Sci-Fi Lit 101

Science fiction literature gets a bad rap.
Yes, I used the word “literature.” Got a problem, hoity-toity English types? I suppose you believe robots and spaceships and lasers belong in that goofy category of pulp fiction and cult followings. Not literature, right?
Wrong, my friends!
I’ve given a brief definition of science fiction before, one that was inspired by Isaac Asimov. I have this obscure album called “Inside Star Trek with Gene Roddenberry”—essentially, Roddenberry talks to an audience about his legacy, but also speaks with a few key figures as he goes along. One of his idols was Asimov, and Gene questions the man on the nature of science fiction. I posted the little mini-interview so you guys could listen to Asimov’s interesting thoughts and advice for SF writers. Note: you will need Quicktime to listen to it. Here’s the link: http://ilocker.bsu.edu/users/dmblank/WORLD_SHARED/asimov.m4a
Unfortunately for all of you, I have a ridiculously more complicated symposium coming your way. But to understand science fiction literature in (maddening) depth, let’s start by looking at the “founding fathers” of the genre.

Jules Verne & H.G. Wells

These two authors were hailed as visionary for a number of reasons. First, they set an initial standard for science fiction: the “what if..?” standard. They took certain scientific truths or possibilities and simply extrapolated imaginatively. At the time of Verne’s From the Earth to the Moon, man had been provided all the necessary astronomical mathematics to calculate a reasonable trajectory to the moon. It’s just that no-one had seriously considered it. People suggested unrealistic options, like balloons, et. al… But Jules Verne sat down and conceived an idea less like a carnival ride and more like a government project because he hung out with scientists and read about 15 newspapers a day. I wonder if he got called names as a kid.
Similarly, the well-read Wells (say that five times fast) heard popular physicists’ talk of the mysterious “fourth dimension.” “What is this fourth dimension?” he would ask, “and why could we not move about in it, as we do in the other three?” And so was born the imaginative The Time Machine, where time is the fourth dimension, and we can, indeed, move about in it.

These simultaneously set up another standard for good science fiction—don’t ignore real science! In fact, blithely brushing aside the scientific world can be a great misstep. Science provides an excellent foundation for sci-fi, even if you have to invent stuff along the way; we can relate more to real science because it is ingrained into our culture.
This leads us to the last important point about sci-fi.
Science fiction, by its very nature, must explore the fate of humanity. Perhaps not in detail or humanity en masse, but still, the fact that science & technology are intertwined in a kind of co-evolution with human culture is something that is simply too profound for any serious writer to ignore. Often a good story addresses societal issues, controversies, or developments.

Let’s take an example from our two wonder boys. Because they existed in the relatively distant past compared to much of the SF we are familiar with today, we can look at their work in retrospect and realize how eerily prophetic it is.
Verne’s From the Earth to the Moon used real astrophysics to design a moon launch that spectacularly resembles our own original voyage. Seriously. Like, down to the fact that the spacecraft was made of aluminum and was launched from Florida. And 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a remarkable description of an advanced submarine in a world where any real submarine-like craft was very primitive and unbearable. With that technology, he asked, “what would it be used for?” and created a research craft, simultaneously exploring human nature.
Wells’ books were far more terrifying. He had fantastic books like The Island of Dr. Moreau and The Invisible Man warning us of the dark side of the scientific realm. Later, though, he turned more political, while still keeping his science background. Strangely enough, this enabled him to predict aerial warfare—and even the atomic bomb—years before its time in his book The Shape of Things to Come.

Zounds! Why are those snobbish English professors brushing off these books when they are so inherently relevant? Perhaps they simply didn’t look past all those spaceships and robots. Let’s further explore this revelation.

The Winning Formula

I believe we’ve narrowed down three basic conditions for establishing one’s novel as science fiction literature:

1) Imagine the possibilities (the “extrapolation principle”).
2) Embrace (or at least don’t fear) the science.
3) Explore the fate of human culture relative to developing science and technology.

I may have separated these nicely, but they are all intertwined. In the next post, I shall have finished reading several classic SF novels that I’ve been meaning to devour. Then I will discuss these elements in greater detail…and their fascinating implications.

To be continued…

(cue dramatic Star Trek two-part episode music)