3 ms·

I think it's hard to pinpoint cause and effect here. Science fiction in the golden age was the product of an interesting coalition of nerds, dreamers, rocket sc

I think it's hard to pinpoint cause and effect here. Science fiction in the golden age was the product of an interesting coalition of nerds, dreamers, rocket scientists, hippies, and idealists. It was a product of a very optimistic age, and it was also built by, and for, a niche audience. Most of what passes for sci-fi today is a far more mainstream product. Mainstream products tend to closely track pop culture, which to a large extent, tracks socioeconomic conditions. Today's stuff is really just romance, thriller, or adventure tropes with sci-fi window dressing. The recent fascination with dystopian futures reflects the current zeitgeist to some degree: we're living in a more uncertain, economically unstable age than the sci-fi writers of the 40s through 60s were. Everything was looking up-and-up back then,[1] and the sky really seemed to be the limit. These days, people are more skeptical and more concerned. We are getting a literature (and cinema) that is equal parts fear and escapism. It's certainly possible that dystopian sci-fi is creating a feedback loop, and that it's making us more scared and more cynical. But I don't see compelling evidence for a causal or directional effect there. More likely the directionality is the opposite: people seem to be buying that stuff, and so the publishers in the market select and publish more of it. What we're seeing is largely an artifact of selection -- by the publishers and studios, and accordingly, by all the dystopian stuff floating around in pop culture. I wholeheartedly support the call to action in the article, namely, that "It's time for us to dream again." But that's easier said than done. The market wants what it wants. Publishers want what the market wants. Few people are in a position to challenge that consensus. Perhaps it will take a few breakout hits of a more optimistic, exciting, less morbid vein to change things up a bit. I would certainly back any ambitious Kickstarter projects of that nature. [1] A notable caveat is that Cold War nuclear paranoia played a discordant note in the overall melody here. The effects were interesting, and the interplay between bold optimism and end-of-the-world panic made for a rich and complex output.

nitrogen 12y ago
Everything was looking up-and-up back then,[1] and the sky really seemed to be the limit Plenty of older sci-fi was pessimistic as well. Star Trek TNG was produced before the fall of the Berlin Wall, at the height of the cold war. I doubt we will be talking about most current scifi TV 20-30 years from now. It's the stuff that changes the world that will be remembered, not the spoon-fed fear mongering of mainstream dystopian sci-fi drama.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  "Plenty of older sci-fi was pessimistic as well." Yes, but it was always a niche. Stuff from Philip K. Dick on down to J.G. Ballard was an acquired taste in its day, and it was never mainstream-definitive. It was a creative and interesting counterpoint to a mainstream literature and cinema that was largely dominated by optimism. Today's mainstream is mostly pessimistic (and boringly, generically so). Pessimistic sci-fi from previous eras was bold and thought-provoking, perhaps because it was playing against the grain. And it was also very personal. Philip K. Dick wrote directly from Philip K. Dick's mind, not from some dispassionate calculation of the market's tastes. Today's pessimistic sci-fi is really just warmed-over teen romance or paint-by-numbers action/adventure with dystopian settings, a lot of it written (and selected for publication) to capitalize on a trend. "Star Trek TNG was produced before the fall of the Berlin Wall, at the height of the cold war." Yes, but TNG was created under Gene Roddenberry's watchful guidance. At least in its early run (really, up until his death), it was following the philosophical precepts he'd laid down in TOS, way back when. You could make an argument that TNG was a 1960s show, made in the 1980s and 1990s. "It's the stuff that changes the world that will be remembered, not the spoon-fed fear mongering of mainstream dystopian sci-fi drama." No argument here. I have little doubt that the dime-a-dozen dystopias of today will not be remembered in three or four decades as anything more than a market-driven fad. Truly groundbreaking works, be they optimistic or pessimistic, break the mold and establish a new one.
blumkvist 12y ago
I came here to make basically the same point you are making, but with exactly the opposite conclusion. > But I don't see compelling evidence for a causal or directional effect there. You don't? Mass media consolidation, pop-culture more promiscuous and superficial than ever, powered by unprecedented media consumption levels and immediate feedback through surveillance. Commercial, government and rogue. Sometimes, a mix of the three. Sorry about no referrence, I'm on the phone now. I think it's common knowledge among people who value being informed greatly. There's a famous Orwell vs Hauxley comparison. I think it sums up the case pretty well. http://bit.ly/1t6FV94 http://bit.ly/1t6FV94
angersock 12y ago
Go back and read "Repent, Harlequin" or The Forever War or or Make room! Make room! or "Solution Unsatisfactory" tell me that all sci-fi from that age is all up and up. Go read the Dangerous Visions anthologies compiled by Ellison. I think you'd be a bit surprised by how "optimistic" a time that was--for all the rocketships, there was also a large state security apparatus, huge civil unrest, and great existential threat from the Russians.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  I didn't say that "all sci-fi was up and up." I don't think you and I are in any real disagreement. I think you're misreading my comment a bit. Alternatively, given the rambling and unstructured nature of my comment, I'm probably not being clear enough. :)

nitrogen 12y ago

Everything was looking up-and-up back then,[1] and the sky really seemed to be the limit Plenty of older sci-fi was pessimistic as well. Star Trek TNG was produced before the fall of the Berlin Wall, at the height of the cold war. I doubt we will be talking about most current scifi TV 20-30 years from now. It's the stuff that changes the world that will be remembered, not the spoon-fed fear mongering of mainstream dystopian sci-fi drama.

jonnathanson 12y ago
"Plenty of older sci-fi was pessimistic as well." Yes, but it was always a niche. Stuff from Philip K. Dick on down to J.G. Ballard was an acquired taste in its day, and it was never mainstream-definitive. It was a creative and interesting counterpoint to a mainstream literature and cinema that was largely dominated by optimism. Today's mainstream is mostly pessimistic (and boringly, generically so). Pessimistic sci-fi from previous eras was bold and thought-provoking, perhaps because it was playing against the grain. And it was also very personal. Philip K. Dick wrote directly from Philip K. Dick's mind, not from some dispassionate calculation of the market's tastes. Today's pessimistic sci-fi is really just warmed-over teen romance or paint-by-numbers action/adventure with dystopian settings, a lot of it written (and selected for publication) to capitalize on a trend. "Star Trek TNG was produced before the fall of the Berlin Wall, at the height of the cold war." Yes, but TNG was created under Gene Roddenberry's watchful guidance. At least in its early run (really, up until his death), it was following the philosophical precepts he'd laid down in TOS, way back when. You could make an argument that TNG was a 1960s show, made in the 1980s and 1990s. "It's the stuff that changes the world that will be remembered, not the spoon-fed fear mongering of mainstream dystopian sci-fi drama." No argument here. I have little doubt that the dime-a-dozen dystopias of today will not be remembered in three or four decades as anything more than a market-driven fad. Truly groundbreaking works, be they optimistic or pessimistic, break the mold and establish a new one.

blumkvist 12y ago

I came here to make basically the same point you are making, but with exactly the opposite conclusion. > But I don't see compelling evidence for a causal or directional effect there. You don't? Mass media consolidation, pop-culture more promiscuous and superficial than ever, powered by unprecedented media consumption levels and immediate feedback through surveillance. Commercial, government and rogue. Sometimes, a mix of the three. Sorry about no referrence, I'm on the phone now. I think it's common knowledge among people who value being informed greatly. There's a famous Orwell vs Hauxley comparison. I think it sums up the case pretty well. http://bit.ly/1t6FV94 http://bit.ly/1t6FV94

angersock 12y ago

Go back and read "Repent, Harlequin" or The Forever War or or Make room! Make room! or "Solution Unsatisfactory" tell me that all sci-fi from that age is all up and up. Go read the Dangerous Visions anthologies compiled by Ellison. I think you'd be a bit surprised by how "optimistic" a time that was--for all the rocketships, there was also a large state security apparatus, huge civil unrest, and great existential threat from the Russians.

jonnathanson 12y ago
I didn't say that "all sci-fi was up and up." I don't think you and I are in any real disagreement. I think you're misreading my comment a bit. Alternatively, given the rambling and unstructured nature of my comment, I'm probably not being clear enough. :)