Fantasy, Fiction, Speculation, Plausibility
http://sciencefictionworld.com/books/science-fiction-books/417-why-science-fiction-authors-just-cant-win.html
Does Science Fiction even qualify as literature? Some (like Margaret Atwood) imply it doesn't. They are
wrong.
Thesis:
Perhaps the most important question Science Fiction asks is what it means to be human.
And because Science Fiction keeps asking what it means to be human, there's nothing like Science
Fiction to tell us who we really are.
Is this true? Yes, it certainly is – yet it is too clearly incomplete. Much more need be said to distinguish
Science Fiction. Since it is the job of all literature – not only Science Fiction – to ask what it means to be
human. To tell us who we really are. In fact, when it comes to telling us who we really are, Science
Fiction does not compete too well with the best lowbrow entertainment of the day, destined to become
the literary classics of tomorrow.
What distinguishes Science Fiction writing from other literary genres is how questioning our humanity is
couched against an ever increasing acceleration of scientific, technological and resulting socio-cultural
transformations. Science Fiction doesn't stop by telling us who we really are – which it isn't that great
at, anyway. But that's just where Science Fiction starts. Where most other genres leave off. And where
Science Fiction begins to shine is in telling us who we ought to be – or who we must never, ever
become. Not under any future circumstances. No matter how else we may become transformed.
(Never forget the Frankenstein Syndrome).
Thesis 2: There's nothing like Science Fiction to tell us who we really are, who we ought to be and
who we must never become. Because Science Fiction reflects our transformation in Western culture –
and beyond.
That's better. Yet still not good enough to fully distinguish Science Fiction. For instance, fantasy
reflects, expresses and projects transformations no less if not more than Science Fiction. And even
though Atwood seems to, despite how we speak of "Fantasy & Science Fiction" in the same breath, we
must not confuse Science Fiction with total fantasy. There's much more to Science Fiction. We can
easily distinguish Science Fiction from fantasy – right? But how?
Let's turn for help to some nice definitions of Science Fiction, as collated by Paul Fayter (our CD
Emeritus).
By "scientifiction" I mean the Jules Verne, H. G. Wells and Edgar Allan Poe type of story--a charming
romance intermingled with scientific fact and prophetic vision.
Hugo Gernsback, editorial in Amazing Stories (April 1926)
Science Fiction is a branch of fantasy identifiable by the fact that it eases the 'willing suspension of
disbelief on the part of its reader by utilizing an atmosphere of scientific credibility for its imaginative
speculations in physical science, space, time, social science, and philosophy.
Sam Moskowitz, in Explorers of the Infinite (1963)
A piece of science fiction is a narrative of an imaginary invention or discovery in the natural sciences and
consequent adventures and experience.
J.O. Bailey, Pilgrims through Space and Time (1947)
Science fiction is that branch of literature that deals with the human responses to changes in the level of
science and technology.
Isaac Asimov, column in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine (March-April 1978)
Science fiction is the search for a definition of man and his status in the universe which will stand in our
advanced but confused state of scientific knowledge, and is cast in the Gothic or post-Gothic mould.
Brian Aldiss, Billion Year Spree (1973)
Science Fiction is any fiction that has been made to seem plausible in light of our best theories. Theories
ranging over political, psycho-social and cultural transformations no less than scientific and
technological. Science fiction either is or once was plausible fiction.
anonymous, last night
Science Fiction must be plausible. This seems like a decent working definition to help us distinguish
more serious speculative fiction from complete fantasy. Note however: it isn't always easy to determine
whether a work of fiction is plausible. And asking what makes any work of fiction plausible takes us into
very deep philosophical waters. Waters we can only scratch the surface of (so to speak).
Here's an example. R. A. Lafferty was an award winning Science Fiction writer. His "Arrive at
Easterwine" is self-described as ".. a logical book. Other people call it "hilarious," "surrealistic," "a
carnival," "Science Fiction?", "for large public and academic libraries," "delighting, bemusing and
exasperating," "I'm not sure what it is," (there's always that percentage), "witty," "mind-tingling" and so
on, ad infinitum. In "Arrive at Easterwine" some of Lafferty's characters take up the question of
plausibility as follows:
"... We are now able to synthesize anything that we can analyze. And when we have it
synthesized, then we will manufacture it on a large scale; and we will spew it out into the world
in overpowering quantities. By this, we will change the world, as nobody has known how to
change the world before."
"Aw, coot's foot, it won't work," Aloysius said. "There is a barrier between such things and
others."
"You yourself, Aloysius, have in other experiments shown the barrier between tangibles and
intangibles to be a semipermeable membrane," Gregory Smirnov stated. "Glasser has proved
emotion to be an electro-magnetic phenomenon; Valery has shown group feeling to be a
chemical affinity; Cogsworth has measured the vector velocity of several of the intuitions; you
yourself have demonstrated that grace has both weight and valence; I have done valuable work
on the in-grace and out-of-grace isotopes of several substances, proving the materiality of grace.
Everything has a material base. There is nothing the matter with matter. Life is no more than a
privileged form of matter. Love is no more than a privileged form of life. It is an all-one stream
flowing along forever. If we did not believe this we would be false to the very idea of the Institute
of Impure Science."
So, in the vein of all-one stream flowing forever, everything becomes plausible – and anything
conceivable becomes possible. Concepts, ideas, meanings and theories must all come from somewhere.
Must each originate from some material basis. Hence, some material basis must exist corresponding to
each concept. There is no fundamental division between the conceivable and the possible. All is one,
streaming along.
Can this qualify as Science Fiction or is it just bad comedy – a parody of Science Fiction? This 'all-one'
stuff isn't just implausible. It's inconceivable. Incoherent. For what material basis can correspond to
absurdity? Falsehood? Incoherence? Contradictions? What might material contradictions either be –
or mean? They couldn't. Perhaps, then, material bases can only correspond with true, coherent
concepts. Perhaps it is having material basis that ultimately or fundamentally makes concepts true and
coherent. Perhaps, for argument's sake, not having material basis makes for conceptual falsehood or
incoherence. But then, what material basis might correspond to the coherent concept of baseless
materials? If any material basis were found for the baseless materials concept, would that finding not
simultaneously confirm the material basis while contradicting the specific concept it corresponds –
baseless materials? Conversely, if no material basis for the baseless materials concept could be found,
would not finding not thereby – simultaneously – confirm baseless materials and contradict the material
basis?
There are times we won't be able to figure out what's plausible and what isn't. But most times we can
figure it out fairly easily. (For example, in tutorials try comparing, contrasting and distinguishing this
week's reading in terms of plausibility). And, to help us figure it out better, we need to be aware of the
great epistemic transformation that has taken place in Western culture. Our sense of plausibility has
been transformed – because our ways of knowing have been transformed. From faith-based to
evidence based knowing.
There has been a tremendous transformation in Western culture and, arguably, only Science Fiction fully
reflects and expresses the culmination of Western cultural transformation. The tectonic epistemic shift
in all our ways of knowing. From absolute faith-based knowing -- to totally evidence-based knowing.
But has there really been such a fundamental shift in how we know -- and, consequently, in who we
are?
Yes. Back in the 11th Century, St. Anselm proved that God must exist. His argument went something
like this:
God isn't just great. God is the greatest possible. Nothing can possibly be greater than God.
But if God didn't exist? God wouldn't be the greatest. God wouldn't even be great.
If God didn't exist then everything that does exist would be greater than God.
Therefore? Since God is the greatest possible and since God would not be the greatest if He did
not exist in reality -- that means God must exist in reality.
Back in the 11th Century St. Anselm's proof made perfect sense. Now? Not so much.
Now, defining anything as the greatest possible sounds too absurd. Because we can no longer believe
possibility can be so limited or pre-ordained. Nowadays we have to believe that anything's possible.
Thus, our 21st Century perspective goes more like this:
Anything's possible.
However great anything is, it is always possible for there to be something greater.
Therefore? There can be no greatest possible. If we define God as the greatest possible then all
we prove is that God cannot exist in reality.
We will address issues of cultural transformation in the West – and beyond – much more in coming
weeks. For now, we might conclude that by seeking to come to plausible terms with questions and
issues of transformation, Science Fiction has more to tell us about who we are, ought to be and must
never become than any other literary genre.
If nothing else, remember that Science Fiction addresses issues of transformation plausibly. Plausibility
is the definitive key. For when disbelief requires no suspension, it is non-fiction to begin with. Whereas
when disbelief cannot be suspended – only ignored – then it isn't fiction either. More likely, it's
complete fantasy. Only when disbelief can be suspended and plausibility transported – however
temporarily – is it fiction. And great science fiction occurs specifically when disbelief suspension nears
escape velocity. When plausibility itself begins to transform. Thereby altering how we believe, think,
know and identify. Thereby potentially changing our sense of place in the universe and who we really
are.