8
votes
The most important year in the history of science fiction is 1973, because that’s when science fiction ended
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- The Closing Of The Lunar Frontier
- Word count
- 1096 words
This writer has a very specific and, I think, arbitrary definition of science fiction that they use to set up their argument. They're ignoring very influential strains of pre-1970s sci fi, like the dystopian writers in the 40s and 50s like Huxley, Orwell, and Bradbury. Philip K. Dick was publishing very influential fiction all through the 60s that doesn't fit the author's idea of "technological triumphalism". H. G. Wells, who could be considered a father of the genre, certainly wrote stories with considerable pessimism about technological progress (The Time Machine, The Island of Dr. Moreau).
He doesn't really ignore them, he just argues they're part of a seminal shift that would more properly be considered a fork on the sci-fi genre rather than a continuation of it.
It seems more like people didn't read this essay closely enough to realize it was always talking about a specific subgenre of sci-fi, and it was saying that pretty much all those other ones took over and became more prominent.
Okay, this is just bad faith on your part now. I don't normally do single line responses but every single part of what you've said here is just so out of pocket that I have to break it out.
It's literally the essay title and all over the first half of the essay. How does the "lunar frontier" signal that he's talking about other kinds of sci-fi like Earth-based post-apocalypse stories? How did all the pre-amble about the expectations and reality of space travel and exploration?
I don't know how to respond to this, this is just really shitty of you. You're basically making fun of me for reading and having thoughts on what the essay actually said because you've already pre-determined that anything it could possibly say must be "not very good". And for what? How?
What conclusion? There was no conclusion in anything you or I said here.
At this point, I'm not convinced you've even opened the essay, letalone understood what was actually being said to suggest it was "not good".
It's telling that you seem to be completely unaware about a widespread genre name, or the decades-old (and studied in post-secondary schools) discussion around the difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_fiction#Distinguishing_science_fiction_from_other_speculative_fiction
This is just saying "I'm sorry your feelings got hurt". It's disrespectful with its "bless your heart" tone because you clearly didn't even get far enough into my comment to see that there's one part you really should address, if nothing else.
What I am looking for is any sort of indication that anyone actually gave this essay a fair read, or if this is just another reddit comment section where nobody reads the article and only comments on assumptions derived from the title.
So far, I count one other comment that actually seems to respond to the content of the article.
He absolutely is ignoring those works. The writer seems to define science fiction in a very specific, idiosyncratic way that dismisses a lot of important authors and works. Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, and others were writing early science fiction well before the arbitrary period that the writer defines as the beginning of the genre.
I don't think any serious study of sci-fi as a genre would agree that science fiction was codified as a genre in the '20s. There were many important works being written well before 1900 that are absolutely science fiction. Now I would agree that pulp science fiction began to become an important part of the genre in the 20s, and was very influential in the genre. And pulp sci-fi is typically very techo-optimistic. But pulp sci-fi isn't the only thing that was happening in the genre in the '20s through the '60s and it's ridiculous to try to classify only those stories that fit your thesis as part of the genre.
There is a strong future-cynical streak in a lot of very important sci-fi works that predate the '70s, some all the way back to the foundation of the genre. I certainly think you could argue that there was a shift in the 70s from optimistic, techno-utopian sci-fi being prevalent to techno-cynical sci-fi being more prevalent, but they have both been present and vital to the genre since the beginning. Saying "science fiction ended in 1973" is a bad take, both types of fiction have been important to the genre since its inception.
See, for instance, Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End from 1953, or Bester’s work in the 1950’s for some profound techno-pessimism
Yes. Because his intent is to make a comment on how cultural outlooks have changed in tune with economic contexts. Not to split hairs on genre labels.
I'm not the one splitting hairs about genre labels. He is the one who has declared that only techno-optimist works count as sci fi, which is not a definition that I have ever seen. I and others have pointed out half a dozen seminal works of science fiction that the author of this article seems to have decided didn't count because they didn't fit his conclusion.
And the thing is, I suspect you could accurately say that the trend of science fiction has vacillated between more optimistic, techno-utopian works to more cynical dystopian works as economic and political outlooks shifted and it might be more likely to be true, although I still think you would need to put some effort into supporting your argument with evidence instead just making assertions.
A more interesting version of this article might look at Hugo nominees or winners and put them in techno-optimist or pessimist categories and see if there is an observable trend. Or you could look at sales numbers to see if buying trends changed. But this article just defines science fiction in a way that assumes his conclusion and declares it true by definition. If his intent is to comment on economic reality affects the trends in genre fiction then he should have written that article, not this.
I think you’re having trouble taking a rhetorical device for what it is here to be honest.
Yeah I agree with you. Particularly since the author prefaces it with the definition of “hot take” to make it clear that they’re adopting an intentionally provocative framing to make a point.
The author's rhetorical device forms the backbone of of their argument, and so its failure to hold up to scrutiny seriously damages the argument.
The author's thesis is that there was a tone-shift in popular opinions of technology over the late 20th century. They support this thesis by arguing that the tone of techno-futurist literature also changed over they time, by defining "science fiction" as techno-utopian and asserting it ended during the period.
But: first, that definition is pure distraction. I could believe it was chosen exclusively to support the attention-grabbing title. It does not match any widely-used definition, which means it's at best confusing, and more likely to trigger tangential arguments (as we see clearly demonstrated in this thread).
And second, and more problematically, the assertion is clearly made by cherry-picking examples. There has always been techno-dystopian literature (many good examples elsewhere in this thread, but Arthur C. Clarke stands out as one of the giants of the field who has never been consistently utopian nor dystopian; and there's much later techno-utopian fiction, as well, with Iain M. Banks active until his death in 2013), and pretty much any reader will immediately see counterexamples, which are called to mind by the use of the phrase "science fiction" to which they pertain.
So… has there been a tone shift in popular opinions, or even literary tone? I mean, maybe. It's certainly possible (though I, personally, don't think so; or at least, not the tone shift the author espouses). But using a handful of examples and making rhetorical use of a term which will immediately barrage readers with counterexamples definitely doesn't make the case, though.
If you know it’s a tangential argument you could just, you know, not have it.
Clarke has a different tone of dystopianism than what comes later though because the technologies and cultural advancements are still shiny and good. It’s the underlying air of “but the people still suck” that makes it less good. It’s not nearly as conflicted about the value of the scientific advancements themselves.
I'll admit the title raised my hackles and I clicked and read. Science fiction is a part of my identity, and I seem to reflexively challenge anyone who would impugn it.
As discussed elsewhere on the thread, the thesis is narrowly tailored to the conclusion, excessively so. I can remember a lot of scifi, both highbrow and pulp, that remained quite "techno-optimistic" well into the 80's. And then there's been a huge resurgence of that since the turn of the millenium, so I think the article misses the mark pretty widely.
That said, the broader issue of the interplay between culture and science fiction is always important, and the oil shock probably had a significant effect on writings that came after, especially right after. The example that most pops into mind is Mad Max.
I think people are taking this too literally. The essay isn't really suggesting that there's a big wall in the year 1973 where sci-fi was split. It's more of of a bell curve, the inspirations changed drastically around in that time period and that was the probably year where the change could be the peak of the curve. This essay is more about the shift in American culture than it is about science fiction.
Of course there were still more stories in that vein after 1972. It's not like it was banned or something silly like that. It's just that things changed over time and the focus shifted. This isn't all that different from saying something like "black and white films died in 1939"—obviously there were still more black and white movies coming out later than that.
I think this is the key line in the entire thing:
There's definitely been a huge change in the tone of space adventure sci-fi over time. Those classic sci-fi books from Clarke and Asimov stand in stark contrast with space adventure sci-fi that came later, like Hyperion. Classic sci-fi had a reputation for being much more about ideas and not about the characters at all, it's one of the most antiquated thing about them, like how older movies lack the bassier low frequencies. With the change specified above, it's no wonder that characters are a lot more fleshed out across the board in all genres of sci-fi now, there is a lot more focus on connecting with the sentiments of personal anxiety than a shared wonder on what lays beyond.
Nope. I was there in 1973. Arthur C. Clarke published Rendezvous With Rama. Kurt Vonnegut published Breakfast of Champions. Isaac Asimov published The Gods Themselves.