Between Science and Society: Charting the Space of Science Fiction

Abstract

In the literature academia, whether science fiction is a genre was contested and the definition of science fiction has been chaotic for years. Although many scholars attempted to define the nature of science fiction, there are still piecemeal insights and observations either in its theoretical or historical aspects. For a long time, the nature of science fiction has been discussed mostly among literary critics, and seldom do professional writers participate in such a debate. The book Between Science and Society: Charting the Space of Science Fiction, is a centerpiece focusing on inner dialogues among writers of science fiction. By adopting an unorthodox research method, Van Belle interviews twenty-four renowned science fiction writers who represent an extensive scope of sub-genres of science fiction in order to document the perspectives of the writers and construct the mediated space, as the book title suggests, between science and society.The volume under review consists of thirty chapters, which are well-organized. Chapter 1 explains the setting and the goal of the interviews. Chapters 2 through chapter 25 present the interview transcripts of the writers in alphabetical order of their names. Chapters 26 to 29 are a conclusion of the content of these interviews and the key elements the writers propose in conceptualizing the nature of science fiction as an ecosystem. In the last chapter, Van Belle proposes academic implications and calls for further studies.The “Introduction” section of this book outlines the conflict between literature academia and professional science fiction writers. Some of the academic analyses of the genre had regarded science fiction as inferior to other genres of literature, disparaged the writers’ thinking, skill, and intent, and worse of all failed to grasp the essence of science fiction. Though the hostility is alleviated in recent years, the estrangement still impedes the two parties from understanding each other. Van Belle announced in advance the intent of the book is to find out and document “as faithfully as possible, how the authors conceptualized their role in that space between science and society and explore how that conceptualization might translate into their conceptualization of the genre” (3).The research method adopted in this study is loosely structured interviewing, consisting of six questions that are not designed to obtain a rigorous yes or no answer, but to serve as an elicitation inspiring the writers to elaborate on their understanding without any bounds. It is more of a conversational style than a Q&A routine. The six questions can be roughly divided into three groups:The questions in the first group are (1. Origin Story; 2. Compromise on Science) related to writers’ history and their writing process, asking how they conceive of themselves as professional science fiction writers and what the elements they consider to be necessary to science fiction. This group of questions allows the writers to “take their ownership from the start” (17).The questions in the second group are (3. Interaction with Scientists; 4. The Teaching Moment; 5. Between Science and Society) about writers’ understanding of the role and function of science fiction. This group of questions discovers how writers “conceptualize their place in the social, cultural and sometimes physical space between science and society” (15).The third group is an additional question (6. What Should I Have Asked) that offers writers an opportunity to supplement their comments or queries. Such a question “enhances the validity of the representation of the respondents’ beliefs” (17).Twenty-four writers are chosen as interviewees from a pool of writers who are identified as Hugo winners, Nebula Award winners, famous screenwriters, prolific young adult science fiction writers, or outstanding futurists, covering a variety of areas of science fiction, including hard science fiction, sociological science fiction, gender-/sexuality-focused science fiction, and space opera, to name but a few. In terms of gender and cultural diversity, the preponderance of white male writers is noteworthy, and it would be more representative to collect a more culturally diverse set of writers.Van Belle extracts the commonalities among the answers addressed by the twenty-four professional science fiction writers. The most frequently mentioned and significant feature or element of science fiction is storytelling. In the answers to the first group of questions, most writers would self-identify themselves as a storyteller. Jack McDevitt thinks of himself as an entertainer instead of using an abstract description such as “an agent between science and society” (172). To quote David Brin, he says “It (Science fiction) is about extending this incredible story through these thought experiments to extrapolate possible extensions of that drama into the future” (187). These writers think that storytelling “defines the bounds of science fiction in the mediated space between science and society” (171). Van Belle compares storytelling as “the field upon which the game is played” (171) to demonstrate the significance of this feature to science fiction. For these writers, the basic intent of writing a science fiction is to present an interesting story.Other communicative roles of science fiction, secondary to storytelling, mentioned in the answers to the second group are the science education, science popularization, and science inspiration. The science fiction is educational, and it can serve as a starting point for many young children or adult layouts to be interested in science or even motivate them to choose science as their career. Melinda Snodgrass says in her interview that “most scientists love science fiction and most of them grew up watching Star Trek or reading a Heinlein book and that made them want to be a scientist” (138). Gregory Benford says he read Heinlein juvenile series as a kid and even studied nuclear physics when he was boy. He and his brother were huge science fiction fans and they both have PhDs in physics from U.C. San Diego (44). The science fiction also contributes a great deal to science popularization. For example, the popular Chinese science fiction series Three Body introduces the canonical three-body problem in celestial mechanics to the public. Star Trek popularized the conception of transporter beam and warp engine. Interstellar as one of the most representative hardcore science fiction movies brings black hole theory and the higher dimensional world to the table. Even more, science fiction offers inspirations. The world-famous Star Trek series visualized the touch screen, portable phones and tricorders (a device that can detect patients’ physiological indications) in the 60s, igniting a spark in the mind of scientists and now these technologies have all come true. Sometimes, science fiction can not only introduce knowledge from hard disciplines such as astrophysics but also conceptions from soft disciplines like linguistics and philosophy. The Story of Your Life mentions the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and discusses the interaction between intelligent beings from a linguistic perspective. Stanislaw Lem’s Solaris explores the materialization of memory and human emotions, which offers readers a philosophical reflection on the expedition to the universe. Hence science fiction does provide a gateway to the beauty of the science world for outsiders, depicting different possible futures based on solid theories.However, the communicative role of science fiction is subservient to storytelling. The primary goal of science fiction is never to educate the mass but to entertain an audience by telling an interesting story. Scientific facts displayed in academic articles can often be detached from public’s eyes and requires certain degrees of expertise to understand whilst science fiction integrates science with intriguing stories and reincarnates abstract theories in the form of concrete plot. Science fiction renders science approachable to a certain extent. Again, this is why professional writers stress countless times that the very nature of science fiction is the story.Science as a salient element in storytelling is critical in shaping science fiction. Van Belle proposes the notion of forthright engagement of science, which “sets the most fundamental rules of the game” (179). Forthright refers to the way these writers use science but it does not mean “precisely accurate” (179). Most of the writers strive to respect science but meanwhile, they still acknowledge that in order to develop the story they need to alter to some extent the scientific reality. In chapters 28, Van Belle illustrates how the vastness of space makes the faster-than-light (FTL) travel a necessity in storytelling. FTL transportation or communication, the above-mentioned transporter beam and warp engine in Star Trek, and the inside image of a black hole depicted in Interstellar are what Van Belle refers to as scientific plausibility. David Gerrold says in the interview that they just show you the fictionally possible technology in a story but they never stop to explain it. Connie Willis stresses that science fictions are not stories about science but about “the interface between science and human beings” (164). It is plausibility rather than accuracy that offers the writers a possibility. It is a possibility of discussing what possible futures await humans and presuming or assuming the unknowns.The economics of fiction writing is indispensable besides the centrality of storytelling in the concept system. Van Belle regards writing as the key factor “balancing the functional pragmatics of earning a living against the ideals of the storyteller” (174) for these professional writers. He proposes that the science fiction community is also a significant element in the science fiction ecosystem. The business aspects of science fiction are critical for professional writers since they earn a living with the support of a solid fan base. There is a relatively large number of science fiction conventions in which many writers intensively engage and actively interact with their audiences. The awareness of the audience prompts the writers to balance the demand of the fandom.In conclusion, Van Belle reformulates the writers’ descriptions into a definition: “Science Fiction is any text that employs a forthright depiction of plausible science as a critical element in the effort to entertain through storytelling” (199). He suggests using “exclusion and critical ideals” (206) to define science fiction rather than setting boundaries. Since science fiction is an indistinctly bounded genre, defining its essential elements would be helpful to grasp its heart and soul. Storytelling and science form the pillars of the genre. First and foremost, storytelling is the primary intent and the nature of science fiction, and it distinguishes the science fiction from other genres of mediated depictions of science. The accuracy of the depiction of science or other communicative roles all comes secondary. According to Van Belle’s conclusion of these interviews, the use of science in the genre must be plausible, forthright, and a critical element of the story. The science in fiction is rather symbolic and has to be intertwined with a story. Science fiction has communicative roles such as science education, science popularization, and science inspiration. However, when defining the genre, most authors do not consider such functional roles to be salient as these roles are assigned afterwards. Meanwhile, the need to survive as a professional science fiction writer may not be central in the definition of science fiction but it is a significant factor in the science fiction ecosystem. Van Belle calls for further studies on the relationship between the author and the publishers, or the author and the fans. It will be more thorough for academics to focus their attention on the writers and conduct research from a perspective within.