Reality's reset button
01/05/2004 . Source: Geoff Willmetts 

In our reality, do we have a reset button?

Hello everyone

Some people undoubtedly wish that our reality could mimic a TV SF episode. You know the sort. Soon as the adventure is over, things are back the way they started, ready to solve a different problem next week. The ‘Reset Button’ for a happier life. Anyone hurt is cured or at least fit enough to appear in the next episode. Any damage repaired. The status quo is restored and normality resumes until something else comes along and shakes things up. All problems resolved in 50 minutes. Ah! If all realities, including our own, were like that.

Then again, that’s not to say that this is always true in all TV SF series. Actors leaving or characters dying and even significant events can fundamentally change something about a series, even if it’s done towards the end of a season to fulfil contractual obligation. The fact that there is fan outcry when something is changed that they don’t like can occasionally see a decision altered as well. Producers and writers don’t see death as such a big thing in such shows any more, simply because they’re not afraid to pull a deux ex machina out of the hat to reverse something and then declare it happens all the time in Science Fiction.

Pardon me, but where does that happen all the time in SF? Considering the bulk of SF is actually literature. SF TV and films are only the tip of the genre iceberg. Character resurrection tends to be something mostly associated with the visual medium not the paper fiction side. Death here is seen as final, even if some SF writers circumvent a normal life span by making their characters' immortal. If a writer wants a character to survive a story then that is the intention from the start. If there is a resurrection, then that’s the point of the story not an incidental side issue.

Even so, the majority of TV SF shows return to some form of status quo as soon as possible so new viewers can latch onto the format without too much thinking as they follow the stories but that’s probably something for a different editorial. This policy has been hard to shift over the years, especially with the American variant. Any recent changes have been more towards improving viewing figures rather than real consideration for the reality presented.

One of the strongest aspects of Science Fiction is its ability to depict change. Futuristic utopias aren’t used so much in SF any more...well, not unless they are shown to be flawed and needing to change. People are sceptical as to whether the future will be as good as depicted in the 50s-70s. Bearing in mind the fashion was garnished white and the civilisation sterile in ideas, the belief that the future is more an extension of today a’la the ‘Blade Runner’ template isn’t so surprising. If anything, there is a need to show that any reality is not perfect and a lot of the time, society and things are held together by the thinnest of reasons. The reminder that pollution will not simply go away must have pleased the environmentalists. This goes somewhat towards reflecting how we see or know our own reality ticks. Things do not vanish over night with a deux ex machina device.

Having things or people just standing still after an event as if nothing has fazed them is, quite rightly, seen as ‘pulp Sci-Fi’ rather than the more thoughtful and serious SF. It’s the difference between writers who just see SF as the ability to make money off a plot without exploring the consequences and those who show the results of such decisions. There is a tiny grey area between both but it weighs far more towards the latter than the former.

With TV SF series, there is always a need to fulfil something of what they think their viewers want or what the writers feel they need to say or can get past their suited bosses. A level of escapism if you like. Rocking the boat or starship too much is considered to have a detrimental effect on viewing figures. Come to that, being successful has a similar effect as well, so it’s hardly conclusive evidence to support either way any more. TV SF series tends to be seen as escapism than a covert need to show things about the real world. Whether that’s true or not is debatable. No doubt there is room for both types of stories. One doesn’t have to recognise the allegories or metaphors to enjoy a show. Written in a ‘proper’ or ‘correct’ fashion, it’s up to the viewer as to what they take out of what they’ve watched. Shows such as ‘Babylon 5’ or ‘Farscape’ can be enjoyed at different levels depending on what depth you absorb the stories or is it only those of us with an intense desire to write about SF who have this affliction. Saying that, TV SF series and even SF films can get multiple viewings to absorb all the facets. Something that would be regarded as somewhat unusual in a general genre programme and deeper fan involvement.

Anyway, this isn’t a discussion about TV SF series but more to do with perceiving our own reality. Unlike the example above, where there is a fear that viewers might be lost in a continually evolving SF story to want to hook into events, which doesn’t appear to affect the outlook on soap operas growing viewing figures, our reality is continually evolving on many levels. Our perception is based on what we see about us or through other mediums like newspapers, TV or even here on the Net. If it happens in our neighbourhood, then it can be shared with a wider audience than local gossip. The world has become increasingly smaller and we all have an acute awareness of every war and disaster across the world. Whether any of us are becoming immune to this effect solely depends on the individual mindset more than the ‘herd instinct’. As commented over various editorials, a ‘civilised’ mind tends to wonder what the world is coming to although much of it now is an awareness of a different mindsets wanting to adjust our reality to their way of thinking. It’s a competitive world of survival out there, be it political regime or race and it’s all brought to your screen over breakfast. The act of faster and cheaper communication has not only brought people closer but also all their prejudices and violence as well. Sharing isn’t always the means to greater unity but also to show how far apart some of our mindsets are in the world. Common ground for peace is less likely to be found before anything changes for the better. Seeing events rather than being part of them tends to divorce the viewer from the cold reality of the real thing. It’s unfortunate to say that everyone needs to be shaken out of this complacency if we are to act together.

Nothing new in this editorial so far. However, what differentiates our reality from those of the imagination is whether our reality is equipped with a ‘Reset Button’. People die. They don’t come back here. All right, there might have been one instance but even he didn’t hang around. A natural disaster and the repercussions are felt for months if not years trying to bring back a semblance of order although nothing is likely to be the same again. A terrorist bomb brings equal devastation and loss of life. The problem, as the current world situation has shown, is that before peace of any sort can’t be sorted out until there is some sort of compromise reached by all sides. Both sides will consider that the blood of the fallen needs revenge. One can only build on what has gone before. The world is a product of good and bad decisions and many, many mistakes. We aren’t a perfect world. From all points of view, one can only learn and hope not to repeat the worse mistakes too often. Individually, we can’t make much difference to the world. Even a rebel-rouser like me tends not to do more than talk about it. As a collective whole though...Ah! That’s quite a different thing even if it needs more than talks of peace at any price away from our backyards to make any difference. If anything, it needs a ‘right’ or ‘correct’ decision from everyone not to do something if we want to live to make a better world. Living is really the key. I mean, you spend longer amongst the dead than the living so it's important to do as much as possible in this reality to ensure that there is something a little better for the generations to come. They’ll have their own problems but hopefully with a better knowledge of how to deal with them.

What is most odd is this knowledge isn’t reflected in TV series, SF or otherwise. The main theme is good wins over evil. Basic Plot Number One. Most people tend to pick this up from watching television as the basis for some elements of their ethical system in western society. Hardly surprising that police series have carried on being so popular. People like being told what is good and bad. It’s only when there is a certain amount of ethical consideration where there is no outright ‘correct’ solution where public debate is more likely and thought given to how we would act under certain circumstances. Pacifism or not wanting to be involved has its place but unlikely to be much good when it's within an individual’s person’s power to prevent a rape or murder. When such preventions happen, it makes headline news and carries over the thought that this is probably the better way to act under such circumstances. One can rarely stand on the sidelines when people are starving or being oppressed. It is part of the human psyche to do something, no matter how small the effort. The same thing should apply to any circumstance.

The reason that I’ve singled out TV SF series, apart from this being an editorial on an SF website, is that it is possible to discuss current day situations in metaphor without causing as much uproar than if it was done in a current day setting. This doesn’t mean that the scriptwriters have to be the arbiters of the way we think about creating a solution to a problem, just to occasionally show that force isn’t always the answer to a problem. If anything, there is a need to show that there are other ways to resolve problems that will sink easier into the population psyche. This is largely where lateral thinking and looking at problems from different angles and perspectives is so important.

We invariably see the world as we would like to see ourselves. When this image changes, then we invariably either change with it or suffer withdrawal to our memories. SF fans should be considered more liberal in their attitude to change and often come out more conservative in their tastes than they should and against change more than even the man in the street. An odd imbalance that never quite gels with me. In a changing world, homeostasis is something we rarely hold for long or should take for granted. Reality changes as we get older and things begin to become more precious. Paradoxically, the old order wants to hold on to the past for as long as it can rather than see themselves evolving over a time. Everyone remembers the ‘good old days’ but tend to have a blank over its less savoury aspects. If anything, this is more an example of a ‘Reset Button’ being attempted or used in our reality. The real problem comes from a sudden change when a new regime takes over instead of a gradual change based on necessary or even ‘right’ decisions. Then we have a revolution that suits no one because it takes a long time for any sort of homeostasis to be restored.

If this is a demonstration of natural evolution on a social scale then it’s no wonder that things can escalate into violence when things change. It was once said that a major war happens periodically every 20 years or so. Through the 18th to 20th centuries, this has either not been far wrong or just simple observation of events. Technology and society also change with these events. Things then stablise out for a while before events start dictating change once more. Maybe there is more to the ‘Reset Button’ than previously thought, except this homeostasis only works for a few years and is on a broader scale than individual lives. Righting the wrongs of the world will always be an up-ended struggle while people believe equality isn’t shared and standards of living aren’t raised proportionately. Utopia is a target that is never likely to be reached. Somewhere, throughout all these changes, we all have to get on and adapt to a changing world where values are constantly challenged. Equally, it is within all our individual power by our reaction to decide what shapes our world.

These are all lessons that need to be applied to stories should you want to examine social changes. Space opera still revolves around restoring the old glory than evolve to a better plane. Undoubtedly, we need a better understanding of this if our stories are to reflect how human society acts and behaves. Given twenty or thirty years, this might even reach the TV SF series screens. It should certainly have an effect of SF literature much earlier than that. If SF publishers want to do a George Orwell or HG Wells and get readers right across the board, there is a necessity to provide more outlet for reflections and metaphors of our society or what it is changing into in our fiction.

I started this editorial originally with the belief that there was no ‘Reset Button’ in our reality. After deep pondering during the typing of this draft, I suddenly realised there was one. Oddly enough, it didn’t affect the overall text, just what this button affected and when. It might not be so perfect in our reality and things change significantly periodically but it’s always possible to hold the same picture way beyond its sale-by-date. Whether that’s frightening to you or not is open to debate. To think we stand still in time just indicates that we’re not keeping ahead of the whole picture.

Be happy. Be safe. Enjoy the rest of the website.

Thank you and good night

Geoff Willmetts

editor: SFCrowsnest.com

PS For those keeping up with my health, all I’ve had a cough the past month interspersed with a couple colds, one a real stinker. My Mum’s been moved to Bridgwater Hospital (hi folks), since 30 March. Nearer to home but still taking time to get better. Apologies for any delays in replying.

Very Serious Thought: Freedom is in the definition of the beholder. It isn’t complete if there is to be fairness to all.

(Less Serious) Thought For The Month: The film ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ has an interesting problem. For a pod to be released from the Pod Bay, the entire chamber has to be emptied of air before the doors can be opened. Fine. The real problem is that even wearing a spacesuit waiting to go to the rescue, it would take time to re-pressurise the bay to allow the astronaut back in to take another pod out. It was hardly going to be a quick rescue.

PS If you’ve survived this far in the editorial, let me reiterate something from the website newsletter and the above editorial. As you can see from the main page, we have one of the biggest SF/fantasy/horror monthly reviews columns on the Net. Our success has increased the number of books that comes in and our policy is to read everything before giving a review. We roadtest books so you have some idea of what you’re letting yourself in for when all you’ve got to go by is the cover and promotional blurb. That means actually reading the product and telling others what you think.

If you like reading books in the genre, think and can show you can write a decent review and, most importantly, live in the British Isles (sorry, expense, time and distance travelled prohibits elsewhere), contact me below for my ‘Reviews Flyer’ - put this in the subject ebox and we’ll see if you’ve got what it takes. We can’t pay you but a review for the price of a book has to be a good incentive. We have one of the most popular SF review columns on the Net. Think you’re up to writing a review or do you think it's a hard thankless task??

PPS: For those keeping track, I’m still about 20 months (mid-June 2002) behind with going through the ebook samples, although I have removed some who’ve gotten published elsewhere. Thank you for your patience but let me know if you’ve sold elsewhere so I can reduce my pile or if you’ve changed address, especially e-mail address. I can’t give you my comments unless either is up to date. Currently, doing spot-checks to see if you’re still there when I reach your sample in the pile is making it easier on my time.

This isn’t much of a repeat, just to show you’re not forgotten. Those sending in samples, be prepared for a long wait and read the Guidelines elsewhere on this website. They are there to help you do some of the right things and reduce the number of times I’m repeating myself over silly grammatical errors. It makes editing a lot easier if any editor has less work correcting poor English which should have been sorted out in the first place. There’s an old editorial adage, if you can’t aim for perfection why should an editor nurse-maid you to that state? If you’re a writer, then you should understand the words and grammar of the job you’re supposed to be writing or are you considering it as mundane and boring as any other job to get right? Fall in love with making every sentence the best you’re ever letting anyone else read it and read up and understand the rules of grammar.