Politics in Fantasy & Science Fiction

[I'm Murrin]

A few weeks ago I responded to a subject in the Avatar movie thread saying that a topic on this should be brought over to the SFF forum because it was worth discussing, but nothing really came of it. The subject's been on my mind since, though, and I think it's worth trying to get some discourse going.


It's a question that seems to come up now and then, and people have a wide range of opinions on it: Should works of fantasy and science fiction address social and political issues?

This, to me, implies other more fundamental questions regarding the genre, in particular whether SFF should be accepted as a serious medium or if it belongs purely as entertainment, or if it can be both (and, in what I think was the crux of the Avatar argument, when is it acceptable for the genre to address these subjects?).



My own responses to these particular issues are: Yes, and yes.

I think any and all forms of literature can and should be used to speak to relevant social and political issues. I don't think they need to do so all the time, and I do think there is a place for pure entertainment, but I don't think that the producers of media should shy away from touching on these subjects when it makes sense to do so. It's something of a coward's path when a story is heading into a potentially difficult area to deliberately dodge or gloss over the issue for fear of making the work "political".

I think it can also be to a work's detriment if the creator appears to be ignorant of the social or political implications of what it is they are depicting. Even if they are not attempting to address the topics directly, they should at least be aware of them; this is a particular problem with SFF, where an author might feel that because they are depicting a world that does not exist that they do not have to give any consideration to things like this, which tends to result in quite a shallow creation (once again, this is not universal - there are times where the environment in which a story takes place is considerably less important than other aspects of the story).

I acknowledge that some of what I said above might be a little wishy-washy, a few too many caveats, but hopefully I can get more into specifics once the discussion gets going.

[Avatar]

I don't know about should, but it doesn't bother me when they do, and indeed, it often, as you suggest, improves the story.

As a fan of big, involved epics, preferably with extremely detailed histories and societies, it obviously makes for a better story as far as I'm concered. Most of all, I'm interested in the social issues concerned.

That said, it's just as easy to make a bad story by letting it be too political. At least, in the sense that the author ostentatiously injects their personal political philosophy into it.

It's probably a fine line. Many of my favourites were written by heavily politically/socially influenced writers, and it doesn't usually bother me. But then, I'm often insensitive to the polemics behind the pure story.

--A

[stonemaybe]

If an author knows his politics and brings it into sci-fi or fantasy properly, it definitely works well.

What would Ken MacLeod or Iain Banks books be like without the political side? They'd be just ok, imo. Whereas with the politics, they're powerfully different.

But I don't think either genre needs politics. I think I'd rather read books without, but I don't mind those with (occasionally), if it's incorporated well.

[Worm of Despite]

Um.... There's this genre called "soft science fiction" which addresses sociological/human nature/our psychological and even ecological environment.

Basically all science fiction is talking about what's going on with us here, right now. The Left Hand of Darkness deals with gender issues. Even books so simple as an alien invasion (in its myriad variations, whether benign or malevolent) are talking about our human concept of "others". Humanity is an aggressive species, like all persistent life forms, and there's something about us here, now, that's in all good sci-fi. It's not talking about some far-flung future but things right in front of us.

Basically--I don't think sci-fi is restricted from making any comment that any other "accepted" genre can. We make the mistake when we think that sci-fi is just a bunch of thought experiments going "what if", or that they're entirely imagined places with no correlation to our own. Good sci-fi, like any literature, goes straight to the human heart and to what is happening here, right now.

As for politics--I believe in using them subtly and vaguely. Use them like a movie uses lighting. Look at all the great films or literature that used our old fear of the Soviet Union (Strangelove). And, for a modern For example--my novel uses the Chinese as an enemy. All you have to do is stick your finger in the wind and you'll hear, "China's time is soon"/"this will be the Chinese century!"/"Russia, India, China forming an economic bloc..." I merely use this real fear to hike up the anxiety and the edge in my own work--that of the West's possible crumbling against a mysterious, distant, and less-democratic culture. It's never spoken of directly--it merely floods the back canals of the mind like a black haze.

Because--if you comment too directly on politics, I believe you take away your novel's integrity and the narrative's authenticity.

... And by the love of God and Foul, I hate allegory.

[aliantha]

Pretty much what LF said.

There's a school of thought that claims that fantasy deals with internal conflicts/issues and sci-fi deals with external, societal conflicts/issues. Even the old robots-and-rayguns stories were about our fears, as a society, of the bogeyman of the moment, whether it was Hitler or the Japanese or the Russians. So to say that sci-fi should never deal with ecological concerns is kind of ridiculous.

I agree that some stories can use political topics to the point where they cross the line into polemics. That should never be a substitute for a good story.

[aTOMiC]

I probably don't have to say this but Star Trek spent a great deal of time and effort dealing with political and social issues sometimes couched in parables sometimes more obviously but frequently and usually in an entertaining way.

[Skyweir]

I probably don't have to say this but Star Trek spent a great deal of time and effort dealing with political and social issues sometimes couched in parables sometimes more obviously but frequently and usually in an entertaining way.

Absolutely!!

Look at V - the original series is really a social commentary on the holocaust and genocide. Battlestar Galactica - which is arguably the most awesome sci-fi in existence -- is riddled with policital themes and political satire. Star Trek episodes from season to season draws on the range of ethical issues humankind has experieced and is experiencing - injustices etc..

[Avatar]

Sky! Nice to see you around. I love V. (Haven't seen the remake yet.)

--A

[Vraith]

Saw a couple of episodes of new V, kinda liked them.

On the topic: It's a matter of how the writer dances. If the politics [or other social commentary/allegory] serves the story, great. If it's the other way around, piss off.
I guess a perfect pair: Lewis' "Narnia" and "Space Trilogy." Both have strong theological [christian] roots, the first is decent writing, the second is a steaming pile.

[Holsety]

Should works of fantasy and science fiction address social and political issues?

I don't think this is really a question that's particularly confined to the science fiction genre.

Also, I think people who see science fiction as adolescent, childish or escapist do not see it as a genre that "should not" address social and political issues, but rather one that does not do so effectively.

This, to me, implies other more fundamental questions regarding the genre, in particular whether SFF should be accepted as a serious medium or if it belongs purely as entertainment, or if it can be both (and, in what I think was the crux of the Avatar argument, when is it acceptable for the genre to address these subjects?).

I don't think there's any question that SFF, and just about any other form of literature, can be entertaining while being a serious medium, and that entertainment is, in fact, "srs bsns". Saying that a work must be one or the other in my mind is kind of like the division between works that are "high brow" or "low brow".

I think that most people experiencing media nowadays participate consciously enough that merely realizing that one is being entertained is enough to spark serious thought and reflection. In other words, I think that 1: thinking about why things entertain us can lead to serious thoughts, 2: most people have the ability to ask why things entertain them without actually being prompted by some external force. Rather, the external force that causes us to feel we need to articulate and confess our viewpoints about a particular work of art/fiction/whatever has been internalized to the point where it operates almost automatically.

Basically--I don't think sci-fi is restricted from making any comment that any other "accepted" genre can. We make the mistake when we think that sci-fi is just a bunch of thought experiments going "what if", or that they're entirely imagined places with no correlation to our own. Good sci-fi, like any literature, goes straight to the human heart and to what is happening here, fnord now.

I think you're absolutely right about this, so much so that I don't think I need to say anything else.

As for politics--I believe in using them subtly and vaguely. Use them like a movie uses lighting. Look at all the great films or literature that used our old fear of the Soviet Union (Strangelove). And, for a modern For example--my novel uses the Chinese as an enemy. All you have to do is stick your finger in the wind and you'll hear, "China's time is soon"/"this will be the Chinese century!"/"Russia, India, China forming an economic bloc..." I merely use this real fear to hike up the anxiety and the edge in my own work--that of the West's possible crumbling against a mysterious, distant, and less-democratic culture. It's never spoken of directly--it merely floods the back canals of the mind like a black haze.

I also think it is very effective when political changes and the like are a sort of subtext to the main work. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but there are times when I've read a story where the main focus is on a particularly small-scale set of events, but a few minor details here-and-there reveal a great deal about "society at large" without directly addressing it.

I think that Simak's "City" books might do a great deal of this, but it's been a long time so I'm not entirely sure.

[Tjol]

A few weeks ago I responded to a subject in the Avatar movie thread saying that a topic on this should be brought over to the SFF forum because it was worth discussing, but nothing really came of it. The subject's been on my mind since, though, and I think it's worth trying to get some discourse going.


It's a question that seems to come up now and then, and people have a wide range of opinions on it: Should works of fantasy and science fiction address social and political issues?

This, to me, implies other more fundamental questions regarding the genre, in particular whether SFF should be accepted as a serious medium or if it belongs purely as entertainment, or if it can be both (and, in what I think was the crux of the Avatar argument, when is it acceptable for the genre to address these subjects?).



My own responses to these particular issues are: Yes, and yes.

I think any and all forms of literature can and should be used to speak to relevant social and political issues. I don't think they need to do so all the time, and I do think there is a place for pure entertainment, but I don't think that the producers of media should shy away from touching on these subjects when it makes sense to do so. It's something of a coward's path when a story is heading into a potentially difficult area to deliberately dodge or gloss over the issue for fear of making the work "political".

I think it can also be to a work's detriment if the creator appears to be ignorant of the social or political implications of what it is they are depicting. Even if they are not attempting to address the topics directly, they should at least be aware of them; this is a particular problem with SFF, where an author might feel that because they are depicting a world that does not exist that they do not have to give any consideration to things like this, which tends to result in quite a shallow creation (once again, this is not universal - there are times where the environment in which a story takes place is considerably less important than other aspects of the story).

I acknowledge that some of what I said above might be a little wishy-washy, a few too many caveats, but hopefully I can get more into specifics once the discussion gets going.

I like how the Dune series, at least at first, invented an abstract politics. It was entirely fictional. It was fascinating to reading. But part of what came apart (imo anyways) in God Emperor, was trying to mold the fictional politics to the politics that the author lived in. So I think politics is a human thing, and it can add to a story world's depth, but if it tries to be 'relevant' and can't stay at least tangentially away from actual politics, it'll take away the whole otherworldliness of the genre.

Then again, I've heard that 'Empire' was pretty good, but I haven't gotten around to reading it.

edit: One of my friends lent me his x-files collection...and the same thing I've noticed... when Chris Carter is trying too hard to 'speak' his political beliefs, the episodes aren't half as poignant or entertaining as the ones where he aims at a theme and leaves enough room for people to read into what he's saying rather than getting the message with the CC's caps lock key on.

Twilight Zone is political often, but rarely is the show ever literal and in caps lock message mode. It's probably even more effective in spreading certian cultural ideal by not being literal.

[Avatar]

God Emperor was my favourite of the Dune books, apart from the first one. I loved the socio-political interplay of the series.

--A

[Vraith]

God Emperor was my favourite of the Dune books, apart from the first one. I loved the socio-political interplay of the series.

--A

Ditto that. 2 things about the series as a whole that I loved:
In every part he maintained the tension between the pure genetic necessity to survive, and the cultural/moral/philosophical/nurtured behaviors. He didn't try to resolve the "is/ought" problem, he reported the war.
ANd, he deconstructed [so to speak] views left/right, conservative/liberal, showing the strengths and pitfalls of both, in an integral way, without violating the "story-ness" of the story.
In my not-always-humble opinion.

[All_Day_SCI-fi]

Greeting, this is my first post.

I think it is entirely up to the author whether any kind of commentary about politics or economics or society in general goes into the work. It is up to the reader to decide how to react. If anything I think it is a problem that so much science fiction has become so shallow.

I read almost no fantasy and there is SCIENCE fiction and science FICTION.

Here is an example from the Olde Days.

Subversive, by Dallas McCord Reynolds
www.gutenberg.org/files/23197/23197-h/23197-h.htm

Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson is a good but more recent example.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAu5PD4OS-w

ADSF

[Menolly]

Be Welcome to the Watch, ADSF.
Be Well Come and True.

Nice first post; I am glad you feel comfortable jumping right in.

When you can, come post an introductory post up in The Summonsing in the Say hello in here thread.

I look forward to reading your posts.

[Holsety]

Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson is a good but more recent example.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAu5PD4OS-w

ADSF

YAY.

The last time I posted I liked Red Mars, it turned out most other KW users find it boring.

Everyone has their own tastes so no big deal, but it's nice to see someone who likes it.

I actually thought Red Mars was a little bit slanted in some aspects of its treatment of politics, but even when I felt the book clearly indicated a character was misguided (Jackie in Blue Mars comes to mind) I thought it did a good job with treating the "bad" sides as very human and not some sort of twisted antithesis to all good in the world.

[Avatar]

Well, I tell you what, next time I come across it, I'll give it another shot. Think I read them out of order last time anyway.

(And welcome, ADSF. Your post allays my suspicions. )

There's plenty of good fantasy out there too though.

--A

[Tjol]

God Emperor was my favourite of the Dune books, apart from the first one. I loved the socio-political interplay of the series.

--A

Ditto that. 2 things about the series as a whole that I loved:
In every part he maintained the tension between the pure genetic necessity to survive, and the cultural/moral/philosophical/nurtured behaviors. He didn't try to resolve the "is/ought" problem, he reported the war.
ANd, he deconstructed [so to speak] views left/right, fnord/fnord, showing the strengths and pitfalls of both, in an integral way, without violating the "story-ness" of the story.
In my not-always-humble opinion.

See, I liked the politics of Dune Messiah and Children of Dune much better than God Emperor. God Emperor to me kind of read like 'Notes from Underground' or maybe myself when I get too far along with my navelgazing. But Dune Messiah and Children of Dune were politics set in a setting completely apart from this one... so that I could find the machine interesting rather than being invested in which side wins. Granted no one really wins in God Emperor, unless Leto was truely succesful at convincing humanity to never want an absolute ruler again... which seems like an impossibility given that he left behind a tribe of people (who worshipped an absolute ruler) with enough power to take over the universe and create some other absolute ruler to fill the void.... so no one wins in God Emperor in my opinion.

[All_Day_SCI-fi]

(And welcome, ADSF. Your post allays my suspicions. )

There's plenty of good fantasy out there too though.

--A

Suspicions about what?

Different people want different things in their stories. Some former fans of the Vorkosigan series are upset because Miles has gotten all mushy since the Komarr edition. They just want space battles and Miles running around blowing things up.

Readers need to figure out what they like but the publishing industry needs to come up with more refined ways of specifying what is in stories. A couple of years ago I bought 5 books on the basis of multiple reviews I read on the net. I figured I had to like at least 3. I almost like 1. I could not stand Revelation Space by Reynolds. I stupidly promised someone I would finish it. It was excruciating.

I eventually found a review explained my reaction:

For a space opera, Revelation Space is a curiously dark book. The characters especially are a brooding, morose lot. While, by the end, you gain sympathy for their plight, it's hard to like any of them as individuals. The theme of why the universe is so seemingly devoid of intelligent civilizations contributes to the overall grimness. This distracts from the wonder of Reynolds' ideas, which include a planet with intelligent oceans and a brand-new use for a neutron star.

www.sfsite.com/05a/rs80.htm

I could not give a damn about the characters. The sooner they were all killed off the better. LOL

The technology wasn't believable enough to be interesting but some reviewers called it hard science fiction just because it did not have Faster-Than-Light travel.

That is the problem with sci-fi evaluation. The literary people have their "literary priorities" but it makes no difference whether the science is realistic or just shallow tropes.

ADSF

[Avatar]

With that user name, I wondered if you were gonna be a spammer. Was pleased to see it was not the case.

But I have to wonder, as a sci-fi fan, how did you find this site? You might have noticed it's primary function (originally) was the discussion of a series of fantasy works. (Not that we're not glad to have you...these days, pretty much anything goes here. )

Does this mean you haven't read SRD? Or perhaps you've read his sci-fi series, The Gap?

--A
--A