Is that SF?
Mar. 28th, 2008 10:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mbarkerThe short version: Good science fiction uses science as a stage for examining human relationships and emotions at the point where we start feeling emotional about technology. So sayeth Alex Terzich, in the midst of a lengthy essay. But is that really what good science fiction is all about?
Howard Taylor (of Schlock Mercenary fame - see http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ ) had a link to a skin-tattoo interface design, which linked to a blog article that asked the always intriguing question "Do androids dream of electric sheep?" (I know, I was shaving yaks, but it was an interesting yak) Skimming the article to see what they were talking about, I stumbled over this quote:
Still, it's interesting to consider how this definition might help us structure our stories. Should we include notes about the science, the relationships and emotions, and the lovable technology in our story outline? What kind of technology scan would help to identify places where emerging technology will run into our image of humanity and break things?
And, of course, there's the question of what bad science fiction uses science for, but perhaps we don't need to know that since we want to avoid the bad stuff?
Good or bad, science certainly play a part in science fiction. And thinking about exactly what that role is might just be useful for a writer of the stuff, right?
Howard Taylor (of Schlock Mercenary fame - see http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ ) had a link to a skin-tattoo interface design, which linked to a blog article that asked the always intriguing question "Do androids dream of electric sheep?" (I know, I was shaving yaks, but it was an interesting yak) Skimming the article to see what they were talking about, I stumbled over this quote:
"Like so much good science fiction, here science is the stage set for playing out the tangle of human relationships and emotional ambiguities that unfold when the technology that connects us begins to infringe upon or even claim our affection." from http://www.core77.com/blog/featured_items/love_objects_a_review_of_momas_design_and_the_elastic_mind_by_alex_terzich_9172.asp in Love Objects: A review of MoMA's "Design and the Elastic Mind," by Alex TerzichOkay, so the quote tells us that good science fiction uses science as the setting for examining human relationships and emotions at the point where technology becomes lovable. It seems reasonable to ask whether there are other relationships with technology. It might also be noticable that the relationships and emotions don't have to be strictly human to be worthy of examination, I guess. And that notion of science as setting seems to leave it oddly passive for science fiction? What is the line between that science as setting and the affectionate technology?
Still, it's interesting to consider how this definition might help us structure our stories. Should we include notes about the science, the relationships and emotions, and the lovable technology in our story outline? What kind of technology scan would help to identify places where emerging technology will run into our image of humanity and break things?
And, of course, there's the question of what bad science fiction uses science for, but perhaps we don't need to know that since we want to avoid the bad stuff?
Good or bad, science certainly play a part in science fiction. And thinking about exactly what that role is might just be useful for a writer of the stuff, right?
