

Anyone think up something they think is a possible future widget?


----------



## -xXx-

how about 2 types of (modular) generator (systems)
intended to leverage skyscraper _wind tunnels_
and _runoff_?
 
_*sci fi, where every _thing is_ fiction*_


----------



## Olly Buckle

I suppose it is also true that most sci. fi. is not about science because when they deal with mechanical innovation it is about technology, not science. Science consists of a methodology which attempts to devise and carry out experiments which would disprove a theory if they did not have the result predicted by it. Brilliant theories with stunning technological applications make much better fiction.


----------



## luckyscars

bazz cargo said:


> Another thought... I wonder how many modern inventions are based on old Sci Fi gadgets. Did Star Trek Provide a template for the mobile phone? Did HG Wells foretell the Laser Beam? Will Mary Shelly have the last laugh?



You know, Bazz, I always think this is kind of an overestimation... 

Star Trek was made at a time when phones were well-established, so the idea of mobile phones wasn't really that much of a jump. In any case, the idea of portable phones had been around for donkeys years. 

HG Wells's notion of a laser isn't really a laser in any meaningful sense but rather a weapon that involves the direction of energy - a 'heat ray'. The Ancient Greeks knew about directed energy. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but Wells's description doesn't really describe how it works vis a vis lasers (which, in fairness to him, would be strange in the context of that story) but only what it does, which is create a beam using a parabolic mirror? He describes this as being 'like a lighthouse'. The lighthouse simile is telling as it probably suggests where he got the idea from. Combining the idea of a 'beam of light' with the transfer of deadly heat is just an extension of what anybody who had ever held a magnifying glass up to the sun already knows.

I know I sound like I have a bias against sci-fi and I honestly, truly don't (I enjoy it) but the idea of science fiction predicting future technology seems over-emphasized. IMO Science Fiction overall probably gets easily as much or more wrong about the future as it gets right. For every prediction of cell phones and lasers there's a prediction of hover boards and anti-gravity boots, together with a general failure to foresee things which are really central to our society - say, social media and climate change.


----------



## Olly Buckle

luckyscars said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but Wells's description doesn't really describe how it works vis a vis lasers (which, in fairness to him, would be strange in the context of that story) but only what it does, which is create a beam using a parabolic mirror? He describes this as being 'like a lighthouse'. The lighthouse simile is telling as it probably suggests where he got the idea from. Combining the idea of a 'beam of light' with the transfer of deadly heat is just an extension of what anybody who had ever held a magnifying glass up to the sun already knows.
> .



Like I said, not really science fiction, but technology fiction.


----------



## luckyscars

I think as writers we are not well equipped to discuss whether fiction can foretell or foreshadow future events because we have a vested interest in it being true. 

We all want our work to have some relevance to posterity. So whenever an instance arises of something that was foretold in some way in a book we tend to seize on it.


----------



## Chris Stevenson

Yep, I read RH's book. It was racy, daring and sexually provocative. I do and have written my SF and dystopian books with huge themes, statements that explore corporate greed, chicanery, hostility, bias and other issues. I don't hammer someone over the head--the messages are quite subtle, but they are there and i make no apologies for them.


----------



## Terry D

luckyscars said:


> You know, Bazz, I always think this is kind of an overestimation...
> 
> I know I sound like I have a bias against sci-fi and I honestly, truly don't (I enjoy it) but the idea of science fiction predicting future technology seems over-emphasized. IMO Science Fiction overall probably gets easily as much or more wrong about the future as it gets right. For every prediction of cell phones and lasers there's a prediction of hover boards and anti-gravity boots, together with a general failure to foresee things which are really central to our society - say, social media and climate change.



There's a number of cases where SF has inspired invention. Did you know that the TASER was invented by a man who was inspired by a Tom Swift book? In fact, the word TASER stands for Tom A. Swift's Electric Rifle. You also mention SF missing social media, but one of the inventors of the World Wide Web was inspired by Arthur C. Clarke's, Dial F for Frankenstein a short story about an inter-connected telecommunications network.

There are others which can be found in this article.


----------



## velo




----------



## Olly Buckle

The predictions of people are not always that good. As a young man I made the acquaintance of a Professor Reeves who as a young man in the 1930's, had developed the concept of pulse modulation control; a method of sending many messages on a single radio wave. It did not become a physical reality until the development of semi conductors and diodes, but is now the basis behind mobile phones. I remember Reeves saying to us back then that he envisioned everyone in the world having a personal number and a 'communications device' so that anyone in the world could speak to anyone else, he saw the possibility of people being able to talk to each other as being a huge step towards tolerance and understanding.


----------



## luckyscars

Terry D said:


> There's a number of cases where SF has inspired invention. Did you know that the TASER was invented by a man who was inspired by a Tom Swift book? In fact, the word TASER stands for Tom A. Swift's Electric Rifle. You also mention SF missing social media, but one of the inventors of the World Wide Web was inspired by Arthur C. Clarke's, Dial F for Frankenstein a short story about an inter-connected telecommunications network.
> 
> There are others which can be found in this article.



I don't dispute this, but I think we would need to clarify what is meant. 

To me there is an important difference between being inspired by science fiction into a general idea that results in the creation of Invention X, and saying science fiction provides a 'template' or in some way is the source or progenitor or predictor of the technology itself.


----------



## Terry D

luckyscars said:


> I don't dispute this, but I think we would need to clarify what is meant.
> 
> To me there is an important difference between being inspired by science fiction into a general idea that results in the creation of Invention X, and saying science fiction provides a 'template' or in some way is the source or progenitor or predictor of the technology itself.



No, these SF writers didn't provide blueprints for the technology which was to come, but I don't think anyone ever suggested they did. The discussion, as I interpreted it, was whether specific SF technology inspired future development.



> Another thought... I wonder how many modern inventions are based on old Sci Fi gadgets. Did Star Trek Provide a template for the mobile phone? Did HG Wells foretell the Laser Beam? Will Mary Shelly have the last laugh?




While it's clear Star Trek's writers didn't design flip-phones (otherwise Motorola might now be named Roddenberry), it's also pretty clear that some specific concepts from SF have been the progenitors for current tech. You can't discount the seed that is planted by an idea. Newton's falling apple was the direct antecedent of his theory of gravity. Just as Tom Swift's electric rifle was grandfather to the TASER.


----------



## -xXx-

if science is an approach (method)
and
the hypothesis (question) is explored
in _abstract_,
development of _concrete_ (application)
_may_ follow.
as _may
_development of _abstract _(application).

speculative fiction, sci fi, slipstream.
these are keywords for consumers.
simplify search.
imho.

what if nutritional requirements were provided
by devices resembling "room sanitizer/air freshener"s?
what if your brain didn't just biochemically "calm"
while processing (smell) "pumpkin pie",
but processed nutritional content "atomized"?

_*sci fi _is_*_
_*what?!*_


----------



## luckyscars

Terry D said:


> No, these SF writers didn't provide blueprints for the technology which was to come, but I don't think anyone ever suggested they did. The discussion, as I interpreted it, was whether specific SF technology inspired future development.



Bazz’s post, which was what I had responded to, used the word ‘template’. The dictionary definition of template is ‘something that serves as a model for others to copy.’ That seems to suggest a designation that goes beyond mere inspiration. 

One can write a book ‘inspired by’ Mark Twain that does not resemble a Mark Twain book in any way that is perceptible to an ordinary reader. But if one was ‘copying’ Twain by definition it would neee to resemble Twain in some obvious, irrefutable way. And that’s the difference as I see it. 

I’m not trying to be pedantic. I agree with the spirit of the point you are making, I simply took the use of the words ‘template’ according to its definition and said it’s an overestimation.

My post, which you have indicated disagreement with, was that the notion of science fiction PREDICTING future technology is overstated. I think that’s accurate. 

But I assume you agree inspiration is not a synonym for prediction, nor is it a synonym for ‘based on’ or ‘a template of’ . So I am not exactly sure what you disagree with.


----------



## Terry D

luckyscars said:


> Bazz’s post, which was what I had responded to, used the word ‘template’. The dictionary definition of template is ‘something that serves as a model for others to copy.’ That seems to suggest a designation that goes beyond mere inspiration.
> 
> One can write a book ‘inspired by’ Mark Twain that does not resemble a Mark Twain book in any way that is perceptible to an ordinary reader. But if one was ‘copying’ Twain by definition it would neee to resemble Twain in some obvious, irrefutable way. And that’s the difference as I see it.
> 
> I’m not trying to be pedantic. I agree with the spirit of the point you are making, I simply took the use of the words ‘template’ according to its definition and said it’s an overestimation.
> 
> My post, which you have indicated disagreement with, was that the notion of science fiction PREDICTING future technology is overstated. I think that’s accurate.
> 
> But I assume you agree inspiration is not a synonym for prediction, nor is it a synonym for ‘based on’ or ‘a template of’ . So I am not exactly sure what you disagree with.



I can't say that I do agree that inspiration isn't synonymous with prediction. When a scientist takes a concept from a story and develops the technology to make that concept a reality then that qualifies as the story predicting the future developments. Verne's submarine and moon travel, the TASER, Arthur C. Clarke's prediction of telecommunication satellites before they were even a concept, all qualify as successful predictions.


----------



## luckyscars

Terry D said:


> I can't say that I do agree that inspiration isn't synonymous with prediction. When a scientist takes a concept from a story and develops the technology to make that concept a reality then that qualifies as the story predicting the future developments. Verne's submarine and moon travel, the TASER, Arthur C. Clarke's prediction of telecommunication satellites before they were even a concept, all qualify as successful predictions.



I wrote a longer reply and accidentally deleted it.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement about the English language. 

The Bible offered _inspiration _forthe world we live in, continued through Christianity today, but it did/does not (successfully) offer _predictions _for that world. Which is presumably why most sensible Christians don't believe the Book Of Revelation is going to happen. 

For me, the difference lies in the concreteness, the specificity of what is being asserted. To my mind there is a difference between something that triggers a train of thought in a certain direction and something that describes in some defined sense what will be and how. So an apple falling on your head might trigger a line of thinking that results in gravity, but to suggest it's a 'template' or that the apple 'predicted' gravity I do not agree with.


----------



## Olly Buckle

I see the semantic difficulty, predicting and inspiring seem quite different, but surely when written they only predicted, it could only have been after they had opened the possibility of such a thing by being read that they could be said to inspire. I also think it would be quite difficult to show that those inventors were actually affected by the story that predicted their invention They could not have been inspired by a story they had not read.

Is 'anticipated' a more acceptable term? the thought precedes the event, but does not necessarily trigger it.

The quality is also somewhat selective, there are still no such things as ray guns, force fields, or faster than light drives, all essential to many sf stories, all somewhat unlikely to ever reach actuality.


----------



## luckyscars

Olly Buckle said:


> I see the semantic difficulty, predicting and inspiring seem quite different, but surely when written they only predicted, it could only have been after they had opened the possibility of such a thing by being read that they could be said to inspire. I also think it would be quite difficult to show that those inventors were actually affected by the story that predicted their invention They could not have been inspired by a story they had not read.
> 
> Is 'anticipated' a more acceptable term? the thought precedes the event, but does not necessarily trigger it.
> 
> The quality is also somewhat selective, there are still no such things as ray guns, force fields, or faster than light drives, all essential to many sf stories, all somewhat unlikely to ever reach actuality.



This goes back to my original disagreement with the original post and the reason I engaged with this discussion in the first place: I don't think good stories are or should be about making predictions.

 I don't even think they are about generating inspiration, not beyond that which exists a very personal, nebulous "I can see this and it speaks to who I am" level. I don't think the idea of proselytizing, promoting, anticipating, real world events is a legitimate place for works of fiction. I certainly don't think the idea of saving the world should be anywhere near the writer's mind. Most writers I have encountered who write with this sort of motive come across as tiresome.

That doesn't mean I don't think great things (or not so great things) can happen from stories, only that I think achieving a result (never mind a desirable one) it is sufficiently uncommon to be nothing more than a distraction in most cases. 

Part of why I don't buy this is motive. For all the canonizing of Jules Verne's imaginings I don't believe for a single moment he wrote with the idea of _predicting_ the future of submarines or spaceships in any serious fashion. I think he was a man with a technological interest and a great imagination who incorporated scientific concepts that were _already being pioneered_ to a relatively advanced level for his time (did you know one of the first true submarines, built in 1800, decades before 20,000 Leagues, was called the 'Nautilus'?), who borrowed other separate, conceived-of ideas where he could (like the idea of harvesting food from the sea floor) and then extended those capabilities of the technology where he could - like where a contemporary submarine might manage 10 miles underwater, Nemo's could do 20,000 leagues - but without providing real detail as to how this would really work.

So where is the prediction? I mean, I could do a Verne right now and write about a Harley Davidson that can drive two million miles without needing gas and can also fly and also electrocute people. I could describe this, perhaps, quite articulately. But it doesn't mean I am predicting the future of aviation or motorcycles. I may, however, inspire somebody to do something distantly related. But I am not predicting. Unless there is concrete detail, the kind which could not be reasonably attributed to coincidence, I don't agree with attributing any of it to prediction or anticipation.


----------



## epimetheus

luckyscars said:


> I think as writers we are not well equipped to discuss whether fiction can foretell or foreshadow future events because we have a vested interest in it being true.



For sure bias is always a risk. But scientists frequently echo some of the sentiments expressed on this thread. Here's an interesting discussion about the reciprocal inspiration between science and fiction. And this one looks specifically at how Frankenstein has shaped science and vice-versa. Without Frankenstein science would look just a little different to what we see.

It's not the caricature of a scientist today reading Frankenstein and suddenly realising her treatment of a nascent sentient AI is abhorrent, it's the creation of a shared cultural space spanning centuries from which people, not just scientists, can draw.


----------



## JustRob

luckyscars said:


> I hope you don't think I was being  rude/arrogant with what I said, Rob. I certainly don't have any greater  knowledge. And, having read this post, I agree with all the points you  made here.



No, I didn't think that; it was simply a discussion. At my age I ought to know how big an idiot I can be or else I would be an even bigger one for not knowing, so I am seldom offended. As for knowledge, I was possibly beguiled into thinking that you are not such an outright charlatan as I am. As a computer systems designer I became skilled at gaining superficial knowledge of unfamiliar subjects quickly in order to discuss them with experts intelligently. Hence I am still good at using my meagre knowledge of any subject to best effect. Russell's Teapot would be a good example.



luckyscars said:


> Otherwise known as Russell's Teapot: In any situation where there exists reasonable doubt as to whether something has changed it is incumbent - always - on the person making the claim to provide the proof.
> 
> Opinion is fine but it is plain disingenuous to assert, as you have repeatedly in this thread, that what you are claiming is scientifically proven and that I would need to prove you are wrong when you have done nothing to prove you are right or even close to right.



I am well acquainted with Russell's Teapot but looked up his precise words about it when I read this. As a systems designer another of my specialities was convincing people to define the words that they used precisely to ensure that they were conveying the right information. That's actually not a bad thing to be doing around WF either, as it happens. Russell was making the point that a person making an _assertion_ couldn't regard the _doubts_ of others as being unreasonable, so putting the very positive word "assert" up against the more equivocal one "doubt". This is different from putting "assert" up against "deny". It would be unreasonable to deny the existence of Russell's Teapot, although with the development of more accurate space telescopes eventually we may discover that it's actually a coffee pot anyway and the debate could continue about who was right.

I am well acquainted with the realm of uncertainty as a consequence of my apparent precognitive experiences. I have never truly _asserted_ their nature, but I consider there to be substantial enough evidence to make outright _denial_ of it unreasonable. However, even I only _accept_ their nature while also _doubting _it. 

I encountered the idea that the person making a claim is responsible for providing the evidence while investigating research into the paranormal, but personally I am in a neutral corner, having evidence but not attempting to impose an opinion about it on others. In fact I believe that it is best if society at large _doesn't_ accept the existence of such paranormal phenomena simply for its own peace of mind. Regardless of how convinced we may be about something we should be careful about asserting it rather than just suggesting it as there is always room for doubt, even in the most rigorous science if an observer doesn't notice the difference between a teapot and coffee pot.



Olly Buckle said:


> The thing about all these genres is that they  merely describe the surface story, Don Quixote and Gulliver were  political commentaries, not just romances, or 'fiction' as we call them  now, ...



Surely the whole point of Don Quixote was that it wasn't a romance at all but a realistic story about a deluded old man. He was a romantic in a pragmatic world, so he experienced his own fiction within the writer's fiction. Let's not get into levels of fiction though; my novel eventually ended up with four, maybe five in the planned trilogy. However, I am being a charlatan as usual, having never read the story by Cervantes but only having seen the film _Man of La Mancha._


----------



## Terry D

luckyscars said:


> I wrote a longer reply and accidentally deleted it.
> 
> I think we have a fundamental disagreement about the English language.
> 
> The Bible offered _inspiration _forthe world we live in, continued through Christianity today, but it did/does not (successfully) offer _predictions _for that world. Which is presumably why most sensible Christians don't believe the Book Of Revelation is going to happen.
> 
> For me, the difference lies in the concreteness, the specificity of what is being asserted. To my mind there is a difference between something that triggers a train of thought in a certain direction and something that describes in some defined sense what will be and how. So an apple falling on your head might trigger a line of thinking that results in gravity, but to suggest it's a 'template' or that the apple 'predicted' gravity I do not agree with.



You are obsessing on the word 'template' which bazz used once right after he said, "I wonder how many modern inventions are based on old Sci Fi gadgets?" which the examples I gave clearly are, as frequently stated by the inventors themselves. No invention could possibly live up to the narrow definition you are using. Hell, even the final invention is nearly always different from the original concept drawings. One of the inventors of the World Wide Web admits to being given the idea by Clarke's old story. His original concept was fathered by the story, and yet the current iteration of the web is vastly different from the original developed at CERN by Tim Berners-Lee. Does that mean Berners-Lee shouldn't get credit for today's internet?

Author's aren't in the business of designing future technology, but when their ideas lead in a direct line to such technology, or even if they 'predict' it consiously, or simple in the course of telling a good story (again Arthur C. Clark with telecommunication satellites, or even Roddenberry with his wireless 'flip-phones') I don't think it's a stretch to give their imagination credit. This isn't a topic, IMO, where it serves any purpose to apply the narrowest definition possible to terms like 'template'. But, to each his own.


----------



## luckyscars

Terry D said:


> You are obsessing on the word 'template' which bazz used once right after he said, "I wonder how many modern inventions are based on old Sci Fi gadgets?" which the examples I gave clearly are, as frequently stated by the inventors themselves. No invention could possibly live up to the narrow definition you are using. Hell, even the final invention is nearly always different from the original concept drawings. One of the inventors of the World Wide Web admits to being given the idea by Clarke's old story. His original concept was fathered by the story, and yet the current iteration of the web is vastly different from the original developed at CERN by Tim Berners-Lee. Does that mean Berners-Lee shouldn't get credit for today's internet?
> 
> Author's aren't in the business of designing future technology, but when their ideas lead in a direct line to such technology, or even if they 'predict' it consiously, or simple in the course of telling a good story (again Arthur C. Clark with telecommunication satellites, or even Roddenberry with his wireless 'flip-phones') I don't think it's a stretch to give their imagination credit. This isn't a topic, IMO, where it serves any purpose to apply the narrowest definition possible to terms like 'template'. But, to each his own.



Terry: I am not 'obsessing' over anything. I explained my view and allowed for the possibility you/others have a different opinion on the semantics. I don't think it particularly obsessive to parse language on a writing forum. 

Anyway, regarding my definition being narrow, its funny because I feel it is the exact opposite. The sum total of my point (at least how I intended it) could be condensed as: "_Science fiction can contribute to real life advances, but I believe its capability to do this is overplayed, because in the grand scheme of things fiction books are just one of many places from which ideas originate and by no means does the vast majority of science fiction have that kind of power over the vast majority of people._' That cannot surely be 'narrow'. I suspect you probably wouldn't even disagree with it. More than once during this thread I have wondered 'What is he disagreeing with?' because it is unclear. 

So let me have one more shot at explaining what I am saying, and I apologize if this is long but I want to be clear:

If I was to say '_at some point in time the war in Palestine will be over' _that is clearly not a prediction. It cannot be a prediction because it is guaranteed that on a long enough time scale war will end in Palestine. It could, however, importantly be a source of inspiration. On the other hand, if I say that '_the war will end in Palestine on the 31st December 2020_' that is obviously a prediction and nobody sane would say otherwise. It would be an extraordinary one. I could get on TV.

Between these two you have a spectrum, not a binary. Is it still a prediction to say '_the war in Palestine will end at sometime within the next ten years_'? 

Some might say it is not because it lacks specificity. I would say that it definitely still is, because it contains a verifiable proposition and a high (though not astronomically high) order of being wrong. Either way, it is undoubtedly a less concrete example of prediction than giving a precise date. If one was then to extend this further, to something like '_the war in Palestine will end sometime within the next five hundred years_', it pushes the limits and starts to lose any predictive edge or usefulness. Most people would regard that statement as being on such a magnitude of likelihood that the odds flip to a 'Well duh'. 

With sufficient wavering the statement ceases to be a prediction at all - _'the war in Palestine will end sometime in the next million years'. _That sort of thing becomes so likely to be almost a truism. The statement may, however, never cease to be any more or less an _inspiration_ regardless of lack of specificity. Therefore the two words - inspiration and prediction - are not synonymous.

To bring that to context, as far as where the proposition that 'predictions made in science fiction deserves credit for technological innovation' falls on the spectrum. Let's say using Verne and the submarine ('cause it's easy and everybody has read it) I would put it roughly on the order of the 'sometime in the next hundred years' as far as a prediction. In other words, you have to really want it to be a prediction in order to describe it as such.

Because Verne already knew how submarines worked. He probably knew a lot about them. There were several of them around in 1870, of increasingly intricate designs and widely publicized, particularly in France where Verne was from. Additionally, almost all of the technology he mentions in 20,000 Leagues was either realized or theorized somewhere. Verne as much himself - 'I invent nothing'. What he did do was apply the theories, extend their capabilities (without explaining how) and envision a story line around it. Which is great, but it doesn't take it into the realm of predicting the future for me. Sorry if that's 'narrow'.

 But yes... if you wanted to rate his work as a prediction you could. Some people think Beavis & Butthead predicted 9/11 because a few comic book images depicted planes flying into skyscrapers. They're not wrong either.

Additionally I'd say (and this is probably where you will disagree) it does not even make much difference if those who created open water submarines were to _say_ 20,000 Leagues gave them the idea. I believe most creators cannot assess in an objective way how their ideas come about. I can't rationally explain mine, nor can I attribute importance. But even if they can, they certainly can't cannot say they would not have thought of them if those things were absent. Verne's scientific knowledge, by his own account and others, was minimal. The fact some guy who did know science and did invent things believes his ideas came from Verne's inspiration does not mean he (or Tim Berners-Lee) would not have cultivated the same ideas through some other trigger than a single book. We cannot say that. 

But...I am not saying one cannot make reasonable judgments on cause and effect. I am just saying I don't find drawing those lines when it comes to sci-fi as a genre to be very rational. I think you do have to have some level of concrete, empirical link between the source material and the resultant technology in order to make the case of cause. Most sci-fi I have read does not come close. But I am willing to take suggestions.

You mention Clarke, for one, and I'd allow it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a prediction on the order of uncanny as 'Simpsons predicting President Donald Trump' could come from a writer of that caliber. But otherwise when this stuff gets 'predicted' it usually feels (to me anyway) more like a combination of a lucky guess combined with a lot of confirmation bias. An overestimation.

But each to his/her own, as you say.


----------



## bazz cargo

I'm fine with having my sloppy writing parsed to death. Scalpel anyone?

Has anyone taken a close look at Orwell's 1984 recently? How about Robocop?


----------



## epimetheus

Just came across this and this research, both of which suggest that reading literary fiction develops one's theory of mind, particularly empathy, compared to reading genre fiction or non-fiction. Here's a report on them if you can't get past the paywalls.


----------



## luckyscars

bazz cargo said:


> I'm fine with having my sloppy writing parsed to death. Scalpel anyone?
> 
> Has anyone taken a close look at Orwell's 1984 recently? How about Robocop?



Hope nothing taken personally here, bazz. I didn't mean to imply you are sloppy!

Funny you mention 1984, I re-read it the week after Trump's inauguration and found it eerie. Is 1984 considered science fiction?


----------



## bazz cargo

Pish and tush... My mind is like a firework display in a fog, I get all sorts of strange results and very few of them pan out sensibly. In a forum full of pedants I would expect nothing but the best of quibbles. 

1984 was written in 1948, a daring stab at what the future will look like. Maybe it should be under Horror but I claim it for Sci Fi.





luckyscars said:


> Hope nothing taken personally here, bazz. I didn't mean to imply you are sloppy!
> 
> Funny you mention 1984, I re-read it the week after Trump's inauguration and found it eerie. Is 1984 considered science fiction?


----------



## luckyscars

bazz cargo said:


> Pish and tush... My mind is like a firework display in a fog, I get all sorts of strange results and very few of them pan out sensibly. In a forum full of pedants I would expect nothing but the best of quibbles.
> 
> 1984 was written in 1948, a daring stab at what the future will look like. Maybe it should be under Horror but I claim it for Sci Fi.



It's definitely speculative fiction. I always thought of it as being an early example of what they now call 'dystopian fiction'. Maybe even a political thriller? I'm not sure. A lot of stuff gets lumped as science fiction that appears to have close to zero science.


----------



## bazz cargo

Social science, psychology, the tech behind Big Brother surely counts?





luckyscars said:


> It's definitely speculative fiction. I always thought of it as being an early example of what they now call 'dystopian fiction'. Maybe even a political thriller? I'm not sure. A lot of stuff gets lumped as science fiction that appears to have close to zero science.


----------



## -xXx-

is _all_ fiction speculative?

now i know what's wrong with my writing.
*fact*ual fiction.
that's the ticket!

_
*snorts and blows pop alllll over*_


----------



## bazz cargo

^ The Donald is waiting for you...


----------



## -xXx-

bazz cargo said:


> Social science, psychology, the tech behind Big Brother surely counts?



k.
so wiki says dystopian, political fiction, social science fiction.

also says:
"
Throughout its publication history, Nineteen Eighty-Four has been either banned or legally challenged, as subversive or ideologically corrupting, like the dystopian novels We (1924) by Yevgeny Zamyatin, Brave New World (1932) by Aldous Huxley, Darkness at Noon (1940) by Arthur Koestler, Kallocain (1940) by Karin Boye and Fahrenheit 451 (1953) by Ray Bradbury.[16] Some writers consider the Russian dystopian novel We by Zamyatin to have influenced Nineteen Eighty-Four,[17][18] and that the novel bears significant similarities in its plot and characters to Darkness at Noon, written years before by Koestler, who was a personal friend of Orwell.[19] 
"
also included in the wiki are several other dystopian titles.
k.
just so g.o. can roll over, what looked like scifi
in 1948, experienced in 2019 will probably
be classified differently.
nice example of POV/context gap(s)
_*on my scifi shelf*_


----------



## -xXx-

bazz cargo said:


> ^ The Donald is waiting for you...


the donald & the golden arch/arches have bigger, better, very good,
great things to spend time and energy on.

i can make a darn good burrito tho'.
'spose i'll have to put chili powder stripes on it or sumfin.


----------



## bazz cargo

I have come across a Sci Fi western, a Sci Fi set during mediaeval times and lots of almost contemporary Sci Fi. Is there a place for a Kung Fu Sci Fi? 

What weird tales could we tell...


----------



## Olly Buckle

Sci-fi bodice ripper ?  There is lots of children's sci-fi. Sci-fi travel guide? Take a towel. Sci-fi almanacs and calendars, diaries, biographies, rom. com. , where do you stop ? Sci-fi 'Home alone' ? Sci-fi Enid Blyton? 'Five go off into space'


----------



## luckyscars

Olly Buckle said:


> Sci-fi bodice ripper ?  There is lots of children's sci-fi. Sci-fi travel guide? Take a towel. Sci-fi almanacs and calendars, diaries, biographies, rom. com. , where do you stop ? Sci-fi 'Home alone' ? Sci-fi Enid Blyton? 'Five go off into space'





bazz cargo said:


> I have come across a Sci Fi western, a Sci Fi set during mediaeval times and lots of almost contemporary Sci Fi. Is there a place for a Kung Fu Sci Fi?
> 
> What weird tales could we tell...



I think this is kind of the problem, isn't it? There's a constant conflation between science fiction that actually explores/exposes/applies scientific concepts in some meaningful way (Asimov, Bradley, Verne) and the 'science fiction' of anything that feels a bit 'out there'. If Tolkien had contrived and explicitly stated some backstory about Middle Earth being 'a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away' Lord Of The Rings would have as much of a right to be called 'science fiction' as Star Wars. Why not? It has as much to do with science.

It's become a matter of tropes and costuming, basically. Something like James Bond doesn't make it into the sci-fi section despite having plenty of futuristic technology and occasionally quite a bit of actual science in it, because it doesn't 'feel like sci-fi'. Meanwhile any old dross with an alien or a time machine does, despite the fact the vast majority rely overwhelmingly on nonsense. According to wikipedia, Back To The Future is science-fiction. On what basis is that science fiction? I like Back To The Future just fine but there is very little science in it and what trifling attempts are made are obviously not based on anything deemed remotely feasible.

Aficionados may appropriately divide the genre into that which is 'hard' science fiction and otherwise, but in most spheres of day-to-day life (like a bookshop) they all get lumped together. Which possibly is part of the reason why many people find the genre hard to take seriously these days, while many others have such a poor grasp of science vs. pseudoscience.


----------



## moderan

Even the Awards system has continued that conflation, as fantasy work is now (and has been for a while) eligible for the Hugo, Campbell, PKD awards. That stems from del Rey books' original championing of such work as The Sword of Shannara and Lord Foul's Bane over work by veteran sf authors, whose sales were declining, largely due to encroaching scientific illiteracy but also to a lack of promotion by the main houses (del Rey nee Ballantine, Ace, Berkley) despite inroads into academia and the best-seller list.
And don't get me started on litfic trope thieves, who don't re-invent the wheel, just steal it, claim it's new to them, and then proceed to cover it in layers of inane conversation and crappy plotting. Yeah, that's right, I'm talking to you, Margaret Atwood, Don DeLillo, Cormac McCarthy, all of whom have decried their work being called science fiction because they don't want to live in the ghetto.
Star Wars isn't science fiction. It's science fantasy...a combination of space opera, comic book trope-thieving, and handwavium.

Illustrative:

Back in the late 90s, I was involved in dreaming up scenarios for the text-rpg site Panhistoria. I created a 'novel' called Beyond the Stars, in which a Star Trek-like crew visited alien planets drawn from literature each episode. 
The eps included Fuzzy planet, a world with a Thing, and such.
The writers killed the Fuzzies and decided that they would shoot the Thing, thereby creating thousands of molecule-sized Things. The planet had to be quarantined.
I quit the novel in disgust. It's still ongoing but it's the most awful trite shite this side of Tattooine, more David Drake-lite than anything else.


----------



## Joseph Walsh

Good point. I write non-fiction due to my natural abilities; so if you can make fiction good for you i'm jelly no doubt. I think you pretty much outlined what science fiction is good for but I wouldn't say to explore the human species but to explore subjective experience of any species. Fiction is usually human though, I hope ... at the same time I would enjoy a good read of what it is like to be a dog ...


----------



## bazz cargo

Sometimes the old stuff just gets left behind, The Lensmen series spring to mind. I wouldn't mind having a crack at doing something inspired by ol' EE. With modern CGI and a damn good script writer I reckon it would make a new cinema franchise.

Then there is the Fuzzies and Icerigger. If only I had soooo much money I could play with.


----------



## -xXx-

bazz cargo said:


> I have come across a Sci Fi western, a Sci Fi set during mediaeval times and lots of almost contemporary Sci Fi. Is there a place for a Kung Fu Sci Fi?
> 
> What weird tales could we tell...





Olly Buckle said:


> Sci-fi bodice ripper ?  There is lots of children's sci-fi. Sci-fi travel guide? Take a towel. Sci-fi almanacs and calendars, diaries, biographies, rom. com. , where do you stop ? Sci-fi 'Home alone' ? Sci-fi Enid Blyton? 'Five go off into space'



absolutely!
250-650 words each.
contact moderan and inquire about emag.
voila!
the world IS changed.
do-it-yourself-fu.


----------



## Olly Buckle

Joseph Walsh said:


> ... at the same time I would enjoy a good read of what it is like to be a dog ...


Try 'Dogsbody' by Diana Wynne Jones. It's a kids book, but one of those ones adults can read.


----------



## moderan

bazz cargo said:


> Sometimes the old stuff just gets left behind, The Lensmen series spring to mind. I wouldn't mind having a crack at doing something inspired by ol' EE. With modern CGI and a damn good script writer I reckon it would make a new cinema franchise.
> 
> Then there is the Fuzzies and Icerigger. If only I had soooo much money I could play with.



John Scalzi did a Fuzzy novel, young-feller-me-lad. AD Foster isn't into people re-doing his works, or I'd do it. I had occasion to meet him once and that was one of my questions.
That rpg wanted to do a Lensman feature but I quit before that happened. I wanted something Hainish.



-xXx- said:


> absolutely!
> 250-650 words each.
> contact moderan and inquire about emag.
> voila!
> the world IS changed.
> do-it-yourself-fu.



Make it 2500-10K and I add it to the kickstarter.


----------



## luckyscars

moderan said:


> And don't get me started on litfic trope thieves, who don't re-invent the wheel, just steal it, claim it's new to them, and then proceed to cover it in layers of inane conversation and crappy plotting. Yeah, that's right, I'm talking to you, Margaret Atwood, Don DeLillo, Cormac McCarthy, all of whom have decried their work being called science fiction because they don't want to live in the ghetto.
> Star Wars isn't science fiction. It's science fantasy...a combination of space opera, comic book trope-thieving, and handwavium.



Out of curiosity, mod, which Cormac McCarthy are you referring to? The Road I'm guessing? I haven't heard anybody call it sci-fi but I don't disbelieve it. I don't follow any awards whatsoever.

Basically the whole genre of science fiction is an orgy of paper doll incest IMO and I'm surprised any decent authors (and readers) are still embracing a label that plainly means nothing of any value. I get it's a marketing thing...but so what? What good is a label that can essentially describe almost any kind of story without argument provided there's something a little *whistles X Files theme* going on?



moderan said:


> Star Wars isn't science fiction. It's science fantasy...a combination of space opera, comic book trope-thieving, and handwavium.



Just to be clear - I don't think for a moment it is either. However it doesn't matter, because 'sci-fi' is where Blockbuster used to have it, and 'sci-fi' is where Wikipedia still does have it - space opera apparently being 'a genre of science-fiction'. What's more if one asked the average plummer to give examples of science fiction and I'd bet there's a better than average chance he/she will say 'Star Wars' and that is the problem. Because there is no science. Like none. At all. Ignorance is ignorance, but something like genre, whose sole purpose is to achieve some degree of common understanding and useful categorization, must largely, if not completely, be judged on 'what people think'.

Science fiction isn't the only victim of this BTW. Horror seems to now be almost as meaningless as a genre. Fantasy too. Meanwhile every other day somebody or other's starting a thread about it.


----------



## -xXx-

moderan said:


> Make it 2500-10K and I add it to the kickstarter.


_*begins immediately*
*stares at unoccupied agent chair*
*stares at *their* calendar*
*organizes working references*
*snags photo file*
*opens fizz*
*gets jiggy-wid-it*_


----------



## moderan

luckyscars said:


> Out of curiosity, mod, which Cormac McCarthy are you referring to? The Road I'm guessing? I haven't heard anybody call it sci-fi but I don't disbelieve it. I don't follow any awards whatsoever.
> 
> Basically the whole genre of science fiction is an orgy of paper doll incest IMO and I'm surprised any decent authors (and readers) are still embracing a label that plainly means nothing of any value. I get it's a marketing thing...but so what? What good is a label that can essentially describe almost any kind of story without argument provided there's something a little *whistles X Files theme* going on?


Because that label now stands for ignorance of the sort you've just provided. It wasn't originally a marketing thing -- it was a description of content, but has fragmented, much as 'heavy metal' has fragmented, because more and more people wanted to be included, even if they didn't belong.
And yeah, The Road...which is dystopian, and that is solidly science fiction. It is an extrapolation of current trends and mores into the future. Sociology is a science, y'know.





luckyscars said:


> Just to be clear - I don't think for a moment it is either. However it doesn't matter, because 'sci-fi' is where Blockbuster used to have it, and 'sci-fi' is where Wikipedia still does have it - space opera apparently being 'a genre of science-fiction'. What's more if one asked the average plummer to give examples of science fiction and I'd bet there's a better than average chance he/she will say 'Star Wars' and that is the problem. Because there is no science. Like none. At all. Ignorance is ignorance, but something like genre, whose sole purpose is to achieve some degree of common understanding and useful categorization, must largely, if not completely, be judged on 'what people think'.
> 
> Science fiction isn't the only victim of this BTW. Horror seems to now be almost as meaningless as a genre. Fantasy too. Meanwhile every other day somebody or other's starting a thread about it.



Which is why there's the umbrella term 'weird fiction'. Fantasy has come to symbolize the castles and swords stuff. Everything has fragmented. SW is seen as science fiction because space and rockets and ray guns. It's squarely 'space opera' in that regard, in the pulpish sense, like the Gray Lensmen. The main villain was a portmanteau of Dr Doom and Darkseid, both of which were created by Jack Kirby, who mostly wrote and drew fantasy with a smattering of weird science. Hugo Gernsback would have recognized it instantly.
Aficionados use the term 'sci-fi' as a pejorative. Godzilla is sci-fi. The Thing is science fiction.


----------



## bazz cargo

You met Fossie! I'm sooo jealous. 
I still think Icerigger would make a great movie, and Little Fuzzy. 

I will have a crack at a Kung Fu Sci Fi, but it will be a while, I'm trying to get a book published and it is eating nearly all my time. I only pop into WF for a break. 





moderan said:


> John Scalzi did a Fuzzy novel, young-feller-me-lad. AD Foster isn't into people re-doing his works, or I'd do it. I had occasion to meet him once and that was one of my questions.
> That rpg wanted to do a Lensman feature but I quit before that happened. I wanted something Hainish.
> 
> 
> 
> Make it 2500-10K and I add it to the kickstarter.


----------



## moderan

bazz cargo said:


> You met Fossie! I'm sooo jealous.
> I still think Icerigger would make a great movie, and Little Fuzzy.
> 
> I will have a crack at a Kung Fu Sci Fi, but it will be a while, I'm trying to get a book published and it is eating nearly all my time. I only pop into WF for a break.


Good luck with that. I'm doing the same but I allow myself to feel guilty about too-frequent breaks.
I met him at the end of Duane Eddy's driveway (they're neighbors in Scottsdale). That was a moment to remember, to treasure. I've had a few.
Kung-Fu Sci-Fi has been done. I have a little bit in my weird western tale, for the weird western book that's due this summer. But it sure ain't common.


----------



## -xXx-

i r haz yur protag:

[video=youtube;aEjGQB9BKWA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEjGQB9BKWA[/video]

redefines
she's cookin'


----------



## bazz cargo

I have noticed the new trend of trying to make Zombies a bit Sci Fi-ey. A new virus or alien possession. I did have a stab at a Sci Fi Vampire short. Frankenstein is already Sci Fi. How about werewolves? 

And scary Sci Fi children, Midwich Cuckoos anyone?


----------



## luckyscars

bazz cargo said:


> I have noticed the new trend of trying to make Zombies a bit Sci Fi-ey. A new virus or alien possession. I did have a stab at a Sci Fi Vampire short. Frankenstein is already Sci Fi. How about werewolves?
> 
> And scary Sci Fi children, Midwich Cuckoos anyone?



Shapeshifting has lineage in (mostly entirely unscientific) sci-fi so I guess werewolves wouldn't be a stretch...

The green children of woolpit seemed to me a possible good source for a science fiction take on the creepy-little-kids angle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_children_of_Woolpit


----------



## -xXx-

planet x

sci fi western.
mehbe time travel.
mehbe found in a mine sumfin.
mehbe dowsing rod gone bad.
mehbe transformer steeds.
mehbe dust from..._there_.

wide open in big sky country.
jussayin'


----------



## moderan

I've a story with the Green Children as a focus. It'll be in a collection next year.
Dog Soldiers is an sfish take on lycanthropy.


----------



## -xXx-

_*that was spooky*
*even in my world*_


----------



## epimetheus

moderan said:


> Kung-Fu Sci-Fi has been done.



Were these based on Chinese Wu Xia novels, or Western takes on Kung Fu? Any books you could recommend?


----------



## moderan

I didn't say it was well-done. More like blue rare.


----------



## bazz cargo

I had thought of a time travel brain twister based at Cern. A sort of mind-bending Swiss Fargo. 

What I need is a million bucks and to be left in peace.


----------



## JustRob

Surely I've not been away that long that I need to catch up on all this stuff. I'll make one quick observation though.



bazz cargo said:


> And scary Sci Fi children, Midwich Cuckoos anyone?



Is the sci-fi aspect really necessary to make children scary though? Sort of gilding the lily, isn't it? 

Okay, I'll go away again.


----------



## moderan

That's a good point, JustRob. A REAL good point.

*plants corn*


----------



## JustRob

My remark about children is more pertinent to the discussion than it might appear. It's a very long time since I read _The Midwich Cuckoos_ but I seem to recollect that there was a teacher in it who realised that there was something sinister about his pupils. Science fiction shields readers from the reality because they assume that the events in the story couldn't happen in reality just because the fictional science makes the situation unreal. However, the fictional science may not actually be essential to the events but just magnify their effect, so the readers' complacency may be unfounded. Nowadays there are more examples than ever in real life of teachers feeling threatened by their pupils and even being assaulted by them. 

Fiction that is true to life can be worrying but by writing a story as science fiction or fantasy we reassure our readers. The implicit contract with the readers is that they suspend their disbelief for the duration of the story and we enable them to resume it when the story ends. That's automatic with science fiction even if it's actually an illusion. The real fiction is the idea that because invading aliens, vampires, zombies, killer robots, etc. don't really exist our lives are safe. Take the science fiction and fantasy out of a story though and its message may change. No, science fiction may just be the sugar coating on a bitter pill.


----------



## bazz cargo

I kinda think of science fiction as a broad spectrum, a bit like jazz, that can be used as a spice in almost any genre, I was going to write every but I bet some clever clogs will point out the odd one that disproves my assertion.


----------



## Olly Buckle

> I was going to write every but I bet some clever clogs will point out the odd one that disproves my assertion.



Like travel guides to the Lake District, and pre-school picture books ?


----------



## JustRob

Olly Buckle said:


> Like travel guides to the Lake District, and pre-school picture books ?



But it is now in vogue for travel guides to be spiced up by mentioning books, films and TV series set in the area covered and there must be some of those set in the Lake District, surely. If not then there's a whole niche for someone here to exploit, science fiction set in the Lake District. Personally I half hoped that the area where I live might be mentioned in a travel guide as the setting for that popular TV series _The Kibbles of Greentrees_ (not produced yet) based on my factual historical account of the same name (not written yet), but my neighbours might not be so keen unless they want to open a tea-room. Where's the science fiction in that, you may ask. Well, it happens that the setting for my allegedly science fiction novel _Never Upon A Time_ is also an installation on the site of an old mansion, once the home of the Kibbles, but I'm much too modest (Hey, we do write fiction here, don't we?) to suggest that my novel would merit mention in a travel guide. Others may be luckier though.The real Watership Down is probably mentioned in a guide somewhere and talking rabbits and clairvoyance _are_ science fiction, aren't they? If you think otherwise about clairvoyance then ... I once wrote a clairvoyant novel entitled _Never Upon A Time ... _Okay then, I'll stop rabbiting on and go back to looking at my pre-school picture book. Hey, there aren't any words in it. Olly, you cheated!


----------



## bazz cargo

Olly Buckle said:


> Like travel guides to the Lake District, and pre-school picture books ?


The Lake District Guide to Alien Abduction, and Rosie Goes to Mars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCARADb9asE


----------



## JustRob

bazz cargo said:


> The Lake District Guide to Alien Abduction, and Rosie Goes to Mars.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCARADb9asE



I always did like that song, much to my angel's annoyance.


----------



## bazz cargo

I have been exceptionally bored at work lately, so my mind has turned to gravity. One of the popular Sci Fi techy bits is artificial gravity. Used mostly to save  money on long running TV series. 

Good old Einstein, theorised gravity to be bent space, only space is made of vacuum. How the hell does one bend vacuum? And how does two or more bent vacuums inter-react when they coincide?


----------



## moderan

bazz cargo said:


> How the hell does one bend vacuum?


Fling a cat at it.


----------



## Terry D

bazz cargo said:


> I have been exceptionally bored at work lately, so my mind has turned to gravity. One of the popular Sci Fi techy bits is artificial gravity. Used mostly to save mostly to save money on long running TV series.
> 
> Good old Einstein, theorised gravity to be bent space, only space is made of vacuum. How the hell does one bend vacuum? And how does two or more bent vacuums inter-react when they coincide?



Vacuum is a relative term. You know all those great photos from the Hubbel space telescope of huge, bright nebulae like this:






If you were actually in those clouds, you would be in a more complete vacuum than we can produce in any laboratory on Earth. When physicists talk about 'space' they are talking about something different from 'emptiness.' Space is a 'thing' that has properties and behaviors. Here's a pretty decent article about what space is, and isn't.

http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/what-is-space


----------



## JustRob

bazz cargo said:


> Good old Einstein, theorised gravity to be bent space, only space is made of vacuum. How the hell does one bend vacuum? And how does two or more bent vacuums inter-react when they coincide?




[SIZE=+1]No you morons, SUCK![/SIZE]​


----------



## Olly Buckle

Someone explaining that idea put it as 'imagine you roll a tennis ball across a trampoline, it goes in a straight line, then put a bowling ball in the middle of the trampoline and roll the tennis ball again, it will be attracted to the larger mass that is bending the surface. Think of the trampoline as space, the bowling ball as the gravitational mass. It's not perfect, but it gave me a clue.


----------



## StevenK

Tell Arthur C. Clarke that science fiction isn't about science. By its very title science fiction, the genre is defined.


----------



## moderan

Clarke didn't pioneer that title, iirc. 'twas John W Campbell, to differentiate from the_ scientifiction_ of Hugo Gernsback, though it was first used reportedly in 1851. This author asserts that Gernsback himself used the term. Brian Aldiss (Trillion-Year Spree) says otherwise. I believe Brian.
The actual content referred to by the term has been widened by the inclusion of science fantasy and straight-up fantasy in genre awards and therefore in common perception, a tendency fought against by the so-called Sad and Rabid Puppies who pine for some idealized elder species of pulp (see Brandon Sanderson, Larry Correa) and eschew the offerings of such as Tanarive Due and Nnedi Okorafor.
Such popular authors as Ray Bradbury, Poul Anderson, Jack Vance, Harlan Ellison, Roger Zelazny, Ursula K LeGuin, and Julian May had already muddied those waters, offering a more unscientific brand of fictions.


----------



## Olly Buckle

> Such popular authors as Ray Bradbury, Poul Anderson, Jack Vance, Harlan Ellison, Roger Zelazny, Ursula K LeGuin, and Julian May had already muddied those waters, offering a more unscientific brand of fictions.


Muddied water always seems the most popular in fiction.


----------



## JustRob

I'm starting to think that genres are little more than allergy advice for selective readers, warning them that a story contains some of _that,_ whatever _that _happens to be. I'm also concerned that this thread has attracted so many posts. It's life Jim but not as we know it ... not as we know it ... not as we know it.

By the way, in order to illustrate my point that clairvoyance may not be science fiction I took that photo of the two vacuum cleaners seven months ago and have been waiting patiently for Bazz to ask his inevitable question ever since. You may just think that it was a vacuous coincidence that he happened to ask that question about vacuous coincidences, but the truth is that ... it's life Jim but not as we know it ...

I'd better get back to work on my electronics project now or that too may  become science fiction. At least I've convinced enough people that it  isn't fantasy now.


----------



## moderan

Genre is marketing, plain and simple. But it's sorta based on feedback. If there was no demand to hodgepodge fantasy and sf together, it wouldn't happen. But the solid sales of fantasy epics was the deathknell of mass-market sf and you can't fight city hall...also, they wanted to sell books to distaff readers, and hard science doesn't appeal to people weaned on Disney princesses -- at least that's the way I see them reading the demographics.
Gotta have castles and magic and dragons. Cuz gurls.
*makes face*
The worst part is...I think they're right on.


----------



## JustRob

moderan said:


> Gotta have castles and magic and dragons. Cuz gurls.



And vampires? Are they prevalent in Disneyland then? I wouldn't know but on the other hand maybe Barbie's boyfriend Ken being a vampire started the trend. They had to give up on that idea though because there were reports that the dolls were bursting into flames when left out in the sunshine. 

As I have mentioned previously in WF, our local library has given up on this genre distinction altogether and now files fiction on their shelves by the authors' names. There seems to have been a mixed reaction from readers to this. There are genre stickers on the spines of some books as a warning to those with genre allergies though. 

It may be just my perception, but it seems to me that members here are often more specific in their posts about the genres that they never read than the ones that they prefer to read, hence my view that genre may be regarded as allergy advice. It may just be that I spent some time reviewing the offers made on WF by beta readers though. However, if true then using genre as a marketing aid would be benevolence on the part of publishers rather than aimed at maximisation of profit, but of course I am taking the idea to the extreme, so don't take it any more seriously than my remarks about the spontaneous combustion of vampire dolls, a marketing gimmick that definitely misfired.

Now as usual I have to read through this garbage and decide whether to post it or not. Of course you never get to see the things that I don't post, so might not realise that I actually do that. Um ...


----------



## bazz cargo

While I will admit my Thread Title was meant to be provocative I will also admit the same kind of feeling that Baron Victor von Frankenstein suffered from as his creation stumbled off towards the local village. 

My advice, never poke a sleeping grizzly bear with a short stick.


----------



## -xXx-

i've enjoyed the stumbling about immensely.
hasn't changed the way i frame scifi yet.
might with a few more random parts
and a remote controller.
no worries on electric source.
i got that.

_*throws all short sticks in*
*leaves sammich*_


----------



## moderan

> And vampires? Are they prevalent in Disneyland then?


I have two friends who live in Anaheim. They are Goth poets who believe that every day is Hallowe'en.
QED.


----------



## luckyscars

moderan said:


> I have two friends who live in Anaheim. They are Goth poets who believe that every day is Hallowe'en.
> QED.



Are their names 'Jack' and 'Sally' by any chance?


----------



## moderan

No.


----------



## escorial

The other day a guy phoned in a local radio show were you can gab about anything..his angle was not brexit but Teresa may herself an the fact that he was married to a woman for 47 years who could not say sorry or I love you but knew how to dispose of his/their assests..I can't make me mind up if he just wanted to bitch about his eX or breXit

I thought this was bazz thread. musings..doh!!


----------



## JustRob

JustRob said:


> And vampires? Are they prevalent in Disneyland then? I wouldn't know ...





moderan said:


> I have two friends who live in Anaheim. They are Goth poets who believe that every day is Hallowe'en.
> QED.



I had to look up Anaheim because I'd never heard of it and was under the impression that Disneyland is in Florida, probably because that's as far as many British tourists get. Well, I did say that I wouldn't know. Florida or California, it makes little difference to non long haul travellers such as my angel and I. I think the scientific term is "beyond our event horizon", at least physically speaking. Disneyland is beyond our intellectual horizon as well though. 

Of course there's also allegedly a Disneyland near Paris, much closer to us, and apart from vampires I can imagine that there may be zombies there. We Brits have a poor opinion about the French sense of humour and concept of enjoyment, so Disneyland Paris seems like a contradiction. I recollect that when it opened there was a joke doing the rounds in Britain about a grumpy French employee there growling "Have a nice day, as if I care." Of course it's probably quite unfounded but there is a long tradition in the UK of making jokes about the French, probably because of that invasion in 1066. However, William was Norman, not Gallic, but he did come from "over there" and spoke the language.

From corresponding with various Americans we get the impression that California is as much part of the USA as the UK is part of the EU. Maybe that contributed to my confusion about where in the USA Disneyland is. Of course Florida is where the Spanish founding fathers of America first settled and established the principle there that all men have equal rights, so even that state doesn't seem to be at the heart of the modern USA, but that's another story.

There is so much fiction in our lives that it's easy to cross the line between that and fact, even in the realm of science, so why does labelling a story as science fiction matter that much anyway?


----------



## moderan

Well, sure, because Piccadilly Circle and Trafalgar Square are the same place, right? It's Disney World that's in Florida. And of course the Fronch (not a typo) have famously Gallic senses of humour and are incivil to English-speaking visitors unless they are fans of Lovecraft or Jerry Lewis. Perhaps even then. My friend the Yorkshireman would sic his longdogs on me and p'raps belay me about the head and shoulders with his cudgel if I failed to notice such. I suspect he would be right to do so, as I am American and wittingly participate in such sacraments as the eating of the Big Mac.
It is important to me that the stuff with the science still in it is labeled science fiction because That's what I like to read and write. I don't care so much about the others. My worldview is solipsistic at best, and influenced by the creation of one of your fellow Britons, one JKH Brunner, whose character Bennie Noakes, upon viewing strange new television shows, was heard to utter "Christ, what an imagination I got."
Selah.


----------



## Stygian

In my humble opinion, Sci-Fi tells a story that is the exploration of a "What if" style question. You can add techno wizardry, but it needs to be grounded in the human element. How does this advancement affect civilization? Explore the good, bad, and ugly side of the advancement. Allow shenanigans to ensue to believable characters etc etc etc

Sci-Fantasy Tells the story of a society already adapted to their technology and the techno wizardry is just a mundane element in their lives. It's basically telling a story like any other genre, but the props and set pieces are futuristic. 

I'm not sure where I heard it from, but the distinction is evident when you compare Star Trek to Star Wars. ST uses technology to explore themes, whereas SW uses props to tell a story. I'm oversimplifying, but it's my take on it. Fight me nerds!


----------



## -xXx-

moderan said:


> <snip>It is important to me that the stuff with the science still in it is labeled science fiction because That's what I like to read and write. I don't care so much about the others. My worldview is solipsistic at best, and influenced by the creation of one of your fellow Britons,....


iain m. banks
_*raises toast*_


----------



## moderan

Among others.


----------



## Bardling

Any writing may be to make a point.  You can use fantasy to reflect on current political issues.

Science fiction, as a genre, is different because it takes the position that things can be understood.  It is about the science, in the sense of "the science" explains why and how things are happening, and that we can effect them.  Science fiction is about how humans have the power to chart their own destinies and paths.  This may be a good thing or a bad thing, a Utopia or Dystopia.  

However, unlike fantasy, there isn't a magic power hiding behind the scenes that controls out destiny.


----------



## bazz cargo

The one thing that has struck me is Olly's observation, Science Fiction is about technology. I suppose it is too late to develop a Techno-fiction? 

Something that has kept me awake at work is the old conundrum about cyber intelligence. The two computers that have just been switched off got me to plotting. That and I just finished listening to The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. At what point do we allow machinery to dictate our behaviour? What is a moral? 

I am minded of an old example of logic: all cats have four legs, my dog has four legs therefore my dog is a cat. 

The desire to be free... Yet the instinct to touch forelocks. Random acts of self indulgence. There is, as they say, something brewing.


----------



## Olly Buckle

> At what point do we allow machinery to dictate our behaviour?



The next time you stop at a traffic light, it's insidious mate, already creeping in; mind the doors, stand clear.


----------



## -xXx-

bazz cargo said:


> <snip> That and I just finished listening to The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. <snip>


classic.

we got
stevie wonder is blind
love is blind
stevie wonder is love

don't think they wanted us to learn the word syllogism.


----------



## -xXx-

_*looks for armchair*
*and nice window view*_


----------



## moderan

Oncology recapitulates phlebotomy? Heh
*passes joint, refills drink*
Popcorn?


----------



## JustRob

Stygian said:


> In my humble opinion, Sci-Fi tells a story that is the exploration of a "What if" style question. You can add techno wizardry, but it needs to be grounded in the human element. How does this advancement affect civilization? Explore the good, bad, and ugly side of the advancement. Allow shenanigans to ensue to believable characters etc etc etc
> 
> Sci-Fantasy Tells the story of a society already adapted to their technology and the techno wizardry is just a mundane element in their lives. It's basically telling a story like any other genre, but the props and set pieces are futuristic.
> 
> I'm not sure where I heard it from, but the distinction is evident when you compare Star Trek to Star Wars. ST uses technology to explore themes, whereas SW uses props to tell a story. I'm oversimplifying, but it's my take on it. Fight me nerds!



I agree about the "What if?" aspect but don't find the distinction between Star Trek and Star Wars convincing as an an illustration. In both of these the stories _need_ alien races to meet each other, so FTL travel is an essential prop and Star Trek also depends to a great extent on transporter technology just to move the story along, so much so that the phrase "Beam me up Scotty," has found its way into the language as a prayer for a _deus ex machina_ solution to an inescapable situation. Apparently in real life one young man on trial actually uttered it into a matchbox when he realised that the court proceedings weren't going his way. No, Star Trek is clearly about "a society already adapted to their technology". As for the universal translator ... it's a prop, not a "What if?" In fact in one episode of Star Trek the plot was "What if there were a language which defeated the universal translator?" a complete inversion of the simple science fiction "What if?" scenario.

The long story which I conceived and only partially wrote, as it would require a trilogy of novels, was literally about techno-wizardry grounded in the human element as it was eventually discovered in it that the incomprehensible component was actually the minds of the people using it. As such the story was a crossover between science fiction and parapsychology, which is sometimes referred to as "psience fiction" I believe. 

Science is teetering on the edge of making mind-machine interaction a practical proposition but currently depends to a great extent on the plasticity of the brain rather than the ability of the machines. The idea of such technology unleashing the full power of the unconscious mind has long been present in science fiction though, for example the "monster from the id" in the classic film _Forbidden Planet_. Combining the idea with parapsychological abilities normally locked away at the back of the mind adds another dimension, one that might easily be regarded as fantasy but is actually far less so than the concepts in Star Trek. In fact in reality the only mind-machine interface required is a computer keyboard, which is how I came to write much of the story. The rest can apparently be achieved by the plasticity of the brain. 

The boundaries between reality, fiction and fantasy aren't so easily discerned in practice, so ultimately all that matters is human experience, whatever its origin.


----------



## -xXx-

JustRob said:


> <snip>
> The long story which I conceived and only partially wrote, as it would require a trilogy of novels, was literally about techno-wizardry grounded in the human element as it was eventually discovered in it that the incomprehensible component was actually *the minds of the people using it*. As such the story was a crossover between science fiction and parapsychology, which is sometimes referred to as "psience fiction" I believe.
> 
> <snip>
> The boundaries between reality, fiction and fantasy aren't so easily discerned in practice, so ultimately all that matters is *human experience*, whatever its origin.



_*throws dune (and return of the children of the son of dune) into mix*
*throws complex post trauma and suggestibility into mix*
*throws video game-biochemical response(gender specific endorphin pump) into mix*
*throws slot-machine-biochemical response(obsessive-compulsive) into mix*
*throws the Q conference in the mix*
_

human experience _as_ point-of-view.
crisis _as_ seek-like(safety).
i weary of criminal-at-birth(mandatory).
i weary of tyler et al pissing in the soup.
comfort _as_ embrace diversity(novel).
it's okay to hear another's truth.
if they refer to you in third person
when you are in the room
and
will not meet your eye,
scifi has some work to do.

don't even get me started on
crafted sublimations.

or.
not so much.
jussayin'


----------



## moderan

This thread is like being at ChiCon in the eighties, except that the cool people are still in the bar. Nice work, Bazz. I commandeered the foosball table. First round's on me.


----------



## bazz cargo

I do seem to have struck a nerve. 





moderan said:


> This thread is like being at ChiCon in the eighties, except that the cool people are still in the bar. Nice work, Bazz. I commandeered the foosball table. First round's on me.



I find thinking things through can be therapeutic and frequently enlightening. Yes, there are times when the 'you can't do that' patrol get a bit on the noisy side but that is when I realise I'm pushing emotional buttons and pulling psychological levers that produce further insights. Fixing a butterfly's wing with a blunt axe is difficult. Reinventing the wheel can lead to new spins. Calmly shredding clichés is fun.


----------



## -xXx-

-xXx- said:


> iain m. banks
> _*raises toast*_


brunner.

no Nick Haflinger.
jussayin.

_*raises toast*_


----------



## Stygian

JustRob said:


> I agree about the "What if?" aspect but don't find the distinction between Star Trek and Star Wars convincing as an an illustration. In both of these the stories _need_ alien races to meet each other, so FTL travel is an essential prop and Star Trek also depends to a great extent on transporter technology just to move the story along, so much so that the phrase "Beam me up Scotty," has found its way into the language as a prayer for a _deus ex machina_ solution to an inescapable situation. Apparently in real life one young man on trial actually uttered it into a matchbox when he realised that the court proceedings weren't going his way. No, Star Trek is clearly about "a society already adapted to their technology". As for the universal translator ... it's a prop, not a "What if?" In fact in one episode of Star Trek the plot was "What if there were a language which defeated the universal translator?" a complete inversion of the simple science fiction "What if?" scenario.
> 
> The long story which I conceived and only partially wrote, as it would require a trilogy of novels, was literally about techno-wizardry grounded in the human element as it was eventually discovered in it that the incomprehensible component was actually the minds of the people using it. As such the story was a crossover between science fiction and parapsychology, which is sometimes referred to as "psience fiction" I believe.
> 
> Science is teetering on the edge of making mind-machine interaction a practical proposition but currently depends to a great extent on the plasticity of the brain rather than the ability of the machines. The idea of such technology unleashing the full power of the unconscious mind has long been present in science fiction though, for example the "monster from the id" in the classic film _Forbidden Planet_. Combining the idea with parapsychological abilities normally locked away at the back of the mind adds another dimension, one that might easily be regarded as fantasy but is actually far less so than the concepts in Star Trek. In fact in reality the only mind-machine interface required is a computer keyboard, which is how I came to write much of the story. The rest can apparently be achieved by the plasticity of the brain.
> 
> The boundaries between reality, fiction and fantasy aren't so easily discerned in practice, so ultimately all that matters is human experience, whatever its origin.




You have a good point. In ST, they have adapted to their technology, but they try to do justice with explaining the science behind it. It's more obvious when their tech breaks down. In the case of SW, you have magic mystical space monks with energy swords and telekinesis. Both are fantasy to some degree, but I think ST is less so. There is nothing wrong with either genre to be honest. Sometimes it's fun give characters a bunch of props and enjoy the unfolding adventure. My guilty pleasure has always been the Warhammer 40k books. Some are insanely well written. Dan Abnett is still one of my favorite authors. I want to learn how to write characters/setting as well as he can.

That sounds like an interesting story idea. I think it could definitely be novel worthy if you finish it. There is a lot of interesting things when it comes to thoughts, consciousness, and communication. I mean, I'm thinking of words in my head, writing it here via computer/keyboard, and then you are reading the words that originated in my head (a bunch of neurons firing via chemical process). In essence, I can induce the same reaction that's in my head into yours through the power of the written word. Interesting stuff!

I'm currently working on an outline for a novel that answers the "What if" of humans never gaining the ability of faster than light travel. There is going to be a lot of morally questionable science in its execution. A part of me wants to jump in and start writing, but a part of me knows that I should write a few disposable short stories to relearn how to write stories.


----------



## bazz cargo

Hi stygian,
welcome to the forum. Beware of the Wookie...

Having fitted a flux capacitor to my stair lift and jiggered the speed control I can now fire myself out of the Velux window and into the year three thousand. Yep, they are still on about Brexit. 

Very rarely has the science in Science Fiction, or its bastard offspring Sci Fi, been anything other than laughable. The staple diet of my youth included Voyage to The bottom Of The Sea and Land Of The Giants. Dr Who and... um... The Anderson's puppets were at least home grown. I watched Barbarella  a little while ago, it turned out to be a thinly disguised S&M film. 

Oh the things we do to literature.


----------



## Stygian

bazz cargo said:


> Hi stygian,
> welcome to the forum. Beware of the Wookie...
> 
> Having fitted a flux capacitor to my stair lift and jiggered the speed control I can now fire myself out of the Velux window and into the year three thousand. Yep, they are still on about Brexit.
> 
> Very rarely has the science in Science Fiction, or its bastard offspring Sci Fi, been anything other than laughable. The staple diet of my youth included Voyage to The bottom Of The Sea and Land Of The Giants. Dr Who and... um... The Anderson's puppets were at least home grown. I watched Barbarella  a little while ago, it turned out to be a thinly disguised S&M film.
> 
> Oh the things we do to literature.



Thanks! It feels strange being on a forum where the upper levels of my vocabulary can get dusted off and put to use. Come to think of it, most of the posts I've read are well written. The car forms I frequent, read lurk, are an absolute garbage fire in comparison.

I find scifi (I'm too lazy to type science fiction [dammit I just did]) to be really hit or miss. There are books/movies that are so well done, you just stop to think about the implications after it's done. I'm fully prepared to take on a village worth of pitch forks and torches for my opinion, but Sphere by Micheal Crichton was the defining story that sparked my interest into scifi. For me, it was the very rare case of liking the movie more than the book. I kept thinking of the theme implications long after the movie was over. It's a great movie if you haven't seen it. Most people like the book better.

I still haven't got around to watching Dr. Who, but it's on my to do list. I did watch all of Red Dwarf and I can't get enough. I never thought anyone could pull off a scifi comedy.


----------



## -xXx-

bazz cargo said:


> welcome <snip> Beware <snip>
> 
> <snip> still on <snip>
> 
> Very rarely <snip>
> thinly disguised <snip>
> 
> Oh the things we do <snip>



best year of science fiction releases,
in your opinion?
pls.n.thx


----------



## JustRob

Now here's a strange turn of affairs. After spending years trying to understand the ideas that gave rise to my novel in 2011 today I finished a serious article based on it providing a possible explanation of precognition and sent it to the editor of _Paranormal Review_, an equally serious magazine about the paranormal published by the Society for Psychical Research here in the UK, for consideration for publication. Formed as a result of a conference in 1882, the SPR tackles research into the paranormal on a thorough scientific basis and its members are largely experienced academics. Whether they will accept my meagre offering I don't know, but it was one of their staff who suggested that I write something for the magazine.

Now where were we? Oh yes, apparently some science fiction, even when it appears to be fantasy, is actually about science although it's science Jim, but not as we know it ... not as we know it ...


----------



## Stygian

JustRob said:


> Now here's a strange turn of affairs. After spending years trying to understand the ideas that gave rise to my novel in 2011 today I finished a serious article based on it providing a possible explanation of precognition and sent it to the editor of _Paranormal Review_, an equally serious magazine about the paranormal published by the Society for Psychical Research here in the UK, for consideration for publication. Formed as a result of a conference in 1882, the SPR tackles research into the paranormal on a thorough scientific basis and its members are largely experienced academics. Whether they will accept my meagre offering I don't know, but it was one of their staff who suggested that I write something for the magazine.
> 
> Now where were we? Oh yes, apparently some science fiction, even when it appears to be fantasy, is actually about science although it's science Jim, but not as we know it ... not as we know it ...



That's awesome! I hope you get published! I bet that it would feel awesome after shelving an idea for 8 years.


----------



## Olly Buckle

JustRob said:


> Whether they will accept my meagre offering I don't know, .



I am seriously disappointed that you don't know, what is the point of precognition if it doesn't help you with the serious stuff?


----------



## moderan

Indeed. Why get into stochasticism at all if you don't profit thereby? Fortean Times would be a good second sub.


----------



## bazz cargo

I am at least two years behind most people. My beloved has just purchased a box set of the old Battlestar Galactica series for me.  

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07HCXGKR1/ 

I miss Terry P...

QUOTE=-xXx-;2213816]best year of science fiction releases,in your opinion? pls.n.thx [/QUOTE]


----------



## -xXx-

JustRob said:


> Now here's a strange turn of affairs. After spending years trying to understand the ideas that gave rise to my novel in 2011 today I finished a serious article based on it providing a possible explanation of precognition and sent it to the editor of _Paranormal Review_, an equally serious magazine about the paranormal published by the Society for Psychical Research here in the UK, for consideration for publication. Formed as a result of a conference in 1882, the SPR tackles research into the paranormal on a thorough scientific basis and its members are largely experienced academics. Whether they will accept my meagre offering I don't know, but it was one of their staff who suggested that I write something for the magazine.
> 
> Now where were we? Oh yes, apparently some science fiction, even when it appears to be fantasy, is actually about science although it's science Jim, but not as we know it ... not as we know it ...


you have no idea how much i relate to this.



moderan said:


> Indeed. Why get into stochasticism at all if you don't profit thereby? Fortean Times would be a good second sub.


ummm. what is this profit you speak of?
does it have a carbon footprint?
i'm trying to cut down on carbon in my diet,
especially processed carbon


----------



## moderan

I would never dream of profiting by predicting the future. I would make an ash of everyone, and there's your carbon footprint.


----------



## JustRob

Olly Buckle said:


> I am seriously disappointed that you don't know, what is the point of precognition if it doesn't help you with the serious stuff?



Naturally I anticipated at least your remark Olly. Below is the opening text of my article.



> For some time I have been in two minds about writing this article. In fact being in two minds is virtually a prerequisite of precognition, one residing in the present and the other in the future, but my future mind has not been forthcoming on the consequences of the article’s publication, so I remain doubtful about the wisdom of writing it.



Now whether the learned members of the SPR regard this as being too light-hearted or realise that I meant it entirely seriously remains to be seen. No doubt opinion will be divided. The reason for my not knowing whether the article will be accepted is that it doesn't matter to me whether it is. The brain appears to indulge in precognition when it senses that there is the possibility of some payback in its own terms. The SPR doesn't pay for articles so I can't identify any form of payback at present.

The SPR is actually a registered charity, so I regard my article as a donation on my part. I have just read their annual report and accounts and one paragraph mentions that, like any charity, they are required to justify their status by convincing the charities commission that they are providing some public benefit. Exactly what that benefit is may seem unclear, but many of the members are psychologists and no doubt a clear understanding of beliefs in the paranormal among their clients enables them to deal with such cases better. At a study day on the paranormal hosted by a group of psychologists I asked what they saw as their role in dealing with such cases and the reply was that their objective was to put their clients at ease with their own perceptions of life, in short to help them feel happy. In other words problems within a mind have to be solved within that individual context rather than within the context of what the majority regard as normal. I have no qualms about contributing in a small way to a better understanding of such matters to that end.  That said, the SPR also does research to determine the truth about  paranormal phenomena, so far as that is possible, and provides modest  grants to academics for that activity.

Parapsychology is an area where science, human interaction and fiction intermingle and the question of science fiction not being about science loses meaning, the answer being a subjective one within the mind of each reader.


----------



## -xXx-

moderan said:


> ... there's your carbon footprint.


_*pokes with stick*
*stares*
*whooshes big leaf next to it*
*stares*
*tries it on*
*becomes ash*_


----------



## moderan

Damn. That was the last tea leaf. Now I need entrails.


----------



## bazz cargo

Me? I have crystal balls. 

I was wondering if I could write a soap opera set on the moon, mostly it would be interior with windows faking the landscape. Hmm.... Colony, frontier, Jessica Alba.... 

I could do with a dream recorder.


----------



## -xXx-

familiar with gene wolfe?


----------



## bazz cargo

-xXx- said:


> familiar with gene wolfe?


Thank you. I will give him a whirl. 

I was thinking of Neighbours with a comedy twist.


----------



## Olly Buckle

Not to be confused with Patrick Wolfe


Oops, not the not to be confused thread.


----------



## -xXx-

bazz cargo said:


> Thank you. I will give him a whirl.
> 
> I was thinking of Neighbours with a comedy twist.



this one:
"Watson proposed the idea of making a show that would focus on more realistic stories and portray teens and adults who talk openly to each other and solve their problems together.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] "



Olly Buckle said:


> Not to be confused with Patrick Wolfe
> 
> Oops, not the not to be confused thread.



as in:
_Patrick Wolfe is an Australian anthropologist and ethnographer whose work sparked a surge in studies of settler colonial societies. Wolfe used theories of colonialism and indigenous resistance to generate new and different ways of viewing Australia’s history that challenged the standard triumphal narrative of civilizing the frontier through pioneering individualism. Unlike most of his anthropologist contemporaries, however, Wolfe did not examine Australian Aboriginal communities, but rather Australian settler society. By making Australian settlement the object of his ethnographic research, Wolfe exposed the taken-for-granted logics of colonization and settlement and turned them on their head. Instead of a natural progression from empty wilderness, to pastoral homesteads, to modern civilized nationhood, Wolfe’s work showed Australian society as the product of a protracted “invasion” in the form of settler colonization.


Wolfe’s 1999 work Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology launched a major academic reconsideration of the role of settlement in colonization. Wolfe demonstrated that Australian settlers operated according to the perception of terra nullius – empty land – despite the obvious occupation of the land by indigenous peoples with complex socio-cultural practices and political economies. In order to reconcile the colonial imaginary of empty land with the embodied experience of settlement that brought colonials into direct and sustained contact with indigenous peoples, settler cultures develop *complex narratives that erase* indigenous *people’s humanity*._

so protag
moves into a neighborhood
where
a barn is raised everyday
and
burned each night,
but conversation
is incredibly polite.

i will call it:
-flipflop hiphop tiptop-

it will be on the darkside of the moon
and
the chinese
will share their land rover.
popcorn?


*doesn't confuse narrator(s)*
*asynchronous interlace*
*refresh*


----------



## bazz cargo

Hmmm... No indigenous people on the moon. I'm going to get https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1781689172/

Intriguing.


----------



## -xXx-

bazz cargo said:


> Hmmm... No indigenous people on the moon. I'm going to get https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1781689172/
> 
> Intriguing.



rocks just don't get any respect.
ever.

_*regime curious*_


----------



## bazz cargo

-xXx- said:


> rocks just don't get any respect.
> ever.
> 
> _*regime curious*_


I dunno, Rock Music has a large following. 

Has anybody done Space Whales?


----------



## -xXx-

bazz cargo said:


> I dunno, Rock Music has a large following.
> 
> Has anybody done Space Whales?



"so long, and thanks for all the fish....?"


----------



## Bard_Daniel

-xXx- said:


> "so long, and thanks for all the fish....?"



Good ol' Douglas Adams.

Say, this would make for some great reading. Does anyone have any literary criticism/non-fiction book suggestions on science fiction-- and even this very topic? I'm very intrigued!


----------



## -xXx-

Bard_Daniel said:


> Good ol' Douglas Adams.
> 
> Say, this would make for some great reading. Does anyone have any literary criticism/non-fiction book suggestions on science fiction-- and even this very topic? I'm very intrigued!



not necessarily current.ish, but here are some thoughts:
on the structural analysis of science fiction, stanislaw lem
science fiction studies

_*nerds4life*
*n.stuff*_


----------



## Woodwalker

That's so true! Many people think it's about science just because the word 'Science' is in science fiction. However, this genre often opens new pov for the science. For example, the iPad was inspired by Star Trek. So, without sci fi, we would still live in the 80s.


----------



## bazz cargo

Hi Woodwalker, welcome to WF. 

I like your idea of being stuck in groundhog decade.  

I can't help feeling that time travel has yet to be properly explored. Hmmmm... Space whales... Three random things... When is a joke not a joke?

Too many hours editing.

Good luck
BC


----------



## -xXx-

bazz cargo said:


> <snip>...properly explored. Hmmmm... Space whales... Three random things... When is a joke not a joke?



you prognosticator, you.
white beluga

ground
(hog)
loop?


----------



## Olly Buckle

And when does a non-joke become a joke? But perhaps that is more an observation for the Brexit thread.

However it does raise the concept of the kitsch, so bad it's good, viewpoint. Do you regard Jerry Cornelius as sf or fantasy? Is it bloody awful? When I was late teens I always joined clubs in that name, thought it was great, the hermaphrodite future looking over its shoulder, 'Its a very tasty world out there.'  But there is not much science in it, more mystical.


----------



## -xXx-

bazz cargo said:


> Beware of the Wookie...



you're on a roll...wookie less

_
*hops on lunar rover*
*my day for barn framing*_


----------



## Olly Buckle

-xXx- said:


> you're on a roll...wookie less
> 
> _
> *hops on lunar rover*
> *my day for barn framing*_



I am looking at the timing of your post and trying to decide if you knew Peter Mayhew had died; was it coincidence, or horribly tasteless?


----------



## -xXx-

Olly Buckle said:


> I am looking at the timing of your post and trying to decide if you knew Peter Mayhew had died; was it coincidence, or *horribly tasteless*?



still practicing english, in it's many forms.


----------



## bazz cargo

As you, yourself have pointed out, there is more tech than science in science fiction. As  for JC, I wonder if it is a tribute to mind altering states? Or possible an antidote to thinking. Or, and I like to think this, a sense of mischievous fun. Whatever it is, it made me want to have a go and see if I could do better.





Olly Buckle said:


> And when does a non-joke become a joke? But perhaps that is more an observation for the Brexit thread.
> 
> However it does raise the concept of the kitsch, so bad it's good, viewpoint. Do you regard Jerry Cornelius as sf or fantasy? Is it bloody awful? When I was late teens I always joined clubs in that name, thought it was great, the hermaphrodite future looking over its shoulder, 'Its a very tasty world out there.'  But there is not much science in it, more mystical.



I wish to pay my respects to Peter Mayhew. Thank you for being a positive part of my life. And always be wary of the Wookie.


----------



## Olly Buckle

bazz cargo said:


> . As  for JC, I wonder if it is a tribute to mind altering states? Or possible an antidote to thinking. Or, and I like to think this, a sense of mischievous fun.



In Colin Wilson's 'The mind parasites' he postulates that there were certain people completely taken over by the parasites, like Hitler and Moorcock


----------



## bazz cargo

Olly Buckle said:


> In Colin Wilson's 'The mind parasites' he postulates that there were certain people completely taken over by the parasites, like Hitler and Moorcock


I wonder about Paul Dacre. 

There is no finer purpose to writing than to warn others that trouble is coming. Time travel Sci Fi is the gold standard method of doing this. 

1984 is so prescient it should be required as part of the school curriculum.


----------



## -xXx-

bazz cargo said:


> 1984 is so prescient it should be required as part of the school curriculum.


was at mine.
pretty sure it got bumped to sophomore
(10th grade/2nd of 4 year high school system).
i had read it many times by then.
i had the luxury of observing
presentation context
and
processing by "peers",
all of which were unknown quantities to me
at that time.

i wonder at _prescient_.
one of the reasons i value this specific work
is that from my POV
it is a timeless tale.
strip the tech
and 
put the story into cold-war pop understanding
of bad,bad,others.
re_condition_ing(s) is/are seldom pretty practice(s).
re.gi.me(s)
jussayin'


----------



## bazz cargo

Okay, prescient is the wrong word. It is a tale of what he had observed returning at a future date.


----------



## Theglasshouse

My little brother read it in an American high school. He gave me 1984 as one of my birthday presents as well as On writing by Stephen king.


----------



## bazz cargo

Look at Farage and Trump and tell me if the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.


----------



## Olly Buckle

The thing about books being required reading in school is that no book is for everyone, so there will always be some being forced to read something they don't want to. I can not believe that good comes of that. To my mind people should read things they enjoy reading, why bother with anything else? There are so many books out there twenty readers could read twenty books a year for twenty years and never have to read a book they did not enjoy reading.


----------



## Rojack79

Olly Buckle said:


> The thing about books being required reading in school is that no book is for everyone, so there will always be some being forced to read something they don't want to. I can not believe that good comes of that. To my mind people should read things they enjoy reading, why bother with anything else? There are so many books out there twenty readers could read twenty books a year for twenty years and never have to read a book they did not enjoy reading.



Good God I hated being forced to read the hunger games series. It was so dull and just plain stupid as a story. It felt like it was "dark & gritty" just for the sake of it. Oh look I'm going to kill children by forcing them to murder one another for the elite classes entertainment! That's not a story that's just a crappier rip off than the twilight novels. At least they had some depth to there characters and a decent story that was somewhat believable.


----------



## bazz cargo

Odd... It reminded me of the Romans. With a bit of 1984 mixed in. I have some notes on a vampire-y type story with a twist. 
What the world will look like after Armageddon is a popular trope, it seems always be grim and sexist. Now there is a challenge. 





Rojack79 said:


> Good God I hated being forced to read the hunger games series. It was so dull and just plain stupid as a story. It felt like it was "dark & gritty" just for the sake of it. Oh look I'm going to kill children by forcing them to murder one another for the elite classes entertainment! That's not a story that's just a crappier rip off than the twilight novels. At least they had some depth to there characters and a decent story that was somewhat believable.


----------



## -xXx-

Battlestar Galactica: The Plan

Twice Upon a Time (Doctor Who)

April and the Extraordinary World

fab time to revisit...
_*time to restock*
*popcorn?*_


----------



## Olly Buckle

-xXx-;2223529
[COLOR="#40E0D0" said:
			
		

> _*time to restock*
> *popcorn?*_[/COLOR]



And jelly tots?


----------



## -xXx-

Olly Buckle said:


> And jelly tots?



flavor preference(s)?
not a fan of non-grape-purples....


----------



## JustRob

As the discussion on the original subject of this thread had died down I didn't notice the bit about 1984 until now.



Theglasshouse said:


> My little brother read it in an American high school. He gave me 1984 as one of my birthday presents as well as On writing by Stephen king.



I still remember watching the BBC TV version of Orwell's novel at home in 1954 at age ten. According to Wikipedia it was "hugely controversial" and the room 101 scene with the rats was "infamous". Personally at that age I didn't find it at all disturbing compared to _The Quatermass Experiment_ broadcast by the BBC in 1953, so maybe the fictional science in a story can have far more impact on some minds than the human issues. A huge sentient alien plant won hands down over an oppressive human regime as a source of terror in my mind apparently, regardless of the probability of encountering either in reality. Of course in 1954 the probability of either was remote, a very different situation from ten years or so earlier, so the reaction of adults such as my parents to the two stories must have been very different from mine. To them _The Quatermass Experiment_ was no doubt nothing more than entertaining fiction. The same highly influential sci-fi and horror scriptwriter, Nigel Kneale, was involved in both BBC productions. Stephen King was only seven years old when Nigel Kneale's screen version of 1984 was televised.


----------



## Bard_Daniel

Rob! Long time no see! Hey!


----------



## Theglasshouse

Hello Just Rob. Here's my point of view on your post on horror in general. I think kids should not watch horror movies or perhaps even read books on it. Sure, I do have a cousin in the family who when she was 4 years old would laugh at horror movies. I think horror movies can cause psychiatric problems to some people. I was ironically born the same year as Orwell's titled novel. I think it is important since it was during the world war 2 and oppressive regimes. Hitler was creating and inspiring other countries, and thus we find ourselves in a much more oppressive future. One where the atom bomb was created. How it affected today's world instead of 1984 would be interesting to know. But 1984 is a predictor and it got some things right. I would think the science of it and the mind police, echoes, Aldus Huxley's novel on censoring and freedom of expression and creativity. When controlled this is important predictor of something either good or bad. We humans must be creative and scientifically advancing, but we don't know the harmful effects of the science we will discover.

Back to the subject of why I think horror movies are bad in general, I believe kids should be censored from seeing them. Because of their innocence I would not advise a parent to let them see it.  Fear should be avoided when young.

On the science, I would say the effects of the science like the atom bomb could have made science fiction popular for a good while. Not just the works, but the cultural background. Historical novels based on science fiction are important. It's a good genre to write in. I don't mean alternate history but rather reflecting on the future by looking at the past.

Orwell wrote diaries on his points of view, which I will later snag a copy in the near future (no pun intended). I think he wrote a more important work people credit him for. He wrote with relevance the modern era, and whether someone can reinvent it will prove very interesting if successful. The reason is because it resonated with a lot of people. If a writer does that the way he did, they are onto securing their success in science fiction. Science fiction from a historical perspective I have seen some theories. Some say it is Marxist, which I am no philosopher but seems to build a historical context on everything and turns the world upside on its head.

Thanks for continuing the thread. Now if I can read these theories in a way that is free from jargon. I sound like this would be a good time to learn more about science fiction and its historical influences that helped inspire its literature if I ever found such a book.


----------



## JustRob

Theglasshouse said:


> Hello Just Rob. Here's my point of view on your post on horror in general. I think kids should not watch horror movies or perhaps even read books on it. Sure, I do have a cousin in the family who when she was 4 years old would laugh at horror movies. I think horror movies can cause psychiatric problems to some people.



Maybe that is a choice that can be made now, but my post was about postwar England. The country was still recovering from the effects of recent history. We children had been raised on a diet controlled by food rationing and there had to be an explanation for the bombed out buildings that still existed in our London streets. Our comics were full of enthralling stories about daring wartime exploits alongside highly imaginative ones about space exploration and aliens. Television was a novelty at the beginning of the 1950s and a TV was a  status symbol. Our father bought one so that we could watch the coronation at home. The family predominantly spent the evenings together in one back room of our terrace house, the larger front room being kept for entertaining visitors and special occasions such as Christmas. All television broadcasts were live performances and inevitably the whole family watched them regardless of their content. 

In 1950s England the real horror had long passed and then so did the old king. There was a new air of optimism. I remember going to the 1951 Festival of Britain and watching the coronation of our young queen on that tiny TV screen. We kids had toy guns for shooting at people and toy ray guns for shooting at aliens, but it was all make believe far from the realities that had been. There was no real gun or knife crime on our streets and we kids could wander freely in total safety. Everyone was too busy rebuilding our shattered society to indulge in petty gang culture in those days. I think that nowadays it's real life that can cause psychiatric problems to some people.


----------



## Theglasshouse

Hello justrob. My original point was that 1984 was written by the influence of world  war 1 2 and frightening regimes that were caused by having a large military force.  Nothing is perfect in that countries and people can be greedy.



> A well-known study by Harrison and Cantor of the University of Wisconsin shows that the younger a child is when allowed to view a horror film, the longer-lasting the effects. Undesirable behavior could also develop as they grow older with some having trauma and anxiety disorders well into adulthood. There are also cases where subjects succumbed to phobias or developed an unhealthy interest in the occult and paranormal.


https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/ho...cle_efae53e1-566b-513b-bc51-4c8b528e0c52.html

Yes real life difficulties can cause problems that are a product of relationships that turn from good to bad that are crucial to navigating life's troubles when a child. Freud said something similar. Except he says it stays in our subconscious and we develop new ways to cope with this learned behavior which is troubling and can be said to be "not normal."

Science fiction is influenced by history in part. I wish I knew how to do that. I just know that writers use different sources of real life to inform their writing. It's a minor disagreement. Lord of the rings was as someone quoted Tolkien having said somewhere, is inspired by the greediness and spoils of war (and Christianity).


----------

