Does -- can -- science fiction deal seriously with the topic of evil?

[Extollager]

Fantasy can and occasionally does deal seriously with the topic of evil. I won't argue that unless someone thinks demonstration is needed.

But what about science fiction? Do authors of sf -- can they -- deal seriously with the topic of the nature and meaning of evil? When I list some big name authors of Golden Age sf (Asimov, Heinlein, de Camp, Clarke, &c.), none of them seems to me ever to have seriously attempted to deal with evil.

Is there something inherent in the mindsets of people who specialize in sf that predisposes them away from profound engagement with the subject of evil?

 

[Guttersnipe]

"I have seen the devil in my microscope, and I have chained him." --Dr. Moreau

Sorry, not really an answer, but I had to.

 

[hitmouse]

Nineteen Eighty Four.
No cartoon villains in this book, just nastiness.

 

[Parson]

I think the answer is yes, SF can deal with the nature and meaning of evil. But few books do. It seems to me that most SF writers look askance at the whole idea of evil. Mostly they deal with people making choices which only some see as bad/evil.

I think David Weber, particularly early in his Honor Harrington series, tried to portray some of his villains (Masada comes to mind) as having nearly no redeeming characteristics, and so by definition, evil. On the whole for Weber evil characters die horribly in the end and people who have made bad choices and mistakes are given second chances, which they sometimes make the most of.

 

[The Big Peat]

I'm guessing CS Lewis deals with evil in his sci-fi; I know David Lindsay did; I can't imagine Ursula le Guin was any less insightful in her sci-fi than in her fantasy.

It seems to me that most SF writers look askance at the whole idea of evil. Mostly they deal with people making choices which only some see as bad/evil.

If you study an elephant's trunk, aren't you studying an elephant?

 

[Parson]

If you study an elephant's trunk, aren't you studying an elephant?

If I understand the analogy correctly I would say it misses the point.

I believe that most SF authors don't believe that there is such a thing as evil, because for something to be evil there has to be a kind of universal moral code. If you use philosophy trends today to predict the future the likely majority view in time will be that there is no universal truth and therefore all moral judgements come down to an individual or a society's personal choice.

(I'm defining evil as something which is always wrong, even if someone or a society thinks that the action or attitude is right.)

 

[The Big Peat]

If I understand the analogy correctly I would say it misses the point.

I believe that most SF authors don't believe that there is such a thing as evil, because for something to be evil there has to be a kind of universal moral code. If you use philosophy trends today to predict the future the likely majority view in time will be that there is no universal truth and therefore all moral judgements come down to an individual or a society's personal choice.

(I'm defining evil as something which is always wrong, even if someone or a society thinks that the action or attitude is right.)

I can't speak for sci-fi authors but the majority of people I know who talk on the subject believe in evil as a real concept but don't believe in a universal moral code.

 

[Extollager]

Big Peat mentioned Le Guin, and I thought of her Omelas story. That story deals with evil. In it, everyone will recall, the flourishing of a utopia depends on the suffering inflicted (out of sight) on a child. The viewpoint of the story is clearly that the arrangement is evil. The happiness of a great number does not excuse and justify the infliction of evil on the child.

The thing is, I would say there's no reason to call this story "science fiction" rather than "fantasy." Agreed?

Let the discussion continue....

 

[Swank]

If Nazi's and the like are evil, then Iain Banks depictions of nasty totalitarian states and their particular horrors would certainly qualify. Several Culture books depict some super awful people.

Based on just those examples, SF absolutely depicts evil and the consequenses.

 

[The Big Peat]

Big Peat mentioned Le Guin, and I thought of her Omelas story. That story deals with evil. In it, everyone will recall, the flourishing of a utopia depends on the suffering inflicted (out of sight) on a child. The viewpoint of the story is clearly that the arrangement is evil. The happiness of a great number does not excuse and justify the infliction of evil on the child.

The thing is, I would say there's no reason to call this story "science fiction" rather than "fantasy." Agreed?

Let the discussion continue....

I search for it and it tells me it's a sci-fi story and that it first appeared in a sci-fi anthology. That seems a fairly good reason to call it sci-fi.

 

[Extollager]

If Nazi's and the like are evil, then Iain Banks depictions of nasty totalitarian states and their particular horrors would certainly qualify. Several Culture books depict some super awful people.

Based on just those examples, SF absolutely depicts evil and the consequenses.

I guess I had something more engaged with probing the nature of evil, as something that concerns people in general, rather than use of stock villains. I don't say that's what Banks does, as I haven't read anything by him.

The thing is, I have read a lot of fantasy and sf over the years, in my opinion, but compared to most of the readers here, I haven't. More often than not, the fiction I read is not sf or fantasy. I was an English teacher, and also I just personally enjoy a lot of classic literature, so when I think of imaginative treatments of evil I might think of Othello, and Crime and Punishment, etc. And I think Tolkien deals quite seriously with the topic of evil in The Lord of the Rings; you really could write a long article about this. So having baddies in a story doesn't necessarily get at the kind of thing I personally was thinking of when I asked about dealing seriously with the topic of evil.

I've read "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," probably more than once, and, as I said, I see no reason to think it is science fiction -- its having been published in an sf anthology doesn't automatically make it such. If someone wants to make a case from the actual story itself that it is science fiction and is not fantasy, go ahead. I grant that there's no magic in it, but I don't think you have to have magic in a story for it to be fantasy. If that is the criterion, then the Gormenghast books are not fantasy... they're science fiction -- ??

If an extended discussion of how to tell the difference between sf and fantasy needs an airing, this isn't the thread for it, in my opinion. This is the thread:

Scifi and Fantasy: where do we draw the line?

Star wars is Space Opera Actually, according to Lord Lucas himself, it's Space Fantasy. But then, who listens to the authors anyway ;) https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/george-lucas-the-wizard-of-star-wars-2-232011/ You firmly establish that at the beginning of Star Wars with the words...

www.sffchronicles.com

 

[Swank]

I guess I had something more engaged with probing the nature of evil, as something that concerns people in general, rather than use of stock villains. I don't say that's what Banks does, as I haven't read anything by him.

The thing is, I have read a lot of fantasy and sf over the years, in my opinion, but compared to most of the readers here, I haven't. More often than not, the fiction I read is not sf or fantasy. I was an English teacher, and also I just personally enjoy a lot of classic literature, so when I think of imaginative treatments of evil I might think of Othello, and Crime and Punishment, etc. And I think Tolkien deals quite seriously with the topic of evil in The Lord of the Rings; you really could write a long article about this. So having baddies in a story doesn't necessarily get at the kind of thing I personally was thinking of when I asked about dealing seriously with the topic of evil.

I've read "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," probably more than once, and, as I said, I see no reason to think it is science fiction -- its having been published in an sf anthology doesn't automatically make it such. If someone wants to make a case from the actual story itself that it is science fiction and is not fantasy, go ahead. I grant that there's no magic in it, but I don't think you have to have magic in a story for it to be fantasy. If that is the criterion, then the Gormenghast books are not fantasy... they're science fiction -- ??

If an extended discussion of how to tell the difference between sf and fantasy needs an airing, this isn't the thread for it, in my opinion. This is the thread:

Scifi and Fantasy: where do we draw the line?

Star wars is Space Opera Actually, according to Lord Lucas himself, it's Space Fantasy. But then, who listens to the authors anyway ;) https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/george-lucas-the-wizard-of-star-wars-2-232011/ You firmly establish that at the beginning of Star Wars with the words...

www.sffchronicles.com

I think not reading any of the books I mentioned has caused you to assume the wrong things about them.

No, the books don't feature "baddies". Unlike Sauron - who is a theoretically evil, but behaves little different than any medieval king - Bank's evil characters personify the way and extent power corrupts, and are part of societies and governments that have inhumane policies. They see priveledge as something that needs to be acted out with torture and violence. They see art and beauty in cruelty and debasement - and the right of those in power.


In comparison, fantasy books appear to deal with evil as a malevolent supernatural force - an idea that doesn't seem to exist outside religion. As if the characters aren't evil but are possessed by an evil animating spirit. If that's what you think evil is - an expression of demonic corruption - then it isn't surprising that you don't find it in SF.

But the reality of evil is well depicted in SF. You should read the entirety of Player of Games or the death cult chapter in Consider Phlebas.

 

[Extollager]

I said that I didn’t say Banks has stock villains, since I don’t know one way or the other, not having read him. I was responding to the earlier posting that informed me he uses Nazi-like characters, who, you’ll grant, are common baddies. Of course, an author could probe the soul of Nazi characters and engage seriously with the topic of evil. Perhaps Banks does this. I’m trying to say that having a Nazi-like characters in a story would not necessarily mean that the author engaged seriously with the topic of evil as the authors I mentioned do. Thinking about evil helps me understand Iago, Raskolnikov, and Saruman, Denethor, Gollum, &c better, and thinking about them helps me understand evil, even evil in my own soul, better. I don’t know whether reading Banks would do this, but I do think that a lot of popular fiction with Nazis or Nazi-like characters doesn’t help me to understand something about evil nor do I need to think seriously about the nature of evil in order to understand, say, the Red Skull in Captain America comics.

I do gather that a lot of Chronsfolk like to read Banks!

 

[Swank]

I said that I didn’t say Banks has stock villains, since I don’t know one way or the other, not having read him. I was responding to the earlier posting that informed me he uses Nazi-like characters, who, you’ll grant, are common baddies. Of course, an author could probe the soul of Nazi characters and engage seriously with the topic of evil. Perhaps Banks does this. I’m trying to say that having a Nazi-like characters in a story would not necessarily mean that the author engaged seriously with the topic of evil as the authors I mentioned do. Thinking about evil helps me understand Iago, Raskolnikov, and Saruman, Denethor, Gollum, &c better, and thinking about them helps me understand evil, even evil in my own soul, better. I don’t know whether reading Banks would do this, but I do think that a lot of popular fiction with Nazis or Nazi-like characters doesn’t help me to understand something about evil nor do I need to think seriously about the nature of evil in order to understand, say, the Red Skull in Captain America comics.

I do gather that a lot of Chronsfolk like to read Banks!

I didn't say he has Nazi-like characters, I said that if you agree that the Nazis were evil, then depictions of societies like the Nazis (Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc.) are depictions of evil. Banks does this by describing the atrocities of the society, not by depicting individual characters as maniacal super villians. But those charactes do take ownership of the horrendous things done on their behalf.

The line here might be whether you are looking for depictions of evil in individuals and their independent actions (serial killers), or whether you are interested in the kind of evil that takes a conspiracy and a power structure - resulting in millions of victims.

 

[hitmouse]

Thus is an interesting discussion. If we can agree that simply having a cartoon Darth Vader/Ming the Merciless/serial killer type baddie in the story does not in itself automatically constitute a deep consideration of evil, then the discussion can move on.
It seems to me that the best treatments understand that evil is complicated and it tends to be corrupting. The most interesting descriptions for me have a conflicted protagonist e.g. Winston Smith, are often a bit morally ambiguous, and are not preachy.

I would suggest Richard Morgan’s Altered Carbon, and George Alec Effinger’s Marid Audran series, JG Ballard’s High Rise. I think PKD is probably quite good at this: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? for example.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

The topic of the imaginary human concepts of evil and good have been admirably dealt with in SF, eg. Dune, The Empire Of Fear, The Star Kings sequence, Bold As Love, and other classics. In some regards, I think, SF deals with this topic better than non-genre working because of its more liberating framework.

 

[hitmouse]

The topic of the imaginary human concepts of evil and good have been admirably dealt with in SF, eg. Dune, The Empire Of Fear, The Star Kings sequence, Bold As Love, and other classics. In some regards, I think, SF deals with this topic better than non-genre working because of its more liberating framework.

Well put. The best fiction on this subject is that which makes the reader ask: what is “evil”?

 

[Toby Frost]

Well if O'Brien from 1984 isn't evil, I don't know what is. Any decent person would say that Hitler and Stalin were evil, and 1984 is about them and people like them, so yes, it deals with evil. And not just in the sense that "baddies do baddy stuff" but in terms of a serious discussion of "Why is this all so awful?" And then you've got the other dystopias, which raise issues of good and bad. The Handmaid's Tale deals with surviving in a junta that sees itself to be literally on the side of the angels, and is ragingly evil. I suspect you could compare some of these books to literature arising from WW2 and the Holocaust in the way that they ask how such evil happens and how it can be fought. As Theoden nearly says, "What can men do against such reckless hate?"

For what it's worth - and I don't mean to turn this into a discussion on religion - creatures like Sauron in LOTR* and the Devil feel slightly like a cop-out, as they're just inherently bad and that's that. I think fantasy can include creatures that are evil personified, while SF can't quite do that. Maybe SF, lacking that occult/religious quality, always hints that you could redeem a villain, or that, had things been different, he might not have turned into a monster. But by definition, you can't redeem Satan.

(Of course, fantasy villains don't have to be pure evil. Gollum is a very good character for this reason.)

Banks is interesting, because the Culture is meant to be a better society than ours, so its run-ins with other, er, cultures always throws up moral issues. Unlike Star Trek, the Culture sees itself justified in interfering. Doctor Moreau is also a good example, as he's a man who plays God and is evil because of his arrogance. You could see him as a kind of Devil, corrupting Noble's Isle and the innocent creatures he chops up.

I believe that most SF authors don't believe that there is such a thing as evil, because for something to be evil there has to be a kind of universal moral code.

I disagree, because two people who don't agree on what's right ("Should we raise interest rates?") could agree on what's wrong ("Don't commit murder.") Virtually every culture says that murder is wrong. Just because a villain can justify his evil deeds ("We must find out what the prisoners know, and quickly!") doesn't mean that the SF author is in a sort of moral drift. I could read a heap of military SF books written by people who would probably despise me on principle, and enjoy them (if they were good) because the author wasn't pushing his views on what was right, but what was wrong (see Terry Goodkind for an opposite example).

Somehow I have a nasty feeling that somehow the "Only hard SF is real SF" argument is going to sneak in...



*And yes, if you read the Silmarillion etc...

 

[Vince W]

The topic of the imaginary human concepts of evil and good have been admirably dealt with in SF, eg. Dune, The Empire Of Fear, The Star Kings sequence, Bold As Love, and other classics. In some regards, I think, SF deals with this topic better than non-genre working because of its more liberating framework.

I was going to mention the Harkonnens from Dune. But depending on your perspective Paul and Leto II could fill the role of evil quite suitably.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I disagree, because two people who don't agree on what's right ("Should we raise interest rates?") could agree on what's wrong ("Don't commit murder.") Virtually every culture says that murder is wrong.

And then immediately flounders on defining what 'murder' means. I watched an interview recently with a promenant Right Wing American politician who defined ALL abortion as murder - moment of conception onward - but when presented with the (not hypothetical) case of a pregnant 10 year old rape victim immediately and unequivocally stated the rapist should be executed.