Science Fiction & Political Thought

Brief Look at Ray Bradbury’s “The Pedestrian”

2021-03-10T17:04:00.005-08:00

In “The Pedestrian,” Ray Bradbury shows us a world in which technology, and in particular television, has become the sole source of leisure and entertainment for the population; as a writer the main character, Mr. Mead, represents not just a profession but rather the whole of human creativity. Through the plot structure, character development, and dialogue, the story warns of the alienizing power of mass produced culture and its potential to become a tool to control society.

In the first of two parts, we meet Mr. Mead and a city of three million people where “In ten years of walking by night or day, for thousands of miles, he had never met another person walking, not one in all that time.” (P.1). With this setting Bradbury is emphasizing the non-conformity of his character, the only pedestrian. Who mocks the TV shows being watched by the people locked up in their “tomb-like building” (P.1), highlighting the mass production nature of the content when he says that it’s “Eight-thirty p.m.? Time for a dozen assorted murders? A quiz? A revue? A comedian falling off the stage?” (P.1), knowing that at least one of those is right; and Bradbury hints at the power of mass culture to control society by saying that there is only need for one police car in the entire city.

With the setting firmly established, the climax of the story comes when Mr. Mead is confronted by the one automated police car, a symbol that places authority in the hands of technology, and thus the second part of the story is a dialogue that starts with Mead saying: “I guess you'd call me a writer.” And the Car replying: “No profession,” (P.2) to then devolve to a point in which the urgency and repetition of words when the Car says “Walking, just walking, walking?” (P.2) along with the lack of comprehension of the concept of “Walking for air. Walking to see.” (P.3), shows Mr. Mead as a complete outlier who belongs in “the Psychiatric Centre for Research on Regressive Tendencies.” (P. 4), where conformity can be achieved by curing him of his avoidance of TV.

In conclusion, Bradbury’s division of the story into two parts first presents Television and mass consumption as a potential means of control, and then the idea that eventually authority will be given to technology, and those who do not conform will be incarcerated.

Human drama hides behind science fiction's settings

2017-05-24T06:42:00.002-07:00

Still from the new HULU series The Handmaid's Tale

There is a tendency to think about science fiction as an easy out from the hardships of reality, especially when dealing with film and TV; as if the adventures and hardships of the characters, because they are set in places distant either in space or time (and sometimes both), are somehow less meaningful, shallower and lackluster. And this might have something to do with the fact that settings in science fiction play such an important part, so much so that at times they out-stage the characters and their dramas.

When characters are hiding from the worst totalitarian regime in history, one with the power to rewrite history and have its citizens forget their own pasts, the love story between a divorced older man and a much younger woman, tends to go unnoticed, and it becomes more anecdotal than anything else, even though the whole story of 1984 does to a large extent revolve around the relationship between Winston and Julia. This is a story of forbidden love that when told in a "conventional" setting, like 21st century America gives you 50 Shades of Grey, and if you go further afield into Victorian England, then you get Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre.

Then take a look at something like Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, set in a post apocalyptic America, where the far (really far) right has come into power, and is imposing stringent social norms and concepts of propriety, and throw into this a young woman who is basically a sex slave to a wealthy man, and a surrogate womb for his wife. This story is a definite human drama, but most people fail to see it as such, and focus instead on the trappings of the setting, and thus this human drama seems too far removed from us to really feel empathy for the character, but this story is not so different from that of Sold: story of modern-day slavery.

And there are many other examples of stories laden with human drama, where the characters (sometimes not even human) experience some of the most grueling emotional trials, with really profound questions involving things like male - female gender identity; love and family relations; abandonment, despair, betrayal, and sometimes (quite often) even what it means to be human. The only thing the reader has to do in order to experience all of these powerful emotions is establish an agreement of verisimilitude with the text, and suspend his or her disbelief of the setting, and just accept the fact that regardless of the way a house is put together, or on which planet it can be found on, it is till someone's home, and the dramas to be found within are as powerful as those of a Victorian house, or an American suburb, or an African hut.

What science fiction novel has touched you the most because of its human drama?

George Orwell's 1984... Defining Government Surveillance and Citizen Paranoia since 1948

2016-12-20T21:06:00.002-08:00

This blog cannot not be complete without an article that deals with probably one of the best known political sci-fi stories of all times: George Orwell's 1984 (Signet Classics). This is probably the best known authoritarian model in contemporary literature, as it gave us terms we now use colloquially, such as "Big Brother Is Watching", and evidently the whole concept of government as an unwanted Big Brother snooping into our private lives, looking for ways to control us through propaganda and mass media.

One of the most interesting details about this story is the fact that Orwell was a member of the British Communist Party, and had been highly critical of them, as can be seen in Animal Farm, where he portrays the communists as the pigs who overthrow the human masters, only to become just like them in the end, which is a theme he will go on to expand on in 1984, when he talks about the way that revolutions work, and how they are nothing more than a change in the name of the masters, but not really an improvement on the living conditions of the lower classes.

This is why the Party, EngSoc, or English Socialism, is only concerned about the behavior of its members, and has no real care as to what the "plebs" do, as they have no real desire to overthrow the regime for they have no real motivation to undertake such a difficult task, whereas the members of the party represent a real risk to them, and thus must be controlled at all times, monitored constantly, devoid of privacy and even intimacy.

The justification behind most of the government surveillance stems from the fact that the country is at war, against an inconsequential enemy whose name can change without a problem, and therefore there is always the threat that a spy, or a saboteur (terrorist in today's terms) is among the populace, and therefore in order to guarantee the safety of all citizens the government, the benevolent Big Brother, must watch over everyone, all the time, and people are expected to renounce some of their basic rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, sexual freedom, and as has already been said privacy and intimacy... al in exchange for safety and protection from the unseen enemies of the nation.

I would love to know if you also see similarities to the world of today, or if you think I'm as paranoid as Winston Smith, the main character of the novel is, so please let me know your thoughts down in the comments.

My top 5 political science fiction books

2013-11-01T19:58:00.001-07:00

I have been working for a long time on this post, and I'm still not 100% sure about it, but one thing is certain, if I keep on waiting for it to be "perfect" it will never be published, and besides this is my personal list, so if you disagree with the inclusion (or exclusion) of a given book, please let me know in the comments. These are five individual novels that have shaped political science fiction over the past century, and as such I have chosen them as five must reads for anyone interested in this subject; I am working also on a post about sagas, trilogies and series, so you will not find here some titles that would seem obvious otherwise.

1. A Brave New World - Aldous Huxley. Coming from a society as structured and divided by social class as early 20th century England, this is one sharp critique of the direction society was taking at the time, and even today it still has some troubling warnings to be heeded. If you haven't read it be sure to grab a copy of it as soon as you can.

2. 1984 - George Orwell. This has been labeled by many scholars, critics and readers as the definition of a Totalitarian Dystopia. Given that Orwell was himself a socialist, this grim vision of a world of want and control strikes a chord with most of us, and the term Orwellian has become a steeple of totalitarianism. Another classic that if you haven't read, you are missing out.

3. The Left Hand of Darkness - Ursula K. Le Guin. As the author herself has said, this book is nothing more than a speculative exercise, thinking about the relations existing between gender, sexual interaction and power; this is a book that departs from the familiar setting of planet earth, and plunges us into an alien world, but the questions it poses make it a must read, especially for those interested in gender issues.

4. The Handmaid's Tale - Margaret Atwood. What would happen if society was somehow, inexplicably, thrown into the hands of extremist conservatives, where women are thrown back to the role of breeders, little more than objects and possessions for the dominant males of society. A grim and thoughtful work, that reflects upon our societal values about gender relations.

5. Space Merchants - Frederik Pohl. This is one story that could perfectly have been written this year (as long as you overlook some of the props in the scenes), because it reflects two concerns of today's society: rampant environmental destruction on behalf of industrial growth, and the power of marketing and advertising to subvert men's wills (well not as much as that but pretty close). It's interesting to see how some social concerns don't fade but just change in appearance and packaging; this novel is a must read for conspiracy theorists.

I hope you enjoy this short list and that it will help you find some of the landmark political novels in science fiction history. And if you buy one of the books from the links provided here I will be eternally grateful to you. Oh and if you have anything to add (be it praise or criticism) please be sure to leave it in the comments.

Tackling the epitome of political Science Fiction: The DUNE Saga (First approach)

2013-10-07T12:06:00.001-07:00

Art by: Gary Jamroz - See original Here

It's been a while since I last read the DUNE saga, but if there is one thing that you can never forget after reading it is that the whole thing revolves around the intricacies of politics and power. For those of you who have never read the book, and have only seen the movie and/or TV adaptations of it then the story is mostly about the action and daring-do, but you are missing out on so many levels of detail and nuance that it's almost as if you were seeing an entirely different story. For this post I will concern myself only with the first book in the series, but might mention ahead.

The main story revolves primarily around the political relationships of three of the galaxy's Great Houses: the Atreides, the Corrino and the Harkonen; which are the main political entities of the Empire, where blood feuds are everyday occurrences. The basis of political power in this universe is derived primarily from economic power, and the greatest source of wealth is the substance know as the "spice", Melange. In a society where technology has fallen back to mechanics and computers, or thinking machines, are forbidden, reliance on human intelligence and abilities, as well as deliberate "genetic" modification, has become commonplace.

Despite it being a story filled with action sequences, duels to the death, escapes into the dessert, treachery and all out war, the core of the story is power relations; this is a book where political and social relations are described and discussed freely by the characters, where the decisions of people with power define the action sequences of the book, and not the antics of some backwater, unknown character who is suddenly and unexpectedly thrust into the role of hero.

In Dune, the hero is Paul, Muad'Dib, Atreides, heir to a powerful house, who has been has been trained to be a Duke of the galaxy, educated in court politics and behavior and several other topics needed for ruling. The first part of the novel allows us to get a glimpse into his training and education, making for a very interesting look into political thinking and scheming on a galactic scale. At first he is only the heir, but when his father, Duke Leto Atreides, is named ruler of Arrakis, the planet known as Dune and source of the most sought after commodity in the Empire, we are thrust head first into a political maelstrom that will end with Duke Leto's assassination at the hands of the Emperor's Sardaukar guards disguised as Harkonnen troops; after this, we get to see a new Paul Atreides, whose every decision is fueled by a political motivation.

In this book we see only a brief glimpse of the other political entities that populate this galaxy, such as the Bene Gesserit, or the guild, or the Tleilaxu, but they are always in the background, and in further books they will become incredibly important to the story.

There are many other politically motivated characters throughout the novel, such as the Fremen leader Stilgar, but unlike Paul, they can only decide on small scale tactics and actions, they lack the vision to make decisions on a planet, nay galaxy-wide, scale, such as threatening to destroy all melange, and thus holding everyone else hostage to their will. This is one of the most complex and intrigue ridden works of speculative fiction, where the focus is more often on the wider picture than on the specific actions of individuals that the reader is seeing.

If you agree with this interpretation, by all means follow this blog, and if you disagree, then tell me why and we can talk about in the comments section below.

Rediscovering a love for Space Opera

2013-07-30T20:15:00.000-07:00

Recently I decided that dystopias, post-apocalyptic scenarios and deep examinations of the human spirit were tiring me, I decided to look for something a little less demanding intellectually, and decided to turn to space opera, looking for fast paced, thrilling, action packed stories that were straight forward and didn't need to be read two or three times to find the hidden meaning behind the characters words and actions, but being the kind of reader that I am, and despite my earlier decision to keep space opera out of these little forays into the deeper meanings of Speculative Fiction, I find myself writing this article.

First off, there is a ton of Space Operas out there, many of them so bad that I couldn't go beyond the first chapter, in which the scantily clad heroine is chased by the bug-eyed monster... oh wait, that was actually a 50's movie, but you get my meaning. Those are precisely the kind of things that had led me away from space opera as a worthwhile sub-genre for this exploit, but then I had to run into The Fading Suns Trilogy, and my entire paradigm shifted.

This was the first time that I read a space opera with a look at the underlying political conflicts between the parties, and that brought me to the realization that in the end most space opera is born of political and social strife (the devil as they say is in the details, and in this case those details are the actual skill of the writer); but in well written works you will find such things as Asimov's The Stars Like Dust, in which the greatest weapon in all the known galaxy is a remnant of the Constitution of the United States, or something not as well written,but quite enjoyable, such as Thomas DePrima's A Galaxy Unknown series, where you have a military/civilian kind of mix not dissimilar to the one proposed in Heinlein's Starship Troopers (and if you mention the film I will probably confine you to latrine duty for the rest of your natural life), that is bordered by two other sort of super galactic powers, again not dissimilar to somebody else's world, that of Orwell's 1984, and here is where the similarities with great books ends.

But this has been an enlightening period of my reading endeavor into the world of speculative fiction, and I will have to read some more before I can write something less anecdotal and more "scholarly", where I can probably come up with questions like "should we look at social conflict through the eyes of political realism?", or something a little less complicated and more to the point "is it possible to see the social conflict behind the super hero story in Space Operas?", but until then, if you happen to stumble upon this little article and like it, then please share it with your friends and family, and if you have a different opinion then comment on it, I will try my damnedest to answer soon.

Can Science Fiction help us redefine our political system?

2012-10-01T20:11:00.004-07:00

In the wake of the Arab Spring, the Occupy... Movement, the Indignados in Spain, and the protests against so many other governments around the world, Science Fiction is starting to rethink many of the political postulates it has espoused since it's golden age. For close to 70 years Science Fiction has placed democracy as one of the greatest social systems ever invented, and in many of the most utopian stories it is precisely under a democracy that these utopias come about. But can we go on saying that when we are seeing increasing manifestations of doubt in the truth behind the promises of democracy?

Maybe it's time to turn to the freedom granted to us through Science Fiction to analyze other options, or see behind the veil, and maybe propose a new direction. Now this is no simple task, and it is one that still needs to be delved into deeper, but a good starting point can be found in a novel called Systems, by British author Saleena Karim; in this story set some 30 years from now, the world is something that we can easily envision from our own experiences today, the technology is not that far removed from the one we have seen in development, and some of the changes in the political reality portrayed in this novel can be easily inferred from some of the political events we are seeing today.

The center dilemma of this story lies in a social experiment simulation conducted 20 years before the events of the book, where several political systems are put to the test in a comparison, and even though there is no explanation as to what exactly the ideal system that is the center of the test is exactly like, it does hint at some interesting points, which can be seen today in some of the discourses from those who are discontented about the current state of affairs in western democracies; however, the book does leave a lot of threads hanging in the end, making one hope for a sequel.

Quoting Winston Churchill, "it is said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried before", and that is the question at the heart of this book: Can we have a better for of government?

Will civilization collapse in a day? some science fiction reflections on that - Part 1

2011-12-08T09:18:00.001-08:00

Most dystopian science fiction places the reader on a world past the catastrophe, or event that led to the current state of affairs, but a fringe genre, mix fiction and science fiction, is the survivalist novel, in which we are privy to some of the events that lead to a dystopia, and the downfall tends to be depicted as being rather fast, but at the same time gradual. Such is the case of two novels I have read recently, in which for two very different events civilization as we know it changes dramatically, leading to a harsh world in which the fears and insecurities of people lead to a violent and more often than not brutal change in the world around us. In this post I'll address the sudden loss of all electronic equipment, which is the plot-line for "Lights Out" by David Crawford, which is the book I will be writing about in this post.

This is one scenario that is not really explained as to how it happened or why, but the story centers around something much more meaningful to us as readers, and it's the extent to which we have become dependent on electricity, and not only for recreational purposes such as watching TV or surfing the internet, nor for work related endeavors like using a computer for almost everything we do, but on a more basic level, such as the need to power the pumps that deliver water to our houses, or maintaining refrigerated foods so they don't spoil, or pumping gas into our cars, and how we are no longer able to move freely without a car, how we dread having to carry our groceries for a little over a mile.

But the really interesting thing in this book is the way it portrays the response of people to loosing such such comforts, tools and aides to everyday life. The first group I'll address is not the main character group of the story, but the one we see the least of but that has the greatest impact in the events of the story, and these are what the characters call MZB (Mutant Zombie Bikers); they were once your everyday gang-bangers, hoodlums, and criminals of all kinds. They are the ones most likely to resort to violence first, and already have access to a large and fairly organized group of people, armed and ready to use those weapons against their former neighbors. These groups are a fairly common occurrence in apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic stories, and it's not hard to imagine them.

The second group of people is comprised of those who refuse to believe that the world has changed as dramatically as it has, and have faith that the government, or some other higher authority than themselves will come in and fix everything. They are the ones who refuse to leave their home until it is either too late, or it's evident that they have no other option. This is the case with the priest who refuses to leave his parish, or Ralph, the lawyer who only leaves when his house is attacked. They are the majority of people, but in the novel they are seen only in relation with the third group of people.

This last group is the one in which people are quick to realize that things have changed, and it can be divided into two extra segments. The first one is represented by the ones who went to live in Mr. Davis's ranch; people who had been preparing for an apocalyptic scenario since before The Burst came about. Initially they are presented as the best alternative in a changing world, until Mark Turner and his family look under the veneer of security, they find that the despotic rule of Mr. Davis, with his attitude of "my way or the highway", is not what they want in times of crisis, and then the story shows us that this group has fallen prey to an overconfidence that proves to be their undoing; they feel so superior to everyone else that they do not acknowledge the situation to be above what they anticipated, which in the end leads to their downfall.

The second segment, and the most important in the novel for it being the one with the main characters in it, is also aware of the change in society, but they see it not as a static change, but realize that the situation is dynamic, and you have to adapt to it, but also that it cannot be done on your own, and it is necessary to band together with your neighbors and work in adapting to the new realities facing society every day. This is the group that shows us that civilization as we know it will not really end in a day, but rather it will transform itself into something different over the course of time, and some people will adapt better to the change than others.

Unlike other survival and preparedness stories "Lights Out" deals with regular people, not "survivalist nuts" as they are called by Mark Turner in the story; people who have been storing and hoarding food and resources in case some disaster happens; people who in this story do not fair as well, and who in the real world are only a minor percentage of the population.

Are you, or do you know someone who has stored food and water away, in case of a catastrophic event? Let me know your thoughts in a comment.

The Fears of a Given Time Are Put Into Science Fiction?

2011-05-28T20:32:00.000-07:00

One recurring issue I have found over the course of many books is that the time on which a given book is written has a great influence on the kind of book it is. I'm talking not only about the narrative techniques, I'm talking about the issues that are dealt with within the story; the fears, hopes and desires the author chooses to give the characters.

In the mid 1950's the fears were nuclear war and communism (in western democracies), while in the mid 1960's new concerns entered the science fiction landscape, and others left. Look at 1984, and you will find the deep rooted fear of a British author of succumbing to a worldwide communist system based on a perpetual state of war, with the resulting absolute control over the individual that we all know now as "Big Brother".

The 1958 Space Merchants tackles new concerns, ones that in the 1960's hippie culture would play an important role, to be forgotten in the 1980's and 90's only to return in the first decade of the 21st Century: Environmentalism. This coupled with a newfound distrust of big businesses, and lack of confidence in the government of the USA, they paint a bleak future, but at the same time it's the promise of technology as the savior of mankind.

We have to remember that in the late 50's and early 60's Popular Science and Popular Mechanics were telling us that by the year 2000 cars would fly and weather would be controlled by computers and human beings would have lunar bases and colonies in Mars. These were not Science Fiction stories, they were the prototypes and promises of a brighter future brought about by scientific and technological development. Then in the 1980's something changed, and technology started to become a threat, like in stories such as Neuromancer and Terminator, where the promise of technology turned out to be a threat, a disappointment, and we needed a new paradigm.

Which do you think are the concerns we are putting into today's Science Fiction?

A one nation planet equals peace?

2011-04-19T08:49:00.000-07:00

What if all governments were forcefully subsumed into one? all national borders abolished? a single planetary government ruled over all the people on earth? this is a very common motif in Science Fiction, especially in near and relatively near future stories, but mostly al of them skip over to the part where this kind of government has already been instated, skipping over the not so friendly transition period. Think about it, you have been a national of whichever country you live in for your entire life, some more fervently than others, but we have all at some point proudly said "I am a... (insert national appellative here)", and at some other (maybe even right after the other) have said "...(insert name of bothersome neighboring country here)... sure are (insert demeaning and/or negative adjective here)".

Then imagine that one day along comes a new world government and says: "You are no longer a ..." you are now a citizen of the world. This would probably freak you out, especially if you never voted for it to happen. Well that is the backdrop of the story of Olympus Union - The Past Repeated by Gary Bloom.

Now I don't usually do in depth reviews of books but in this case I'll make an exception, for I believe that at the least the attempt to look into the formation of a planetary (actually interplanetary) government to rule over all of mankind and its colonies over the solar system, is quite an interesting one. I have to warn you though, it's nowhere near the level of detail you get out f the Ender's shadow series that take you step by step through the establishment of Peter's Hegemony government on earth, it is a much more succinct deal, with a lot of holes in the chain of events leading from one place to the next and it gave me a rather hard time in piecing together what was going on in the overall scheme of things.

But I have to say that for a debut novel it was pretty good, and given that both the title and the ending imply this to be the first of a series then maybe the next ones will deal with some of the unanswered questions left hanging in the air. It has some stretches that read as an action/thriller story and others that are more of a political drama sort of thing, but once you get to balance those two in your head its quite an entertaining read and it poses some interesting questions that I sincerely hope will be answered in other books.

What do you think would happen in the transition between our multi-nation world and a single government planet?

Religious Zealotry - the lesser of all evils in Science Fiction?

2011-04-09T18:11:00.000-07:00

After all other evils have been covered, religious zealotry rears its ugly head above the landscape of Dystopia. We all know that zealots tend to gather in isolated groups, to form their own minority, after all the kind of people who have the one sided mindedness necessary to become a zealot is not something frequent. So then what would happen if all of a sudden you gave the zealots power enough to become the ruling group? or even worse, what if they turn political ideas into a sort of religion?

Take for example the Ford religion seen in Huxley's Brave New World, where the economic and political ideas of Henry Ford are taken to the level of religious doctrine, and anyone deviating from the established way of life, and the accepted social principles, they are faced with a sort of inquisition that ends in exile and ostracism. Another very clear example is the entire society portrayed in, once again, Margaret Atwood's The Handmaiden's Tale, with an enforcement of some of the most conservative, orthodox and restrictive ideas of American religious history, from total oppression of women, mandatory daily group prayers, among other such endeavors.

The results from these religious societies turn out to be some of the most oppressive, restrictive, and controlling societies out there. This is probably the sum of all other fears Sci-Fi has, and the worst of it is that given the religious background of it the passions involved in that society can be raised to the point of fanaticism, and no matter what reasonable explanations are given for behaviors other than those approved by society they can only be condemned and persecuted.

Have you come across any other stories where religious zealotry is a central element of the story? What else could be covered by zealotry and fanaticism? Is there space for this kind of social behavior only in Dystopia?

Science Fiction can Show Us the Ultimate Bigot

2011-03-29T14:55:00.000-07:00

This post has been in the making for longer than usual, but there is a reason for that: given that I left First Contact and Space Opera out of my list of preselected sub-genres for this study, the issue of bigotry and racial difference seems to have lost the prominent place it takes on those other stories.

In the sub-genres I have labelled as politically relevant, bigotry can certainly be found, and it does play an important role, just not as clearly defined as you could find it for example in C. J. Cherryh's Faded Suns Trilogy, where mistrust and fear for the other is the driving force behind the entire plot of the series, and the inevitable search for understanding upon which one human being embarks.

It must also be taken into account that when dealing with science fiction race has entirely different meaning, it no longer is about skin color or national origins, it can perfectly be of an entirely different animal family; while we evolved from mammals it is absolutely possible to run across a story in which that "other" is descended from lizards, or insects.

This opens up the stage for the issue of bigotry as a driving force for political and social development. In the universe of Orson Scott Card's Ender series (both the original and the latter Shadows sequels), the starting point is a fight between "us" and "them", the bugs, later known as the Hive Queen.

Now this bigotry can be understood perfectly fine, after all the aliens tried to invade us, and we are just fighting back. But on the Shadow Series, especially in Ender's Shadow, bigotry is taken to a whole new level. Upon the defeat of the Hive Queen in her native world, the children from Battle School are sent back to their countries of origin, and since they are known to be military geniuses, each and every one of them is treated as a national asset by his or her government, and once the external threat has been vanquished, mankind is back to its petty squabbles over skin color and religion, which are only overcome after a brutal and costly war, where the Battle School children are the first casualties, even if they do not die.

Another example is a short story whose title I haven't been able to remember, but in which we see a time traveler going into a ravaged United States, torn apart by war, hatred and famine. The astonishing thing is that this is the result of a racial war between African Americans and Caucasians, where the rift was so wide that no side emerge the victor. And spoiler alert here, the last scene of the story reveals to us that the main character, the time traveler, is a black man. Similar setting as the one in Philip K Dick's Counterclock World, where the continental US has split down racial lines and it has become two countries, one for blacks and the other for whites.

If anyone know the title of the story I'd really appreciate you telling me. I read it a long time ago in an anthology taken from the library in another city, and have not been able to find either the book or the story again. Any other examples of bigotry, not first contact kind of bigotry that is, are also appreciated.

And finally, do you think that only through an external threat to our survival will we be able to overcome racial barriers and stupid hatreds? or will we find a way to reconcile our racial differences some other way?

Can Governments be Openly Controlled by Corporations? Science Fiction Thinks it's Possible

2011-03-22T19:58:00.000-07:00

We have all said it at one point or another, or at the least heard it, Government is controlled by big money. But if this really is the situation, it is done so behind closed doors and always with a public facade of not doing so; then what would happen if one day government decided it no longer cared about its image of independence from the corporate world?

Then most likely we would have a government openly controlled and run by corporations and other enterprises, for the benefit of the few. This has been illustrated most clearly in Space Merchants written by Frederik Pohl and C. M. Kornbluth back in 1958.

The world in which the story takes place is one that we can be scared of as easily (maybe even easier), than they were back in the late fifties when the book was first published. Big companies have taken over the American government, so much o that Congress is no longer composed of state elected officials, but instead it's comprised of the representative of big companies, such as DOW, General Motors and General Electric; the president of the United States is a figurehead, with no real authority whatsoever, advertising companies rule the industry and social classes are determined by your profession.

So far this world is not something we have not feared (with the exception of advertising not being as powerful now as it once was), but the real cherry on the cake is the dreadful environmental devastation brought about by the total lack of government control over industry and their ever greater need for more resources.

Another example is found in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy. In this story the plot is so much bigger than in Space Merchants that the issue of corporate control of government is not as big (in terms of pages devoted to it), but it is pivotal to the development of the first colony on the red planet; in this not so future Earth multinational companies have become something bigger and scarier, they have become Supra-National Corporations, they are above governments, they can basically do whatever they please, and that has led to overpopulation, toxic waste poisoning, famine, and countless other misfortunes that are the trigger for the expedition to Mars; an expedition from which, win or loose, the people involved will never return.

The truly frightening and at the same time astonishing thing is that all the stories I have come across that deal with a scenario in which government is controlled by corporations, paint this as a catastrophic event, as one of the worst thing that could happen to our democratic societies.

Do you think that of government falls under the open control of economic powers the world will be such a nightmare? or is it possible to find a positive side to economic control over government?

The Fear of Totalitarianism in Science Fiction

2011-03-12T08:09:00.000-08:00

Hand in hand with personal freedom comes another of Science Fiction's great concerns: the emergence of totalitarian states. Once more this is a western fear, or more exactly, a fear of democratic regimes; the greater the freedom of the society from which the author is writing, the greater the repression of the totalitarian regime created is.

This takes us to a new question, mainly what exactly is a totalitarian regime (and is it really so bad?). First off it involves an absolute control from the state on everything, and I mean everything, including most of the times the way the people living under said regimes think. Probably the best known totalitarian regime is that of George Orwell's 1984, at least it's the one most easily identifiable as totalitarian, but there are many others, and not all so easy to spot, like for example the "democratic" government found in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.

This is one interesting issue, where a supposedly free regime, like Democracy, is revealed to be in truth totalitarian, and this can be seen in many instances. What are the elements of the Fahrenheit society that make it totalitarian? for starters the ban on reading: in order to prevent social unrest and upheaval from disgruntled minorities offended by something someone else wrote, the state decides to ban writing and therefore reading, intruding directly on what people think, and restricting their personal freedom.

On the other hand it is clear that capitalism is still the dominant economic system, but that does not prevent totalitarianism; after all the government regulation of business can be taken so far as to be effectively all controlling. Think also about the differences between Mildred and Guy Montag, she is the conforming citizen, who does what society (and therefore the state), expects of her, while Guy is a rebel at heart, working for one of the law enforcement agencies, but unable to conform to what is expected of him, and that is what leads him to have a dysfunctional relationship with his wife.

In the end the totalitarian nature of the state can be seen in the cinematic, live broadcast, of the chase after the dangerous fugitive, like you could probably find in a Soviet pogrom, dogs included and all.

What do you think of the possibility of a democratic regime becoming totalitarian while maintaining universal suffrage? do you know any other stories in which an apparently free regime is in truth a totalitarian one? or repressive?

Science Fiction's Fascination with Personal Freedom

2011-03-11T11:48:00.000-08:00

Probably the most recurrent issue in the whole of Science Fiction is the ways in which technology and scientific advance affects personal freedom. The ones that have feel good quality, such as Startrek are generally those that see a positive influence arising from technology, a "civilizing" influence, and that is translated into a greater personal freedom.

On the other end are the harshest dystopias, where societal control over the individual is absolute (such as The Handmaiden's Tale and 1984), in which even thoughts are controlled. And all manner of stories in between, and in all kinds of sub-genres; but the question remains as to where does this fascination come from?

One hypothesis is that this fascination comes from the British and American origin of most Science Fiction (specially in the early days of the genre), and the fact that both their democratic systems are based on personal freedom, and that is probably the defining element of their socio-political regimes. Hence the question, and fear, of what would happen if personal freedom were taken away? This is not an issue that would arise in soviet Russia, or in theocratic Islamic nations, not even in Democratic Latin America where personal freedom is severely limited by economic shortages and underdevelopment.

Going back to The Handmaiden's Tale, many reviews and comments I have ran across talk of how the situation of many women in present day middle eastern countries resemble that of Offred in the novel; the same can be said of the late regime of Saddam Hussein, where a minority group held power by force, and imposed its belief system on the rest of the population. Could a writer in one of nations write a novel like Atwood's? I sincerely doubt it, maybe for some of the radicals in the regimes I have talked about would probably consider the book a Utopia, instead of a Dystopia, and would probably write a novel detailing how a sudden granting of personal freedom to the population would destroy their society.

What do you think of this hypothesis? what would be a dystopia for a different culture?

Recurrent socio-political issues in Science Fiction

2011-03-03T08:50:00.000-08:00

Having narrowed down the list of SF sub-genres in which Political issues are relevant, the next logical step is to look at the socio-political issues that have been recurrent in SF in the past 60 or 70 years (after world war II). One would think that in all these years the socio-political concerns of SF authors, and readers, would be strikingly different, but oddly enough they are quite similar (if not identical), and in a sense that validates them.

So far I've determined the importance of a given issue by the number of stories dealing with a specific issue, as well as the time span covered by the publication of said stories. The higher the number of stories, coupled with a longer lifespan of the issue (not the popularity of the story); this lifespan is measured in terms of a given issue being treated on several stories published in different years.

The following is the list I work with, but if you have other issues that should be included in it be sure to let me know about them.

1. Personal freedom
2. Totalitarianism
3. Economic control of government
4. Bigotry
5. Religious zealousness

Each of these recurring issues has been featured in more than one of the politically relevant sub genres of the previous post. There can also be a cross between these issues in a single story, therefore this list is not as clear cut as the sub-genres; I will expand on each of these issues in subsequent posts, but for now this enunciation is sufficient.

Politically Relevant Sub-Genres of Science Fiction - Part 2

2011-02-24T20:12:00.000-08:00

After the unscheduled break to write about Dystopia, it is now time to get back on track and retake the issue of politically relevant sub-genres of Science Fiction. In the previous post I wrote about the sub-genres in which socio-political concerns have the biggest importance, and now it's time to go into the remaining 4.

5. Near-future science fiction
6. Cyberpunk
7. Cross-genre
8. Military science fiction

Near-future SF tends to be centered around the technological advances that are just around the corner from us, and sometimes they involve socio-political changes, but that is not always the case. Precisely because of the near-future time setting, the society in which the story takes place has not really changed that much, and if it has then it's not near future SF but another of the sub-genres.

Cyberpunk deals primarily with the effects of merging technology with humans (cyborgs, direct neural inputs, immersible computer networks), and the results are more often than not bleak and despairing. This leads mainly to two kinds of stories, adventure and thriller, but unsurprisingly the existence of such a close relationship between man and machines, has a profound impact on the socio-political background of the story, and in some this can be seen more clearly than in others, being the best example William Gibson's Neuromancer.

The Cross-genre sub-genre, being on the meeting point between SF and other genres, has the potential to touch upon any number of subjects, and occasionally these subjects have a high degree of socio-political influence, as in the case of Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover series, where in some stories you can clearly see the Science Fiction underpinning the story, like The Saga of the Renunciates trilogy, while others are definitely more of a fantasy setting, like stormqueen.

And last, but not least, is Military Science Fiction. This sub-genre might the one most used, and abused, by the motion film industry; think of the hundreds of movies involving futuristic wars, with an international/interplanetary/intergalactic army at the center of the story, trying to blast the enemy into as many pieces as possible, and no story beyond that. But in books this is not so; take for example Starship Troopers (the book by Robert A. Heinlein, not the movie directed by Paul Verhoeven) an look at the amount of time dedicated to the socio-political system behind the war with the bugs, or the Shadow series following Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game (the original sequels, from Speaker for the Dead on, are not military SF), where the impact of the military on socio-political issues is quite clear.

After this brief rundown of each of the politically relevant sub-genres of Science Fiction, it is worth noting that in many cases a story does not have such an easy classification, and can be read as belonging to one sub-genre or as belonging to another, and that choice (made by the reader) will have an impact upon the interpretation and weight afforded to the issues presented by the story.

Once more I would love to hear your thoughts on these postulates about the different sub-genres of Science Fiction.

Dystopia - What did you say that was? (Revisited)

2011-02-21T09:23:00.000-08:00

Over the past couple of days, I have come across several blogs dealing with the issue of Dystopia. In fact, it was one such post that led me to start this blog, and every time I read an article on the topic I start to comment, only to realize that that comment is, in fact, part of a post on Dystopia that I plan to write, so to address this issue, I have decided to jump ahead a bit and write this post way before its time in the scheme of the blog, but it seems the issue can't wait anymore.

The original blog post I came across was "A Short Discussion About Dystopian Lit" and this week I ran across this question: "How do you define Dystopian?". Both of them deal with the question of What is Dystopia, so here goes my attempt at, not defining, but rather characterizing it.

In a purely grammatical sense, Dystopia is the opposite of Utopia. This means that first, we need a definition of Utopia to find what it's opposite is. After reading several dictionary definitions of Utopia, the summary can be that it is an idealized place or state with a perfect social and political system. Therefore a Dystopia is a flawed or imperfect social and/or political system, but since this defines the current state of affairs anywhere in the world, we have to add an adjective to qualify the degree of imperfection, and thus, my proposed explanation of what Dystopia means is: Extremely Imperfect Social and/or Political System.

This approach at a definition of dystopia raises three important issues: first, the need to have a basis on which to define perfection (and therefore, its opposite), second is identifying whether the system is social, political, or both, and third by using the quantitative adjective "Extremely," we are implying that it is a comparative scale. So, let's break these three issues down.

The first issue, that of perfection, can best be analyzed in perspective. Take for example Ken Follet's The Pillars of the Earth: this story has all the makings of a dystopian novel, the socio-political system is repressive, unjust and unfair, most of the liberties we take for granted today are non-existent, not to mention our creature comforts, but since it takes place in the 11th century AD, the story classifies as historic fiction, which then brings up a new attribute to our definition of Dystopia: it lies somewhere in the author's future (the point of reference has to be the author, or 1984 would no longer be in the future). With this additional element, we can safely assume then that the starting point to define perfection would be an idealized version of a system present, somewhere in the world, at the time of writing.

Also, this time frame issue is crucial for the Dystopia to work, as it provides the basis for the alteration. If an 18th-century woman read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, she would probably not see it with the same fright as we do today, and in fact, some women might have agreed with it; it can even be argued that somewhere in the world there is a group of people for whom any Dystopia is, in fact, a Utopia (radical members of the politburo might have loved a society like Orwell's 1984). Therefore perfection is in the eye of the beholder.

The second issue derived from the initial definition out of which I am working, helps us differentiate post-apocalyptic from dystopian novels. If the focus of the story lies on the survival/action elements derived from catastrophic events, and sometimes the resulting social order, then it is not a Dystopia, just a byproduct of the specific apocalypse (zombie or otherwise), but if the focus is on the relationship between the individual and the state (kingdom, country, dominion, or whatever you may call it), and the socio-political organization is clearly highlighted, then it is definitely a Dystopia. One additional element that may be considered here is whether or not the world being portrayed can be seen as an evolution of the socio-political order present during the author's life.

And finally the issue of it being "Extremely Imperfect," gives us a magnitude. It is not sufficient for the socio-political changes to be superficial, or minor, they have to be extreme; in this post from The League of Extraordinary Writers a case was made for Dystopia to be about the fear (of the reader) of a lack of things we take for granted and love, but as I said in a comment to that post, a true dystopia has to be more than just the lack of "Hot Showers", as was the example used by Elana, it has to be a sum of so many privations, of so many fearful things happening, that the whole experience is not only scary but downright terrifying and something we want to avoid at all costs. additionally, for it to be a true dystopia it is necessary for the privations to be the result of government action and not, as I said above, the result of a simple catastrophic event.

Notice that I am not going into some of the things most people refer to when confronted with the question of defining Dystopia, and that is the specific instances used in the stories we know, like the totalitarian government, and such, for as I have said before it all depends on the idea we have of perfection and while that might be dystopian for us westerners, it is always possible to find societies for whom a non-totalitarian regime would be the Dystopia. Since I'm a democratic kind of guy I can't really think of one from the top of my head, but that does not rule out the possibility of them existing, now or in a not too distant future, and a definition of a literary genre (or sub-genre as I have treated it so far in this blog), must be broad enough to allow the inclusion of new works, without too many constraints, but at the same time specific enough to serve as a tool for categorization.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this issue.

Politically Relevant Sub-Genres of Science Fiction - Part 1

2011-02-20T21:03:00.000-08:00

In order to move forward, and closer to the subject matter of my research, it's necessary to take the sub-genres from the last post and analyze them in order to determine in which of them political thought has the most relevance. I have to admit that my reading list has been focused mostly on a couple of genres, and if you disagree with my conclusions and think that I should expand into other sub-genres please let me know.

It can be argued that most of Science Fiction has at least some sort of political background and relevance, but what I'm really looking for is stories where the political aspect is central to the story, not just decoration. So based on the list of sub-genres from the precious post, I have selected the following as those most relevant, ordered according to the importance political thought plays in the overall sub-genre:

1. Dystopia / Utopia
2. Soft / sociological science fiction
3. Alternate history
4. Apocalyptic, holocaust, and post-apocalyptic
5. Near-future science fiction
6. Cyberpunk
7. Cross-genre
8. Military science fiction

Dystopia is at the top of the list, and paired with its counterpart Utopia, because the very essence of the sub-genre is socio-political conflict. The character in Dystopian stories are just a view point for a run down, bleak society; Orwell's 1984 is told from the viewpoint of Winston Smith, Fahrenheit 451 is told from the viewpoint of Guy Montag; The Handmaiden's Tale is told from the viewpoint of Offred. The same can be said about Utopia, the relevant aspects are in the society and not the characters. Subsequent posts will deal more extensively on this issue.

Soft / sociological science fiction is less straightforward in this regard, for many of the stories center completely on the development of the character, with the social background an excuse for the specifics of said development, as is the case with Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness; there are also other stories where character development, while still important, are not as strong as the socio-political background they're set in, and once more the best example comes from Le Guin, but this time on The Dispossessed.

As I have said before all other sub-genres might contain elements of political background, and even though I have also said that Alternate History is not entirely SF, I have included it in this list because when the works are Science Fiction they tend to have a focus on the socio-political aspects of this alternate reality they speak of.

The next on the list is Apocalyptic, holocaust, and post-apocalyptic SF. More often than not these stories have an action/adventure plot, with the Apocalypse as landscaping, like in Frederik Pohl's Wolfbane, but more often than not you can catch glimpses of the social, and therefore political, structure emerging from the catastrophe, and in some cases, such as Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle the action scenes are a result of the new social order emerging in the midst of the chaos.

In order to keep these posts to a reasonably user friendly size I have decided to break this one up, so wait for the second part for the other politically relevant sub-genres. And once more if you agree or disagree with any of the things I said here please let me know.

Science Fiction and its Subgenres

2011-02-13T21:42:00.000-08:00

Now that we have a working set of boundaries for determining which stories to include in the body of works that we call Science Fiction, it's time to look into the main sub-genres within SF. This is probably one of the most unknown issues for readers of other genres, and oddly enough some SF writers as well: not all Science Fiction stories take place in outer space or involve laser weapons and the props of Star Trek.

For a very good list of the sub-genres of SF, take a look at Writing World. Each item on their list has a brief description of it, but I intend to build upon those definitions, and others, to expand their scope and help clarify the sometimes confusing landscape of the Science Fiction genre.

The Sub-genres suggested by Writing World are:
Alternate history
Apocalyptic, holocaust, and post-apocalyptic
Cross-genre
Cyberpunk
First contact
Hard science fiction
Light/humorous science fiction
Military science fiction
Near-future science fiction
Science fantasy/future fantasy
Slipstream
Soft/sociological science fiction
Space opera
Time travel

However, many of these sub-genres are not exclusive to SF, and there are others not included in the list, at least not explicitly. The first problematic sub-genre is Alternate History, as many of them do not meet the criteria for being considered SF aside from taking place in a time other than that of the author; one good example of this is Fatherland by Robert Harris, which takes place in the mid 1960's in Germany, after the Nazis have won WWII; in this novel the setting is anything but Science Fictional, in fact it's more of a detective novel than anything else.

Another sub-genre that causes problems is Science Fantasy/Future Fantasy. This is a borderline genre, some stories closer to Paranormal Romances than to Hard Science Fiction, and some the other way around, therefore in this instance it is necessary to look at it on a case by case basis.

Finally the list omits one of Science Fiction's most acknowledged sub-genres: Dystopia. It could be argued that this is included in the Apocalyptic, holocaust, and post-apocalyptic sub-genre, but this would leave out books such as Orwell's 1984 or Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 to name just the two most well known books in this category; dystopia is an anti-utopia, a highly negative social environment, often represented by totalitarianism, a regression to middle and dark ages rule, where the individual has lost all freedom (even if appearances deceive, as in Huxley's Brave New World). I will expand on the issue of Dystopia, and the rest of the sub-genres later on in more detailed posts, but for now this should be sufficient.

Any ideas on this list of sub-genres? should there be more, less, it's fine the way it is? I'd love to hear your opinions on this.

Setting some boundaries for Science Fiction

2011-01-30T15:04:00.000-08:00

Given that in the previous 2 posts I have taken each of the tropes and rules I had set forth as the ones governing Science Fiction, and analyzed them in detail, and found them too broad, I feel it is necessary to expand each of them in order to better reflect what it is we mean when we refer to them as the defining aspects of SF.

As Paul Kincaid has stated, there is no ONE element that can be identified as clearly defining of the genre, but rather it is a multitude of intertwined threads, coming from a multitude of origins and sources, which define the genre.

This sits in well with the tropes and rules I have mentioned as the constitutive elements of SF. However, in order to use them as the guidelines for selecting texts clearly belonging to Science Fiction, it is necessary to refine them. Based on the expansion of the tropes to see their relationship with works of other genres, a new expanded version of them would be as follows:

- The story takes place in a different time than that of the author and in such a manner as to be clearly different from historical facts or a strict continuation of our own reality.
- The story revolves around a given "scientific" discovery or theory, whether this be a known fact at the time of the writing or an inexistent one, it has to be presented in a plausible manner. It can belong to either the "hard" or "soft" sciences.
- It involves technologies not found in our world, which can be identified as deriving from scientific theories, real or not, ans with a credible explanation.
- Extraterrestrial beings are involved. The type of being has to be understood as inhabiting a universe rationally and "scientifically" connected with the universe of the story; paranormal beings are not considered as extraterrestrial in this instance, but trans-dimensional ones (albeit in a "scientific" context) do.
- The story takes place on other planets (one or more), that can be identified as being located in our universe, even if earth is not mentioned. The story can also take place in outer space, and once again this has to be explicitly an expression of our own universe.
- Technological innovation plays a central role in the story, or as Darko Suvin has called it the "Novum". Technology is more than just a convenience used by the characters in the story, and
is in fact not found in our everyday world, and can also be a variation on an ancient technology we no longer use.
- Society changes up to a point where we can no longer recognize it as our own. More than just a change it's an evolution (which can in fact be a regression), and has to have an explanation as to how it came about, and this in turn has to comply with rationality.
- When the story takes place in time very close to our own, and in our planet, the setting for the story (backdrop)is not something found in everyday life, but has to be
identifiable as a plausible, credible, and coherent scenario.

As for the expanded rules, these should probably be more like the following:

- The setting must be coherent within itself in terms of compliance with its own physical and theoretical rules, set in the guise of real world scientific discourse.
- There must be a clear set of rules within the setting, and they must be made clear, not necessarily in full detail, and must rely on rationality for its explanation, not on faith or emotional arguments. (I.e, if pigs fly there has to be a rational explanation)
- Technological or social changes must be plausible, and be presented in such a way as to be a logical explanation of the resulting state of affairs, and respecting the rules and coherency of the setting.

These boundaries are not be all inclusive, since you can probably find stories labelled as science fiction which do not fit entirely into them. It is also worth noting that not all tropes must be found within a story for it to be science fiction, but most stories do have more then one trope; as to the rules they are mandatory, and when a story fulfills only one or two of them, then that's when problem cases arise, for they are in a harder to define situation, being at the same time science fiction and something else, be it paranormal romance o horror, and these will be the issue of a latter posting, for some of them might be suitable matter of study for a look at the relationship between science fiction and political thought, and certainly if you want to look at the much broader category of speculative fiction.

On the rules of Science Fiction

2011-01-19T07:24:00.000-08:00

Moving forward on the topic of the previous post, it's time to look at the rules governing the definition of a work as Science Fiction. As I stated on the post about the tropes, they can be applied as well to works from other genres, and logic dictates that this is also the case for the rules.

Well let's look at each one of them in detail, as we did with the tropes.

- The setting must be coherent within itself.
This rule seems pretty obvious, and it definitely applies to other genres. In fact stated as is it would apply to any genre whatsoever. Here we would have to expand this rule, and James Gunn's proposal that a Science fiction story takes place in a world of extended every day experience fits in nicely with that need to add more detail to this rule.

- There must be a clear set of rules within the setting. (I.e, if pigs fly there has to be a rational explanation). One more we have a need to expand on this rule within the specific context of Science Fiction, for this has been argued as one of the most important aspects of the genre, especially in relation to the difference with Fantasy and supernatural genres. It could be argued that in Fantasy and Paranormal stories the rules are clear, but upon closer examination it can be seen that there are many issues whose only explanation is "magic" or some related phenomenon.

- Technological or social changes must be plausible (credible within the rules of the setting)
This rule is best explained by Farah Mendelsohn's statement that the changes must be inscribed within a "discourse of science". It does not have to be a real and verifiable scientific axiom of our real world, it just has to be written in a fashion and language resembling that of science.

This revision of the rules for deciding whether a given work is indeed SF leads to a clearer understanding of the boundaries for a very hard to define genre. However there is still some more fine tuning to be made, and that will be the subject of the next post.

Elements of Science Fiction. An expanded definition.

2011-01-10T12:50:00.000-08:00

In the last post I grazed on the surface on the problem that is defining Science Fiction. Now I feel it's necessary to go into a little more detail.

The first point is, what exactly is the difficulty in defining Science Fiction? Well if you read the last post you'll see that in order for a determined work to be considered Science Fiction, it has to deal with certain tropes, and comply with some simple rules; however it doesn't have to fulfill all of the tropes, and the rules are so broad that they can be applied to most mainstream, or realist fiction.

So let me retake each of the tropes, one by one, and look at them to see if they can be applied to a genre other than science fiction:

- The story takes place in the future (from the authors time).
This trope can clearly apply to mainstream fiction (and therefore to many other genres), and does not necessarily mean that the story is SF. One book that comes to mind is "The Election" by Darryl Greer, or "Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse" by James Wesley Rawles, to name just two novels from two different genres, the first one a Political Drama, and the later is a Survivalist Novel.

- The story revolves around a given "scientific" discovery or theory.
This one is a little harder to delineate, and see if it fits with other non SF genres. Most people would argue that this is probably one of the defining characteristics of Science Fiction as a genre, but once more it can be applied to some genres (though not as many as the previous trope), such as medical thrillers like Cure by Robin Cook, which revolves around the murder of kidnapped bio-medial researcher Satoshi Machita, who was close to a breakthrough in stem cell research. If this single issue is taken out of context, than this novel would be SF.

- It involves technologies not found in our world.
Now this one I believe is closer to the mark of being SF exclusive, but once more there comes into play a different, and closely related genre, Fantasy. Some might argue that this is not the case, that Fantasy does not use any sort of technology, but this is not the case, as you can find several instances in which there is a sort of technology, which does not posses a logical or rational explanation as to its workings, but it is there. One simple example is the Ter'angreal found in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time Series, like the much mentioned but never seen shocklances.

- Extraterrestrial beings are involved.
This is probably the only one that is definitely a staple of SF. Even in genres such as Fantasy and paranormal dramas where it is possible to find creatures other than humans, those others are not of an extraterrestrial nature (understood as coming from another planet within our universe).

- The story takes place on other planets (one or more).
Once again Fantasy comes to challenge the domain of SF on this trope, for one can say without a doubt that The Lord of the Rings takes place in another planet (maybe even an entirely different dimension or universe), but it is not a world we feel to be in our same universe; in fact the question of where exactly middle earth is is irrelevant to the story.

- Technological innovation plays a central role in the story.
In today's world technological innovation is a part of the norm, for example in Stieg Larsson's Millenium trilogy, technology plays a key role, and in fact without technological innovation such as Lisbeth's Asphyxia software the plot would very soon come to dead ends without a way out.

- Society changes up to a point where we can no longer recognize it as our own.
This is probably one of the broadest tropes employed by SF, as it can be found in so many and varied genres that it has been postulated that it should not be included on this list at all. Take once more Greer's novel mentioned before, or Kafka's The Castle, in which society has been so warped that we cannot really relate to it, and so many other examples.

- The setting for the story (backdrop)is not something found in our everyday life.
This can be applied to pretty much any sort of fiction, what differs in SF is in reality the degree to which we are, as Darko Suvin has said, estranged from our every day world.

As can be seen here each of these elements on its own can be applied to many different forms of fiction, therefore coming to a delimitation of the SF genre is not such a simple task, and most of the definitions which have been postulated so far by Academia has been contested on the grounds of not being inclusive enough, or of the opposite, of including too much. So maybe the tropes by themselves are not enough to fully define Science Fiction as a Genre, and other elements are needed, but that will be the topic of a next post, for this one seems long enough already.

First off, what is Science Fiction?

2011-01-06T10:27:00.000-08:00

In this post I do not pretend to go into the academical discussion of what science fiction is, for this has been a point of contention among many scholars, authors and critics of the field, but in order to proceed with this sojourn into the sociopolitical issues dealt with in many SF stories, whether in the form of a novel or that of a short story, we must have a working definition of which works to include as our working base.

The definitions which have been proposed over the years range from the one given by Damon Knight, founder of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA), which is the simplest, most tautological of the bunch:
"...[Science Fiction] means what we point to when we say it"

To others so elaborate and complex that they take up complete academic essays to fully explain it. However in recent years the term speculative fiction has gained a widespread acceptance, as an umbrella to cover what we laymen call science fiction, as well as some other genres dealing with issues and settings not normally found in mainstream, or realist, fiction.

But since the goal of this post is to give us a working definition of SF, I will try to compose a list of the tropes usually encountered in stories commonly accepted as SF. This will provide us with some tools to decide whether a given book can be considered SF or not.

Main Tropes:
- The story takes place in the future (from the authors time).
- The story revolves around a given "scientific" discovery or theory.
- It involves technologies not found in our world.
- Extraterrestrial beings are involved.
- The story takes place on other planets (one or more).
- Technological innovation plays a central role in the story.
- Society changes up to a point where we can no longer recognize it as our own.
- The setting for the story (backdrop)is not something found in our everyday life.

Aside from these main tropes, there are some rules which must be met in the telling of the story for it to be considered SF and not Fantasy, or any other genre.

Main Rules:
- The setting must be coherent within itself.
- There must be a clear set of rules within the setting. (I.e, if pigs fly there has to be a rational explanation)
- Technological or social changes must be plausible (credible within the rules of the setting)

Now one thing that needs to be clarified here is that this list is by no means exhaustive, nut just the most prominent tropes and rules are contained in it; also for a given work (book, movie, TV show, comic) to be considered SF it must contain more than one of these tropes (and the more the better) and abide by all three of these rules, otherwise it would be possible to include non SF books into the genre.

Later on I will try to tackle the problem of defining Science Fiction from a more academic standpoint, for those who want to go deeper into the subject, but for now let it suffice with this brief summary of tropes and rules.

If you have any more tropes and rules that you feel should be included on the list be sure to let me know and I'll look into the matter.

Speculative Fiction & Political Thought... and that is?

2011-01-05T08:19:00.000-08:00

Ten years ago, while still a college student majoring in literature (mostly Hispanic-American literature) I came across a course called "Parallel Worlds - Science Fiction" and decided that since I was seeing some courses into very dense writers and literary periods (such as the French poets of the late 19th century) I could do with some "light" reading to ease off things... I couldn't have been more mistaken.

One of the first notions I was disabused of was that science fiction was a genre for teenagers or young adults, comprised mainly of a variant sort of action novel set in spaceships and where the cowboy is armed with laser pistols (even though said kinds of stories do exists in large quantities). Science fiction, it turns out, is a much broader genre, one where the impossible can be brought to bear, as long as it is dutifully explained and is believable within its own framework.

This was a doorway into a realm where, as Ursula K. Leguin said in the prologue to The Left Hand of Darkness, "Thought Experiments" are possible. The stories I found in this course were just the beginning, and noticeably lacking in terms of the laser pistol wielding cowboy, they were closer to psychological thrillers, where issues such as gender, race, otherness and other often uncomfortable issues could be liberally explored, and from every conceivable angle, in any setting you could imagine, and some you could not.

However, I have found that the bad image I had of Science Fiction is still the predominant one in most of academia, as well as among many readers of traditional fiction,who consider it to be a sort of contagious disease that need to be avoided. This has led me to undertake a research project into some of the aspects that have made the deepest impact on me from my reading experience with science fiction. This research has taken up a good part of those last ten years, and has been a long and difficult process, mainly because a lack of institutional backing, and therefore zero funding.

This hasn't deterred me from my studies though, and I have recently come across a post about Dystopian Lit and in the comments section to that post ran across several statements which prompted me to start this blog. I might not keep it updated too often, due to a lack of time, but I'll try to do a post at least once a week.

I intend to address the issues which I have come across in my research, and they deal mainly with the idea that there is within science fiction a fascination with social and political organization, and the possible difficulties it might come across. So my main question is: What if we could use science fiction as a tool to analyze our own contemporary political and social fears, as well as an aid in understanding the fears of those who have come before us, like those of Orwell in his book 1984, or even further back, the fear of Mary Shelley that science could lead to something like Frankenstein's Monster, or Jules Verne's belief in the indomitable will of human beings such as Captain Nemo.

Are these ideas born out of a "loony's imagination" as some have said, or are they the result of a thought experiment dealing with a society's deepest fears and current problems and concerns? I personally believe the latter is the case, and have devoted a good part of my time over the last years to look into the matter.

I hope to hear from people who can contribute to this effort, either in support or in refutation, for only then will I be able to move forward on my research.

Daniel