Sci Fi observations
by Tom Temple
22 April 2009
Between the inexorable improvements in Netflix and my mounting dread over my thesis proposal, I have been giving myself a much deeper understanding of the science fiction genre historically. From this, I would like to make the following observations so that the creators of future science fiction can make more lasting and historically significant contributions.
First up, Styles. This one is easy, the crazier the better. If anybody looks even remotely “hip” or “cool” or anything stylistically recognizable in your era, it will look painfully dated in the future. As I said, the crazier the better.
Second, tech. This is where the smart kids like to make predictions. Getting stuff right makes the work look sagely, getting it wrong makes you look stupid. Unless you’ve got someone like Kim Stanley Robinson on staff, you’re mostly going to want to keep this stuff as dialed back as necessary for the story line. But if you do have some predictions, I won’t fault you for going out on that limb.
Third, interfaces, controls. To the untrained, this might seem like “tech” and people with vision might be able to do something. While that’s somewhat true, this is dramatically harder than tech. Even if you do have Kim Stanley Robinson writing for you, best way to handle this is by minimization. While The Matrix Trilogy, or Final Fantasy, The Spirits Within, or even James Bond and his Quantum of Solace, make somewhat inspired attempts, despite how sweet they look now, I feel pretty confident saying that most of those things are going to end up looking stupid in the future. I think the right way to do it is more like Doctor Who’s “sonic screwdriver” or Star Trek’s “tricorder” where it’s operation is left to the imagination.
Which brings up the overarching principle: If something can be left to the imagination, leave it to the imagination. For example, using somebody’s console with a “code red” pop-up as a cut device is only going to make your movie look stupid, regardless of how much you spend on graphic design. How much harder is it to tell the actor to “give me a ‘code red’ expression” and shoot it from an angle where you can’t see the controls?
Apr 22, 09:08 PM
Also, “shields” are lame. Every indication that we’ve had so far is that destructive energy is dramatically easier to create than to safely dissipate. I’d imagine that in the future, we’ll live in the same type of “first shot wins” universe as we have with every other type of weapon we’ve hitherto invented.
Apr 24, 01:00 PM
For my part, I’d revise your rules a bit.
Don’t bother trying to prevent your science fiction from becoming dated, foolish, or wrong. It will anyway. You can’t prevent that. (Jules Verne, anyone?)
Much of the best science fiction is loved and remembered not because it was right, or because it remained cool, but because it told a good yarn, and gives us some insight into the way we used to think. We’re used to thinking of SF as being a barometer of times to come, but in my experience, it’s a much better record of our past aspirations than it is any gauge of our future. That’s not to say you shouldn’t try to write things that are plausible, but if you’re writing SF, give up on the notion of writing something Timeless and Eternal. That’s just not what it’s about.
I think you’re exactly right about leaving things to the imagination, though: that’s a lesson ALL writers of fiction should take to heart, even if they’re not writing SF. As I see it, however, the point of SF isn’t really to predict the future, or to talk about technology itself; that’s just a lens. If your audience comes away thinking only about the tech, you’re doing it wrong. Rather, I believe that SF is best when it shares a vision about what might be, somewhere over the rainbow, without the need to make a business case to your reader that such a thing is actually feasible.