Comments on: Recognizing a Pattern: Non-SF http://www.alattimore.com/archives/87 Ranting about the state of the Future for over 3 years. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:36:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3 By: doknil http://www.alattimore.com/archives/87#comment-4 doknil Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:10:06 +0000 http://www.alattimore.com/archives/87#comment-4 I got to this essay from a link on Bruce Sterling\'s weblog. Interesting topic that I\'ve been thinking about too. When reccomending Sterling\'s Zeitgeist to friends, I\'ve found myself saying things like \"It\'s SF, but it takes place in the present and doesn\'t have any invented technology or anything really. Erm, actualy it\'s 2003 now, so it takes place in the past.\" Then they ask, so, why is it SF? \"Erm, I don\'t know, but it just seems like it is.\" East provides a somewhat better explanation: somehow, it makes the present(ish) seem science fictional. I\'ve long thought that the best SF (by which I mean SF which I like the best, of course) is really commenting on the present, regardless of when it ostensibly takes place. So-called \'cyberpunk\' in general tends to take place in the very near future, if not the present. Remember the tag line from the Max Headroom TV show (the only cyberpunk TV show ever made): \"20 minutes into the future.\" So why not take it futher, and write SF that\'s 0 minutes into the future? Well, some people have, as East writes in this essay. Really, why stop at SF writers who write \'non-SF\'. What about writers who don\'t get placed in SF ghetto, but are clearly writing.... um, SF \"non-SF\". Is _Infinite Jest_ SF? It takes place... well, kind of sort of in the present. A somewhat bizarrely altered present, but it\'s not exactly \'the future\'. Is it SF? When I start thinking about what makes SF SF, there\'s of course no particularly good definition. After all, all fiction is by definition writing about things that have not occured. I got to this essay from a link on Bruce Sterling\’s weblog. Interesting topic that I\’ve been thinking about too.

When reccomending Sterling\’s Zeitgeist to friends, I\’ve found myself saying things like \"It\’s SF, but it takes place in the present and doesn\’t have any invented technology or anything really. Erm, actualy it\’s 2003 now, so it takes place in the past.\" Then they ask, so, why is it SF? \"Erm, I don\’t know, but it just seems like it is.\" East provides a somewhat better explanation: somehow, it makes the present(ish) seem science fictional.

I\’ve long thought that the best SF (by which I mean SF which I like the best, of course) is really commenting on the present, regardless of when it ostensibly takes place. So-called \’cyberpunk\’ in general tends to take place in the very near future, if not the present. Remember the tag line from the Max Headroom TV show (the only cyberpunk TV show ever made): \"20 minutes into the future.\" So why not take it futher, and write SF that\’s 0 minutes into the future? Well, some people have, as East writes in this essay.

Really, why stop at SF writers who write \’non-SF\’. What about writers who don\’t get placed in SF ghetto, but are clearly writing…. um, SF \"non-SF\". Is _Infinite Jest_ SF? It takes place… well, kind of sort of in the present. A somewhat bizarrely altered present, but it\’s not exactly \’the future\’. Is it SF?

When I start thinking about what makes SF SF, there\’s of course no particularly good definition. After all, all fiction is by definition writing about things that have not occured.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.alattimore.com/archives/87#comment-5 Anonymous Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:22:32 +0000 http://www.alattimore.com/archives/87#comment-5 I\'ve noticed this trend = the thing that struck me is that whilst the writers you mention have basically carved out a genre in which the present is talked about in scifi terms. It\'s kind of a future shock thing - we ARE living in the future, and this is the media which best represents the more jaring aspects of that. Having said that, I\'ve just finished a proof copy of Quicksilver (Neal Stephenson\'s latest), and NS has expanded on the ww2 bits of cryptonicetc and written about the past in sci fi terms - there is (for example) a genuine excitement in the passages describing the Royal Society, who are basically inventing Science out of nothing...one of his themes seems to be The Geek as Archetype. The other thing that struck me was that much contemporary sf draws parallels between the so called information age and the industrial revolution - in Quicksilver the parallel is with the \"age of enlightenment\", wherein basic concepts were still struggling to be understood; the industrial revolution (when those concepts actually affected the real world to such a dramatic extent) didn\'t happen for another couple of centuries - this seems to me to be a more realistical appraisal of where we are at. I\’ve noticed this trend = the thing that struck me is that whilst the writers you mention have basically carved out a genre in which the present is talked about in scifi terms. It\’s kind of a future shock thing - we ARE living in the future, and this is the media which best represents the more jaring aspects of that.

Having said that, I\’ve just finished a proof copy of Quicksilver (Neal Stephenson\’s latest), and NS has expanded on the ww2 bits of cryptonicetc and written about the past in sci fi terms - there is (for example) a genuine excitement in the passages describing the Royal Society, who are basically inventing Science out of nothing…one of his themes seems to be The Geek as Archetype.

The other thing that struck me was that much contemporary sf draws parallels between the so called information age and the industrial revolution - in Quicksilver the parallel is with the \"age of enlightenment\", wherein basic concepts were still struggling to be understood; the industrial revolution (when those concepts actually affected the real world to such a dramatic extent) didn\’t happen for another couple of centuries - this seems to me to be a more realistical appraisal of where we are at.

]]>