SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the who-is-the-father?-test-the-oil dept.
In contemporary science fiction, we often see robots passing themselves off as humans. According to a [University of Stavanger] researcher, the genre problematises what it takes to be accepted as a human being and provides a useful contribution to the debate about who should have the right to reproduce.
Science fiction culture has prospered and gone from being for nerds only in the 1970s and 1980s to becoming part of popular culture in the last two decades. This particularly applies to the TV series genre, which has become mainstream with Battlestar Galactica (2004), Heroes (2006) and Fringe (2008).
"The genre has evolved from depicting technology as a threat, to dealing with more intimate relations between humans and machines", says Ingvil Hellstrand. In her doctoral thesis, she points out that science fiction today is often about humanoid androids that are trying to become "one of us". According to Hellstrand, this is not incidental.
What is SN take on this issue??
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 01 2015, @11:25PM
Same goes for the later times. Sure, a lot of the popular pulp fiction of the 20s and 30s, such as Buck Rodgers and Doc Savage was wildly optimistic. But there was also R.U.R. and Metropolis at the other end of the scale. And let us recall that the 30s was the seed of a huge pile of dystopian novels in the next decade . That come to mind, there are four such very famous sci fi novels coming out of that era: 1984, Brave New World, That Hideous Strength, and Fountainhead (plus Lord of the Rings on the fantasy side). I think rather that science fiction had then as now a huge variety of viewpoints. The "naive technological optimism" existed and was very popular and very influential, but it wasn't the only thing out there. To say that it sprung from "naive technological optimism" is to ignore a lot of the history of the genre.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 02 2015, @03:26PM
There was, indeed RUR (though I think that may be of an earlier period). But most science fiction of the 1920's and 30's was wildly optimistic about technological solutions. This lasted up through the 1960's until the British "New Wave". You can always find exceptions to the trends, but consider "The Skylark of Space" etc.
Frankestein was written as a horror story, not as a warning. Check out it's history. Even so the monster wasn't evil by nature, only defensive, and a bit paranoid *after* finding everyones hand turned against it. (I'm talking about the novel. I don't consider most movies to be valid science fiction. They generally totally distort the meaning of any story that they adopt.)
Verne, as with Frankenstein, is before the period that I described. I included him as a precursor. But he is full of technological solutions to problems, or attempts at solutions.
The thing is, during the early period technological solutions were seen as benefiting the individuals. Of course, different individuals had different goals. You need that for dramatic tension. But they both adopted technological solutions. After around 1960 or 1970 it became increasingly seen as empowering the corporations and governments. Yes, Orwell got there YEARS ahead of time, but he was an outlier...and wasn't primarily a science fiction author, but rather a "social concerns" author who occasionally used science fiction to make his point. (Is "Animal Farm" science fiction? Fantasy? Not really. It's really political propaganda, though quite honestly and insightfully done.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 02 2015, @11:25PM
Frankestein was written as a horror story, not as a warning.
The two aren't exclusive. And the cautionary aspects of the story are rather obvious such as Frankenstein's glaring failure to create a thing of beauty or the monster echoing its creator's moral flaws.
Yes, Orwell got there YEARS ahead of time, but he was an outlier...
An outlier joined by at least two other famous authors of the period, whose works I mentioned (Rand on the other hand was a blatant, technological optimist). I think instead that this was normal fare for the time during the grim period of the Second World War when these works were inspired and partly written.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday August 03 2015, @07:26PM
Rand?? I'm afraid I have trouble even thinking of her as a science fiction author. Now that you bring it up, I can realize the justice of your viewpoint, but to me science fiction of the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's was pretty much defined by the magazines, and in particular Astounding, Galaxy, and Worlds of If. The focus got looser during the 60's when the British New Wave became important.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 03 2015, @12:21AM
There's also "Final Blackout" by L. Ron Hubbard which was published in 1940 which borrows heavily from the despair of the First World War. Here, humanity has devised way too many ways to horribly kill other men. European society has collapsed and death is everywhere. There's a lot of grim sci fi by high profile writers from this period once you look for it.
And really, I think sci fi reflects the attitudes of the society at the time. Most sci fi of the 1920s and 1930s is that way because that is what people of the time wanted and perhaps what most of the authors knew (aside from the socialist-oriented ones). If one looks at all the popular arts of the time, most of it was simplistic and optimistic. When the Second World War loomed and started, people started taking an interest in the grimmer fare, perhaps because it expressed the fears of those times. It is interesting how complex the arts, including science fiction, have grown since those times.
There's also the matter of the unmentioned early sci fi writer, H. G. Wells. His stories were very often far from optimistic, such as "War of the Worlds" and "The Time Machine".
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday August 03 2015, @07:36PM
Science fiction generally only reflects a subset of the "spirit of the time". When you include books the focus is both narrower and broader. You've got a different selection of editors, but (before the fall of the magazines) a narrower selection of things published. I'm afraid that I can't consider L. Ron Hubbard to be a significant science fiction author. Randal Garrett was much more important, and even he wasn't in the same league as Simak, E.E.Smith, Hamilton, Asimov, Heinlein, Leinster, Clement, etc. Hubbard did write a notable amount of fantasy, but I'm afraid that I didn't care for him even in that vein. If you want to go in that direction, Philip K. Dick was much more notable (and a much better writer). I'm sure I've left out major Science Fiction authors I just haven't happened to think of, but Rand and Hubbard aren't among them.
Of course, It's sometimes difficult to properly assign attribution, because some authors use multiple pseudonyms, and some publishers have house pseudonyms that have multiple authors...though that second factor doesn't usually affect prominent authors.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.