Post Fiction?

[Matt]

Not sure how relevant this may be, but i've been tossing it around in my head over the last week and thought that I would throw it out there.

There is a film from the late 90's entitled "No Maps For These Territories", where a camera crew interviews William Gibson from the back seat of a car. He mentions the marriage of Michael Jackson to Lisa Presley, and that a friend sent him a message at the time to the effect of "this makes your job harder". What the guy meant was that writers and readers of fiction are increasingly bombarded with little pop culture factoids of the "you can't make this stuff up" persuasion.

It seems to me that with the Internet and even network news, the reality bar is raised everyday. Examples off the top of my head include the robotic head of P.K. Dick that went missing in an airport awhile back and the whole anthrax investigation debacle that is occurring right now.

My question is this: will the weirdness of reality one day reach the point were nothing written will be pure fiction anymore, but instead classified under the Hollywood "based on true events" tagline? What do you all think?

[Steven]

Nope, there will always be the ability of someone to look at the current modern set of events and extrapolate from there to create a view of things that might happen in the future, but haven't happened yet. One type of this is 'science fiction'. ;)

Will there be tons and tons of new amazing ways that humans will interact with each other? Someone will always figure out a way to build a crazier psycho, but complete novelty will seem to be harder and harder to find. That's why stories have stereotypes. While each individual character tries to be different in the details, there will likely be some overlap in the broad traits that are shared across lots of people and characters.

[[deleted user]]

"There is nothing new under the sun."

[Jon]

Quoting Ecclesiastes?

[Matt]

No, because fiction must always be more real than reality. Reality has never been believable. A true story lacks the sort of structure that we expect stories to have. We can't suspend our disbelief enough to accept reality, especially since there is generally less payoff to do so compared to fiction.

For example:

"It seems to me that with the Internet and even network news, the reality bar is raised everyday."

That's a story. You can recognize it as having a story structure. It has 'rising action', and it eventually reaches the denouement 'there is no fiction'. It's a good story; it's simple and it's easy to believe and it has a big payoff ('life will achieve some interesting state'). Hense, it almost certainly isn't true. What is true is that you are just getting old enough to recognize how wierd normality is. I agree with Sue and the teacher, "There is nothing new under the sun." Things have always been this wierd.

What I might agree with is that we are living in a science fiction world. One day we will wake up, if we haven't already, and find that science fiction is the new realism depicting life not as we think it will be, but as it is.

[Matt]

Matt - Nice comment. I especially like the idea "fiction must always be more real than reality". I may have to steal that someday...

"What is true is that you are just getting old enough to recognize how wierd normality is." - another excellent point. But just so you know, if that kickball lands in my yard again, it's mine.

[[deleted user]]

This very topic is one often discussed in the works of J.G. Ballard, one of the premier masters of speculative fiction.

He often works in hyper-reality.

His fascination with and ability to dissect media-culture and media-politicians is something that I greatly admire.

I believe that great SF (true science and speculative fiction, not space opera or science-fantasy) should be about the here and now. Working within the realms of SF gives authors a kind of freedom that no other kind of lit can - it allows the author to examine "today" from a perspective not tethered by our present definition of "reality."

It grants an ultimate perspective.

[[deleted user]]

"I believe that great SF (true science and speculative fiction, not space opera or science-fantasy) should be about the here and now."

I agree with this. There are so many important issues that deal with science and technology now that more than ever science fiction is relevant. Escapist lit definitely has it's place, I certainly love it at times. But truly great science fiction has something to say.

[Kristjan]

Sue said: "I believe that great SF (true science and speculative fiction, not space opera or science-fantasy) should be about the here and now."

I agree with this. There are so many important issues that deal with science and technology now that more than ever science fiction is relevant. Escapist lit definitely has it's place, I certainly love it at times. But truly great science fiction has something to say.

I would disagree ... in truly great sci-fi, the setting is largely a means to an end so that you can explore various social concepts/ideas that serve as potential guides and warnings to human advancement. Sci-Fi should be about our potential and not about the here and now.

I also believe the literati are much to quick to dismiss what they call escaptist lit :) ALL good stories have something to tell us over and above simple entertainment value (which for most books is the only reason to pick one over another).

[Matt]

"I believe that great SF (true science and speculative fiction, not space opera or science-fantasy) should be about the here and now."

I'm not sure what to make of this statement. All fiction - and perhaps all writing of any form - is inescapably about the here and now because that is when it is being read. Whether ostencibly set in the speculative future or the speculative past, fiction is never actually about either because we know neither nor do we speak to anyone then. If a book is read, it is because it has an audience in the present now.

So I really don't see a "should". A verb like "should" implies that its possible to not be about the here and now, when in fact I think all stories - the great and the bad, the memorable and the forgettable - are about the now whatever thier pretensions. So at the very least, I disagree with the statement because I don't think its a particularly perceptive one. (sorry, D)

But I'm not sure D doesn't get it, because I agree with the thrust of his next sentence:

"Working within the realms of SF gives authors a kind of freedom that no other kind of lit can - it allows the author to examine "today" from a perspective not tethered by our present definition of "reality.""

The great value of fantasy and science fiction is I think that it lacks the pretension of being something other than fiction. One of the problems I have with most 20th century literature is that it seems to be esteemed on the grounds that the critic in his ivory tower (or in suburbia) is led to believe he now understands life in some underpriviledged class or ethnic group. Instead he should realize that he's just been tricked, and that the story he was told was a lie, one that by being more real than reality (and having very little to do with reality), led him to believe that he understood something about reality outside of his own experience. This is of course hogwash. Every Southron reading southern literature knows that they are reading lies - lies perhaps with a grain of truth, but still mostly lies. It is the same for everything I know by experience; I know that the stories about it are lies because the truth is untellable as a story. Stories are just the lies we make up about the truth to try to convey it in a way that will be heard and believed.

In this way, I think SF and fantasy are inherently more honest with the reader than, for example, 'historical fiction'. My esteem for the writer goes up when he writes SF or fantasy, because I then know that the writer isn't deluding himself or trying to delude me. Of course, very often the responce of the critics is the opposite of this. For example, Jonathan Lethem's 'Fortress of Solitude' was widely criticized by the critics for breaking the spell by revealing the story to be a fantasy. Had he left out the fantasy elements, the critics would have praised it as a moving account of 1970's Brooklyn. But of course, it wasn't really and couldn't be. The true story of 1970's Brooklyn isn't a story, and reading it could never directly make you actually know what it was like growing up in 1970's Brooklyn. A story can ever only be indirect and partial communication. That itself is plenty powerful, but it isn't what people think they are getting. By telling a fantasy, Lethem was focusing the story on what he could convey, and not on what he couldn't. I think he broke the illusion deliberately, because otherwise people would get too caught up in the illusionism and miss what truth he could convey.

I think GGK says some of what I think better than I can though:

http://www.brightweavings.com/ggkswor...

[[deleted user]]

I think the "here and now" and our potential are probably the same thing.

[Kristjan]

Sue said: I think the "here and now" and our potential are probably the same thing.

Could you elaborate? I see potential as something in the future and 'here and now' as something in the present. I am having a hard time equating the two.

[[deleted user]]

Potential exists now. There's lots of incredible new science right now expanding our potential. If a story can only be set in the future because we don't have the technology for it, well, then it doesn't seem like there's much potential there at all, only fantasy.

Nothing wrong with fantasy. We all love a good fantasy story, but science fiction is different. And it's really great when it deals with potential and what we know here and now.

We're splitting hairs here, but I think the actual difference in people's opinions don't necessarily have to do with how they define the word "potential" but in how they define "science fiction." For many people fantasy and science fiction are the same thing, but for others they are two different things.