dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) (06/21/85)
THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY
PART VII: Thematic Drought
by Davis Tucker
______________________________________________________________________________
The major themes of science fiction are pretty well understood by most people
who have read something other than "Dune" and "Stranger In A Strange Land".
They usually break down into a few narrow categories: self-realization,
power and corruption, revenge, the triumph of intellect over brute force, and
the old standby of fantasy - good against evil. Of all of these, it is safe
to say that fully 50% of all science fiction novels deal with self-realization,
or to lapse into estspeak, self-actualization. Wherein a character, either
through magic, or genetic modification, or superior altruism, or sheer know-
ledge, becomes something greater than what he once was. It's a part of the
collective subconscious of science fiction, this urge to know and read that
man can become immortal, or superhumanly strong, or wise without growing old.
In this, there is a common bond with ancient literature of all cultures.
Usually (as in myths and fairy tales and sagas, etc.) this self-actualization
is placed in the framework of good against evil.
The other themes are also present in such diverse works as The Arabian Nights,
The Mabinogoin, the Norse sagas, Greek myths, and the many Irish folk tales.
For lack of a less pretentious word, these are universal themes. We see these
themes reflected in the science fiction we read - "The Stars My Destination"
is an excellent revenge novel, and also involves a healthy dose of good vs.
evil and self-realization. The Foundation Trilogy is a textbook example
of the intellect over brute force theme (remember Salvor Hardin's innumerable
aphorisms?). "The Lord Of The Rings" is a good vs. evil novel. "Dune" is
a self-realization novel in the classic science fiction tradition. This may
seem like oversimplification, but on the whole, these are fair assessments
of these novels. Science fiction is not known for its thematic subtlety.
But let us return to modern novel, starting with "Don Quixote De La Mancha"
and Dante's "Inferno", "Purgatorio", and "Paradiso". What distinguishes the
modern novel from it predecessors (such as the Siegfried Legend, Tristan
and Isolde, The Song Of Roland) is its thematic leap into the modern world
of shades of grey, existentialism, its willingness to grapple with insanity
and hatred and love and lust from the inside, not the surface. Shakespeare
was fundamentally different in his world-view and his approach to human
personality than playwrights that preceded him by 50 years. The Renaissance
freed readers and writers from the thematic stranglehold of previous times,
and the flowering of literature as we know it began again, after centuries
of drought. The novels and short stories of the 19th and 20th centuries
have given us insight into the worlds within us that have lain buried,
strange themes of degradation and desperation such as Dostoevsky's
"Notes From The Underground", Kafka's "The Trial", Orwell's "1984" and
"Down And Out In Paris And London", and Hugo's "Les Miserables". Self-
discovery instead of self-actualization (who you are, not what you can
become) such as Kerouac's "On The Road" or Salinger's "Catcher In The Rye".
Love stories such as "Dr. Zhivago" and "Anna Karenina". Tales of obsession
and murder and lust such as Nabokov's "Lolita", Capote's "In Cold Blood",
Jack Abbot's "In The Belly Of The Beast". Tragedies and comedies galore.
Why is it that this freedom of themes, this wealth of subject material,
is not present in science fiction? When was the last time you read a
real-life, honest-to-god science fiction tragedy? Why is it that nobody
has written a truly great *love story* in science fiction? Where is the
human failure, the small glories, the defeats of growing old, the joy
in childhood, the pain of growing aware, the acceptance that we all must
come to in time, the heartache, the anguish, the ecstasy? This is why
so many science fiction novels come across as cold-hearted and intellectual
and juvenile. They don't address themselves to what is fundamentally
imperative when one is writing about human beings, or aliens, or any
kind of consciousness that feels and thinks. It would be far better if
more authors of science fiction showed as much passion and interest in
their characters' lives as they do in their "universes" and scientific
extrapolation. Human nature is much more interesting than particle physics,
and it's a much richer lode of strangeness and imagination. From the comic
to the tragic, to the macabre and bizarre to the beautiful and the sublime,
there is a wealth of thematic material that has been untouched by science
fiction writers. The genre needs more authors who understand that human beings
are the strangest things in our universe, both the most predictable and
unpredictable, who understand and embrace the thematic freedom that science
fiction has to offer without accepting its self-imposed restrictions.
Artistic freedom that is not exercised is no freedom at all. The thematic
range of science fiction needs to be expanded, not just into the range of
mainstream fiction, but beyond it. As Rod Serling would have put it, there
are no bounds, there are no forbidden areas, there are no obstacles except
imagination. Science fiction can branch out and grab the freedom that has
always been available to it, or it can withdraw even further into the shell
of its own making. Time will tell.
Well, that's just one man's opinion. Tune in next week for "THE PROBLEMS OF
SCIENCE FICTION TODAY, PART VIII: Politics And Science Fiction".