Utopian vs Dystopian Fiction
Firstly, let's be clear: we're talking about 'SF'. Oh, yes, we are! If, like Margaret Atwood, the notion that the 'S' stands for 'Science' makes you uncomfortable then feel free to substitute in 'Speculative', instead. It won't change a thing. Except, perhaps, the demographics of your readership....
The Star Trek milieu is a good example of contemporary, utopian fiction: Star Fleet and the Federation depict accomplishments of philosophical and socio-economic ideals. Federation characters represent those striving to become the best person they can be, with their only reward being the sense of achievement itself, since money no longer exists. All socio-economic concerns are resolved within Federation society. The conflict comes from other cultures that have not achieved the Federation's depicted level of 'enlightenment', e.g. Klingons, Romulans, Ferengi, etc. each of which represents a perceived shortcoming manifest in people of our own world and time (Star Trek is sci-fi, so comparison with contemporary societies is to be expected), e.g. militarism, racist imperialism, and mercantilism and misogyny, respectively. Another source of conflict is often character-based, revealing the struggle of personal refinement and the human condition.
Because the stories are usually about a bunch of people roaming around in space, and their epic-scaled exploits, Star Trek (along with Star Wars) falls into the often-derided sub-genre of 'Space Opera'. I think that may be because, as others have suggested, there's really not much else to write about within a utopian setting other than the fantastic exploits of the utopian citizens, once you've outlined the milieu.
The Star Trek style of utopia, where the advancement of technology and pursuit of scientific understanding is portrayed as leading to an ideal society, is out of favour with a majority of contemporary readers because this degree of optimism in the perceived benefits of advancing science and technology is not shared by most people, who widely acknowledge that these advances, whilst they may make life easier for some, or improve safety, efficiency, etc. have come to create problems of their own: cultural homogeneity, socio-economic inequality, virtual disconnection of people from their community, and the speculated links with child and violent crime incidents, suicide rates, mental and physical illnesses, etc. Readers are generally better educated and globally aware than ever, and our higher sophistication demands more realistic and convincing depictions and explanations in fiction.
A dystopian setting, on the other hand, often offers far more thought-provoking comparisons with our own society. As a result, the setting itself can produce the conflict that makes the writing interesting enough to bother reading it in the first place, and the actions of the characters within it as they struggle against (or simply within) the system add further interest. I believe dystopia is the most valuable tool of science-fiction (or 'speculative fiction' for those uncomfortable with the idea that they are writing or reading sci-fi), inviting comparison with our own world and lifestyle, pointing out (preferably as subtly as possible, without too obvious an agenda on the author's part) the pitfalls that await us in the future if we don't strive now to change the direction our society is taking.
When dystopian literature evolved from modernism to postmodernism, it was no longer acceptable for the author to simply impress his or her personal views or beliefs upon the postmodern reader. Now, the expectation is that the reader is sufficiently perspicacious to arrive at their own interpretation of and conclusion about the text, and that this is just as valid as the author's intended meaning. The story is expected to be both entertaining, at a light reading level, and offer ontological insights at a deeper level. As far as I’m concerned, that’s good news for readers: postmodernisms predilection for double coding just provides a better quality of information to be digested, per novel, than your average, utopian Space Opera could muster. Which is not to say there's no such thing as postmodern utopia....
The Star Trek milieu is a good example of contemporary, utopian fiction: Star Fleet and the Federation depict accomplishments of philosophical and socio-economic ideals. Federation characters represent those striving to become the best person they can be, with their only reward being the sense of achievement itself, since money no longer exists. All socio-economic concerns are resolved within Federation society. The conflict comes from other cultures that have not achieved the Federation's depicted level of 'enlightenment', e.g. Klingons, Romulans, Ferengi, etc. each of which represents a perceived shortcoming manifest in people of our own world and time (Star Trek is sci-fi, so comparison with contemporary societies is to be expected), e.g. militarism, racist imperialism, and mercantilism and misogyny, respectively. Another source of conflict is often character-based, revealing the struggle of personal refinement and the human condition.
Because the stories are usually about a bunch of people roaming around in space, and their epic-scaled exploits, Star Trek (along with Star Wars) falls into the often-derided sub-genre of 'Space Opera'. I think that may be because, as others have suggested, there's really not much else to write about within a utopian setting other than the fantastic exploits of the utopian citizens, once you've outlined the milieu.
The Star Trek style of utopia, where the advancement of technology and pursuit of scientific understanding is portrayed as leading to an ideal society, is out of favour with a majority of contemporary readers because this degree of optimism in the perceived benefits of advancing science and technology is not shared by most people, who widely acknowledge that these advances, whilst they may make life easier for some, or improve safety, efficiency, etc. have come to create problems of their own: cultural homogeneity, socio-economic inequality, virtual disconnection of people from their community, and the speculated links with child and violent crime incidents, suicide rates, mental and physical illnesses, etc. Readers are generally better educated and globally aware than ever, and our higher sophistication demands more realistic and convincing depictions and explanations in fiction.
A dystopian setting, on the other hand, often offers far more thought-provoking comparisons with our own society. As a result, the setting itself can produce the conflict that makes the writing interesting enough to bother reading it in the first place, and the actions of the characters within it as they struggle against (or simply within) the system add further interest. I believe dystopia is the most valuable tool of science-fiction (or 'speculative fiction' for those uncomfortable with the idea that they are writing or reading sci-fi), inviting comparison with our own world and lifestyle, pointing out (preferably as subtly as possible, without too obvious an agenda on the author's part) the pitfalls that await us in the future if we don't strive now to change the direction our society is taking.
When dystopian literature evolved from modernism to postmodernism, it was no longer acceptable for the author to simply impress his or her personal views or beliefs upon the postmodern reader. Now, the expectation is that the reader is sufficiently perspicacious to arrive at their own interpretation of and conclusion about the text, and that this is just as valid as the author's intended meaning. The story is expected to be both entertaining, at a light reading level, and offer ontological insights at a deeper level. As far as I’m concerned, that’s good news for readers: postmodernisms predilection for double coding just provides a better quality of information to be digested, per novel, than your average, utopian Space Opera could muster. Which is not to say there's no such thing as postmodern utopia....
No comments have been added yet.
