|
-
Hivemind social net
-
News
- Features
- Blogs
- Events
Calendar
- Editorials
- Monthly
Zine
- Offworld
Report
- Our Daily
RSS Feed
- Google Toolbar scifi
- Movie/TV
Reviews
> Recent movies
> Movies by year
> Movies by title
- Book
Reviews
> Recent books
> Books by year
> Books by title
- Home
- Worlds
- Biography
- Bibliography
- Appearances
- Reviews
- Blog
- Community
- Press
- Links
Become
an Advertiser
- Web
Site Directory
- Search
the Net
- StephenHunt.net
- WoodenRocket.com
- Check
your E-mail
- Non Sci-Fi
News
|
Would we be happy with utopia?
01/06/2005 . Source: Geoff Willmetts 
This month, Geoff proves utopia ain’t a nice place to be. Neither is a distopia come to that. Would we be happy with utopia?
A perfect society is only won off the backs of others.
Hello everyone
Whether it's James Hilton's Shangri-La in 'Lost Horizon', Larry Niven's
future Earth in his 'Known Space' novels or your own choices, utopian
realities tend to be a static state of affairs. The weather is fine. Crime
is non-existent and whoever heard of taxes? Then again, what does a
population do with all the alleged leisure time when they've got nirvana or
machines tending their every needs? Within a few generations, the drive to
do anything would fade away. Decadence and pampering would rule and nothing
much would happen.
Hands up those who like the idea? Hands up those who
would be bored out of their skulls? Exactly. So why are utopian societies or
the desire to achieve one so popular? All right, maybe not 100 per cent as
described and they're less prevalent than in the middle of the last century
but they are very much part of SF structure even if we tend to knock them
down.
I selected my two examples above largely cos there's a good bet that most of
you reading here have either read or know about them. That isn't derogating
them or ignoring other choices. What is interesting is that both realities
also included immortality or extended life into the mix. So not only are you
likely to be bored out of your skulls, you've got a long time to do it in.
Those who get fed up with such extended lives probably commit suicide if not
given deep therapy but I doubt if the news media would report such things
because it would ruin a 'perfect society', assuming they have any press in a
reality where nothing much happens.
After all, perfection has to be
controlled. Did I mention the weather would be perfect as well? If other
utopian realities don't go the immortality route, they certainly have
excellent health plans. I guess layabouts would enjoy living in such
pampered utopias but I doubt if it'll do much to please people who want more
to do more with their lives. Maybe that's why such societies are also seen
as decadent, wasteful and one note. No wonder a change is always seen to be
on the cards. It has to be better than tedium.
Everyone has ideas for such idealised realities where perfection is taken
for granted. With SF, much of the time is taken in kicking them to show that
they aren't as perfect as they should or claim to be. If it can't be done
from within then it is done from outside, usually bringing someone from our
time period in who hasn't been institutionalised and is our identifiable
everyman not to see anything different to what they have. It then gets a
little formulaic showing things aren't as good as they imagined and take the
revolution route. Of course, that depends on the renaissance man finding
sufficient followers who want a return to 'the good old days' or some other
alternative.
In metaphoric terms, it doesn't pay to take anything for
granted about any society or assume it will survive in its present form
forever. It has been said that any major disaster within western society
today would have us back to the Stone Age within a week which should be a
frightening thought for all of us assuming you don't know how to look after
yourself with the basics. Think again if you can't live without proper
medical care or even a visit to the dentist.
If anything, SF has moved gradually away from utopias to showing the
downside of the future with over-population, excessive rubbish and other
pollution problems in the form of its opposite, dystopia. It might look more
realistic but does it mean we've moved away from any desire for the utopian
life-style? Do we need more reminders that perfection is more a state of
mind than what the world can be turned into? If a society has reached a
utopian peak, if it can't change for the better then all it can do is fall
into decline from lack of effort. With no effort for survival mankind would
fade away. The doubter in me wonders if we'd really want to reach a peak
where nothing would ever change again.
Dystopia, on the other hand, tends to show the other extreme and should be
seen as the pessimistic approach to the future following the line that if
its bad now, then it can and will only get worse. The ultimate shock
treatment for humans to take responsibility for the state of the world. It
makes no allowances for the fact that some people might actually have come
to the conclusion that squalor isn't the best way to live and might do
something to change things themselves. The only question is when? Unlike
utopias, there is a little more room to manoeuvre with people more likely to
be willing to do something about it. The renaissance man wouldn't be much
good here other than pointing out where the problem started. He might be
punished or killed taking the blame for our society. The biggest bonus from
a writer's point of view is there is a lot more latitude to bring a dystopic
society upwards to a more even state of how they would like a world to be
than tearing one down to something worse. You can't do more than hit the
bottom of the barrel.
In some respects, both utopic and dystopic are still one note societies. I
mean, advances in technology would allow for greater possibilities in
sorting out today's problems than just let them get worse...wouldn't it?
Even if it doesn't, I doubt if things would be allowed to get so bad that
they can't be resolved. Our current reality hasn't gone quite the dystopic
route yet but no doubt a shot in the arm from SF that things can be made to
get better shouldn't be under-estimated. At present, the places of most
power are corporate or government and the grey area of ulterior motives
behind their decisions. Single individuals tend not to have that much power
outside of exceptional circumstances, the best example being Nelson Mandela,
and even he finds he can be ignored. The advanced realities as depicted over
half a century ago couldn't possibly cover all the bases needed to be
recognised by writers today. Science Fiction, if done properly however you
define the word, always needs to observe from today's reality and
extrapolate the effects from here. There's certainly enough diversification
for different interpretation and vision for all numbers of paths.
One thing neither utopias or dystopias have is people differing from one
point of view. Using our reality as a template, do we see everyone having
the same point of view? Exactly. So why should we expect anything different
in our Science Fiction? It needs more than a small fraction of people led by
a renaissance man in taking a different path. It also needs a reason to show
that the old path or way or even a different solution is far superior if it
is to survive past a generation. Unless the renaissance man is made
immortal, any trend his way would be lucky to last a decade given how we
change so rapidly these days. With the old stories, that was usually quite
enough but today, stories do need to have more meat and look at the
implications. It needs more than one point of view to give the reader time
to speculate on all the possibilities let alone agree that the writer has
drawn the right conclusion. If you want readers to talk about your societies
then this is probably the way to go even if you want a happy ending.
Creating a reality isn't quite the same as writing a story within its
perimeters. Often as not, one is the product of the other. What is still
required is taking account of potential outside factors that might cause a
shake up. With novel-length this is important because it can throw in some
wildcards into the mix. With short stories, although such things have to be
considered, outside of the main plot have to be implied more than made
explicit. On the other hand, if things change or develop the nature of the
plot then it also means you're raising the state of play with your writing
which can't be a bad thing neither. If you're out to show a sharp note in
the originality stakes these things can't be forgotten. Probably why I can
take on several viewpoints within the space of one editorial. You can't
afford to take a linear approach to anything these days even when making a
point or three.
The worse thing you can have in any reality is making it static or
unchanging. It doesn't match the way people live these days or the changes
that are going on around them. Go back 20 years and mobile phones would have
been considered Science Fiction. 40 years back and home computers would have
only been a dream. In either case, examining change in society can be done
in our reality before applied to fiction. The state of anything you have in
a story can date when you wrote it. Even the most advanced societies
depicted have rarely gotten the scale of things that has happened at the
turn of this century. Just goes to show that no author has ever fully
predicted the future. The only thing you can write today is the consequences
of our current actions or where you see it going if you stay within the next
century or two. One thing I do doubt, however, is that either way will lead
to a totally utopian or dystopic civilisation. There's far too many people
to agree totally on anything let alone all have the same solutions.
Be happy. Check your options. Enjoy the rest of the website.
Thank you and good night
Geoff Willmetts
editor: SFCrowsnest.co.uk
(Less Serious) Thought For The Month: All the palaver from the media about
the best way to defeat the Daleks is to have a set of stairs was again shown
to be untrue in the latest Doctor Who series. I've always found that a
mystery. Having narrow doorways is surely the best deterrent.
Something for neo-writers to ponder on: Well, the entire editorial should
have given you some pause for thought this month. The best advice is not to
take your first idea or solution as the only way to go. Look at it from all
angles because it might give you more possibilities and might find something
better or unique.
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. You want the
bottom line about what you're going to choose to read. We roadtest books so
you have some idea of what you're letting yourself in for. That means
actually reading the product and telling others what you think. For that,
we're always on the outlook for more reviewers.
Apart from the ability to put words into sentences, you also need to know
how to précis, either know or do a little research on associated subjects
and can express opinions constructively expressing good and bad points about
the books you read. You'll even get a little editorial help in how to write
good copy and that can always lead to other things. I did say you have to
love books and willing to read beyond your favourite authors, didn't I?
If you like reading books in the genre, think and 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. Do you think
you're up to writing a review? If you think you can, then you're really
going to think you've landed your hands in the biscuit tin.
PPS: For those keeping track, I'm still about 20 months (mid-June 2003)
behind.
With going through the ebook samples, 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 and catching up
on the slush pile.
This isn't much of a repeat, just to show you're not forgotten. Those
sending in ebook 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 and spelling mistakes that you shouldn't be making.
It makes editing a lot easier if any editor has less work pointing out poor
English which should have been sorted out in the first place and more
focused on other areas of your work.
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 written, read
up and understand the rules of grammar. Be prepared to put a story away for
a few weeks and go back to it for a self-edit. A lot of the time, errors
will just stare you in the face when you didn't see them the first time
round. Once you know where your weaknesses are, they can be sorted and allow
you to move a little higher up the ladder towards making your material look
its best.
Please don't confuse this with my short story slush pile which is kinda
low at the moment. We're always willing to give short story writers a chance
to be seen if they can withstand my scrutiny even if we can't pay for their
efforts. Don't forget also, we've got a teaching ground of one page stories,
so check out the rules elsewhere on the website.
|
|
