web
counter
 

Put The Right Brain In

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (14)



scifi_monday.jpg

Science fiction is one of those funny things that follows the same logic as the Supreme Court’s stance on pornography: you may not be able to come up with a perfect definition that fits all the cases, but you know it when you see it. It’s a genre that easily subsumes other genres. You can shoe horn mystery, horror, adventure, romance, or any other genre into a science fiction mold. The result? It’s almost invariably shelved under science fiction. You ever see Asimov’s robot mysteries filed next to Sandra Brown? Science Fiction is the barbeque of genres. Take any cuisine of food, and the instant you’re cooking on a grill, it’s barbeque. Same thing, take any story and the instant you add the dash of science fiction and you leave the other genres behind.

Take something like Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle. It’s historical fiction dealing with the creation of the modern concept of currency and wrapped around the development of modern conceptions of science. It’s got one science fiction element in the form of a deus ex machina of a resurrection potion, but nothing else about the story in particular or in general would suggest that it is science fiction. And yet the trilogy inarguably fits within science fiction to those who have read it. The trappings we associate with science fiction, the death rays, aliens and starships, are incidental to what makes a tale science fiction at its heart. Science fiction is a particular way of thinking, a rapt desire to figure out how and why things work. It’s aimed at the notion of the universe being knowable. So it’s no surprise in that light that many science fiction stories are futuristic, that the speculation of how the universe works often leads to the counterfactual.

Leonard Nimoy fought for years against the obsessive association of himself with the character from a three season failed television series, going so far as to pen a book entitled I Am Not Spock. But in an interview once he told how it wasn’t until the nineties that he really got deep down why it was that “Star Trek” had mattered so much. His cell phone rang, and he flipped it open to answer and realized that here he was, thirty years later, with an exact working model of the cardboard communicators he’d spent the sixties flipping open on camera. Science fiction is the art in which our right brains doodle visions of the future. What was imagined can be eventually built. And science fiction spends its volumes working out the implications and moral calculus of those developments decades before their inner workings are sketched by an engineer’s stylus.

This is not simply an exercise in speculating on things that future science will figure out, that would grow tedious quite quickly. Science fiction also serves as a thinking exercise, offering the thought experiments of potential developments as a way of understanding the world in which we already live. Science fiction is a tool of the societal right brain, asking “what if?” in order to cast “what is?” into a knowable perspective.

That’s not to say there’s not a lot of execrable science fiction out there that plays as little a role in right brain meditation as huffing paint, but then to paraphrase Sturgeon, ninety percent of everything is crap, so we shouldn’t worry too much about ninety percent of science fiction that can be flushed.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Get to the (Man Who Made) "Chopper"! | Andrew Dominik Scripting That Remake of "Tell No One" | Pajiba Love 10/08/10









Comments

A thoughtful piece. I especially enjoyed this:

So it’s no surprise in that light that many science fiction stories are futuristic, that the speculation of how the universe works often leads to the counterfactual.

I also believe that good science fiction speculates on a large part of the human condition. Our drive to know everything about everything and master it. It also sometimes serves as a mirror to show us the potential consequences of that condition and thereby our own present shortcomings. Which I think is exactly what you were saying with different wordy things. I do love me some ray guns though. Pew-pew!

Posted by: admin at August 10, 2010 11:55 AM

This piece very well describes my deep appreciation for Science Fiction. It's not just about space ships and time travel - it's about following the progression of the very real possibilities around us to a later point, and examining the impacts to our world down to the smallest ripples. If we can't look at where the decisions we make will take us, then we are all just stumbling around in the dark.

Posted by: Eva at August 10, 2010 12:08 PM

Take any cuisine of food, and the instant you’re cooking on a grill, it’s barbeque.

Bullshit. I've seen people do that to a pizza and it's NOT barbecue.
______________________________________________________________
Science fiction is the art in which our right brains doodle visions of the future. What was imagined can be eventually built. And science fiction spends its volumes working out the implications and moral calculus of those developments decades before their inner workings are sketched by an engineer’s stylus.

I'll start to care when we have replicators so I can have cake whenever I want and holodecks instead of XBox360. (And not that KINECT shit, a Real, Damn Holodeck, Damnit!!!!)

Posted by: Kahntahmp at August 10, 2010 12:12 PM

Yes, yes, a million times yes!

ahem.

I'm going to cut this out and put it in my wallet; usually my explanations about why I love science fiction so much come out like a battered spouse trying to excuse the others' abuse.

Posted by: Ian at August 10, 2010 12:18 PM

I think I understand your point; science fiction appeals to us because people (at least people within cultures of sufficiently advanced technology) are engaged by gaining a better understanding of their surroundings. Or at the very least, exploring the question, "what if?" In all its different forms, it has this, at least, in common.

I would be interested to see religious fundamentalists (who DO NOT possess the desire for greater understanding of our existence, and are complacent and content believing that everything there is to know can be found in their ancient, ignorant handbooks) watch certain science fiction films to see their reaction. I suspect many would find science fiction films to be frivilous and stupid, if not utterly offensive.

(please note, I am talking about people who believe in the literal translation and infallability of their religious works, not all peoples of faith in whatever form they come)

Posted by: superasente at August 10, 2010 12:28 PM

The funny thing about science fiction and the slippery slope it often shares/debates with fantasy, is that often it takes a fantastic and otherwise impossible situation and suddenly makes it possible with an undiscovered "science". I say this because remove the science part of it story and replace it with magic instead and now you have a fantasy story. Two interchangeable and yet different genres separated with one element's semantics.

So a fictitious science where a human being is broken down into atoms and digitally transmitted thousands of miles away and reassembled perfectly again is somehow more believable (or even possible) than say an enchanted talisman that can open a portal to another location? Or maybe a rare drug can give one such a trip that they can fold space unto itself, but a potion of everyday items infused with incantations is utter nonsense?

And then we have Star Wars which seems to to dabble in both, or at least it did until that chuzzlewit Lucas decided to explain his universe's magic with pseudo-science ("Medichlorians", George? Really? That's what you came up with?) Ironically we prefer the magic over the science in that case, probably because the science is so freakin' shitful.("Shitty" & "Pitiful". It's a word, look it up. If not I lay claim to it here and now.)

The way I try to look at the differences between the two is that fantasy is stuff we know never can be, but is still fun to look at anyway, and science fiction is stuff that may or may not come to pass but we fantasize that it can and try to see how it might.

Posted by: bleujayone at August 10, 2010 12:45 PM

One can only hope no one aspires to really make teleporters, or else we're going to have an existential nightmare on our hands.

Posted by: Vi at August 10, 2010 12:48 PM

I'll start to care when we have replicators so I can have cake whenever I want and holodecks instead of XBox360. (And not that KINECT shit, a Real, Damn Holodeck, Damnit!!!!)

do you have any idea how many times those things malfunction? if i had a nickel for every time safety protocols were disabled and couldn't be restored....not to mention all the damn holograms becoming self-aware and wanting to take over the ship or killing people or some such...do not want

Posted by: Sinnh at August 10, 2010 12:50 PM

I love science fiction. Love it. Less for the ray guns/alien invasions and more for the "what ifs" it can bubble up.

For example, a few weeks back I finally read "At the Mountains of Madness." Obviously the big reveal in any Lovecraft story is the monster, but I was more interested in the story of the 2 explorers walking an ancient, gigantic city that was built before life existed on Earth.

But just like fantasy or horror or any other fictional genre, it moves to the demands of the readers at its time. It'd be nice though to get more stuff like Alfred Bester or Robert Heinlein -- not just retreading/rewriting Star Wars.

Posted by: Fredo at August 10, 2010 1:42 PM

Nice commentary & agreed.

Among Harlan Ellison's many infamies, he is infamous for calling his work "Speculative Fiction", and insisting that others do as well. At least to his face. His point - by allowing one of the limits of a story to bend beyond what we have now, by speculating, we get to explore stuff that's harder to get at played straight.

Many of the golden age science fiction "masters" worked in other genres played straight, as well as putting then on the what-if barbie. Asimov wrote and edited mysteries. (Of course he did. Asimov wrote & published more words than spew from a lifetime's 300-channel 24x7 cable deluge.)

One of my favorites, and almost impossible to find now is "Tales from the White Hart", a collection of short-story mysteries by Clarke, each based on a "hard" science fictional premise that's also wrong if you know enough actual hard science to get the joke.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at August 10, 2010 1:50 PM

great article - I have always called science fiction "future history" - i have been delighted by how many lesbians have found a home for new and interesting stories.

Posted by: marcia at August 10, 2010 4:22 PM

science fiction has always had a special place in my heart as it was my first love; my hometown library had a decent sci-fi section and i picked up a copy of childhood's end back in '76; i haven't stopped reading it even though my tastes have broadened considerably and even though my friends are constantly poking fun at me: "are you still reading that stuff?" i happen to think that there's lots of good sci-fi stuff out there and enjoy discussing issues (e.g. margaret atwood says she doesn't write science fiction; doris lessing's shikasta is a great sci-fi novel, is it possible for sci-fi to be more than just escapist literature, etc.); current favorite authors include iain m. banks, gene wolfe, and ursula k. leguin.

Posted by: splinter at August 10, 2010 7:36 PM

do you have any idea how many times those things malfunction? if i had a nickel for every time safety protocols were disabled and couldn't be restored....not to mention all the damn holograms becoming self-aware and wanting to take over the ship or killing people or some such...do not want

Beats the hell out of THE RED RING OF DEATH.

Posted by: Kahntahmp at August 11, 2010 10:19 AM

I honestly believe the impetus for writing science fiction was best summed up by one Ian Malcolm:

"I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it."

Basically, all sci-fi (or speculative fiction) authors are really soothsayers predicting the Ides of March. Like Caesar, if we do not heed the warnings, we'll destroy ourselves.

Readers of science fiction, by and large, I think, are already converted. Which isn't to say the genre is meaningless, in fact, far from it. Sci-fi readers are already converted because it happened when they were children or young adults. So each new generation produces new soothsayers, more preachers to the youthful uninitiated. Which makes it seem much more religious than I'm ready to admit. But, there it is...

Posted by: RobP at August 11, 2010 12:03 PM