Science fiction: optimism vs. pesimism and "realism"

I think we need both SF shows: one to scare us, and one to show us the alternative.

It seems there is much more pessimistic SF, I could easily list many different pessimistic SF movies, but if you'd ask me to make a list of optimistic movies, I could only give you a list of star trek movies! There are a few reasons for this. Inspiration comes from the present and the past, so themes like corruption and hate are likely to be used, especially because many authors will give a message "if we continue like this, this is what will happen". A star trek future requires a change of attitude from the majority of humans, which makes it less easy to believe than humans continuing on their way of corruption like they always have. Also, the "dark side" is more fascinating. Think about all the movies and fiction about crime in the present. Think about the huge load of things about the second world war...

So, my point is, it's much easier to make pessimistic SF. Maybe star trek deserves more credit because it is optimistic and still believable.

Right.. I agree some pesimistic shows and movies wouldn't be bad, to serve as kind of a warning to people about the future that we shouldn't bring upon us. It should be balanced by optimistic shows which would show what kind of future we *should* work for.

But today, as you well described, there are more of pesimistic ones because they are simpler to make, but also, I think, because it seems to be what sells, what people want, what is the most fun or as you put it more fascinating.

But it seems to me that it goes beyond that as it is not only that people are genuinely hungry for darker stuff, the media seems to be feeding them! That is what I am worried about. Instead of evening the balance and putting out more of optimism, media (such as RTL and Nova TV in Croatia) consistently promote violence, darkness, vampire slaying and whatnot as the highpoints of the program - to that extent that I sometimes wonder if the very demons are working on this TV, exist they or not..Very bad.

It may be, but frankly, it is becoming annoying and increasingly repulsive to me, which is why my appreciation for Star Trek and the likes is actually going up.

As you would guess, I can't argue there (being a sort of trekkie and all). :-D

Star Trek and optimism forever! ;-)

Thanks
Ensign Libervisco

Here is an editorial that speaks of the same:

http://www.lrcpubs.com/artemismagazine/issue02/editorial.html

Dystopias Go Home!
by Ian Randal Strock

Science fiction, at its core, tells a story. It's designed to entertain the reader: to make him part with his beer money for a book or magazine, instead of a brew. That's it. That's the purpose of science fiction (and of any other form of writing, for that matter).

However.

Yes, however. Science fiction can be far more than simple entertainment.

Three quarters of a century ago, science fiction was simply one constituent of a vast field of fiction that entertained the public. Not having to compete with television, computer games, easy and cheap travel, the Internet, and a great host of other possible diversions, the written word flourished. The "literature" of the time was published mostly in pulp magazines; cheaply made, cheaply sold.

In the mid-1920s, Amazing--the first science fiction magazine--was born ("scientifiction" was the appellation editor Hugo Gernsback gave it). It was rapidly followed by a raft of others, and science fiction took its rather pedestrian place on the newsstands amongst all the other fiction magazines (mystery, western, detective, and so on). Other than to its readers, science fiction wasn't a blip on anyone's radar screen (except they didn't have radar back then).

Then came World War II, and the atomic bomb, which absolutely stunned the entire world.

Or almost the entire world.

Science fiction writers and readers, it seems, had been talking about the atomic bomb for quite some time, and suddenly, science fiction gained public stature: non-science fiction readers found a pipeline to the future.

It didn't make the bomb any less frightening, but it did give people a sense of control: perhaps there were other secrets of the future hidden in science fiction stories.

The genre blossomed into book publishing, greater numbers of magazines, movies, and, on that new invention, television shows. People wanted more science fiction. Perhaps these stories weren't oracles of the future, but they did show, in many cases, that ordinary people could control their world and their destiny. There was a chance to survive (the bomb, Korea, the Cold War. . .).

Then something happened.

Proponents of science fiction publishing usually point to changes in the publishing industry that made science fiction magazines and books less profitable.

Me, I'm not so sure. I wonder if it wasn't real-world seepage: all those fears of the early 1960s--nuclear holocaust, overpopulation, pollution--seeping into science fiction, making the future a scary and depressing place; a place to stay away from.

Sure, there's always been bug-eyed monsters and evil scientists, but the good guys always won. In the 1960s, we found dystopias, where the good guys might not win (or, indeed, might not even exist).

Dystopias had been around for centuries (dystopia, as opposed to "utopia"), but they became grimmer, bleaker, and far more real in the 1960s.

And that, I think, caused the contraction of science fiction publishing, as much as bad economics. Remember, science fiction literature is not a necessity. It was competing for the audience's entertainment money, and--horror fans aside--the average reader can only take so many dark futures, so much unrelenting depression, so much lack of hope, before he says "Enough. I'm gonna take my science fiction money and buy a beer."

Now, that depressing view wasn't all-pervasive in science fiction. There was some optimistic literature, and then came Star Trek, with its upbeat, "we can do anything" attitude. It was a ratings failure, but not a death knell for optimism. Others followed. And they spawned new publishing ventures (including television and film novelizations), and a resurgence in the market.

That resurgence, however, sometimes appears to be solely in the novelization arena. But can we really be surprised by that? After all, those novelizations--and the series and movies they're based on--almost always paint optimistic pictures of the future. They show the readers/viewers futures in which they'd want to live.

And that optimism may be television's, film's, and tie-in novelization's contribution--and guide post--for written science fiction.

People read science fiction for the entertainment. Oh, sure, we're all interested in seeing what might be around the next corner, and science fiction seems to have a knack for guessing right, but at the most basic level, we want to be entertained.

Writers sometimes write depressing stories as cautionary tales: "Watch out, or this may happen," in the hopes of urging readers to action. And somtimes, it works.

But while a depressing novel may be 100% on in predicting the future, it won't matter if nobody reads it.

Optimistic tales, on the other hand, by their entertaining nature, attract readers. And though they may not spur the reader to take action, they can often depict worlds that the readers want to experience, and, desiring it, will create for themselves.

When I was young, I watched Star Trek on television, and knew I wanted to explore the galaxy on that wonderful ship. I was horribly disappointed and depressed when I realized I couldn't go right now, that Star Trek was set 300 years in the future. Battlestar Galactica--with its never-ending flight from the Cylon menace--seemed present-tense and desirable, but it, too, was simply make-believe.

That's when I decided that I wanted to do something; that I wanted to build a future in which I could travel on the Starship Enterprise, and I could fly a Colonial Viper.

Heinlein's Farnham's Freehold warned me of some of the dangers of nuclear war, and Orwell's 1984 showed a future that was to be strenuously avoided, but in general, it was the positive science fiction that caught, and kept, my attention.

Science fiction can warn or entice. For me, teh carrot's a far more enticing draw than the stick, and so I tend to keep to the positive side: in my writing, in my reading, and, usually, in my editing. I don't guarantee that every story you read in these pages will be light, happy, and upbeat (we all have darker sides to our natures, and these occasionally require an infusion of blackness), but most of them will be. And that's why: because I'm trying to entertain you, to entice you into a greater future, one you'll want to build. . . and, I'll admit it, I'm hoping to entice you into buying this magazine, instead of that beer.

Drink up.

Great article cumulonimbus :yes:

It is like a demonstration on how positive science fiction can affect people to strive and work toward positive future.

That said, I think that even though negative or pesimist SF may have it's place, science fiction that is generally positive can have far better results and is therefore much better. SF is not only about realism, but about envisioning a future. If it fails to envision a future that is better and more attractive then in my opinion it is incomplete and in the end less enticing. In that case it is more likely a mere attempt at entertainment than anything deeper than that.

Thanks cumulonimbus for the link and welcome aboard. :-)

Daniel