Science fiction is dead. Long live science fiction.
For those of us who care (and no, we do not live in our parents' basements), the future of futurism is an urgent matter indeed. Is science fiction thriving amid the pyrotechnics, or is it dying a slow and hideous death, suffocated by publishing-industry group-think and unimaginative movie execs drunk on sequels?
I speak as a fan with opinions - as though there's any other kind - when I pronounce the sound health and shining future of 21st-century speculative fiction. I'm less concerned with the release this month of the megabudget Transformers movie, with its gargantuan alien robots and shiny cast, than a prevailing cultural shift that seems to embrace the expansive narrative frontiers of sci-fi. And I'm not even counting the genre's recent successes on television (Battlestar Galactica, Heroes, The 4400, Lost) or world-domination in games (take your pick).
PHOTOS: AFP
"It's everywhere now. Everybody has some exposure to it - it's much more respectable than it used to be," says David Wellington, a sci-fi/horror author (Monster Island, Thirteen Bullets) and aficionado who recalls the bad old days of fandom. "Back in the 80s, when I was a huge science-fiction fan, it was very marginalized. And we always complained about that: 'Why can't other people understand why we like this stuff so much?'"
Wellington is one of several devotees who, given the chance to vent, expresses enthusiasm as well as skepticism at the current state of the genre. Many view the landscape ahead with caution, fearing a post-apocalyptic vista mottled by computer-giddy graphics and the blunt force of mainstream taste. Some see it fragmenting. Others see it thrive.
But fans reach consensus - sort of - on a few key issues. One is that fantasy novels, once joined at the hip with science fiction, have enjoyed huge success since venturing into their own sizable niche. A second is that the film and publishing industries should take more artistic risks. A third: Blade Runner rocks. Fourth: so do Pan's Labryinth and Children of Men.
Exciting Times, Visually
A fifth point, expressed with varying degrees of disappointment and annoyance, is that advances in digital technology have made for gob-stopping eye candy that doesn't always satisfy the mind or the heart. From a visual standpoint, "there's no better time in the history of films for science fiction," says Dave Dorman, an in-demand sci-fi/fantasy painter based in Florida best known for his Star Wars renderings. "On the other hand, I think the writing of science-fiction films is not up to what it was back in, say, the 40s, 50s and 60s."
Craig Elliott, an animator for Disney (Treasure Planet) and DreamWorks (the upcoming The Princess and the Frog), puts it even more succinctly: "There's too much bling on the screen."
In publishing, contemporary science fiction has splintered into a zillion little sub-sets, running from alternate history and space opera to hardcore, urban fantasy, movie and TV tie-ins, cyberpunk and the boundary-stretching "New Weird."
Call it what you will, but great science fiction can be cosmic or minimalist, outward-looking or inward. It expands or contracts, pushing humanity into the farthest reaches of space or reducing it to cinders.
From the start, it's never been about the rubber-faced aliens, not really. Edwin A. Abbott's Flatland (written in 1884 and adapted repeatedly for film) is set in a two-dimensional world that skewers Victorian class distinctions. H.G. Wells and Jules Verne both injected the acid of satire into the pulp of sci-fi, and even the dated strangeness that is Karel Capek's R.U.R. (or Rossum's Universal Robots, the play that coined the word) was more concerned with sentience and civil rights than the construction of humanoid workers.
Do we watch Fritz Lang's Metropolis for the sexy android, or the Marxist parallels? Is The Day the Earth Stood Still about a guy in a soup can or a world poised on self-destruction? Sci-fi can offer visions of a humankind freed from poverty, racism and the horrors of war (see Star Trek's first two series) or ravaged by violence in a post-nuclear wasteland (Mad Maxes one through three). You can feel good or bum out, depending on your mood.
Lately, a lot of folks are bumming. During the past few years dystopian yarns have surged in popularity, prophesying tomorrows wracked by terrorism (V for Vendetta), zombie germs (28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later) and infertility (Children of Men). All three of those films are set in London, the new vogue setting for ashen pessimism.
In literary fiction, Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go moved dystopia to the English countryside. Margaret Atwood moved it stateside (The Handmaid's Tale, Oryx and Crake), while Cormac McCarthy pushed it even farther with The Road. Not everyone calls his Pulitzer Prize-winning novel science fiction, but that's what it is: Man and boy wade through the soot of an annihilated landscape.
Sci-fi/fantasy marketer and publicist Colleen Lindsay has high praise for McCarthy's book, but she's vexed by the perception that it's anything new. "It's post-apocalyptic fantasy for people who don't read fantasy." Look at David Brin's The Postman and S.M. Stirling's Dies the Fire, she says: similar books written by (gasp) genre authors and read by (gasp) geeks. Or consider Richard Matheson's classic 1954 I Am Legend, the original zombie-germ novel, adapted to film in 1964 (The Last Man on Earth), 1971 (The Omega Man) and now 2007 (I Am Legend, scheduled for the end of this year).
Kfir Luzzatto, a science-fiction author who lives in Israel, mentions John Christopher's The Death of Grass (1956) and Mary Shelley's The Last Man (1826), which foresees a late-21st century devastated by plague. "Post-apocalyptic culture has become to modern people what ghost stories were to our fathers," he says. "(It's) a way to air your fears of the unknown and to deal with them."
On the flip side, the more gung-ho element of sci-fi continues to pit good against evil, and good continues to win - after an extremely noisy fight. Consider those Transformers. "Do we believe that we're alone in this constant struggle, or do we believe that we can help each other?" asks Jamie Hari, who founded and runs the Marvel Database Project out of Toronto. Hari, who says "Marvel is my world" without embarrassment, sees the appeal of Transformers and robots in general "as another extension of the human desire for technology."
Pooping insects
A figure well familiar with this idea is Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and the author of The Physics of Star Trek. If you watch How William Shatner Changed the World, he's the one making pizza with the Shat.
"People like the idea of a hopeful future," Krauss says, later admitting that "the utopian view is harder for me to believe." Generally, the genre grabs his attention when it's smartly done but lost him at Starship Troopers: "The pooping insects, that sort of did it for me."
Otherwise, he says that science, like art, considers our place in the cosmic scheme. "The reason that we're scientists is not because we want to build a better toaster," he contends, "but because we're interested in what's possible in the universe."
Judging from anticipated movie releases, this is what's possible in the universe. Earth might be invaded by alien body snatchers (Invasion). It might face planetary death from a dying sun (Sunshine). It might be torn by global terrorism (Day Zero, upcoming). It might, in the field of engineering, produce super-powered exoskeletal armor (Iron Man, 2008), or it might form intergalactic relations with pointy-eared ET's (Star Trek, 2008). Alternately, a race of tiny aliens might tour the cosmos inside Eddie Murphy, who might then fall in love with an Earth babe (Starship Dave, 2008).
All of this looking forward strikes Houston's John Moore, an "unrepentant geek" and sci-fi/fantasy author (A Fate Worse than Dragons), as old news. "Science fiction is the present. We live in a science-fiction society, and I don't just mean the gadgetization of society." Instead, he means that "projecting into the future, once the province of the science-fiction writer, has become our dominant way of thought."
Taiwan’s English education system is being pulled apart by three opposing forces. Bilingual Nation 2030 pulls students toward English and global communication. Artificial Intelligence (AI) readiness pulls them toward digital judgment, verification and AI-mediated work. But Taiwan’s old exam culture pulls them back toward memorization, grammar drills, timed reading and correct answers. If the education system keeps using old exams to define success, it risks producing graduates who are neither genuinely bilingual nor genuinely AI-ready, but trained for tasks machines can already perform. The first force is Bilingual Nation 2030. Launched in 2018, the policy aimed to “help Taiwan’s workforce connect
It seems every few days one bumps into one of those “real man” comments in which Taiwan is urged to “face reality” or similar, and “make a deal,” with the speaker implying that soon it will be too late. “Deal” advocates always present themselves as having a superior grip on reality, and the manly ability to make the “hard choice.” Their testosterone-laden language often echoes that of Taiwan sellout advocates. Note that such commentary always specifies a process (“make a deal, work with, make progress”), never the end state of what occupation by a violent authoritarian colonialist state will entail. In
There are shadowy cabals plotting to sell out Taiwan to be annexed by China, by invasion if necessary. Fortunately, they are buffoons. In 2019, former Bamboo Union gangster and founder of the China Unification Promotion Party (CUPP), Chang An-le (張安樂, colorfully known as “White Wolf”), led a protest at the Legislative Yuan against comments made by then-premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) that in the event of an attack by China, he would never surrender, but would protect the nation by fighting to the end, even if he only had a broom. Chang had party members bring a wooden casket that they
June 1 to June 7 "If all Taiwanese were as afraid of dying as you, then what would happen?” Physician Shih Chiang-nan (施江南) reportedly said this to his wife Chen Chiao-tung (陳焦桐) after she urged him to stop intervening on behalf of Taiwanese soldiers stranded overseas after serving in the Japanese Army during World War II. Shih had clashed with high-ranking officials over the issue, engaged in several heated arguments with Taiwan governor-general Chen Yi (陳儀) and allegedly shouted at general Ko Yuan-fen (柯遠芬), chief of staff of the Taiwan Garrison Command, over
RSS