Comments on: Remaking the past (and future)

By: P.M.Lawrence

P.M.Lawrence — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:20:55 +0000

Just to let you know, the “Future History” idea is usually traced to Heinlein. Heinlein used it to bring in ideas of history not repeating but rhyming, and so providing a crib sheet for him to hang his own disguised ideas on. Asimov, though, mostly used it as a literary technique, but he didn’t just rework Gibbon; he hangs Jewish ideas of Messianic thought in there, as well as ideas of Maccabees versus Syria (in some of the earlier books in the history, not the parts analogous to Rome so much).

By: Jeff R.

Jeff R. — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:40:46 +0000

Actually, I think that the turn to the past is from the exact opposite problem: it is not, currently, possible to imagine a future identical to the present. From the birth of SF to the forties, it was extremely plausible (although wrong) to extrapolate the future as an endless continuation of the great powers system, with occasional wars punctuating shifts in the balance between them. After WWII, it was equally plausible (and, of course, equally wrong) to extrapolate the future as an endless continuation of competition between the US and Soviet bloc with a continuous threat of annihilation but only small proxy conflicts. And after the fall of communism, it was just as plausible (and, need I add…) to extrapolate the future as endless domination by capitalism, either in the form of the US or of a more hungry, ascendent nation, usually Japan. But now, after 9/11 and the wars that have followed, there isn’t any particularly clear trajectory to assume that the future is on; no plausible extrapolation that a writer can be reasonably sure won’t be rendered obsolete by events taking place as the book goes to market. So, understandably, comes the turn to the considerably more predictable past.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:53:49 +0000

Mutability doesn’t imply perfectability. And the formulation I’ve offered for hard SF obviously allows for the kind of contrarian story that introduces a technical change with the expectation that it will change things radically, but then has it defeated by immutable ‘human nature’.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:38:02 +0000

The essence of science fiction is the idea that science and technology matter, that, in a different world, we would live fundamentally different lives and find out new things about ourselves. This formulation is awfully limiting. The whole point of the Foundation series, after all, is that human nature is constant (and statistically predictable) regardless of the state of technology or any other social factor. Why is this not a valid theme? Outside the genre of sci-fi, it’s hardly unheard-of for a literary work to depict characters uprooted into new social situations and either prevailing or falling to ruin because they are tied to previously-established patterns of behavior. In essence, aren’t you arguing that good sci-fi literature must argue for the perfectibility of humankind? (I.e., human nature must be shown to be mutable, and thus perfectible). How is that materially different from arguing that good literature must follow some other specific political or moral model, like glorifying God, or depicting the advancement of the state, etc.? Surely art should not be bounded in such a way?

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:39:16 +0000

I wonder if the turn towards the nineteenth century is a tacit admission of defeat on the part of imaginative literature. In the early twentieth century, it was easy to imagine a future different from the present; now it seems virtually impossible. The only serious competing visions to a future that’s just like the present but with more stuff are either played-out, like ecological disaster, or essentially unimaginable, like Vinge’s singularity. While a future-as-present isn’t that terrible, it certainly isn’t very inspiring either. The nineteenth century was when humanity could first imagine that the future, here on earth, could be different from the present. Imaginatively retreating to that era is like reminiscing about when you were young and full of promise. I don’t intend this as a criticism: I love several books that fall into this genre. But it is a curious development.