Shiraz Janjua

An article over in Wired got me thinking about the genre of science fiction. It seems that writers and directors of “sci-fi” shows and movies dislike using the term “science fiction.” It has everything to do with the fact that the term connotes images of robots and aliens, spaceships and lasers. It’s basically, as the article mentions, fantasy in space, replacing orcs with Vulcans, and magic spells with science spells.I myself dislike the “spaceship” genre of sci-fi, on the whole. I enjoyed bald Sisko kicking ass back in the day, but I find Star Trek to be a bore. And yet, I think science fiction — “classical” science fiction — is a wonderful genre. What do I mean by classical science fiction?

Let’s throw out a few examples, some old, some new: Brave New World, 1984, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Matrix trilogy, Children of Men, Planet of the Apes, Blade Runner, Twelve Monkeys.

So what do these works have in common?

An exploration at the dark side of modernity—or, specifically, an extrapolated, extreme version of the modern world as it might be appear in the future if allowed to continue on without examination.

Sure, some of these—many, actually—do have robots, supercomputers, and all that. But ultimately, it’s about the humans inside this machine. Most of these works are dark, dire predictions, almost prophetic warnings. It’s the purpose of such science fiction to ask questions about what society is doing to itself. Yes, a lot of it has to do with the effects of technology on human culture. Yet I don’t think this great science fiction is about technology at all. Like the flip side of the study of history, great science fiction is speculation about the future and, therefore, a question about the present. It’s supposed to make us think. It’s a constant challenge posed against the world of today. It’s confrontational and it’s thought-provoking by design. It’s a literary pest, a thorn in the side of Utopian daydreams, a contest. And that’s why Star Trek just isn’t science fiction to me: it doesn’t ask us anything. It’s really just a soap opera on steroids, like most commercial comic books.

In a very real sense, the works I mentioned should be classified as satire. We do often mistake the words “satire” and “parody”—just as we confuse “science fiction” with “space fantasy.” Satire is about social criticism. I would say it’s probably one of my favorite genres of fiction, along with magic realism. So sci-fi is a subgenre of satire, really. Just because something takes place in space or in the future, doesn’t make it science fiction. There’s a difference between sociopolitical science fiction and pulp science fiction.

I know that I frequently bemoan the lack of optimism, hopefulness and playfulness in art and culture today, but I do think that there are valid ways in which criticism can be expressed. Documentary journalism does this in non-fiction. Satire does this in art. They don’t have to provide glossy, sugar-coated answers. Great stories exist as mirrors for us to gaze into.