OFF: Moorcock on sci-fi

[Douglas Pearson]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:37:12 +0100, M Holmes <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK> wrote:
>It's also a weird argument to make in an SF context since it generally
>deals with "What if?" rather than "What is?".

I think it IS an interesting (if not necessarily important) argument to
make in an SF context since "What if?" frequently means "What do I want?"
or (equally importantly) "What do I NOT want?".  Although perhaps this is a
good place to draw the line between "science fiction" and "speculative
fiction", since the latter category ("What do I NOT want?") seems to be
frequently employed by authors NOT of the science-fiction "genre" dabbling
in "science fiction"-like situations in order to make a political point.

Cases in point:
'1984' (the obvious one!) - anti-communist/anti-fascist middle-bureaucrat
socialist author creates world where socialist government is entirely co-
opted by communist/fascist-type authoritarians who oppress middle-
bureaucrats.
'The Turner Diaries' - rascist author creates world run by "degenerate
mullato" types who oppress those of "the master race".
'The Handmaid's Tale' - feminist author creates world run by male-
supremacist fundamentalist christians who oppress women.
'Atlas Shrugged' - ultra-capitalist/right-wing-libertarian creates world
where socialist governments have destroyed the economy and oppress
capitalist types (who are the only ones can get it up?!).

All extremely heavy-handed in their presentation, and only one ('1984')
with *remotely* non-cardboard characters (heroes OR villains, and even
those in 1984 are hardly well-rounded).  "Literary" values all over the
maps, however (in those examples).  One of the reasons I like
Spinrad's 'Iron Dream' so much is that it's a hilarious parody (on several
levels) of this sort of "masochist's wet dream" negative-utopia-story.

Perhaps because "true" SF authors are more steeped in
considering "alternative realities", they're able to do so in a more (not
necessarily objective) subtle(?), non-encompassing(?) manner (groping for a
description here, sorry).  Or, it could just be that to them, the main
point is telling a story, not "making a point".

For example - back to Moorcock - one can certainly see anti-royalist and
anti-militarist sentiments at the heart of the Elric and Jerry Cornelius
series', respectively.  But those political viewpoints are nowhere near the
main focus of any of those stories (or so it strikes me).

Me, I'd rather consider the kind of world I DO want (not that I know what
it is!).

    -Doug
     ceres at sirius.com