On Science Fiction

I must begin this essay with a confession. I am a science fiction neophyte. I was not raised on under its auspices and I have only recently come to appreciate its nuances. Because of this, I lack the subtle appreciation that has grown up with some of you. But I gain by this the vision of a recent convert, who has seen us from the outside before he saw us from the inside. For I am a lover of fiction and have been all my life. Thus it did not surprise me to find in the fullness of time that I enjoyed science fiction, for I have enjoyed  fiction of all categories which I have come across (except erotica). I have also enjoyed fiction of all time periods, which may make up for my inexperience with science fiction in particular.

The first question for a newcomer to science fiction is, What is it? That is, What makes it stand out from other categories of fiction, or fiction in general? I do not stop to consider the definition of fiction, which is a recent coinage and covering a genre which has transformed significantly over time. Let the word stand for any dramatic narrative—any tale intended to arouse emotion in its reader or hearer.

A clue towards the answer to this question may be supposed to reside in the name of the genre, 'science', but I believe that this is misleading. There may in fact be fiction which is primarily interested in scientific laws or technology (whether currently existing or imaginary)—I have been told that such exists—but I have never met anyone who actually reads it. It is true that much of science fiction relies on current or projected scientific developments to move along its plot, but this not a necessary qualification. Besides, I do not allow that the laws of 'science' are any more concrete or objective than those of modern society, or of fairyland for that matter.

Another characteristic might be that most science fiction take place in this universe, in either the present or the future. But glaring counterexamples such as Star Wars invalidate this criterion. Again, some science fiction is so only in setting, to add (false) color to a plot that would be commonplace on earth. Obviously there's nothing to be learned from considering this type. But sometimes the setting is futuristic because that is the only or best or most convenient place for the particular story the author desires to tell. It is much easier, and no shame, to invent a world instead of using the real one. Storytellers have been doing so for ages; only the name of the worlds have changed (beast fables, for example). A fourth sub-genre is speculative, using a vision of worlds-to-come as a vehicle for prophecy about the future or criticism of the present. But this is not new either; only the realism or intensity of the image has increased, moving us slightly away from parody towards horror (compare Gulliver's Travels). Finally, there are the adventure stories which fulfill our desire for the wild and fantastical; the unworldy. Of course the only reason these must part from our solar system is that there is nothing new under the sun—all has been explored and catalogued and analyzed to death (we have already had our Alice in Wonderland and King Solomon's Mines).

Looked at piecemeal this way, there is nothing in science fiction that sets it apart from other genres of fiction—one could almost say there is nothing that holds it as a genre together. Any given story has more in common with its precursors (in one or more of the genres I have mentioned) than with other science fiction. But it does have something in common, otherwise it would not be so easy, so natural to distinguish certain books as part of this new genre. What then is this distinguishing mark? The clue that gave it away for me is that very characteristic—its newness. Science fiction is the outgrowth of a worldview which is (if not unique to) at least especially part of this day and age.

I call it Progressivism. It is an inherent belief in the value and inevitability of progress. It is founded on contemporary biological theorems, bloated beyond recognition, to the encompassment of every principle of existence. According to it, everything is going somewhere, somewhere either infinitely better or infinitely worse, and all we are responsible for is figuring out the direction and following it. Whether or not this is supported by history is irrelevant. If necessary the science fiction writers compose an imagined future history in which to portray it.

This is what sets science fiction apart from its nearest or parent genre, fantasy: change. In the world of fairy tales, you have the feeling that nothing changes and nothing will ever change. In longer works (Phantastes), there is mutability, but is always cyclical. There may ups and downs, successes and failures, evil rulers and benevolent kings, but if any change may come, and the marring be amended, it is not part of the story, and could not be so without destroying it from within.

And this is the value of science fiction: it shows how things change, or at least how things could be different. This is also its detriment: the implicit assumption that change is inevitable, and that progress (whatever that means) is good. And finally, this is why science fiction is the current fashion, in the same way that metaphysical poetry was the fashion of the early seventeenth century. I only wonder where fiction will advance to next?