Russ, Joanna: SF & Technology as Mystification
SF & Technology as Mystification
To Write Like a Woman: Essays in Feminism and Science Fiction
Writer: Joanna Russ
Genre: Essay
I actually read this late last week and am only just now getting around to commenting on it. I promise, though, my next post will not be over an essay. ;)
This, despite the title, was actually a fascinating essay. Well, the bulk of it was, when Russ was giving the needed background information in order to make her claim that "technology" is a "non-subject" and what it really entails. Yes, this is another older essay. I wish these were all actually dated.
Anyway, the interesting part of this essay was the talk about addiction and entertainment. I can't say I agreed with all the points she made, but I could look at them objectively and see where she was coming from. And to define addiction in the context of the essay, Russ describes hypoglycemia and what refined sugar does to the body. It's really interesting, actually, and you should read the essay for that reason alone.
She goes on to talk about how her model is a true psychological addition. That something is not simply an addiction if you need it intensely or all the time (like oxygen). In short, addiction is "a situation of constantly escalating need--in short, of insatiability. Not only that, but the cause of escalation is the satisfier of the need. Addiction is what people call a vicious circle--really an increasing spiral. The more you need, the more you get; the more you get, the more you have; the more you have, the more you need, and so on" (pg. 28).
I don't know about anyone else, but over the past year, I've worked really hard to curb my addictive appetite for television shows and movies. Not because it was "bad" for me, per se, but because it ate up my creative energies, and I needed my creative energies elsewhere. Now, even though I still love shows like Alias, Lost, and Battlestar Galactica, I make myself watch, enjoy, and then turn that part of my brain off pretty soon after it's over. That's the part of the brain that wants to gush about the shows online, speculate on coming episodes, make fan-art, etc. That's also the part of the brain that must have everything to do with these shows: novelizations, soundtracks, dvds, magazines, trading cards...you get the picture. And I know that my addictions aren't near as strong as other peoples': other people do all those things and more, like make vids, write fan-fiction, etc.
But one key element is that you cannot WAIT for the next installment. And in between installments, you search for something to fill that need for said show or book or movie in your life (see above).
Russ used an interesting comparison, taking the roots of addiction disturbing further (and into territory that I'm not sure I entirely agree with, but think I understand): she compared Star Wars to Star Trek.
Now, I'll be the first to tell you I was born in 1980, right after the big hoopla of the original SW film hit. Also? I don't watch Star Trek. Never have. Might eventually, now that I consider myself an SF writer and want to be knowledgeable about such shows for posterity’s sake, but for now, I know just enough about ST to know it's very different that SW.
But I have seen footage and documentary about the fan reaction that sprang out of Episode IV. I have seen interviews and talk about the marketing push and all that came with it. Seeing stuff like this and hearing how different it was to anything any movie had ever experienced makes me think George Lucas invented marketing, even though I know that's not true. :) Still though, he sparked a movement. A movement that Russ calls addiction. And Russ goes further:
"Star Wars--which is being sold to the public as "fun"--is, in fact, racist, grossly sexist, not apolitical in the least but authoritarian and morally imbecile, all of this is both denied and enforced by the opportunism of camp (which the youngsters in the audience cannot spot, by the way) and spiced up by technical wonders and marvels, some of which are interesting, many of which are old hat to those used to science fiction" (pg. 29-30)
She goes on to say that addictive culture can't be all bad in order to succeed (pg. 30), but then goes on to compare the addictive qualities between SW and ST. How the industry around SW was part of a commercial advertisement campaign, where as the industry around ST originated in the audience itself (she claims that the "exploitation of paraphernalia came later" (pg. 30).
She also makes a point to say that in comparison to SW, ST is "politically liberal, morally serious, and in its best episodes so much less addictive than the rest of the TV competition that the idea-men of the industry--the front office producers--almost instinctively distrusted it. Those hooked on the show not only wanted to watch it; they also wanted to talk about it and think about it...At times Star Trek generated not a desire to see more, but a desire to sit still and contemplate, to sit still and be moved--to my mind, sure signs of non-addictive culture" (pg. 30).
I can't say I agree with all of this. Mind you, this was written at a particular time when "fandom" was really being born. I daresay (and could be totally wrong) that there were fans actually addicted to the original series of Star Trek, and that in today's day and age, anything can be made addictive: it just depends on the personality of the fan watching it. Shows--and this is my own tangent--about space exploration like ST suddenly become about who's hooking up with who, and that, too, is a high sign of addictive fandom, because everybody wants something different out of the show.
So it raises the question: is bad SF inherently addictive? And is what makes it addictive inherently bad? Is entertainment for entertainment's sake meant to stupify the mind and help it ignore the larger issues by dazzling it with special effects or familiar heroes?
The answers aren't black and white. And Russ does point out that addictive-culture is not the same as escapist culture.
And again, the age of the essay really shows itself. Aside from its main point being about talk of technology is a non-subject (I'm not discussing this here; if you're that interested, read the essay. HA!), she's writing from a perspective where ST had been around a while and SW was the hot, new, sexy thing. Also, there was only one SW movie at that time, and since, you know that whatever criticisms Lucas faced for his work (lack of important women, lack of people of color/other nationalities) he "corrected" in later movies. And let's not forget the decline of Star Trek: reading this essay makes me wonder about how the franchise has changed, and it's no longer about responding to social issues (BSG does that, now), but more about carrying out what's already been done before. It's about the money, the glamour, and what you can get away with showing on tv. Course, I'm saying all of this as someone who's watched very little ST in her life, but based on stuff I've read and what people have said, I wouldn't be surprised. People who stick with ST, now, are the people who are "addicted". People who love it for what it is, not what it does.
And again, does addiction have to be a bad thing? I don't think it does: we all have our guilty pleasures. We need them; we're allowed. But I think the trick is balance. And, also, as is the ultimate point of the essay, not to let our addictions center around everything we do and talk about. Because talk about addictions are empty talk, especially when it doesn't relate/connect to what's going on in the real world, what's being put in practice (this is going back to her points on technology); in other words, it's okay to look at something in a bubble, but you have to pop it eventually and see what kind of mess you get.
Again, a fascinating essay. I'd recommend to anyone to read it, even if you don't agree with all the points. It's all very interesting to consider, especially in light of current fandom, the internet, entertainment, and writer responsibility (how much fluff, how much response, etc).