Sci-fi. Out?
So, all this hoo-hah about Harry Potter has been making me wonder: is fantasy the new sci-fi? I mean, has sci-fi pretty much died off, only to remain in comic books, obscure magazines and the nostalgic imaginations of trekkers?
What’s the evidence? a) All of the Star Trek spin-off serieses are over. Thank god. b) Stargate, which started out like a cut-rate Star Trek, ended up incorporating a bunch of fantasy elements. c) The biggest recent sci-fi movies (The Matrix sequels, the Star Wars prequels) all sucked. d) Harry Potter is now the biggest thing ever, and all the adults that would have read something like The Guide are now reading HP books or Discworld. e) LOTR got big, despite being one of the least conceptually challenging stories ever written. Point is, nothing really good has happened in sci-fi in the last ten years that wasn’t poorly-received and short-lived. Nothing that wasn’t anime, anyhow.
Was popular sci-fi really just a 70s thing? Are people fed up with the atheism, progressive values and social critique that were canon in SF, and moving toward a more traditional and spiritual outlook on life? Have we simply exhausted the storytelling capacity of spaceships and robots? I don’t know, but I think it’s a total downer. For two reasons. First, robots and spaceships are cool whereas wizards and dragons are lame. Second, fanstasy writers don’t really understand magic. They just translate the technology of sci-fi into the magic spells of fantasy. What’s the diff, really between Luke’s lightsaber and Harry’s wang wand? They are both a kind of technology, which puts fantasy magic as far away from traditional magic as Harry Houdini. As long as there are no gods involved, we’re talking Magic(tm) and a kind of anti-modernism that is entirely bereft of spirituality, despite the abundance of computer-generated ghosts.
Maybe there isn’t any hope for a new pop sci-fi. Or maybe we’ll have to wait for a mission to Mars or until the government stops covering up the alien landings. Whatever. It’s just that there’s a part of my imagination that’s only really satisfied when the Millenium Falcon is flying into battle or Sigourney Weaver is twatting aliens with a machine gun.
11 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
HELLO? Battlestar Galactica.
Comment by Amanda — Sunday June 24 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Oh yeah, I don’t commercial TV so I forgot about that. I guess it’s still pretty popular, but I don’t know if I’d entrust the future of SF to Battlestar Galactica any more than I would to Stargate Atlantis.
Comment by Mark — Sunday June 24 2007 @ 6:37 pm
HELLO? Commercial TV gave up on BSG ages ago too. Thats why broadband was invented.
Dude, seriously. Top five best tv shows evah.
I let the comparison with Stargate Atlantis pass without comment.
Comment by Amanda — Sunday June 24 2007 @ 7:03 pm
I’ve never given up on ‘atheism, progressive values and social critique’. Unfortunately, now that I’ve grown up I read them as serious non-fiction social commentary.
I think the sci-fi didn’t anticipate a lot of the stuff we’re dealing with now and we’ve become a bit disenfranchised and have turned to the easier worlds of religion/fantasy.
And, dude, was that ever hard to type this drunk. Like ow.
Comment by nailpolishblues — Sunday June 24 2007 @ 10:32 pm
Define the “magic” that you claim fantasy writers do not understand. Magic as a theme has been told of in the stories of humans for tens of thousands of years; since it is the case that sci-fi as a genre has only existed since about the time Frakenstein was written, and since, as you yourself assert, roughly the same effects are produced with tech in sci-fi as with magic in fantasy movies, then the natural conclusion here is of course that sci-fi has copied something already existing in the collective imagination into a new (and valid, I will add, being myself an enthusiastic fan of both) medium. I lament the void left by Star Trek too (scott bakula didn’t do ANYTHING for me) but that isn’t fantasy’s fault. Genres ebb and surge in terms of popularity by their own merits as well as overall currents of popular culture.
ps-seriously dude, Battlestar isn’t even in the same ballpark with
Stargate: Mediocrity
Comment by Rev. Hempshaw — Monday June 25 2007 @ 8:57 am
pps-let me add that although i’ve been entertained by the harry potter movies (and an adult spoof resembling them in name only) I have to say that you are right on about the poor quality of JK Rowling’s writing; I mean, how many fucking times can she use the same plot device and not be somehow embarrased by it (ie the dark arts teacher is acutually a bad guy)
Comment by Rev. Hempshaw — Monday June 25 2007 @ 9:03 am
Original SF lasted well into the 90s - remember William Gibson’s cyberpunk stuff? Though I think there’s something in NPB’s point about technology moving too fast - we can’t keep up any more, let alone make up new things. I tried reading a Gibson book not long ago, and found a lot of it was already passe.
It IS heartening to see people still trying to translate Phillip K. Dick books into movies, even if the results (bar the excellent Bladerunner) are pretty patchy.
Does the new Dr Who series count for you as SF?
Comment by Miss Andrea — Monday June 25 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Amanda - Yeah, maybe I should give BSG another go. Still don’t have broadband though.
Nails - Yeah. I’m glad someone agrees without reservations :)
RH - I guess what I meant about magic was that there are different kinds, each with its own - I guess - metaphysical context. Most of the magic that happens in western literature is technological in nature, even if that sounds like a contradiction. The character waves a wand and something happens, the way you’d use a screwdriver to tighten a screw. That strikes me as fundamentally different from religious magic, where what happens is the will of the gods. It’s still a valid plot device, but I think it also represents an inability or unwillingness step outside the technological way of thinking. Which means that fantasy fails as a more spiritual, less materialistic alternative to SF - if that’s what people take it to be. On the same grounds I think it also fails as a continuation of romanticism, but I don’t think many people take it to be that kind of thing.
Andrea - Phillip K Dick movies… I haven’t seen Scanner, but I know what you mean. Average, except for Blade Runner. Dr. Who is definitely SF, and it’s pretty popular too, so it works as a counter-example to my idea. Well spotted!
Comment by Mark — Monday June 25 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Reservations? I couldn’t manage them. I could barely manage to type.
Comment by nailpolishblues — Monday June 25 2007 @ 9:31 pm
I’m a fan of both fantasy and sci-fi. I like a healthy balance of both. I do agree with you that writers often just use magic as a substitute for technology, which kind of defeats the purpose, right?
Guess we’ll just have to wait a few years for sci-fi to come back around.
Comment by Becky — Wednesday June 27 2007 @ 5:08 am
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
Pingback by Sigourney Weaver » Sci-fi. Out? — Monday October 22 2007 @ 7:42 pm