Hi, Adam,
You make some interesting points. For me however, most
literature/entertainment of the Star Trek variety isn't really science
fiction. It is commonly considered such because it plays out in the
distant future and has space ships and advanced technology, but it fails as
science fiction because it mostly does not explore scientific themes, nor
explore how developments in science and technology change society. Someone
coined the term "space opera" for this kind of fiction; the stories could
just as well play out on a sailing ship in the 16 hundreds or in the
streets of London today, with mere changes in props (not that there's
anything wrong with that).
In *Wind World Warriors*, I try to make the science more than just
background. I am asking direct questions about the impact of science on
society. Reproductive technology would now allow us to create an
all-female society. I ask what such a society would be like. Would they
have families? What would social justice look like? Religion? Warfare?
In the distant future, what would their cultural memory of males be? And
of course, since this is playing out on a distant planet, I get to include
lots of neat stuff about alien ecology and physiology. Perhaps most fun of
all, I explore the ramifications of when the technology of this all-women
society allows them to re-introduce males, long after they are forgotten.
Did a good story get lost in all the sciency stuff? Judge for yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/Wind-World-Warriors-Book-1-ebook/dp/B00OQJF9JI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415296455&sr=1-1&keywords=%22Wind+World+Warriors%22
While science fiction, like any literary genre, may use of metaphor,
I'm not sure I would accept the examples you cite as true metaphor because
they use something concrete, a group of aliens, to represent something else
concrete, a certain group of people. They are mere stand-ins, surrogates.
However, if we look at it a bit differently, and let the concrete aliens
represent something abstract, such as a human foible (e.g., greed or
narrow-mindedness), then I buy it. And as you say, this lets people
externalize their foibles and accept a truth they would reject if they
realized consciously they were judging themselves.
That's a fine use of fiction, but in my opinion, this doesn't let
science fiction off the hook for presenting valid science (although, I do
like the idea of not-yet-valid science).
Martin Meiss
2014-11-05 19:55 GMT-05:00 Adam Herbert <[email protected]>:
> hi Martin,
>
> Thanks for sending this along. This is all true; even good sci-fi ignores
> what is known about the possible evolution of life on other planets.
> Ancient alien theorists do the same thing. However, if I can put my
> English hat on for a moment, most sci-fi writers are more interested in
> aliens as metaphors and the larger truth that can be explored through them
> than in putting forth good science. There's nothing wrong with that. I've
> always thought of sci-fi as a modern form of the fable or folk tale. Aesop
> uses animals to stand in for people so that people may be more willing to
> see their own foibles objectively. Of course, animals can't talk. That's
> a biological impossibility. But that doesn't matter. The larger truth
> they can express is what matters.
>
> A similar device is used in Star Trek. You have the Ferengis, who are the
> Republicans of the Delta Quadrant. A Wall Street venture capitalist can
> laugh at them and see their faults because, of course, they are nothing
> like him. They are aliens. Likewise, a militia dude from the Midwest would
> look upon the Klingons with their rigid, militaristic and highly corrupt
> sense of honor and see them the same way. Also, hybrids of aliens from
> different worlds (a common theme in Star Trek) are biologically impossible
> but provide an excellent way of dealing with real social issues.
>
> So critically speaking you are right, but you've missed the point in a
> humanities sense.
>
> Adam Herbert
>
