Note: Revised 10/1/08 in response to Jetse’s comments below. Key revisions: (a) Renaming the “manifesto to a “platform,” and (b) An open invitation for everyone to chime in, remix, add, change: consider this the beginnings of an open source platform on positive science fiction, and use it as you’d like, (c) some clarification about characters, big and small.
Okay, so it seems that the debate about positive SF has heated up. Starting with Damien Walters’ blogpost in the Guardian, continuing with Lou Anders and Jetse de Vries and Gareth Lyn Powell and Kathryn Cramer.
I feel slightly responsible for all of this. After all, following Jetse in January, I called for positive change in SF back in February, and followed it up with clarification after that original post was picked up on i09, Futurismic, WorldChanging, and Velcro City here.
And, despite lots of words about how positive science fiction can still be gritty, realistic, and encompass lots and lots of scary crap, people still don’t know what positive science fiction is. So, here’s a shot at a definition:
Positive science fiction starts with acknowledging that there are positive things happening, now. Whether we’re talking about real advances in science, or simply the fact that there are people out there trying to do good things, the world is not, and never will be, a monolithic entity seeking to destroy the ecosystem and enslave the population. Such a monoculture is impossible outside of scenarios that include complete mind control of everyone on the planet. And novels set in such a world would be very, very boring.
Positive science fiction is about the possibility of positive change. If the system is so big and the characters so small, there is no possibility for change. All we can do is watch as the mechanism of the world turns. All we can take away from this is that we can do nothing; we might as well roll around on the ground, crying, saying, “Woe is me! There is no hope!” There has to be a possibility of change. Even if that change isn’t fully realized. Even if that change isn’t what we expect. Even if that change is, in itself, frightening.
Positive science fiction has a protagonist or protagonists that can effect change. Small characters are perfectly fine—but if they can’t pick themselves up and rise above their origins, then why are we spending any time with them? Why can’t we include a full palette of characters who are captains of industry, or doods-next-door with a mission, or brilliant scientists, or girls who bootstapped themselves to fame, or even trust fund babies bent on doing good–or evil–or simply serving their own complex personalities? We need to remember that Elon Musk is not only an “Evil CEO,” but that he made his billions in the dot-boom ecommerce days–and is now head of such forward-looking companies as SpaceX and Tesla Motors. It seems to me that many authors would be well-served by continuing to spend time in business and industry (and not just at a copywriter level). The perspective is invaluable in creating real, believable characters on every level.
Positive science fiction isn’t afraid to look at challenging definitions of “positive.” What we consider “positive” is heavily colored by our politics, our scarcity-based economy, and the current state of the world. A positive mid-future or far-future world might be very, very different than we expect, especially if we start heading into post-scarcity based scenarios. I think of an iPod Touch full of rap videos and Torchwood torrents being transported back to Victorian England. Would they be in awe of our technology—or would they recoil from our mores?
Positive science fiction inspires people to act and influence positive change. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live in a world of slackers who can do nothing more than complain about “the man” and “the system.” I want people to be inspired to get the education and do the work necessary to get us off the planet. To fix the environment. To figure out systems that don’t need to go through destructive boom and bust cycles. To extend our lifespans. To discover wholly new frontiers. To create new life. To develop true artificial intelligence. To make workable nanotechnology. To create space elevators. We will not do this by wallowing in sorrow; we will not do this by bemoaning our fate; we will not do this by laying about on the couch.
So, is this the do-all prescription for instant science fiction relevance and growth? No, of course not. Like I append many of my posts with: this is one doods opinion. This is a start. If you’d like to chime in, that’s great. If you’d like to take this piece in its entirety and remix it, change it, and make it your own, have at it. I have only a single agenda: I’d like to see science fiction succeed.
And, in the end, I agree with Jetse. Moving science fiction in a more positive direction isn’t an option, it’s a requirement. If we can’t help point the ways to the answers, then what use are we, really?
September 27th, 2008 /
September 28th, 2008 at 6:27 am
[...] And, despite lots of words about how positive science fiction can still be gritty, realistic, and encompass lots and lots of scary crap, people still don’t know what positive science fiction is. So, here’sa shot at a definition: … More here: Stranger and Happier: A Positive Science Fiction Manifesto [...]
September 29th, 2008 at 7:38 am
[...] This week’s debate: should sf be more optimistic? Kathryn Cramer has the right of it, I think, but there are robust responses from Lou Anders, Jetse de Vries, and Jason Stoddard. [...]
September 29th, 2008 at 9:34 am
[...] Shorter Jason Stoddard: The problem with contemporary SF is that it doesn’t love capitalism enough. [...]
September 29th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
[...] are already sharpening their pencils as they consider ideas for stories that meet Jason Stoddards positivist manifesto, and certainly there wil be an enterprising editor on hand to anthologise them. I look forward to [...]
September 29th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
[...] Science Fiction started back in February that got kicked off by Jason Stoddard, he has written up a Manifesto of Positive Science fiction. He writes on many points, but I would like specifically to address [...]
September 30th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
A clarification: I am not promoting the takeover of the world by benevolent scientists and cuddly captains of industry—I would simply like to see a broader palette of characters, with more realistic personality traits. Not all businesspeople are bent on raping the planet; not every chill-dude-next-door is altruistic and perfect. Sometimes great things come from evil characters; sometimes terrible things happen from the best intentions.Let’s create all sorts of characters–but let’s put them in a position to act, and let’s make sure they *act.*
October 1st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Let’s see this ‘manifesto’ (hate the word, BTW: why not make it a platform. Even better: an open source ‘optimism in SF’ platform where everybody can chime in) as a starting point, not a thing written in stone (you noted already in the beginning of your post that it’s ‘a shot at a definition’).
Optimistic SF is like the future: a work in progress.
Our hope is that we can make it better.
Or, to put it somewhat in context: basically, I would like to see *more* convincingly optimistic SF stories. There are way too few of them, right now. That doesn’t mean that *all* SF should be like that, or that *all pessimistic SF* is without merit, but just that IMHO we need more of ingredient “O” in the greater written SF mix. Especially if we intend to interest a younger audience in it (and make it relevant, and not just to that audience).
October 1st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Jetse: Great points. My use of the word “manifesto” was too charged. This is now a “platform,” and it is free for all to remix.
October 7th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
[...] 2008 — Niall If “1337 in 2012” is an example of the type of story the optimists want, then they’re taking the idea of sf stories as “fantasies of political agency” a [...]
October 7th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
[...] Stranger and Happier: A Positive Science Fiction Platform (via Jason Stoddard) [...]
October 10th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I’m coming a little late to the party but:
I think you are actually addressing two core issues here: 1. SF works themselves. 2. the cultural/personal biases/reflections of the world as authors currently see it.
Of course all literature reflects its times and it is very difficult for authors to divorce themselves from them when writing. Perhaps even more difficult is selling a work that is out of step with the cultural zeitgeist. No one can stomach pollyanna when things really are in the crapper.
The key for addressing both lies in presentation. The vast majority of work produced during the ‘cold war era’ (when things really were in the crapper and the whole shebang could go blooey - and almost did) was POSITIVE SF, despite the background it was drawn from. “When all you have is lemons, make lemonade” is the expression that comes to mind.
Take Heinlein’s Farnham’s Freehold as an example: Things really did go blooey for all of the characters. RAH even went so far as to make a plot point out negativity - Farnham was told that his obsession with how bad things were (during the opening) was sick and negatively affecting everyone around him.
But by the end of the story, things had turned out pretty well: just about everyone ‘got what they deserved’ and Farnham, who was never truly ‘negative’, just practical and willing to face the world with eyes wide open, ended up having his cake and eating it too.
Dealing with the negative in a story is fine - conflict has got to come from somewhere - but failing to include the ‘path to the light’ is, as you’ve pointed out, taking us in a direction that leads nowhere.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:25 am
Another worthy mention is the late Mr. Roddenberry and, all the people around him who still belive in a future that could work for everyone.
Quite a concept in 1968 and, still is…
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:42 am
http://www.treknationdoc.com/