What is great science fiction?

October 9th, 2005

First a couple of things before I get into the heart of the post.

Today we had our first snow of the season. If you think it’s early, the last three years in Laramie it snowed before the first day of fall. I’m just hoping right now it slacks off and I don’t have to shovel in the morning. It’s a school day.

Tobias Bucknell is posting an update to his survey of novel advances. I’m doing pretty well, all things considered, but you can see I’m not likely a rich man by any means. You don’t write to become rich, and if you do, you’re a fool. Play the lottery instead. It’s easier.

I have an interest in crytozoology and was interested to see this story about a big cat, not supposed to be there, being shot in Australia. Probably a puma or leopard — not as interesting as a thylacine or a yowie , but interesting nonetheless.

Okay, great science fiction. I was recently set off by a movie review, of all things, that Orson Scott Card posted about Serenity. I enjoyed watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer over the years, Angel too, but never got into Joss Whedon’s Firefly. I only watched one I think. It could grow on me I suppose.

First, let me note I didn’t go see Serenity. It’s not really relevant
to what I want to talk about here. I want to talk about Card’s review and some points he makes there.

He talks about what makes great science fiction, and claims it’s good characters in dramatic conflict, or something to that effective. I call bullshit. He’s confusing what makes great fiction with what makes great science fiction, and they’re not the same thing. Great science fiction should have good characters in dramatic conflict, but that is far from sufficient, otherwise we would just call it fiction. Card pays some lip service to “sense of wonder” and points at “Hamlet” with its ghosts, but he seems to be kind of clueless about this topic, at least in this review. Reading the review it’s hard to believe the writer wrote a book called How to Write Science Fiction & Fantasy.

To me, the power of science fiction is in its ability to showcase two things. First, the wonder of the universe as science shows us it really us. Exploring the meaning of quantum mechanics, the behavior of distant star systems, the different forms life and intelligence may take…in short, a fictional approach to exploring reality as we know it through science above and beyond human interactions that Card makes the centerpiece of his vision. Now, I agree with him that great fiction has drama and humanity, and that comes to the second thing I look for in great science fiction: exposing humanity through juxtoposition with ideas and concepts not to be found in everyday life.

Contact with aliens can show us what it means to be human. The ethics of cloning, and individual identity, were explored through science fiction decades before cloning humans was a tangible possibility. Computer intelligence may be coming, too, and what that means to our future, and our self-image, is approachable through science fiction. What does it mean when we can use genetic engineering to change ourselves? You can look at the legacy of humankind with a far future story. You can look at issues of stewardship of our planet. You can do an infinite number of things that let you look at issues that are difficult or impossible to explore in more conventional fiction. Great science fiction does this, and it isn’t great just because of drama and characters.

I think Card’s managed to write great science fiction a few times, but now I wonder if it was an accident. He has counterexamples, too. I mean, no matter how well you do it, how is a science fiction allegory of the founding of the Morman Church ever going to be great science fiction?

Finally, no matter how you like/dislike Card’s work, his take on homosexuals, or what makes great science fiction, you have to trust his judgement. In the last part of his review, he says that if you don’t go see Serenity, you could do worse than staying home and watching reruns of “Full House,” which he makes out to be much superior to “Seinfeld.” Okay, Scott, way to drive your point home.

Share/Bookmark

Tags:

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.