The War on Science Fiction and Marvin Minsky
the-spearhead.com
the-spearhead.com
It's annoying because I definitely do believe that sci-fi is getting 'watered down' with 'relationship drama' (see the recently launched Stargate Universe as an example - if one were prone to puns, it could probably safely be called "'Lost' in Space"), but I can't help but think the tone of the piece suggests something of an ulterior motive for its vitriol.
I'm sure nobody needs to tell you the US economy is way too closely focused on short term profits. This is what three straight decades of nothing but short term profits only thinking gets you. Pro Wrestling and Soap Operas presented as new prime time fall science fiction programming.
I read SF books almost exclusively, and my favorite author is a woman: C.J. Cherryh, who writes really, really good stuff, including more or less manly men who get things done (and more or less womanly women who also get things done).
And I'll take some relationship drama over vapid Star Trek technobabble any day, thank you very much. Ultimately, SF is not about technology, it's about people and where technology might take them and how it might change them.
The author knows that too, he just doesn't want to admit it. What does 80s Starbuck flirting with girls and smoking cigars have to do with technology? absolutely nothing, that's what. What the author apparently wants isn't science fiction, it's Conan the Barbarian, in space!
Starbuck is the eyes and hands of the juvenile male that desperately wants that kind of kinetic adventure. Being an incomplete and uninteresting character is the important part, it makes the character more accessible and adaptable to the myriad of young male fantasies. In general, any kind of generic archetype is supposed to be available only a virtual "selection of shoes" that the viewer/reader can look at, best identify with, and slip on for the duration of the fantasy.
Densely fleshed out character profiles with tangled relationships are not (generally) the kind of sci-fi boys are terribly interested in. Especially when you can have, more or less, the exact same story in any particular setting, sci-fi or not. That's what the turn off of the kind of relationship drama/sci-fi the author is talking about is. The setting (sci-fi) is immaterial to the actual story.
That being said, the better sci-fi out there is chock full of relationship drama. But when it's well crafted, it's inseparable from setting because the drama is a result of the setting, not just stage dressing. The recent Battlestar Galactica series is large inseparable from setting and that's what made it so appealing. That, and it struck a decent balance with "OMG That's AWESOME" space battles.
The irony is there might be something to the idea that sf is mostly for men and trying to make it more unisex will spoil it. But this kind of articles will definitely not help.
The retelling of BSG required a big adjustment for fans who grew up watching the original series. You may disagree with some of their plot directions, and perhaps the ending, but unless you haven't grown up yet you have to admit the series as a whole was at least an A-, if not the best SF show ever.
It's like the recently revamped Dr Who: the companions are more empowered and involved, rather than being one dimensional plot tag alongs/eye candy.
There indeed have been some cultural changes about how sci-fi is handled on TV and in movies. But it has been mostly in increasing its complexity. Moving away from the standard "[genre]... in SPACE!" model.
A crude but effective spam filter is when someone says "[Broad social group] is ruining [something]", it is unlikely that a good point will be made. This seems to fit solidly within this bucket.
* Star Wars
* Stranger in a Strange Land
* Blade Runner
* The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy
* Speaker For The Dead