Spider Star
The human colony on the planet Argo has long explored and exploited the technology left behind by an extinct alien race. But then an archaeology team accidentally activates a terrible weapon...
Read More.Praise for Star Dragon
"Seldom does a storytelling talent come along as potent and fully mature as Mike Brotherton. His complex characters take you on a voyage that is both fiercely credible and astonishingly imaginative. This is Science Fiction."
-- David Brin"Star Dragon is terrific fare, offering readers a fusion of hard science and grand adventure."
-- Locus Magazine"Star Dragon is steeped in cosmology, the physics of interstellar travel, exobiology, artificial intelligence, bioscience. Brotherton, author of many scientific articles in refereed journals, has written a dramatic, provocative, utterly convincing hard science sf novel that includes an ironic twist that fans will love."
-- Booklist starred review"Readers hungry for the thought-provoking extrapolation and rigorous technical detail of old-fashioned hard SF are sure to enjoy astronomer Brotherton's first novel."
-- Publishers Weekly"Mike Brotherton, himself a trained astrophysicist, combines the technical acuity and ingenuity of Robert Forward with the ironic, postmodern stance and style of M. John Harrison. In this, his debut novel, those twin talents unite to produce a work that is involving on any number of levels. It's just about all you could ask for in a hardcore SF adventure."
-- Paul di Fillippo, SCI-FI.COM
Search
Mainstream Stories and a Metaphorical Science Fiction/Fantasy Dichotomy
June 13th, 2010
I was thinking about the movie 300, Nnedi Okorafor’a detractors, and this recent blog post and comments therein. Thoughtful people get upset by art, whether it is a book, movie, or just about anything. I think there are good reasons and bad reasons to get upset. A good reason is when you’re disappointed because something had the potential to be great and it had fatal flaws that kept it from reaching that potential. A bad reason is when you’re biased, close-minded, and think that there’s an anti-something agenda in everything you see.
First, let me say that all fiction is fantasy. Historical fantasy, the hardest of hard science fiction, true crime stories, reality shows, everything. This point is easy to see when you think about it. To make any story, even reality-based stories, you edit. You cut out parts that are slow or boring. You change the dialogue to make it clear and easy to follow compared to how people really talk. You choose a perspective, how to display the story.
That’s all fine. That’s what makes writing stories art.
But then you can do even more. You can depart from reality as we know it. You can have the magic of fantasy. You can have the future predictions of science fiction. You can have unreliable narrators lying or omitting key information. You can have subtitles in movies. You can exaggerate, whether it is a string of amazing coincidences that move the story forward, stunts that subtly defy the laws of physics, business that defies economics, etc.
What is so clever about 300 is that it is an intentional exaggeration. Frank Miller isn’t trying to be true to history. He’s intentionally exaggerating. The evil priests have open oozing sores. The creatures are monstrous. The enemy looks like orcs. Their king is 10 feet tall. It’s MAINSTREAM FANTASY. Likewise with a movie like Charlie’s Angels, Shoot Em Up, or Crank. Everything is done with a wink and a nod as impossible stunt follows impossible stunt. They are not to be taken as literal reality at all, whether they’re messing with history, physics, whatever. They’re a form of fantasy.
So what then about mainstream science fiction? These are the stories that try to play by certain rules, whether they are reality based or only based on the story’s own internal self-consistency. Take CSI, for example. They try to abide by the rules of reality, but there are sums of money in that lab that are never seen by real labs, and there always seems to be a forensic clue that helps lead the investigators to a conviction. In any individual story, there’s no problem, but a pattern develops that isn’t our reality. Maybe the failed cases have been edited out, and never shown. Still, in the shows on tv the deck is always stacked in their favor. Juries now have unrealistic expectations about the quality and quantity of forensic evidence. Similarly with a show like House. In principle every story could happen, but House gets away with things time after time that he shouldn’t (medically, socially, economically, legally), and they pretty much always save the patient. Medical shows in general have much higher success rates for CPR than reality, leading to people having unrealistic expectations. These shows try hard to portray reality, but they don’t, and in an interesting way that makes me call it MAINSTREAM SCIENCE FICTION. Detective stories, medical stories, even lawyer stories, tend to fall into this category for me.
This is akin to the reason that I call Star Trek science fiction, and criticize the bad science it sometimes has, and give Star Wars a pass. Star Wars is a fantasy even though it has spaceships and robots. Star Wars isn’t trying to reflect reality in any way whatsoever. Even though it fails regularly enough, Star Trek does try. I’ll get upset with Star Wars for bad acting, stupid characters, etc., but not over the science. Star Trek, I’ll criticize the science.
A story like 300, I would say, beyond being mainstream fantasy, is not exactly a historical story. It’s inspired by a historical story, and has become it’s own version of that history without trying to be accurate in any specific reality-based manner. You can’t lump it in with science fiction or fantasy either, as it isn’t an alternate history like Inglourius Basterds. It’s an over-the-top stylized version of historical events, mainstream fantasy.
I think I’ll come up with lists of other examples over the next few days. Anyone want to suggest some?
Anyway, I think it’s inappropriate to criticize the history or politics of 300 the same way it is inappropriate to criticize the science of Star Wars. It’s just not that kind of story. It’s inspired by history, but it has its own version of it that is the story’s own reality. There are plenty of other stories that try to get everything right, even though it is impossible, and those should get the criticism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
[…] Mainstream Stories and a Metaphorical Science Fiction/Fantasy Dichotomy — Mike Brotherton is being his usually interesting, slightly cranky self. […]
Dear Mr. Brotherton,
I enjoyed reading your post and look forward to seeing your list of historical-fantasy movies.
One movie that comes to my mind, though I wish it didn’t, is “Wild Wild West” with Will Smith and Kevin Kline. I’ll try to think of others, if for no other reason than to get that one out of my head.
Btw, I myself am new to writing and was wondering what you meant by “You change the dialogue to make it clear and easy to follow compared to how people really talk.” Why do “you” do this? Do we have to? What is wrong with writing short, sometimes unfinished sentences and quick conversation, the way people really talk?
NEWays, I like the way you write and will look for your book in my Pod-reader.
-Zac
Oh, Wild Wild West…it’s either bad science fiction or bad mainstream “science fiction” as I define it up there. I was not happy with that one either, for a bunch of reasons.
As for the dialogue issue, consider this snippet from a CNN transcript from last week, one I found at random:
COOPER: Why do you think they have made it difficult for you to do your work? I mean, you were tasked by the U.S. government to get accurate numbers. And — and now the U.S. government is saying this is the most important thing, to know size of this leak.
LEIFER: It’s — it’s a good question. And — and I think it doesn’t make a lot of sense. What I really wish BP would understand is that having good numbers is in their interests, too, because, so far, to date, they have been trying solution after solution, and they have been failing one after a number — after another. And I think one of the reasons why is that no one really knows how much oil is coming out. And so things have been playing dice that we won’t have another catastrophe on our hands.
Even people speaking on television knowing they have big audiences, under pressure to speak clearly, don’t. There’s lots of repetition of words, errors, stuff that doesn’t quite make sense. Our brains filter this out when we’re listening live, but on the written page it just looks bad. In a tv show or movie, it’s slow and boring compared to a slick perfect version.
Sometimes you do want to write more like real life, for effect, but usually not. Real life is ambiguous, slow, confusing, frustration, at least a good chunk of the time, and often meaningless in the context of a message or theme. Stories should be about something. Life rarely is, at least not consistently.
Thank you Mr. Brotherton, for the advice.
Your description of “real life” is exactly why I think writing in short, unfinished thoughts, can move things along quicker. It’s more like an IM conversation than a TV interview.
The younger generation today is used to seeing short “instant” sentences. I’m just thinking that authors might want to start writing that way. Sort of like “Instant Fiction”?
-Zac
Btw: I read the 1st chapter of Star Dragon, I like it!
[…] Mainstream Stories and a Metaphorical Science Fiction/Fantasy Dichotomy […]
The science in ST was not (necessarily) intended to be authentic. You limit story material if you emphasize scientific accuracy. What makes ST science fiction and not fantasy is that speculative or fantastical events are still considered natural phenomenon, in the context of the story, they are rationally explainable.
What distinguishes science fiction from fantasy is not that speculative events or things in sci-fi are scientifically possible but that the story has a scientific (naturalist) world view.
You can prefer hard sci-fi if you want to but you can’t “criticize” the science of soft sci-fi writers who (most likely) fully acknowledge that their own science is made up and false.
I appreciate your take which has some merit, but am not fond of snobby hypocrites. 😉
I can criticize anyone I want. I think criticizing soft sf writers who make up the science is just as fair as criticizing writers who make up their own spelling and grammar. If they’re brilliant geniuses and make it work, great, but most of the time they’ll just annoy me and hurt their own work.
If you’re making the point that they’re writing fantasy, the same way folks write alternate history (knowing the facts and making up new ones anyway), fine, but call it fantasy rather than science fiction. Star Wars is fantasy. Sometimes Star Trek, too.