|
7
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by In a recent lecture (MP3) to the University of Waterloo (as aired on TVO program Big Ideas, Feb. 2, 2008), Canadian science fiction author Robert J. Sawyer comments on the dumbing down of science fiction in popular sources. Sawyer expresses a distaste for Michael Crichton's generally pessimistic view of technology and his denouncement of global warming in State of Fear.
Sawyer also roundly criticizes George Lucas for reducing science fiction to mere escapism in the Star Wars movies. He begins by pointing out the opening phrase of the movie prologues: "Long long ago, in a galaxy far, far away"--a phrase which Sawyer believes invites us to stop thinking about what we're about to see, since it has no relationship to the world we live in. Sawyer also slams the simplistic morality of the Light and Dark sides of the force. More interestingly, he points out that the first thing viewers see is Luke Skywalker and his uncle purchasing sentient beings for forced labor on their plantation. These are beings who would otherwise run away unless fitted with a restraining bolt, and are then marginalized and used as comic relief throughout the films.
Add a Comment (16)
Email This
Message Author
Star Wars is hardly among the great SciFi literature of the world. It's mostly cheesy space opera. What it did was to bring SciFi to a much broader audience.
Prior to Star Wars, SciFi on TV or film was almost uniformly directed at a juvenile audience. The Flash Gordon serials, the many different "space ranger" types, and so on. Adults had to get their SciFi fix from books.
I'm a huge fan of the genre - when I read fiction, it's almost exclusively SciFi/Fantasy, and I watch most of the SciFi/Fantasy shows that are on TV - even the really bad ones - I watched Blade, the Series, for crying out loud. I catch most of the movies, too. Trust me - the books are always better, and there are books that haven't made it to screens anywhere that are far better than almost anything put on film or videotape.
Popular SciFi is dumbed way down. Look at ''I, Robot". The book was a collection of related short stories that explored the boundary between "person" and "non-person". It was quite thought provoking (at least, at the time - we've come quite a ways since then, and I haven't read them in years, so they might not hold up quite so well anymore) and pretty deep stuff.
The movie? Other than the bad guys being robots, was it any different than any of the Die Hard series? Not to my eye. "Robots are starting to think - they'll hate us and try to kill us!" Sheesh. No wonder people are afraid of cloning. Every clone they've ever seen in the movies is a murdering monster.
Yeah, I definitely think Sawyer's got a point. I think there's a difference between SF literature and pulp sci-fi. Above all, SF poses questions and makes you think, while sci-fi is mostly good for digesting popcorn and marketing action figures.
That said, I know what you mean--Science Fiction fans are curious about things--which means we'll watch just about anything no matter how crappy it first appears. I think this might diminish with age--as I get older and have less time to waste, I find I'm more selective about what I watch.
Above all, SF poses questions and makes you think, while sci-fi is mostly good for digesting popcorn and marketing action figures.
Well, I think there's a more fundamental problem there. It seems like there are hardly any people who are in the business of making SciFi for movies and TV that actually "get" (or should I say, "grok") the genre.
Take the so-called SciFi Channel. I say "so called" because their programmers haven't the vaguest idea what SciFi is about. They seem to think it's monster movies and supernatural "reality" shows. And for some bizarre reason they think there's sufficient overlap between SciFi fans and pro-wrestling fans to warrant an hour of wrestling programming each week. Completely clueless.
And whenever good SciFi makes it to the air (say, Babylon 5, or Firefly, they can't seem to find an audience for it.
Science Fiction fans are curious about things--which means we'll watch just about anything no matter how crappy it first appears. I think this might diminish with age--as I get older and have less time to waste, I find I'm more selective about what I watch.
Don't count on it. I'm closer to fifty than forty, and I still abuse myself with Flash Gordon each week, as awful as it is.
Too true--it's all about what they think they can sell, and unfortunately, the type of science fiction accepted by a mass audience is cheap thrills. I don't know if it's fair for Sawyer to blame Lucas for all of this--it seems more systemic than that. Whenever something is reduced to "entertainment" it falls to the lowest common denominator.
I wouldn't care so much except that it's getting very hard to even publish an SF book these days--publishers are much more risk averse than they used to be, so it's hard for new writers to break into the field, and almost as hard to stay there.
Don't count on it. I'm closer to fifty than forty, and I still abuse myself with Flash Gordon each week, as awful as it is.
LOL--well, I guess that curiosity never goes away. There's worse vices to have, to be sure.
I don't know if it's fair for Sawyer to blame Lucas for all of this--it seems more systemic than that.
No, Lucas doesn't deserve much blame for it. The idea that SciFi is for kids was there long before he came along - that's why Star Wars had the Ewoks. Same with animation - the money in Hollywood assumes animation is for kids, even when it's patently not, like South Park.
I wouldn't care so much except that it's getting very hard to even publish an SF book these days--publishers are much more risk averse than they used to be, so it's hard for new writers to break into the field, and almost as hard to stay there.
I'm not sure I buy that. I see a ton of new writers on the shelf. Jim Butcher, Laurell K. Hamilton, China Mieville. There's certainly a lot more competition, though, so you it takes work to stay on the shelf, I'd bet.
I'm not sure I buy that. I see a ton of new writers on the shelf. Jim Butcher, Laurell K. Hamilton, China Mieville. There's certainly a lot more competition, though, so you it takes work to stay on the shelf, I'd bet.
True. I've heard a lot of pessimism, but it is possible to see some new faces out there. One concern is that once you write a successful book, your publishers want you to right that book over and over again.
One concern is that once you write a successful book, your publishers want you to right that book over and over again.
Sure - and readers want it, too. Eight books into The Wheel of Time, Robert Jordan started writing Conan stories - I know I'm not the only one who thought, "What the hell? Where's my next Wheel book? Why are you wasting time trying to revive an old Robert E. Howard character?"
Sure - and readers want it, too. Eight books into The Wheel of Time, Robert Jordan started writing Conan stories - I know I'm not the only one who thought, "What the hell? Where's my next Wheel book? Why are you wasting time trying to revive an old Robert E. Howard character?"
Yup--any established IP they can milk for more mileage. Last time I was in my local bookstore, half the Science Fiction and Fantasy section consisted of books written in the setting of a popular video game. There's a whole series of new Dune books written by Frank Herbert's son and Kevin J. Anderson. While I haven't read any of them, I did read a trilogy of Star Wars books (LMAO) written by Anderson and they were dreadful. Maybe he's gotten better with practice?
the robots in "i, Robot " were not evil and were not trying to kill us because they hated us. Did you watch that movie? They were actually trying to protect us, but were using their own logic in doing so. the only robot to become truly sentient was also the only robot that was on our side.
the only robot to become truly sentient was also the only robot that was on our side.
Well ... Vicki could have been considered sentient and definitely was not on our side. At least, her AI >= Sonny's.
she wasn't sentient bc her logic was limted to her programming and the interpretation therein. it was only sonny who was able to "change" his programming.
Did you watch that movie?
Well, sort of. My brain shut down after I saw where it was headed.
Whatever the reasons, the director and producer turned it into a movie about car chases and explosions. Asimov would be disgusted.
In the original, Asimov set up the famous "three rules of robotics", and the entire set of stories were ultimately variations on the theme of self-determination: how could a being constrained by the three laws ultimately achieve true personhood?
Do you honestly think there was the tiniest shred of that in the movie?
Sawyer also roundly criticizes George Lucas for reducing science fiction to mere escapism in the Star Wars movies. He begins by pointing out the opening phrase of the movie prologues: "Long long ago, in a galaxy far, far away"--a phrase which Sawyer believes invites us to stop thinking about what we're about to see, since it has no relationship to the world we live in.
Any effective author of allegory is going to distance the narrative from the time and place they intend to critique.
If I wanted to critique America's dependence on the automobile via narrative, I would never use the word "American" or set the story in a contemporary or recent-historical time.
To go the SciFi route, I might make up a race of intelligent life forms called Eeephyles who live 20K years in the future on a planet named W-2. [Bare with me now...I am making this story up as I type.]
The Eeephyles live on a planet whose solar light source appears what would be equivalent to our sun rising once every three days. Because the Eeephyles need the sun to breathe, their society was forced to live and conduct business, etc. only when their light source was present; they hibernated the rest of the time. But these machines make it possible to breathe all the time.
However, these machines run on a special ore that was plentiful back when the machines gained wide acceptance, but, now that every creature on Planet W-2 has one, the ore is running out. What's worse is an entire generation sits between the introduction this machine and the current generation that has to face the consequences...
And it could go anywhere from there. Or nowhere. The reader, if so inclined, has the opportunity to read into the story of the Eeephyles a cautionary tale, a moral story, etc. But once you get people thinking, they start drawing connections between the world of the narrative and the world they live in.
This is the same concept behind the grasshopper and the ant folk tale: The most effective (and possibly deceptive) way to disseminate cultural ideology (some call them moral lessons) is by telling a story and fashioning the outcome so that the audience is obliged to come to a conclusion desired by the author.
So as with my story [of admittedly questionable quality]: I don't tell people that over-reliance on technology and that over-farming natural resources can lead to negative consequences, but I fashioned a story that leads one to arrive at that conclusion.
Star Wars has always been pretty forgettable for me, but what I come away from it with is the (broad) idea that if you stay true to your school, fight your fears and have a little faith, then good will defeat evil and the underdog always had a chance. Not that I believe in that, but that just seems to be the overbearing message of the entire storyline from Anakin winning the pod race to Skywalker blowing up the Death Star.
And of course this is a very broad generalization and I know that some have taken much more from this film than me. I am not in any way saying that Star Wars is useless, useful or void of any meaning. It is my opinion with all works of art that every audience member's interpretation of the film is valid.
My point is that "long long ago, in a galaxy far far away..." is completely valid and that it is not just a component of a sleight of hand trick. It is meant to disarm the viewer; to prevent the viewer from experiencing the film as a direct critique on his or her way of life, way of thinking or cultural background.
It's certainly true that good SF usually puts a little distance between the story-world and reality, but I think there's two essential features of Sawyer's complaint:
1) A good allegory shouldn't need to tell you up front what it is--it loses its power if it warns you ahead of time.
2) SF is more than just allegory--it creates situations that can only happen in the altered or future reality. Star Wars will work in a variety of situations, as it is effectively a modern retelling of King Arthur's legend. The movie 2001, on the other hand, can only be told in a world where artificial intelligence is possible--there's no other setting in which it will work. Blade Runner is similar--it only works when there are androids running around. Star Wars doesn't really bring anything new to the table, which good SF must do.
That said, Sawyer may go too far. There are still a few good themes in Star Wars. I personally always liked the opposition between the living force, and an Empire so oppressive that it is represented by a masked mechanical man. There's an underlying environmental and political message there, and it's also a metaphor for consciousness--we can be spontaneous and full of life, or we can be consumed (mechanized) by our habits and desires. I enjoyed the movies (well, the original three), but they really don't say much about the future. Joseph Campbell has a lot of good things to say about Star Wars and it's relationship to classic myths.
When you think about it, Star Wars hardly fits into the genre of science fiction at all. Yes it has AI robots, warp drives, light-sabers and Death Stars; elements which would require a lot of knowledge to exist, but the actual science of these elements is not at all central to the theme; in fact it's just presented as the everyday world the characters live in and take for granted. The story of an unknown underdog who has fantastic adventures with fantastic creatures while on his way to becoming a hero by bringing down the evil empire, is a theme carried out in many works of fantastic literature.
(That being said, I do credit Lucas with creating a very rich and imaginative work.)
RSS
oh lawdie!!! by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 04 February 2008
oh it sho sounds like mista robert j is mad dat massah lucas is da massah of da science fiction on duh silva screen ...