(no subject)
frankwu asks does it have to end badly? He's talking about a tendency in science fiction for downer endings. My flip response was:
Not all SF is, but, yeah, that's a common trope in our field. As a gross generalization, fantasy trends up, SF trends down. Except a lot of ANALOG and almost all of BAEN'S UNIVERSE trend up.
It's an interesting question, and one which far wiser heads than mine have mulled over down the long years. I don't think that SF is inherently dystopian or negative, and there have certainly been time periods and literary movements in SF where the downbeat ending was not de rigeur, but the New Wave and later on cyberpunk both strongly reinforced that tradition. It's a place where SF is kissing cousins with litfic, while fantasy snuggles up closer to romance.
(Which is an interesting thought in its own right. SF and fantasy are tightly paired from a publishing and marketing perspective, but what if SF and litfic were paired, while fantasy and romance were paired?)
So why does it have to end badly? I think that's a reflection of our times, in part. Fantasy is a mirror of the idealized world, at least in its classic high fantasy form -- whether that world is the perfected past or the perfected inner landscape. Science fiction is a mirror of the potential world, at least in its classic form -- whether that world is the developing future or the evolving inner landscape.
Which makes me think that there's an inversion of the Myth of the Golden Age at work. The past was always better, because everyone knew their place, kids were respectful, we had good jobs, and the language was spoken properly. The future is always worse, because those people are getting above themselves, kids today have no idea, the job market sucks, and the King's English is in hideous decline.
Can it be that simple? I'm not able to bring myself to believe that, but it's an interesting notion. What's the inverse of the Myth of the Golden Age? Fear of the Failed Future?
Not all SF is, but, yeah, that's a common trope in our field. As a gross generalization, fantasy trends up, SF trends down. Except a lot of ANALOG and almost all of BAEN'S UNIVERSE trend up.
It's an interesting question, and one which far wiser heads than mine have mulled over down the long years. I don't think that SF is inherently dystopian or negative, and there have certainly been time periods and literary movements in SF where the downbeat ending was not de rigeur, but the New Wave and later on cyberpunk both strongly reinforced that tradition. It's a place where SF is kissing cousins with litfic, while fantasy snuggles up closer to romance.
(Which is an interesting thought in its own right. SF and fantasy are tightly paired from a publishing and marketing perspective, but what if SF and litfic were paired, while fantasy and romance were paired?)
So why does it have to end badly? I think that's a reflection of our times, in part. Fantasy is a mirror of the idealized world, at least in its classic high fantasy form -- whether that world is the perfected past or the perfected inner landscape. Science fiction is a mirror of the potential world, at least in its classic form -- whether that world is the developing future or the evolving inner landscape.
Which makes me think that there's an inversion of the Myth of the Golden Age at work. The past was always better, because everyone knew their place, kids were respectful, we had good jobs, and the language was spoken properly. The future is always worse, because those people are getting above themselves, kids today have no idea, the job market sucks, and the King's English is in hideous decline.
Can it be that simple? I'm not able to bring myself to believe that, but it's an interesting notion. What's the inverse of the Myth of the Golden Age? Fear of the Failed Future?