Science fiction technology is practically what gets me up in the morning. I really hope the future is going to be as awesome as I think it is. It would be a total bummer if the world just turned into one big suburb or the pollution really did kill us all. Even alien attack or zombie plague would be better than that. Sitting through yet another 111 degree day in Texas, I am not the biggest fan of climate change either.
I apologize if this post is a bit rambly. I am coming down off a hard core literary high after back-to-back conventions – Worldcon in Reno and Armadillocon in Austin, respectively. Had my mind blown about every hour with great ideas, solid advice and interesting people. Go to the conventions, folks. It will remind you why you obsessively love science fiction/fantasy. These are the people who love what we love and who understand what the heck we are talking about. They watch the same shows, read the same kinds of books, and share that weird urge to wear outrageous costumes while drinking Pangalactic Gargleblasters and discussing Regency-era dance maneuvers and the nothingness of being.
I got a ton of new ideas for future technologies that would be fun to fiction while at the conventions. Lately, I’m fascinated with the brain-computer-interface (BCI) and microchip implants and whatever this guy dreams up this week. My background is math and biochemistry, so I fan out on the traditional techie stuff, but I have no real insight. This is why it is a good idea to acquire yourself some science advisers from several fields. Since I love space exploration but utterly failed to pay attention during college physics, I recently have been in dire need of a space adviser. Fortunately, I was able to corner the lovely Dr. Corey Lee at Worldcon to ask her deeply mature questions about the impacts of a cattle stampede in space and the mechanics of near-Earth orbital colonies.
You probably saw this already, but last week Tor announced a partnership with NASA in an effort to boost the spaciness of today’s science fiction. That is totally awesome,right? I’ve been a little frustrated with the lack of Big Science in science fiction in the last decade or so. The Internet and the implications therein aren’t very compelling when compared to nuclear submarine wars and space operas.
I’m also quite interested in the science of resource scarcity. How will decreased oil or water spur changes in technology in the future? I don’t think anybody really believes we can continue living the way we do indefinitely. It is exciting times we live in. Technology is changing at the speed of light. For a science fiction writer, it can be very hard to keep up, even harder to invent a future that isn’t obsolete by the time the book is published. I was rereading some classic space fiction in which the main characters were talking about using pocket calculators to program coordinates into their rocket ships, bless their little hearts. So what’s coming next? Sky sleds! Hoverboards! Sexually-transmitted giggle plagues! Personally, I’m up for anything as long as it isn’t track housing and big box stores. Care of XKCD:
Paul (@princejvstin) on September 1, 2011
Love the XKCD panel, Katy.
“You probably saw this already, but last week Tor announced a partnership with NASA in an effort to boost the spaciness of today’s science fiction. That is totally awesome,right? I’ve been a little frustrated with the lack of Big Science in science fiction in the last decade or so. The Internet and the implications therein aren’t very compelling when compared to nuclear submarine wars and space operas.”
Space Opera is awesome and some of the earliest SF I read and devoured was Space Opera and space-based SF.
The problem is that SF follows technological dreams and anticipation. We expected to have a moonbase in short order in the 50′s, 60′s and 70′s. Thus, plenty of SF was devoted to space–that is where the future is.
That’s not the future we got.
We got a revolution and a SF future based on correspondence and communications. Space Opera has lost much of its appeal to younger readers, I think, because its not perceived to be our future.
Its not as compelling a future…and I wonder if that is part of the reason why fantasy is hawt and SF is not.
Courtney Schafer on September 1, 2011
That XKCD cartoon is my life’s motto.
I think Paul’s right that the reduction in space opera SF is directly related to the stagnation of technology in space exploration (at least in terms of manned missions). We’re doing some pretty freaking amazing science with unmanned missions these days, but those don’t capture the imagination in the same way. (It’s why I think the proposed missions to places like LaGrange points are not the best use of funds – yes, you’d likely get data that would delight the hardcore astrophysicists, but visiting a garbage dumping point in space isn’t the sort of stuff that inspires future generations & makes them want to go into scientific fields!)
I think SF will make a resurgence whenever we make the next technological leap forward, in whatever direction that comes. As a kid who dreamed of space, I’ve got my fingers crossed for something like Hamilton’s wormhole travel.
Katy S on September 2, 2011
Paul, the idea that the science basis for science fiction got less compelling and facilitated a rise in popularity of fantasy is really sharp. I’ve been wondering what happened there and that, indeed, seems sensible.
Tangentially, I’d been wondering why novel length exploded in the last few years. A very nice gentleman I met on a plane said that novels used to be significantly shorter because they had to be typed on a typewriter and then edited on the same and it was just too much of a pain to write anything overly long. A stunningly simple explanation.