@AlexH Hmm. "The Giver" as a utopia setting? ..... I would see it as a hopeful response to a dystopian world. Or is that not what you meant? I guess the kind of positive novel I would have in mind would be something along the line of the Honor Harrington novels. There is conflict aplenty, but Manticore and it major allies have solved/are solving the main internal problems.
Do we need more sci fi set in fun and optimistic futures?
- Thread starter CmdrShepN7
- Start date
Star-child
Science fiction fantasy
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2019
- Messages
- 479
Stories about discovery or achievement rather than armed conflict used to be a bit more common. Fountains of Paradise, Rama, Destination Void, Glide Path, Cryptonomicon, Pattern Recognition, Marooned in Real Time, The Gods Themselves, Cool War, Man Plus, Gateway, etc.
There is no particular reason that SF always has to be thriller/adventure/war. It can be mystery, rescue/survival, achievement and offer all the thrills and setbacks of violent fiction.
There is no particular reason that SF always has to be thriller/adventure/war. It can be mystery, rescue/survival, achievement and offer all the thrills and setbacks of violent fiction.
Yeah, this is kind of my take on it. Things that are light and fluffy with no darkness feel like they lack depth. Things that are dark with no hope can get too downbeat (I've been guilty of this, for sure). I like dark books but I do like to be rewarded for it by some kind of levity be it the hope that's given, or the humour in it.
There were a lot of questions there. I'll stick to the first question. Fiction is a way of taking yourself away from your current problems into another world, however different people do want different things. If you look back through the last few decades, SF tends to mirror the times in which it was written. There was a lot of optimism in the '50's and '60's which was mirrored by futures showing world peace, love and harmony (not completely, there were plenty of apocalyptic stories too.) To many people today, our future seems very bleak right now (without getting into Politics, the news stories are generally always very bleak and downbeat) and so fiction just mirrors that. It may not, however, be what everyone wants from fiction - I actually liked Stargate Universe myself, but it was a big departure from what fans had expected from out of the Stargate franchise (but similar to the re imaged Battlestar Galactica and other SF) and fans hated it. They wanted it instead to continue in that more upbeat, fun and warm view of our future. You can see that played through ever more starkly in Star Trek. Star Trek Discovery is extremely dark and very different to anything that Gene Roddenberry envisaged.
I'd have to disagree about the Expanse and Babylon 5: The Expanse is certainly a harsh universe with over-population and a lack of personal freedoms, but you will see in the fourth Season how people still want to leave all that behind. People still aspire to want the same things as they always did. Babylon 5 had plenty of humour (The Expanse does too) and wasn't that serious. It was a little more gritty than Star Trek, but then Deep Space Nine was also gritty.
I'd have to disagree about the Expanse and Babylon 5: The Expanse is certainly a harsh universe with over-population and a lack of personal freedoms, but you will see in the fourth Season how people still want to leave all that behind. People still aspire to want the same things as they always did. Babylon 5 had plenty of humour (The Expanse does too) and wasn't that serious. It was a little more gritty than Star Trek, but then Deep Space Nine was also gritty.
Star-child
Science fiction fantasy
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2019
- Messages
- 479
On the matter of grit, books like Herbert's Destination Void are not optimistic or Utopian, much like the recent Reynold's Pushing Ice or The Martian. But that is specific to the character's situation, not the "world". All could be set in optimistic times, despite the serious events that overtake the characters.
Which is pretty much the basis for the Culture - the contrast between a peace loving society and the bad behavior of their less evolved neighbors. The important thing is really whether the characters are experiencing some sort of jeopardy - even if it isn't life or death.
Which is pretty much the basis for the Culture - the contrast between a peace loving society and the bad behavior of their less evolved neighbors. The important thing is really whether the characters are experiencing some sort of jeopardy - even if it isn't life or death.
Karn's Return
Herp a derp! My name's Skerp!
Well, the Giver was dystopian in that the government controlled everything. Ultimately, without free will and freedom to choose, nothing can be a utopia. And given human nature, those will never allow for peace, the cycle goes on...
Conflict is one thing, of course. But there can still be cases where even though something major is going on, there can still be a lighthearted, happy upbeat to it. Firefly is an example that comes to mind, even though I-and I would suspect many others on this forum-would say that Fox cut down in its prime. I suppose it might've just come at a bad time for sci-fi back in its day.
AlexH
Well-Known Member
You could say Westworld is a utopia - it's a theme park after all. Red Dwarf is fun but also grim. If sci-fi tries to be fun, there's always something about it that isn't. Doctor Who tackles dark themes but is generally lighthearted at heart, but maybe it's more fantasy than sci-fi. There are many exceptions in fantasy - Pushing Daisies, for example. Maybe fun is just easier to do in fantasy.
Karn's Return
Herp a derp! My name's Skerp!
I suppose that's because fantasy can be more whimsical without it feeling out of place. It's a bit tougher when the ideas in a setting are based on science.
And yeah, there's going to be some more serious sides about things, definitely. But, I just don't like it being episodes of Law and Order: SVU all the time.
And yeah, there's going to be some more serious sides about things, definitely. But, I just don't like it being episodes of Law and Order: SVU all the time.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2018
- Messages
- 1,498
I think it is just easier to write a downward turning everything looking bad story, it automatically makes hoops for the characters to jump through. A good comedy like Galaxy Quest is the product of a great many people all working towards the same goal, even if they didn't know they were.
The premise of using a parody of a parody to make a serious leaning but highly comical work can only be done so many times. To make another Galaxy Quest that is different but still the same comical impact is going to be hard to do. For me, it marches right along side 5th Element but for entirely different reasons. I think both would be hard to remake or make sequels for, as they both were a product of determined people, on both sides of the camera, to do something different and do it well in the allotted time.
Galaxy Quest started as R rated and was muted down to GP and still succeeded. Far more movies rely on the R rated material to keep audiences interested. Dystopian movies seem to automatically create sequel like extensions that are needed to finish the movie. Which only turn out to be more of the same.
Do we need funny, upbeat science fiction along with the dark side? Yes we do, but can they be made as easily as the standardized doom and gloom stories? No they can't.
The premise of using a parody of a parody to make a serious leaning but highly comical work can only be done so many times. To make another Galaxy Quest that is different but still the same comical impact is going to be hard to do. For me, it marches right along side 5th Element but for entirely different reasons. I think both would be hard to remake or make sequels for, as they both were a product of determined people, on both sides of the camera, to do something different and do it well in the allotted time.
Galaxy Quest started as R rated and was muted down to GP and still succeeded. Far more movies rely on the R rated material to keep audiences interested. Dystopian movies seem to automatically create sequel like extensions that are needed to finish the movie. Which only turn out to be more of the same.
Do we need funny, upbeat science fiction along with the dark side? Yes we do, but can they be made as easily as the standardized doom and gloom stories? No they can't.
Star-child
Science fiction fantasy
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2019
- Messages
- 479
Does "upbeat" imply that the whole book has to be funny? Stephenson and Banks peppered lol humor throughout books that also contained a little horror, action and science. I'd much rather read or watch SF with some light moments than a constant stream of Bill the Galactic Hero.
I don't see how a truly optimistic future would have much room for space battles ... or any room, actually. Genuine battles (as opposed to metaphorical battles, like our sporting events), in space or planet-side, can hardly be fun.
Fortunately, violent conflict isn't the only way to keep readers involved and entertained. There are a whole range of human behaviors that are interesting to read about. As writers of speculative fiction, we depend too much, I am afraid, on that particular type because it is an easy and proven way to keep readers engaged. But as writers of imaginative literature surely we are capable of exploring some of the others. Writers of other types of literature do, though of course most of them limit themselves just as much to whatever type sells best to their own readers.
But why shouldn't we, at least some of the time, write about optimistic and, yes, fun futures and worlds? Instead of spending so much time either warning about or reflecting the worst, why not devote our talents to providing something to hope for, something to aspire to? Such a world need not be dull—in fact, if it were dull, it wouldn't be much to aspire to, would it?—anymore than it needs to be violent or sensational. To attract readers away from the usual fare might take some very fine writing, but maybe we should be more willing to challenge ourselves in that way?
Fortunately, violent conflict isn't the only way to keep readers involved and entertained. There are a whole range of human behaviors that are interesting to read about. As writers of speculative fiction, we depend too much, I am afraid, on that particular type because it is an easy and proven way to keep readers engaged. But as writers of imaginative literature surely we are capable of exploring some of the others. Writers of other types of literature do, though of course most of them limit themselves just as much to whatever type sells best to their own readers.
But why shouldn't we, at least some of the time, write about optimistic and, yes, fun futures and worlds? Instead of spending so much time either warning about or reflecting the worst, why not devote our talents to providing something to hope for, something to aspire to? Such a world need not be dull—in fact, if it were dull, it wouldn't be much to aspire to, would it?—anymore than it needs to be violent or sensational. To attract readers away from the usual fare might take some very fine writing, but maybe we should be more willing to challenge ourselves in that way?
olive
( ~ ᴗ ° )
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2019
- Messages
- 444
We need worlds set in a balanced, content future I think. A true utopia is too unrealistic. Is there a word to define a world in position in between dystopia and utopia? I don't know if there is. Perhaps that tells a lot about human nature and imagination and therefore what we look in a story, what we most enjoy.
Elckerlyc
"Philosophy will clip an angel's wings."
I am just thinking aloud by scribbling for a moment.
If utopia isn't realistic - and I agree it isn't - than the present halfway status (let's call it RealLife for now) between dystopia and utopia is hope. Hope we won't fall back to the first and hope we have the strength and imagination to keep striving for the latter. It won't come by itself. Ora et labora.
I can picture a story about this struggle, the hero fighting RL's inertia, told in a positive narration, maybe even with some healthy dose of self-irony and comic relief, but with a hopeful ending. We will get there, someday! Fine.
If such a story would be set in present day, the setting would be recognizable for many... but it wouldn't be SF. (Unless you give the ending a SF twist.)
Would such a story, set in the future, where RL is already better and more promising as it is today - because we don't want stories about or set in dystopias, right? - still make an appealing story? In this imaginary world people would, up to a point, to our eyes already life in a kind of utopia.
What I am trying to say is, any story needs a conflict, there must be some ugly RL situation, which people can identify with, to start from. Which is opposite of the fun future whose viability this thread is exploring.
The question might be, how realistic do you want the setting to be? If the present day's stories reflects present day's outlook, which is, as indicated above, more grim as it was 3-4 decades ago, than you could argue that writers (willingly or not) tell their stories from the same grim - and realistic? - outlook. Which might lead to the conclusion that any picture of fun futures and frolicking protagonists is therefor not and our need for it is escapism. Which, speaking for myself, I will not deny. But any stories told from such a perspective tends inho to drift towards comedies and fairy tales.
I am rambling, something I had resolved not to do anymore (at least not publicly
). Worse, I might be totally wrong.
All in all, I want realistic stories, not fairy tales. That's why I love The Expanse as TV-series. A vision of the future in 200 years that's believable. That future is for some an utopia, for many a dystopia, distrust and conflicting interests are all around. I have no problem with such realistic tales, as long as the tone of the narration remains optimistic and there is room for humor and different perspectives.
That somehow sums it up for me. I don't necessarily need stories about fun or ideal futures. I want stories with a hopeful outlook.
Thus ends my thinking. My apologies for it being aloud.
If utopia isn't realistic - and I agree it isn't - than the present halfway status (let's call it RealLife for now) between dystopia and utopia is hope. Hope we won't fall back to the first and hope we have the strength and imagination to keep striving for the latter. It won't come by itself. Ora et labora.
I can picture a story about this struggle, the hero fighting RL's inertia, told in a positive narration, maybe even with some healthy dose of self-irony and comic relief, but with a hopeful ending. We will get there, someday! Fine.
If such a story would be set in present day, the setting would be recognizable for many... but it wouldn't be SF. (Unless you give the ending a SF twist.)
Would such a story, set in the future, where RL is already better and more promising as it is today - because we don't want stories about or set in dystopias, right? - still make an appealing story? In this imaginary world people would, up to a point, to our eyes already life in a kind of utopia.
What I am trying to say is, any story needs a conflict, there must be some ugly RL situation, which people can identify with, to start from. Which is opposite of the fun future whose viability this thread is exploring.
The question might be, how realistic do you want the setting to be? If the present day's stories reflects present day's outlook, which is, as indicated above, more grim as it was 3-4 decades ago, than you could argue that writers (willingly or not) tell their stories from the same grim - and realistic? - outlook. Which might lead to the conclusion that any picture of fun futures and frolicking protagonists is therefor not and our need for it is escapism. Which, speaking for myself, I will not deny. But any stories told from such a perspective tends inho to drift towards comedies and fairy tales.
I am rambling, something I had resolved not to do anymore (at least not publicly
). Worse, I might be totally wrong.All in all, I want realistic stories, not fairy tales. That's why I love The Expanse as TV-series. A vision of the future in 200 years that's believable. That future is for some an utopia, for many a dystopia, distrust and conflicting interests are all around. I have no problem with such realistic tales, as long as the tone of the narration remains optimistic and there is room for humor and different perspectives.
That somehow sums it up for me. I don't necessarily need stories about fun or ideal futures. I want stories with a hopeful outlook.
Thus ends my thinking. My apologies for it being aloud.
Last edited:
In contrast, I'd argue that utopias are real and reachable. The problem is, each person's utopian vision, is another person's dystopian nightmare. Individuality is funny like that. However, take away that individuality which obstructs reaching a universal utopian dream, and all you have is gilded oppression.
K2
K2
tinkerdan
∞<Q-Satis
I think this is going to be my stock answer to these type of assertions...
The point is that science fiction is so much more than just what is at the movie or on tv.
You just have to go look for it and don't expect your tv programmers to help you out in your selection.
...The media of movies and tv are not the whole of Science fiction and the mood swings of their market should in no way reflect on the whole.
The author goes on to say that not all science fiction contains the excess of action an violence.The World of Science Fiction--Chapter 1 begining said:
The point is that science fiction is so much more than just what is at the movie or on tv.
You just have to go look for it and don't expect your tv programmers to help you out in your selection.
Anthoney
Bearded Member
Yes we do. I loved the Battle Star Galactica remake. That shouldn't mean that every show has to be heart crushing and deary. Stargate Universe was better in so many ways than SG1 or Atlantis but it was to dark. Even the fans who wanted a little more serious Stargate show (like myself) were turned off by the endless torture of the characters while going episodes with nothing good happening. They did the same thing in the 5th season of Arrow. Personally, I think Dark Matter did a good job of landing in the middle.
Of course this is all TV sci-fi. I don't think books are in quite the same rut.
Of course this is all TV sci-fi. I don't think books are in quite the same rut.
Sorry, reading your statements strikes me as massively contradictory.
if you have a society with no individuality then you have gilded oppression, not utopia
if you have society with individuality you don't have utopia.
That about covers all cases, no?
So how does this 'real and reachable' utopia arise?
I think most of us here would consider a society where individuality is appreciated and nourished to be a very good one, provided that individuality is not focussed on doing harm to others.
And yet, yes, there are those who would consider such a society as wicked and decadent; they have such a straight-jacketed idea of what constitutes goodness and morality.
The question might be how do the people within that future society feel about their lives?
There is a puritanical something inside some of us that feels that if we are too happy something must be wrong. But is that right? If everyone was busy and liked what they were doing and could see themselves working together to create something even better—that would be even better—if they liked their lives just fine, without brainwashing or programming, and had just enough challenge to keep them interested and on their toes, that sounds pretty darn close to perfect to me. How such a society could be formed, how it would be constructed, I don't know.
And yet, yes, there are those who would consider such a society as wicked and decadent; they have such a straight-jacketed idea of what constitutes goodness and morality.
The question might be how do the people within that future society feel about their lives?
There is a puritanical something inside some of us that feels that if we are too happy something must be wrong. But is that right? If everyone was busy and liked what they were doing and could see themselves working together to create something even better—that would be even better—if they liked their lives just fine, without brainwashing or programming, and had just enough challenge to keep them interested and on their toes, that sounds pretty darn close to perfect to me. How such a society could be formed, how it would be constructed, I don't know.
By determining your individual utopian conditions and you establish it just for yourself (good),
or finding like minded individuals (by their choice) to form your little society (better),
or you step back and accept that your utopia is not the other guys, embrace that diversity, then view the conflicts, problems, and bad as the common glue that binds good people to work toward a better way for all (best). That's a utopia in my book.
A perfect world where there are no differences, challenges, nothing to learn, no need to advance... that sounds like Hell to me.
You'd be surprised how a little bit of acceptance of others and viewing problems as an adventure, goes a long way toward building a personal
Past that, my statement was meant to be contradictory, a catch-22. Quit looking for and trying to make a utopia outside yourself. Look inward.
K2
Perhaps we are overthinking this. If everyone followed the Golden Rule (paraphrased) "Treat other people the way you would like to be treated." We would be somewhere close to a utopia. After all Utopia doesn't need everyone to have wonderful things, it just needs people living a life of mutual respect and love.
Similar threads
-
Do we need more optimistic space adventure without rubber suited aliens?
- Started by CmdrShepN7
- Replies: 23
-
Need something more original than the standard underground base.- Started by AnyaKimlin
- Replies: 20
-
-
Need help to find a book, and more importantly, the author
- Started by MikeinMesa48
- Replies: 3
-