I've been mulling over writing a blog post about this for a while but only as I was girding my loins in preparation did I remember that I'm nicking the idea almost entirely from another blog I read a bit back and had forgotten about; the awesome Blasphemous Geometries series by the creator of the Ruthless Culture blog (http://ruthlessculture.com/). Being fairly new to this blogging business I don't know if I can be sued for this pretty harmless bit of plagiarism.
Preamble (and copyright worries) aside, set species or racial traits are a staple of much science fiction and fantasy. Give the average sixteen-year old male a picture of an Orc and he will probably hazard a guess that it is war-like, unintelligent and ferocious without needing any further context. Without realising it we are bombarded with this basic idea by mainstream fantasy games, books and films such as Small World, Lord of the Rings and Star Trek/Wars. Surely this reinforces certain attitudes that we may then take across into real life political discussion? Namely that conflict between certain races is near inevitable and that assimilation between cultures is a pipe dream due to their radical differences.
Now my problem with this is that I'm usually left wing and liberal in my views. I'm more likely to read George Orwell than George Bush's memoirs in the world of non-fiction. While I have read my fair share of Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Nozick it was more in a sense of 'know your enemy' and interest in gaining knowledge about historical and philosophical topics than with any sympathy for their viewpoints. So why am I prepared to let these almost crudely racist (or speciesist if you prefer) caricatures pass in the sci fi that I read?
I think the answer is that there are other things I like about the genres mentioned. A book with some slightly odious politics in it might have passages of beautiful desciption, brilliant atmosphere and style, engaging fight scenes or a radical new way of looking at the universe that you couldn't find anywhere else. Rarely is the political angle so blatant that it ruins my enjoyment of the book (I'm looking at you Peter Hamilton, Frank Herbert and Robert Heinlein).
Also you can rarely tell the political slant of science fiction without reading the book. Milton Friedman's works usually have some reference to the Free Market, monetarism and Margarat Thatcher in the blurb. 'Ringworld' on the other hand has a picture of a gigantic ring in space and some whaffle about an unlikely group of aliens launching a daring expedition into unknown territory on the back. Its political angle is a lot harder to work out. It took me quite a few pages to work out that Larry Niven really was that sexist and wasn't just being ironic.
So it generally seems worth reading through the crude politics and racial (/species) stereotyping to get to the good bits. On top of that there is the gambler's desire to hit the jackpot. Occasionally in these wide genres your faith is rewarded when you come across an author who brings a persuasive left wing, pacifist or even anarchist approach to the theme. I'll gladly save fellow lefties a bit of searching by recommending Ken MacLeod, Iain M Banks and Joe Haldeman. Not only are their politics more kosher than many of their fellow genre writers, they are truly amazing authors whose novels are well worth reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment