# SF in the shadows: Fear of the present?



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Oct 19, 2004)

Fantasy currently seems to have surpassed sf in general popularity and readership, something that's been commented on at length elsewhere. Cited reasons include the impetus given by Harry Potter and the LotR movies, as well as a certain fear of the future in the current political world climate. While I agree these are important factors, I have my own take on what it's all about (don't I always) and here it is, for your perusal and dissection.

Science fiction is nearly always about the present, if it is any good at all. This explains why various works of sf seem either dated or still applicable, depending on how much they reflect the spirit of their specific times or the overall concerns of what I'd like to simply call the modern era. 

As Ursula LeGuin points out in her introduction to The Left Hand Of Darkness, by positing the existence of androgynous humans in that novel, she is neither predicting that we will become androgynous, or suggesting that we should, but reflecting the fact that, in certain ways, we already are. 

Similarly, George Orwell's 1984 wasn't so much about some future regime that could destroy human liberty as it was, and still is, about present regimes that could achieve the same. 

As Rick Kleffel points out in his review of Cory Doctorow's Eastern Standard Tribe, 'it helps to remember that science fiction is not about the future, but rather holding a cracked mirror up to the present', as succinct a summation of LeGuin's contention in the introduction mentioned above, and my own in this post, as one could wish for. 

Assuming that I'm at least partly right (I am certain there are exceptions to what I've suggested - feel free to inform me of them), I think this offers a clue to the real reason why there's a certain lack of interest in sf as opposed to fantasy, right now. 

It isn't a fear of the future. It's a fear of the present. 

An immediate and major objection to my suggestion is that the 'golden age' of sf conicided to an extent with the second world war - surely a time when may were scared of the present? Perhaps, but I'd also contend that people at that time felt more morally grounded, more sure that their own version of the present was worth fighting for, than perhaps is the case today.

What do you think?


----------



## Princess Ivy (Oct 19, 2004)

Or on where we are going to go, eg: Silverberg and Bradbury!

I suppose that fantasy is more about what we can accomplish. Personaly, i'm more of a fantasy fan, for the simple reason that technology bores the heck out of me. But then, i'll read just about anything that well written.

I don't think its a negative, ie fear of the present, some fantasy, well written fantasy can poke as many holes in our society as any sci-fi, but rather a postive, ie hope for what we can become and accomplish that seems to drive fantasy novels that appeals.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Oct 19, 2004)

Fantasy offers a better escape option than SF, and generally has more colurful characters and encapsulates the human spirit more precisely.  It is also contains many elements of childrens fiction, and lets face it we all wish we were children still.  SF could easily achieve this.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 19, 2004)

Indeed, quite a point there - after all, I'm sure someone could argue that mediaeval fantasy is effectively a form of Anglo-Saxon "Golden Age" for Anglo-Saxons, to some degree - whereas science fiction invokes the unknown more, and faces it. Where we have _been_ as a better familiarity then where we might _be_.

 Good discussion though - certainly there's got to be a big skew to fantasy because of the big movies the past few years.


----------



## dwndrgn (Oct 19, 2004)

I think I'll have to disagree with you JP.  I think that there are a couple of other strong possible causes.

You've already mentioned that the rise in fantasy has certainly moved the spotlight away from science fiction, that's a thought that I favor as well.

I think that you should also consider the global nature of our current society and the loss of that sense of wonder that so fueled early sf.  Back in the 'Golden Age' the world wasn't as connected, there weren't phones and faxes and tv stations all over the world telling us what is happening everywhere.  So, the world was more mysterious and 'wonder'-ful.  Space programs were in their infancy, the outside world was a complete puzzle that people wanted to discover and solve.  This is really still the case but it isn't nearly as pronounced.  Of course we haven't explored everything and learned everything about the unknown, but it isn't as scary and mysterious as it used to be.

Fantasy, on the other hand, deals with personal and moral issues.  Everything else is backdrop.  I think it is a clear reflection of our society today that when everything is so global but so disconnected, we'd want to get more personal in our reading choices.

Or, maybe this is the kind of thing that will just wobble back and forth and just reflects how people's tastes change over the years.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Oct 19, 2004)

Dwndrgn, I'd agree with your first point, to an extent. The mysteries are as vast as ever, but the fact that we are far more wired in to our own world has perhaps shifted the outward focus. 


I'd also have to agree to some extent that by using forms closer to mythology fantasy seems more archetypal, more connected with basic human human issues. But I think that's just perception. Works like Silverberg's Dying Inside, Sturgeon's Venus Plus X, the short stories of Cordwainer Smith, Card's Ender's Game, Blish's A Case of Conscience and others have set me to think on personal or even moral issues as much as any fantasy. 


I mean, any form of art is ultimately about humanity.


----------



## dwndrgn (Oct 19, 2004)

knivesout said:
			
		

> I mean, any form of art is ultimately about humanity.


True.  And, I think the reasons for the upsurge of interest in fantasy and a corresponding downturn in interest in science fiction, are many and varied.  We've just hit a couple of them so far.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Oct 19, 2004)

I'm not sure its quite ascomplicatedas you're trying to make out. I may be way of the mark here, but I honestly feel its all more about image. Sci-fi has ever been the domain of geeks, fantasy can be construed as history Obviously this is only a factor, but I think if I had to sum it up in one word, "image" would be it.


----------



## dwndrgn (Oct 19, 2004)

Fantasy is definitely perceived as the domain of geeks as well (at least in my neck of the woods) - think of role players like Dungeons & Dragons, and fans who walk around in Xena outfits talking to gods and carry gigantic swords wearing only a loincloth...it is just as geeky as scifi.  I relish my geekiness


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 19, 2004)

This one's got me confused. Both sides of the debate put up good arguments.

In an earlier thread, I stated that I rarely read 'modern' Science Fiction' and prefer what is known as 'The Golden Age'. Perhaps I should ask myself why this preference exists?

Certainly SciFi has evolved both in a technical sense but more in a literary sense. It still fulfills its function which (like Fantasy) is ultimately about people. But outside the Golden age that 'sense of wonder' dwndrgn mentions seems to be missing for me. 

Perhaps Fantasy refuels that 'sense of wonder' for many (not really for me in most cases).

I do think that knivesout has a point about fear of the present but perhaps our own world has changed so much that SciFi as we once knew it is just not the beast it once was. Where the pulp mags reached the masses, now a few of us still soldier on (and some like me refuse to crawl out of the past).

In a way, maybe Fantasy is the 'New Science Fiction' - fulfilling a certain need within our psyche that once Asimov and his contemporaries did before. 

Then, perhaps I'm just talking absolute nonsense


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 19, 2004)

How about fantasy vs sf (as a generalisation) as like escapism vs exploration?

 Space used to be an exciting issue - the Cold War focussed on space exploration as a showcase for military technology, and we learned incredible things about our solar system, galaxy, and universe.

 But now look at space - MIR is burned up, the space shuttle fleet grounded, the ISS is a cash-fat failure (according to original intentions), and the only visible eye we have in space is the dying Hubble Telescope. Space has lost it's edge.

 Whereas fantasy is essentially about the escapism from the now, and the exploration of the self - inner space, not outer space - as we delve into worlds that are shaped in the mould of our past, from which we reach for our identity.

 Or something like that. 

 I'm very tired. See if that helps push the discussion a little.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 20, 2004)

I'm going to have to think about this.  Coming at the question from my perspective as a sf fan before I ever knew much about fantasy beyond "The Wizard of Oz" makes me think one set of things about this.  Being, now, a very picky fan of fantasy (some of it I absolutely love, some of it I have very little use for at all), makes me thing another set of things.

Um...I hope that doesn't make me sound too much like I have multiple personalities arguing about this inside my head. 

Like I said, let me think about this one for a bit.


----------

