There is nothing more pleasing in a story that it rouses creativity and imagination, bringing the mind to new heights and unfolding new worlds for the self to be lost in exploring; and likewise is there nothing more displeasing than a story which, in failing the property of verisimilitude, jars the reader from imaginative ecstasy with the introduction of some element which holds either a likeness  to the present  day which makes no sense within the fantasy, or else a fantasy which makes no sense within the story’s present day.

Within science fiction, these two traps at either end of the continuum between reality and fantasy, with verisimilitude being that Aristotelian mean of fictional excellence, shall tend to be expressed as either a concern for some Pressing Issue of the present expressed through an ostensibly scientifictional lens, or else a presupposition of the modern course of events telescoped out in a fashion which takes no social realities sufficiently into account. Naturally, these stumbling blocks are difficult to overcome, but were there no difficulties to be overcome in the art there should be no wonder and awe at a work of art which ties together the fantastic with the stirrings of the soul.

It is of course only good and proper to take a Wrightian approach to exploring these issues, so without further ado and reference to my admittedly meager background in science fiction, let us wonder at why these problems crop up and what they tell us of the mind.

The first science fiction story to really illustrate the first problem to me, that of the Pressing Issue writ scientifictionally, was the movie In Time. While watching it, I couldn’t help but wonder at how poorly the whole economic mechanism was explained; what would incentivize a system of extreme Malthusian pressure (as individuals are literally forced into a zero-sum game to trade labor for time, even while that act of labor uses up that precious time and goods consume even more time)? Indeed, the attempt to portray a likeness to our own times, in which the economy is yet positive sum and poverty the result of a lack of will than any unfortunate circumstances, made me sour on the whole movie, no matter how intriguing the concept driving it was. From a more darkly enlightened perspective, it is actually quite easy to appreciate forcing society into a zero-sum game of Malthusian pressure as a means of staving off overpopulation and more efficiently selecting for the promulgation of a timely aristocracy, but then again the benefits which might be potentially reaped of such a system would require that all societies engage in such a system, as the gains to a positive-sum economy and growing population by defecting would be immense, so much so that one cannot see how any society would be initially willing to engage in it. In other words, the overriding prioritizing of a Moral subjected the rest of the story to sloppy reasoning so that the Moral could be saved. What would’ve been far more interesting would be an actual conversation with the proponents (within that story) of such a temporal economic system, and the complete absence of such antagonists only implies that the dystopia is not one any of the people, i.e. capitalist-minded types, would seriously consider a sound system, and would condemn it in stronger terms than the obviously liberal writer of said film. In Time, then, falls prey to the trap of the Pressing Issue, and  fails equally to be a work of science fiction as it fails to be a cohesive and gripping narrative.

Neal Asher’s Polity universe, while remaining generally enjoyable, falls over to the other problem more than once, in which certain social features of the present are extrapolated to the future as though they should telescope clearly and obviously to certain conclusions. The atomic individualism and isolation which we generally associate with our modern culture are taken for granted, and this despite the rule of mankind generally by an oligarchy of AIs which came about through an evolution of corporate AIs up to the modern day, with a de facto totalitarian rule and generally Star Trek-style socialism in place. It is assumed that ruling AIs who, having control of the fundamental features of the Polity’s culture and economy, would have an interest only in preserving the liberal values of the Enlightenment, no matter that they are clearly capable of engaging in social engineering on a scale which is supposed to dazzle the human mind. For the most part, and this lends a strength to the stories, this is completely ignored in order that other technological and futuristic marvels may drive the story, but one wonders at AIs, literally born of corporations, would have no intent in shepherding humankind to be social capital to sustain their own order against the multifarious and menacing threats to a civilization expanding into the galaxy.

Scifi masterpieces which manage to arrange themselves at the Aristotelian mean of fictional excellence may be the Hyperion Cantos, which portrays a highly corporate culture suffering  from a degree of cultural cohesion which ultimately lends to the downfall of an intergalactic civilization and the rise of a highly technologized Catholic Church in the ensuing Dark Age (though, and this not to its credit, the protagonist of  the later books is a pixie Christ who “saves the world” by vanquishing the Church and “freeing everyone” to participate in whatever kind of lives they would like). There is also Childhood’s End, which grasps at the potential for an end to human civilization in something beyond the material. Of course, it would be impossible to fail to mention John C. Wright’s Count to a Trillion series (review of the third book, Judge of Ages, coming soon), which has not only a very Catholic protagonist but an ultimately very realistic grasp of the wide array of societies which may be made possible by technological engineering, and their downfall in encouraging the seven classical vices. (Likewise, I cannot pass up the opportunity to tout Michael Flynn’s Eifelheim.)

The stories referenced here are far and away above average. I need hardly ruminate on more typical fare of the science fiction genre, which tends towards liberal wish fulfillment fantasies concerning social justice, the ever-present longing to see an “enlightened, atheistic human race united by Progress.” It betrays a surprising lack of historical depth and, for a genre typified primarily by a wonder and awe at science with the duty to explore the influence on society of technology, an altogether juvenile understanding of the basic constants of society and the human mind which no technology will ever “solve.” It is only ultimately a wish that supposed leaders in what is humanistically possible might share a greater appreciation for the lives and societies of our ancestors, if we are to suppose our far flung offspring were to attempt an appreciation of ours.