What I find so interesting about science fiction is how the genre both congratulates and criticizes in equal parts. The attitude of the "looking forward" experiment seems to depend on whether the author accepts or fears technilogical advances at that particular time as is. In my opinion the attitude seems to be cyclical; when we are on the brink of new promising innovation the genral attitude seems to be positive, but when the technology is new and generally not well understood people are more weary and fears can inflate towards the ridiculous. This is what the archetype of the metropolis shows us.
Metropolises are always giant hubs of activity set in the future and they are designed in nouveau styles of the time such as art deco or post modernism. They usually have a technological "wow" factor such as hoverboards or flying cars. The main idea that distinguishes between metropolises like Hill Valley in 2015 (Back to the Future II) or the original Metropolis is its connotation. In Back to the Future II the quality of life in 2015 in decidedly better than in 1985 (Although Marty's particular situation might not be that great). The once sleepy town is now bursting with fun activities, cool technologies, and interesting outfits, without any obvious detriment due to these installments of the future. However in the latter example technology is perverted in a way that is harmful to people; lusty robots, man eating machines that demand hours of rudimentary tasks, or an infustructure that is so weak that it completley falls apart at the slightest bit of incohesiveness.
Another few societies that are popular in science fiction are the utopia and the dystopia. Instead of using an obscene amount of technology as a main trope to deliver an opproving or disapproving message. Sometimes the society is on subtly more futuristic technologically, but instead has more social differences. The social differences are usually exagerrated traits that the author wishes to focus on. For instance, in A Clockwork Orange, the only tech that is focused on is the hyper sexualized "bar maid" robots that serve drugs and the new methods for operant conditioning. The main focus in this dystopian London is the "ultra violence" perfomed by the main character Alex and "The Droogs", and other groups around the city. The city has turned into a terrible place to live; full of rape, burglary, and violence. The final message is a political one; the sociopathic Alex is allowed to live without psychological treatment on the one condition that he supports and participates in the main political party. On the other hand, Utopia by Thomas Moore focuses more on the socio-political details of a perfect and benevolent society. The main character Raphael, frusturated by the cruelty and poverty of Europe, leaves for the island where everyone shares thier goods and housing and no one has to fear one another. Freedom is described as an absence of private property and privacy. ( Yes, there are slaves, but this was written in 16th century England, so probably not that progressive in our terms)
What I find the most interesting in this sub-genre of science fiction is how dystopian/ evil metropolis stories are so much more common now a days. With popular novels like The Hunger Games , The Handmaid's Tale, or Uglies popping up all over the place in the last 30 years, it would be interesting to study the reason behind this sudden popularity in the genre. Although, the genre really started to gain traction about 70 - 80 years ago, perhaps brought upon by the recent World Wars or the expansion of the Communist bloc, it's pretty interesting how in the last 10 years especially there has been a giant resurgence of faction like dystopias (often with female leads, which is a cool progression in science fiction.)
Maybe metropolises are so popular because we tell ourselves that we want a perfect kind of world but the authors tell us that it would be a terrible and that we shouldn't strive for that.
ReplyDeleteThere's certainly a lot to say regarding the disparity between two or more factions of different livelihoods, and when there's a necessary but volatile relationship that holds them together, more often than not, It's fickle, if not fragile. The contrast between the the high held and pristinely sculpted city as it stands above ground, in both a literal and societal sense, sets up a selection of people who are easy to dislike, even before you know that the shabby dwellings and lifestyles of the people literally (and again, metaphorically implied) beneath them are beget by the upper's consumption and extortion. If you were in a city where all lived the same, there's no struggle man to man, and there's no feeling of animosity the lowest common denominator of the respective collectives feel towards each other. There's a certain level of abhorrence those held under have towards those above as an entire entity, and frankly, the reoccurring happenstance of such a trope correlates with the analogus scenarios that play out in reality. Oppression has always existed, but the only difference is that now, we have more of a mind to call it out. We're becoming bolder in our world, and as a result of the administrative powers we lack as common individuals, it's through advocation via writing and story telling that we can literally or fantastically portray our dismay with the systems we're stuck in. Criticism by any means necessary.
ReplyDeleteor books that are relatable or provide a sense of vindication just sell well idk
Aislinn, yours is so wide-ranging--so comprehensive--that I'm having difficulty gathering my thoughts to respond, beyond: "Yes, absolutely!" "Congratulates and criticizes" is a really good way to put what sci fi does. It's interesting to me that so many of these stories (most of them?) seem to take one side or the other--the utopian mostly congratulate, the dystopian mostly criticize. I wonder where all the stories are that do both at the same time? Probably I just haven't encountered them, yet. Have you?
ReplyDeleteAislinn, yours is so wide-ranging--so comprehensive--that I'm having difficulty gathering my thoughts to respond, beyond: "Yes, absolutely!" "Congratulates and criticizes" is a really good way to put what sci fi does. It's interesting to me that so many of these stories (most of them?) seem to take one side or the other--the utopian mostly congratulate, the dystopian mostly criticize. I wonder where all the stories are that do both at the same time? Probably I just haven't encountered them, yet. Have you?
ReplyDelete