# Terrorism in Sci fi - Thesis Question Help Appreciated!



## Alienweirdo (Feb 23, 2007)

Hello once again, I have returned with another topic. 

My thesis is still going well, I have three chapters done and I received positive feedback from my tutors regarding my draft that I handed in last week. I’m doing my fourth and fifth chapter at the moment. For those who need reminding, my thesis title thus far is '*How the Real World Has Affected Mainstream Science Fiction'*.

It’s a touchy subject, but I want to do my fifth chapter on *Terrorism* and the terrorist attacks/threats we currently face, and how it may affect Science Fiction. By that, I mean more or less the attitudes and events that have spawned since 9/11, and how more people are aware of Terrorism now then before even though the threat has always been there (such as the IRA bombings etc). I wanted to do this as a subject, as it is one of the (not necessarily THE) major subjects of today’s society, along with global warming and (at least in the UK) the NHS.

I know there have been films made about 9/11, but I wouldn’t classify them as Science fiction. The only definite Sci fi thing I’ve discovered is an Issue of Spider-man where it prominently features the 9/11 attacks. I was toying with the idea of mentioning Lost with regards to the character Sayid, who was once an Iraqi torturer. 

   Does anyone have any suggestions at what else I could look at? I intend to write at most 1600 words in this chapter.

 Thanks again all!


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 23, 2007)

If it is something written since 9/11... Michael Moorcock's *Firing the Cathedral *would fit. It is a (fairly) recent Jerry Cornelius story, and can be found in the revised version of *The Lives and Times of Jerry Cornelius*.

Terrorism itself has cropped up in SF several times, including *The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress*, by Heinlein, though that was more than 30 years before the events you're mentioning... will you be considering terrorism in sf from other periods, or only since the attacks?


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 23, 2007)

There's also the recent *Glorifying Terrorism*, edited by Farah Mendlesohn....


----------



## iansales (Feb 23, 2007)

9/11 is not the only terrorist act to have impacted literature or cinema. Iain Banks wrote a story about the Lockerbie Disaster, for example (I forget the title, and it's not sf anyway). Most sf written about terrorism, I suspect, will have been of the flag-waving kill-the-nasty-terrorists variety. Popular entertainment tends to reflect social concerns, after all.

Of more recent vintage, there *Battlestar: Galactica*, of course. And, while it's an indirect connection, there's also *Glorifying Terrorism* (see http://rackstrawpress.nfshost.com/).


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 23, 2007)

Yes... we had a Press Release about this one a short while ago:

http://www.chronicles-network.com/f...terrorism.html?highlight=Glorifying+Terrorism


----------



## The Ace (Feb 23, 2007)

TNG series 3 episode "The High Ground was banned in the UK for its support of the IRA, only a highly -edited version being shown on Sky 1, but generally, terrorism is a difficult subject to define because of differing viewpoints.


----------



## Parson (Feb 23, 2007)

Another treatment of terrorism can be found in David Weber's Honor Harrington series the book: *Flag in Exile* has terrorism as a serious side plot. In the afterward he speaks of the Oklohoma City Bombing.


----------



## Alienweirdo (Feb 23, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Terrorism itself has cropped up in SF several times, including *The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress*, by Heinlein, though that was more than 30 years before the events you're mentioning... will you be considering terrorism in sf from other periods, or only since the attacks?



I would prefer to write about post 9/11 subjects as that would fit my criteria better, but i may have to consider others time periods if i struggle to find the research material.


----------



## iansales (Feb 23, 2007)

Alienweirdo said:


> I would prefer to write about post 9/11 subjects as that would fit my criteria better, but i may have to consider others time periods if i struggle to find the research material.



Why only post 9/11? what criteria have you set that excludes earlier acts of terrorism?


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Feb 23, 2007)

Ben Bova's got a new book that deals with terrorists, if not overtly dealing with terrorism. I can't remember the title, though... I saw it at the bookstore yesterday. I THINK it's called POWERSTAT. You'd have to double check.


----------



## iansales (Feb 23, 2007)

Just remembered: terrorists feature in Iain M Banks' *The Algebraist* too.


----------



## The Ace (Feb 23, 2007)

[quote

Terrorism itself has cropped up in SF several times, including *The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress*, by Heinlein, though that was more than 30 years before the events you're mentioning... will you be considering terrorism in sf from other periods, or only since the attacks?[/quote]

 They weren't terrorists, they were freedom fighters.


----------



## Locksmith (Feb 23, 2007)

The rebels in Star Wars series were clearly terrorists, who committed their own 9/11 in blowing up the Death Star. One question you could explore is whether Star Wars could be made today, given the political climate, or whether the themes are too close to home.


----------



## Alienweirdo (Feb 23, 2007)

iansales said:


> Why only post 9/11? what criteria have you set that excludes earlier acts of terrorism?


 
I'm not excluding earlier acts of terrorism, my reasons are simply due to the previous content of my dissertation/thesis, and how i have layed it out (if that makes any sense..). in my four previous chapters, i have chronologically covered science fiction from the turn of the century up until now, looking at early sci fi writings (hence HG wells etc in previous topics), World War II, The Atomic Age and The Space Age (including modern technology) respectively. i am also going over my allocated word quota on some subjects, so to cover previous terrorism (a subject that doesn't seem to have affected science fiction as much as the previous subjects) would seem a bit of a waste.

I suggested to my tutor that my final chapter looks at 9/11 and the war on terror, as it is a major world event. They eagerly approved, hence why i would like to focus on this subject. Hope that makes sense!



> The rebels in Star Wars series were clearly terrorists, who committed their own 9/11 in blowing up the Death Star. One question you could explore is whether Star Wars could be made today, given the political climate, or whether the themes are too close to home.


 lol that’s a good way of looking at it!

Terrorists can think they are freedom fighters, and the antagonists of the freedom fighters may believe the freedom fighters to be terrorists.


----------



## BookStop (Feb 23, 2007)

*Zenith Angle* by Bruce Sterling - satiric post 9/11 tecno security
*Empire* by OSC - american civil war - terrorist kill pres
*Terror...Irustan* by Marley - terror from another angle


----------



## The Ace (Feb 23, 2007)

If you looked at WW2 you could have examined terrorist groups in France, Greece, Norway, Belgium,etc. etc.  No wait a minute, they were resistance fighters.   The palestinians have a legitimate grievance against Israel, as the IRA had against the British government or the Maquis against the German army of occupation.  The only time terrorists are so labelled historically is when they were on the losing side.  While I cannot condone their methods, I can understand the feelings which motivated them and, in many cases, the justice of the cause for which they took up arms in the first place.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 23, 2007)

Terrorism didn't start with 9-11; indeed, not even American terrorism. And science fiction writers have been exploring the various forms (bio-terrorism. atomic, power and computer attacks, examples rise immediately to mind- I could probably thinkup more exotic attacks with a small effort.) Perhaps it was too close in the future; it attracted as many thriller writers as true SF.
If anything, the 9-11 events reduced terrorism as a subject, just as the 1969 moon landings reduced near space exploration stories; it wasn't science _fiction_ any more, just boring old reality. Still, that onlry really holds for _american_ authors; the rest of the planet knew very well what terrorism involved, many of them intimately.
Add to that that if someone suggests handy, simple ways of making terror attacks more effective, or more difficult to prevent, written up in a widely distributed book, this could be viewed as antisocial. Thus, explore another direction, or write far enough into the future that those ideas are no longer relevant.
Similarly, the fanatic mentality that has frequently led to terrorism has long been a subject for SFF (and several other forms of literature; driven, monomaniac characters make good story bases) but I don't think this has increased with the American public's discovery that there are people out there who seriously don't like them.


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 24, 2007)

I think there's one difference there in Chris's post... many writers are a bit less likely to get into the subject with as much realistic detail as they once did. I recall working at a bookstore... one of the writers we had in for a signing had written a thriller with a scenario very like what actually happened with the World Trade Center, back in the mid-'90s, as I recall... When it happened, he was riddled with guilt for quite some time, afraid that what he wrote may have given the genuine terrorists some ideas on how to carry out such a scheme; he's tended to avoid such ideas since, no matter how good  a story they may make. So that's another way in which it has affected sf... though you'd have to look up various writers' comments to have substantiation on how widely or which writers were so impacted.


----------



## jrudder (Feb 24, 2007)

Locksmith said:


> The rebels in Star Wars series were clearly terrorists, who committed their own 9/11 in blowing up the Death Star. One question you could explore is whether Star Wars could be made today, given the political climate, or whether the themes are too close to home.


Hmm, I would have to disagree there. The Twin Towers were not nuclear missile silos that were aimed at the Middle East, ready to fire when the president gave the word and armed with missiles that were powerful enough to destroy an entire country. The Death Star was a military machine designed to kill innocent civilians, and it did just that when it blew up Alderaan. It was crewed by military personnel who would do everything in their power to do what the Emperor wanted, and that was to subjugate the galaxy through fear of having their planet destroyed. The destruction of the Death Star was a military operation conducted by proper military forces against proper military forces. A more appropriate correlation to draw would be the destruction of the Japanese battleship _Yamamoto, _the largest ever built, by American aircraft in WWII.


----------



## iansales (Feb 24, 2007)

On the other hand, the rebels were not a recognised military force. Any legitimacy they might have possessed was entirely self-proclaimed. 

The Death Star was an instrument of destruction, and the Empire ruled through intimidation and reprisal. It could be argued that the US "rules" through economic means... and the Twin Towers were important financial centres. But that's probably an analogy too far...


----------



## jrudder (Feb 24, 2007)

As was the Empire's. IMHO the Rebels had more legitimacy than the Empire, as the Rebellion was the government-in-exile of the Republic, the legitimate elected government of the galaxy.

It is, but even if it wasn't, that's not reciprocal. The Death Star was a military installation destroyed with military means. The Twin Towers were economic centers destroyed with violent means.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Feb 24, 2007)

jrudder said:


> Hmm, I would have to disagree there. The Twin Towers were not nuclear missile silos that were aimed at the Middle East, ready to fire when the president gave the word and armed with missiles that were powerful enough to destroy an entire country. The Death Star was a military machine designed to kill innocent civilians, and it did just that when it blew up Alderaan. It was crewed by military personnel who would do everything in their power to do what the Emperor wanted, and that was to subjugate the galaxy through fear of having their planet destroyed. The destruction of the Death Star was a military operation conducted by proper military forces against proper military forces. A more appropriate correlation to draw would be the destruction of the Japanese battleship _Yamamoto, _the largest ever built, by American aircraft in WWII.



Hmmmm.  That's interesting.  But I wouldn't be surprised if the WTC was attacked precisely because it was viewed as a weapon, not in a military sense but in an economic and cultural sense.  It seems to me that one of the issues Islamic militants have with the West in general and with the US in particular is that we tend to try to spread our culture in an effort to open new markets.  That is what, at least from the militant point of view, many of the businesses in the WTC were enaged in, making them see it as a legitimate target.  I don't know whether the militants have an issuse with the "new markets" part (although I suspect they might), but they certainly have problems with the idea that their culture is being invaded by what they see as a heathen, godless culture.  And remember, 9/11 wasn't even the first time that the WTC had been targeted.


----------



## jrudder (Feb 24, 2007)

That's probably true, and I'm not saying it's not, but it's still not a reciprocal response IMHO. The Rebels destroyed a violent machine with violence. The terrorists destroyed an economic building with violence. To me, the events cannot be compared to each other. Then again, I'm a stubborn, opinionated *******.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Feb 24, 2007)

But isn't terrorism, by definition, a disproportionate response?

Not being stubborn and opinionated, by the way.   Although I have been accused from time to time of having an attitude (see username).


----------



## jrudder (Feb 24, 2007)

Correct, and that's my point. People likened the attack on the Death Star to the attack on the WTC, and I am saying you can't compare the two.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Feb 25, 2007)

jrudder said:


> Correct, and that's my point. People likened the attack on the Death Star to the attack on the WTC, and I am saying you can't compare the two.



In that case, a proportionate response would be, I suppose, for the Islamic militants to attempt to impose their culture on the West as they see the West trying to impose Western culture on them.  Anyway, from our point of view that would be a proportionate response; a violent attack as on 9/11 would not be proportionate.  However, as I understand the ideology of the 9/11 attackers and their supporters (and I could be wrong about this, since I don't know any terrorists and only have what I have read to go by), to kill or attempt to kill those trying to alter the culture they live by (religion, politics, and so forth) is fully within bounds.  So, to those of us in the West, the attack on the WTC is clearly disporportionate.  I'm not so sure that Islamic militants consider it a disproportionate response.  Not saying I agree with them, you understand...just that different belief systems could easily have a different take on it.

Which, I suppose, leads to the statement that "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter."


----------



## Doggyforce (Mar 4, 2007)

Hello Alienweirdo, and thanks for your stirring topic. Really though. I think this question, or at least one aspect of it, being the relation to real-world topics like terrorism is really very important to ask... So I just thought I'd share with you what I think.

'Main-stream' (and, I guess I would categorize this as the science fiction which is brought about by the moneys of the telecom companies later mentioned) science fiction is controlled by one of four major telecom corperations who have major cross-continental geo-political interests who use 'far-out' outlets like science fiction to drive popular culture to where they want it to be, and for what they want it to do.

--
What I'm really saying is that if you look at the bigger picture, its these companies who are creating terrorism through their global reaching financial interests, and so, of course we are led to believe "Terrorism" or whatever, "Revolution" or whatever is like some big deal. It isn't only on the news, you see... Its also in Stargate!! So it has to be real!! Even Richard Dean Anderson fights terrorists, it must be happening!! P

anyways, I just think that you have to realize that the same people who(basically) are waging the war on "terror" are also bringing you pop-sci fi.

Thanks,
Doggyforce

(btw, I edited this, so thanks for letting me know it was offensive, so sorry again..


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 4, 2007)

Doggyforce said:


> Ms. Weirdo, I have a little deep news for you, which isn't news to some.


 
Friend, I realize this is your first post, but this isn't a place that takes kindly to personal slurs or attacks. You might want to be a little less abrasive if you want to post here. Arguments are fine, as long as they're civil. Personal comments are right out... check the forum rules.

And no, "mainstream" science fiction isn't controlled by such. From your post, I take it you're thinking of sf in the visual media (movies, tv) and the published tie-ins to same. That's a small portion of "mainstream sf", which has always been something of a maverick genre, and difficult to quantify (as evinced by the fact that, after more than 70 years, there still isn't a single definition that can be agreed upon!)


----------



## Doggyforce (Mar 4, 2007)

oh ya, I'm sorry.  I re-read that first part, and it wasn't a slur at all, I was trying to respond to Alienweirdo's post, and her avatar looked like a girl, so I thought I'd try to be polite my saying Ms. and saying weirdo, cause I thought It'd be kind of funny.. sorry.


----------



## Lenny (Mar 4, 2007)

Just say "AlienWeirdo" if you don't know his gender. Some for any other member.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 4, 2007)

Doggyforce said:


> oh ya, I'm sorry. I re-read that first part, and it wasn't a slur at all, I was trying to respond to Alienweirdo's post, and her avatar looked like a girl, so I thought I'd try to be polite my saying Ms. and saying weirdo, cause I thought It'd be kind of funny.. sorry.


 
Ah... in that case, I tender my apologies, as well.

Okay... let's start again: Hi, and Welcome to the Chronicles and -- if we can put that in the past -- hope you enjoy your stay....


----------



## Doggyforce (Mar 4, 2007)

P!
thank you.


----------



## Ian Whates (Mar 4, 2007)

Picking up on the comments earlier in the thread with regard to Farah Mendlesohn's anthology _Glorifying Terrorism_, there's also a 'recommended reading list' at the back of the book containing 60-odd terrorism-related SF books. Farah asked all contributors to provide some input for this, so the resultant list is a combination of all our thoughts vetted and combined by Farah. it might prove of some use here.


----------



## Dave (Mar 5, 2007)

It all depends how you define *Terrorism*. I remember a programme on BBC TV about 10-15 years ago (maybe just after the Berlin Wall came down) with an army general and others, predicting the future of warfare. They said that the old kind of conventionally fought wars would be a thing of the past. That future armies would fight factions and terrorists each with there own agenda. I am still amazed at how close their prediction was, and how soon it came true.

I don't have a definition to hand but Terrorists use 'Terror' to terrorize the general public's opinion towards their stated goals.

However, if you use a more general definition, wouldn't you also include - Luddites, Saboteurs, Chartists, Female Emancipators, Abolitionists, American Black Civil Rights?

As such, this kind of direct violent political struggle has always been with us. I'm sure someone else (JD) can give you an even earlier example, but '1984' has a Resistance movement known as the Brotherhood.

Edit: I have my own. I just watched 'Metropolis' and I don't think you can get an earlier example of a workers revolution in a scifi film than that.


----------



## K. Riehl (Mar 11, 2007)

I thought of WASP by Eric Frank Russell. It's very much a freedom fighter take on the subject. He tries to create unrest and an over-reaction by the authorities which leads to more people turning against the government of an alien race. The main character goes as far as hiring local hitmen to perform assasinations.
The book was considered a "terrorist handbook" when it came out in 1957


----------



## apokalypsis (Mar 13, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> I think there's one difference there in Chris's post... many writers are a bit less likely to get into the subject with as much realistic detail as they once did. I recall working at a bookstore... one of the writers we had in for a signing had written a thriller with a scenario very like what actually happened with the World Trade Center, back in the mid-'90s, as I recall... When it happened, he was riddled with guilt for quite some time, afraid that what he wrote may have given the genuine terrorists some ideas on how to carry out such a scheme; he's tended to avoid such ideas since, no matter how good a story they may make. So that's another way in which it has affected sf... though you'd have to look up various writers' comments to have substantiation on how widely or which writers were so impacted.


 
I once wrote a short story that I loved more than anything else I had written, but I have held back on attempting to publish it for this very reason.


----------



## WarlikeMenelaos (May 10, 2007)

Just to somewhat ressurect a dead thread, I just want to comment on the little 'rebels in Star Wars being terrorists thing'

Me and one of my mates were talking about that very subject. We discussed the 'new vision' that the prequels presented us with and the utter legitimacy of Palpatine's reign as Emperor. He was an elected official who was given emergency powers and then when his 'empire' proposal was brought forward the entire senate cheered and applauded.

Now, I think I know a few things about democracy and that seems quite legitimate to me. If we wanted to compare to historical events we can equate it to the rise of Augustus Caesar (the first emperor of Rome) All his powers were given to him by the senate in the hope that he would bring peace to the Republic that had been embroiled in civil war for many decades.

(As a side note I would've preferred if Lucas had made more of an attempt to compare Palps with Hitler instead of Augustus....considering Augustus was a good leader)

Now, if the Imperial Senate is the legimate ruling body and the Emperor is the legimate head of state then the rebellion is not a legitimate freedom fighting group but indeed a terrorist cell (at least in the eyes of the common people)

It is stated in 'A New Hope' that the Emperor has dissolved the senate and that would be the true moment that warrants a rebellion. However, the rebellion has been going on for years and seems to stem from the Jedi massacre.

It doesn't take a lot for the Jedi massacre to be covered over - Palps already mentioned the attempt at his life and the senate seems to agree with him when he makes the case that they are to be considered outlaws. In other words, they are enemies of the republic (at least that is how they are percieved) and the massacre would just be their response.

The destruction of Alderaan is mentioned, cited as the biggest evil act by the Empire. However, considering that the rebellion has probably been conducting 'terrorist' acts, the Empire wanted to demonstrate the power of its new weapon in an attempt to restore peace and order.

"demonstrate the power of its new weapon in order to restore peace and order"

Two words: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Both resulted in major civilian loss of life and were bombed in an attempt (an attempt that thankfully succeeded) to end the American war with Japan, thus finally bringing World War Two to a close. Considering the overall population of the galaxy, Alderaan was probably on a scale similar to the bombings of those two cities.

The service men who died on both death stars did have families remember and one must not forget that the second death star was under construction - therefore there were probably civilian workers aboard (contracters and the like) Therefore the rebellion killed a huge amount of people during their war when, despite everything else, Emperor Palpatine (elected official) had ended the civil wars, brought order to the galaxy and was cracking down on illegal ventures (Han Solo spaced his shipment of drugs (spice) when seeing Imperial star destroyers...this hints that the Imperials were trying to stop smugglers)

Overall, history will judge Palps as a bad guy considering the Empire lost. However, we now all know the truth that he was a great man, a visionary and the rightful ruler of the galaxy as elected by the senate and people of Coruscant.

Oh and btw, this whole post has been a joke....I hate the prequel trilogy and now when you look at it 'from a different point of view' Palpatine was justified in his actions. Palpatine of the original trilogy was evil, his empire was a nazi state and the rebels were the heroes. Lucas changed that.


----------



## Quokka (May 10, 2007)

Probably not overly relevent but I wonder if in the Hyperion Series the Shrike could be seen as an AI's attempt at terrorism against a community?

I mean the AI created a weapon intended to create enough death that it would force an opponent into meeting a stated demand, in this case that the human deity would reveal itself and face the AI's deity (I dont think deity is exactly the correct term there).

Often Terrorism is a tactic used due to an inability to engage in more direct combat. Which might be for a variety of reasons, physical distance, unable to locate more wanted targets (as in the Hyperion example) or due to an imbalance in the military strength for direct combat?


----------



## Who's Wee Dug (May 10, 2007)

<It’s a touchy subject, but I want to do my fifth chapter on *Terrorism* and the terrorist attacks/threats we currently face, and how it may affect Science Fiction.> 

You could check out Ken Mcleod's The Stone Canal some interesting angles there.


----------

