Why Do Writers Write Science Fiction At All?

[BAYLOR]

As a genre , what purpose, do you think , science fiction serves ? By writing a stories set in far off or near future times, places or alternate realities , what is it that these writers seek to do ? Are they trying convey a message about the human condition and where we might be heading good or bad depending on our choices ? Are they offering their vision of a tomorrow better or worse ? Are they in fact trying to teach us some profound lesson , couched in the form of futuristic fable ? Or is it all for the sake of the simple love and joy of story telling and entraining the readers?


What are your thoughts?

 

[Swank]

There is no one reason to produce SF. A "sense of wonder" that is rationally attached to our reality is certainly an emotion that writers and readers might be motivated by. As in, "the real world is a bit boring, but just imagine what it might be like if this were to happen..."

More specifically, the best SF is often a thought experiment extrapolating on the consequences of some sort of novel starting condition.

At least, SF is some other sort of adventure, thriller or mystery packaged with future flavor. But this too is a kind of extrapolation, as in "What if Wild West conditions returned because of the space frontier?" (Firefly)

All of which are primarily entertainment aimed at a somewhat limited audience of like minded fans.

 

[Peppers]

Well, for starters, I know I write sci-fi because I enjoy it for its future settings and for the ideas its explores with regard to how humanity might evolve (or devolve) after some consequential event. I also love the aesthetic and atmosphere of well-realized science fiction.

Fundamentally, I'd say, good science fiction just tells a good story about some people while connecting it to something larger about human nature or the human condition or reality. It's the author's creativity, personal experiences and interests that builds upon this foundation and differentiates it from others like it.

 

[worldofmutes]

Writing Science Fiction is FUN.

 

[Serendipity]

Why do writers write science fiction? Hm... interesting question this is...

If you look at the history of science fiction, some motivations are a little clearer...

1. Carrying political messages, such as The Battle of Dorking by George Tomkins Chesney published in 1871 to warn that the British Army was falling behind the capabilities of the efficient well-equipped Prussian Army
2. Show what the world was like in a time when communications were limited (think Around the World in Eighty Days published in 1873)
3. Postulate what the world could be like if we did or did not do such and such (H G Wells' The Shape of Things to Come published in 1933)
4. Indicate the implications of using scientific advances (Deadline by Clive Cartmill published in 1944)

Me? I'm definitely in the 4th category... as C.A.T. will tell you...

 

[Swank]

Show what the world was like in a time when communications were limited (think Around the World in Eighty Days published in 1873)

So any contemporary novel depicting whatever was normal at the time of publication is SF?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

The blasters. And the Space Pilots. That’s it, really —-

oh, and I just to reflect on our present world from a different perspective.
but it’s mainly all about the blasters

 

[hitmouse]

Why do writers write science fiction? Hm... interesting question this is...

If you look at the history of science fiction, some motivations are a little clearer...

1. Carrying political messages, such as The Battle of Dorking by George Tomkins Chesney published in 1871 to warn that the British Army was falling behind the capabilities of the efficient well-equipped Prussian Army
2. Show what the world was like in a time when communications were limited (think Around the World in Eighty Days published in 1873)
3. Postulate what the world could be like if we did or did not do such and such (H G Wells' The Shape of Things to Come published in 1933)
4. Indicate the implications of using scientific advances (Deadline by Clive Cartmill published in 1944)

Me? I'm definitely in the 4th category... as C.A.T. will tell you...

5. To pay the bills, put bread on the table.

and what @Jo Zebedee said.

 

[Toby Frost]

By and large, because it offers freedom that "normal" writing doesn't.

One of the big things is that you don't have to pin down what you're writing about. 1984 isn't directly about Hitler or Stalin, but they're clearly covered by its satire. You can discuss things in general terms, and if a particular real-world detail doesn't suit your purpose, you can just change it. Also, you get to talk about fun things like monsters and spaceships. I realise that some people might consider that childish, but they're wrong.

 

[tinkerdan]

I think of it as a thought experiment.
Something that might start with a what if...
Like:
What if we had flying cars...
What if there was one government controlling the world...
What if space aliens exist...

But then:
There is much more to it; because we try to take the average man and stick him into this what if situation and see how he deals with it.

Or in some case we take the extraordinary man and put him in the ordinary world.

Or get way out there and put the extraordinary man in the what if world. Which is like a what if inside a what if.

Sometimes it's more a question of what if...if things keep going on the way they are now.


It's a way to nudge peoples imagination into thinking about what could be and sometimes cautionary tales about what might happen if we could open up a wormhole and travel through space independent of the speed limitations.

just a way to get you thinking.

 

[hitmouse]

I have a bit of an issue with the idea that SF must have a mission to get us thinking, or to predict the future, or to influence society. Clearly some of it does that, or at least tries to do so, but lots of it is just good fun, escapist entertainment, and that is OK with me. The latter is also perfectly consistent with high-quality writing, although I have a soft-spot for low-rent pulp too. Blasters, space pilots, girls in shiny space suits who are space pilots with blasters. Bring it on.

 

[BAYLOR]

I have a bit of an issue with the idea that SF must have a mission to get us thinking, or to predict the future, or to influence society. Clearly some of it does that, or at least tries to do so, but lots of it is just good fun, escapist entertainment, and that is OK with me. The latter is also perfectly consistent with high-quality writing, although I have a soft-spot for low-rent pulp too. Blasters, space pilots, girls in shiny space suits who are space pilots with blasters. Bring it on.

Escapism as In Edgar Rice Burroughs , Otis Adelbert Kline and Edmond Hamilton Lihg Bracket and C L Moore ?

Escapism works just fine.

 

[Lumens]

...because it's there.

Well it isn't there until it has been written but once it has been, then it's there and then it's because of that. I think.

 

[Venusian Broon]

So any contemporary novel depicting whatever was normal at the time of publication is SF?

I've read all the novels of Dickens, and coming from the SF genre I vaguely interpreted them as "Steampunk-lite'

But you're right, the third definition really makes no sense.

 

[BAYLOR]

There is no one reason to produce SF. A "sense of wonder" that is rationally attached to our reality is certainly an emotion that writers and readers might be motivated by. As in, "the real world is a bit boring, but just imagine what it might be like if this were to happen..."

More specifically, the best SF is often a thought experiment extrapolating on the consequences of some sort of novel starting condition.

At least, SF is some other sort of adventure, thriller or mystery packaged with future flavor. But this too is a kind of extrapolation, as in "What if Wild West conditions returned because of the space frontier?" (Firefly)

All of which are primarily entertainment aimed at a somewhat limited audience of like minded fans.

Well said.

 

[OuttaInc]

As a genre , what purpose, do you think , science fiction serves ?

Ask a million people and you'll get a million answers.

I've read that science fiction over time has served to reflect writers' fears of the day (eg, the Red Scare resulted in lots of alien invasion stories) and I think that's probably true in general as we're seeing a lot of post-climate apocalypse stories being published today. But I don't think that's specific to science fiction. I think writers will always use whatever form they prefer to warn and guide their readers, even as they try to entertain them.

For me, personally, my interest in reading science fiction has always been as a form of escapism. Some people like to escape to a world filled with castles and unicorns, or monsters and supernatural. I prefer one with computers, aliens, and space travel. Whether it be a cautionary tale or an optimistic outcome, I enjoy both, as long as there's a complex character at the center whose struggle is relatable.

 

[Danny McG]

Or is it all for the sake of the simple love and joy of story telling and entraining the readers

This

 

[Astro Pen]

It is a broad church and contains a huge amount of real estate for the imagination. Inner space to outer space, leafy Surrey to the edge of space. and of course the full sweep of time, historical and future. You can go anywhere with your 4x4 keyboard.

I've said before here that I think science fiction and 'wizard and dragon' fantasy are in many ways opposites and make strange bedfellows. (Blame Moorcock et al for pushing them into bed together at the beginning of the postmodernist era)

At its simplest I write sf because I like a good romping adventure that might actually be possible for a reader to encounter. To actually be the (believably flawed) protagonist.

I think we on the rational side of the fence turn to science for "near magic" that we can believe as truly viable. Clarke was good at that one, His monoliths, though, were right on the cusp between technology and magic.
I write mostly other genre stories tbh but you can't beat SF for a penning a bit of wonder.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Reality is too boring.

Extrapolations of the obvious can be cool, interesting or horrible. The stupid fools must be warned!

Of course the really stoopid fools don't read.

The cause is lost. Give up!

 

[BAYLOR]

Reality is too boring.

Extrapolations of the obvious can be cool, interesting or horrible. The stupid fools must be warned!

Of course the really stoopid fools don't read.

The cause is lost. Give up!View attachment 87816

Based on Harry Harrison's novel Make Room Make Room which was set in the late 1990's

The Movie is set 2022. and no sign go Soylent Green on the store shelves.