DIDACTIC versus LITERARY
Science Fiction
In 1975 Joanna Russ wrote an essay about science fiction, Towards an Aesthetic of Science Fiction. Ms. Russ explains why science fiction must be analyzed differently from most other fictional literature. She says:
Is science fiction literature?
Yes.
Can it be judged by the usual literary criteria?
No.
Such a statement requires not only justification but considerable elaboration. Written science fiction is, of course, literature, although science fiction in other media (films, drama, perhaps even painting or sculpture) must be judged by standards other than those applied to the written word. Concentrating on science fiction as literature, primarily as prose fiction, this paper will attempt to indicate some of the limitations critics encounter in trying to apply traditional literary criticism to science fiction. To be brief, the access of academic interest in science fiction that has occurred during the last few years has led to considerable difficulty. Not only do academic critics find themselves imprisoned by habitual (and unreflecting) condescension in dealing with this particular genre; quite often their critical tools, however finely honed, are simply not applicable to a body of work that—despite its superficial resemblance to realistic or naturalistic twentieth-century fiction—is fundamentally a drastically different form of literary art.
Yes.
Can it be judged by the usual literary criteria?
No.
Such a statement requires not only justification but considerable elaboration. Written science fiction is, of course, literature, although science fiction in other media (films, drama, perhaps even painting or sculpture) must be judged by standards other than those applied to the written word. Concentrating on science fiction as literature, primarily as prose fiction, this paper will attempt to indicate some of the limitations critics encounter in trying to apply traditional literary criticism to science fiction. To be brief, the access of academic interest in science fiction that has occurred during the last few years has led to considerable difficulty. Not only do academic critics find themselves imprisoned by habitual (and unreflecting) condescension in dealing with this particular genre; quite often their critical tools, however finely honed, are simply not applicable to a body of work that—despite its superficial resemblance to realistic or naturalistic twentieth-century fiction—is fundamentally a drastically different form of literary art.
The entire essay can be found at: http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/6/russ6art.htm
But 1975 was before Star Wars came on the scene and the science fiction landscape and American society has changed considerably since then. The producers of Star Wars admitted in 1977 that it was not science fiction. They called it Space Fantasy. By beginning the movie with "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" they created a fairy tale mood for an epic fantasy but it still had space ships in the very first scene. Of course the ten year olds that loved the movie did not know or care about any differences between fantasy and science fiction. So after 30 years the literary landscape of works now called science fiction has gotten very muddled and complex.
But science and technology have advanced in the real world since 1975. The last manned Moon landing was just three years earlier though no one knew it would be the last for such a long time. The electronics technology that made the landings possible however has continued advancing regardless. The computers have changed the production of science fiction and fantasy movies such that what could once only be written and imagined can now be put on the screen, both big and small. The world's perception of science fiction has significantly altered and that has probably affected people's perception of science as well. But we now have tremendous complaints about our educational system while cheap computers have proliferated. We have computers in our Star Trek phones which Mr. Spock should envy. Oh yeah, Vulcans do not experience envy, sorry. We are living in a science fiction reality and some of our problems come from not being able to figure out how to adapt ourselves and the technology to a worthwhile future.
Joanna Russ said science fiction was didactic, like medieval literature. Science fiction books that are uninformative can be entertaining but also uninteresting. Ms. Russ wrote, "The pleasure science fiction writers take in explaining physics, thirtieth-century jurisprudence, the mechanics of teleportation, patent law, four-dimensional geometry, or whatever happens to be on the tapis, lies open in any book that has not degenerated into outright adventure story with science-fiction frills." Many scientists and engineers report that it was science fiction which really stimulated their interest in what was to become their profession. Robert Goddard, who is now called "the father of modern rocketry" was inspired by the works of Jules Verne. Carl Sagan read science fiction as a child. So with all of the complaints about science education and literacy in this country it is curious that our educators do not seem to be promoting SELECTED sci-fi literature to interest grade school students.
To that end I want to specify a particular distinction among the varieties of science fiction literature. I will call them DIDACTIC versus LITERARY science fiction. The pictures above illustrate works which serve as good archetypes for my distinction and are pre-Moon landing works with no Star Wars influence. 2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968 with the best and most realistic spaceship imagery until then. It is still impressive today though probably not as breath taking as in 1968, since we have seen so many copycats that it inspired. The PanAm ship approaching the rotating space station is awesome. The realism of the space technology portrayed in 2001, by Arthur C. Clarke, is almost heartbreaking since we still have not attained it. On the other side of the coin is The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury. The last picture is of a masked Martian. Martian Chronicles is a collection of short stories from the late 1940s but the television mini-series with Rock Hudson was released in 1980. Bradbury was not an engineer or scientist like Arthur C. Clarke or Robert Heinlein or Isaac Asimov. He did not go to college in fact. His works do not have the technical realism of the other's but they have just as much meaning and often more feeling. His short story "There Will Come Soft Rains" is shockingly unforgetable.
In the 1950s the term HARD science fiction came into usage implying that the story involved accurate science and realistic technology. Most hard science fiction would fit into my didactic category but there are stories which are didactic for reasons other than science and technology and do not qualify as hard. Ray Bradbury's portrayal of Mars was quite unrealistic even on the basis of what was known about the planet at the time. The powers of the Martians moved the stories to the borders of fantasy but the overall commentary about what mankind could do to the Earth was quite plausible. Mr. Bradbury's writing style is superior to many hard SF writers so the reader needs to decide what she or he likes in literature. But the 21st century is going to present us with hard choices about what to do with this technology no matter what and we need for many more people to comprehend the consequences of the choices. That is what I consider didactic science fiction to be about promoting. What to do with these computers, especially in the field of education, is a major question today. They are not going to go away.
Isaac Asimov suggested one option 60 years ago. http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/funtheyhad.html
Now we have tablets, netbooks and smartphones.
And since 2000 there has been considerable growth in public domain literature and audiobooks on the net. This material seems to be underexploited for educational purposes. Much to your surprise I will focus on the science fiction opportunities.
But 1975 was before Star Wars came on the scene and the science fiction landscape and American society has changed considerably since then. The producers of Star Wars admitted in 1977 that it was not science fiction. They called it Space Fantasy. By beginning the movie with "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" they created a fairy tale mood for an epic fantasy but it still had space ships in the very first scene. Of course the ten year olds that loved the movie did not know or care about any differences between fantasy and science fiction. So after 30 years the literary landscape of works now called science fiction has gotten very muddled and complex.
But science and technology have advanced in the real world since 1975. The last manned Moon landing was just three years earlier though no one knew it would be the last for such a long time. The electronics technology that made the landings possible however has continued advancing regardless. The computers have changed the production of science fiction and fantasy movies such that what could once only be written and imagined can now be put on the screen, both big and small. The world's perception of science fiction has significantly altered and that has probably affected people's perception of science as well. But we now have tremendous complaints about our educational system while cheap computers have proliferated. We have computers in our Star Trek phones which Mr. Spock should envy. Oh yeah, Vulcans do not experience envy, sorry. We are living in a science fiction reality and some of our problems come from not being able to figure out how to adapt ourselves and the technology to a worthwhile future.
Joanna Russ said science fiction was didactic, like medieval literature. Science fiction books that are uninformative can be entertaining but also uninteresting. Ms. Russ wrote, "The pleasure science fiction writers take in explaining physics, thirtieth-century jurisprudence, the mechanics of teleportation, patent law, four-dimensional geometry, or whatever happens to be on the tapis, lies open in any book that has not degenerated into outright adventure story with science-fiction frills." Many scientists and engineers report that it was science fiction which really stimulated their interest in what was to become their profession. Robert Goddard, who is now called "the father of modern rocketry" was inspired by the works of Jules Verne. Carl Sagan read science fiction as a child. So with all of the complaints about science education and literacy in this country it is curious that our educators do not seem to be promoting SELECTED sci-fi literature to interest grade school students.
To that end I want to specify a particular distinction among the varieties of science fiction literature. I will call them DIDACTIC versus LITERARY science fiction. The pictures above illustrate works which serve as good archetypes for my distinction and are pre-Moon landing works with no Star Wars influence. 2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968 with the best and most realistic spaceship imagery until then. It is still impressive today though probably not as breath taking as in 1968, since we have seen so many copycats that it inspired. The PanAm ship approaching the rotating space station is awesome. The realism of the space technology portrayed in 2001, by Arthur C. Clarke, is almost heartbreaking since we still have not attained it. On the other side of the coin is The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury. The last picture is of a masked Martian. Martian Chronicles is a collection of short stories from the late 1940s but the television mini-series with Rock Hudson was released in 1980. Bradbury was not an engineer or scientist like Arthur C. Clarke or Robert Heinlein or Isaac Asimov. He did not go to college in fact. His works do not have the technical realism of the other's but they have just as much meaning and often more feeling. His short story "There Will Come Soft Rains" is shockingly unforgetable.
In the 1950s the term HARD science fiction came into usage implying that the story involved accurate science and realistic technology. Most hard science fiction would fit into my didactic category but there are stories which are didactic for reasons other than science and technology and do not qualify as hard. Ray Bradbury's portrayal of Mars was quite unrealistic even on the basis of what was known about the planet at the time. The powers of the Martians moved the stories to the borders of fantasy but the overall commentary about what mankind could do to the Earth was quite plausible. Mr. Bradbury's writing style is superior to many hard SF writers so the reader needs to decide what she or he likes in literature. But the 21st century is going to present us with hard choices about what to do with this technology no matter what and we need for many more people to comprehend the consequences of the choices. That is what I consider didactic science fiction to be about promoting. What to do with these computers, especially in the field of education, is a major question today. They are not going to go away.
Isaac Asimov suggested one option 60 years ago. http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/funtheyhad.html
Now we have tablets, netbooks and smartphones.
And since 2000 there has been considerable growth in public domain literature and audiobooks on the net. This material seems to be underexploited for educational purposes. Much to your surprise I will focus on the science fiction opportunities.
