Politics in Media - The Good, the Bad, and the Preachy

I miss the air of optimism that was present in old Science Fiction stories.

Since Jules Verne untill say...the 1970s? There was an air of wonder, a glorification of science, and rationality, in contrast to the superstition and barbarism of the past.

The future is a place where all humans will become unified into a single peaceful nation, explore the stars and terraform planets throught the galaxy. Talking robots will be everywhere, and all diseases will be cured, including death.

This is the world you find in Star Trek for example.

...............

Obviously,  the 21st-century man is not the same as he was in the early 20th century, where it was believed that we got everything figured out, and there was only the issue of death to solve and be over with.

Today, stories are less optimistic about the future, which will either be a Dystopia or will be the same as ours, only darker.

.....................

Humanity has actually done quite well, scientifically speaking, since the dawn of science fiction. While we didn't conquer Jupiter or achieve immortality, we still managed a revolution in communication that was unimaginable 100 years ago.

But with this revolution comes the realization that old and optimistic notions about:

"All humans are brothers; ignorance is the enemy; if education is provided to everyone, and if people are able  to know each other's POV, then war and strife will disappear".

This is clearly was not the case, as even with the ability to communicate voice and image with people on the other side of the world, and with most people being literate and educated, conflict is still present.

.........................

On the other hand, I may be seeing the past with rose-colored glasses, and selecting examples that serve my point.

After all, The Time Machine was published in 1895 and predicted a dark future for humanity. The 1950s are full to the brim with After the End stories where humans nuked themselves into oblivion and returned to live in caves

Jack London Scarlet Plague was written in 1912 before WWI or the Russian Revolution, and yet predicted a future where a plague destroys civilization, and they return to barbarism, and superstition when Might Makes Right is the law, and the protagonist (a very old man who was a professor before the disaster) predicts that this will get worse with future generations.

Of course, those stories were written less as a science fiction story and more of a political/social warning from the folly of capitalism, unlike Jules Verne, who was more interested in science and adventures, but still.

.......................

Just random thoughts caused by a rereading of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (yes I do consider it an SF story)

Edited by jawal on Apr 28th 2024 at 12:20:43 PM

I believe there are still a handful of Sci-Fi stories can lean toward optimsim while acknowledging realism.

Honestly, it doesn't feel right that calling a work where everyone is horrible to each other and that everything is a bleak hellhole to be "accurate realism", it's as if it implies that compassion and empathy are nothing but fantasies.

They aren't?

Even Verne was a bit cynical in his writing. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea takes you on a wondrous journey under the sea…then it reminds you the Nautilus is a weapon.

I feel like I recall a scene where the Nautilus sinks a passenger ship and the crew watches as all the passengers of that ship drown and get eaten by sharks.

Why?

Did all the passengers owe them money or something?

Because they were British. Nemo really, REALLY hates the British.

If you ask me, the single most depressing development in media is - along with the undying prevalence of isekai in Japan - resurgence of cyberpunk Science Fiction stories.

Not bcause I hate the genre, but...you know:

God, the first couple episodes of Cyberpunk: Edgerunners were some of the most painful openings I've ever seen because it just felt so real. XP

Even A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court was cynical. The whole point was that one man and his innovations could not change a society that resists change. The Church successfully suppressed all of the changes he made, and history remained on track.

The story ends on a sad note too, with the dying Yankee hallucinating that he is reuniting with the family he lost.

Edited by M84 on Apr 28th 2024 at 9:34:03 PM

That isekai wouldn't get a successful anime adaptation.

never say never, they could always change the ending. And besides don't the Japanese have a thing fro King Arthur since Fate/SN?

We already have a story where a regular person from modern times successfully rebuilds a kingdom with more modern sensibilities: How a Realist Hero Rebuilt the Kingdom.

It has a similar twist of time travel too. Except instead of going to the distant past, the MC was really transported into the distant future. The "fantasy" world is really one of the worlds terraformed by future humanity.

Edited by M84 on Apr 28th 2024 at 9:45:41 PM

Perhaps that out to settle any debates people may have about if Dr. Stone is an iskeai or not hen :P

Okay I decided to binge Endro~! today, a mix of JRPG parody with CGDCT. The main crux here is that the local demon lord ended up trapped in the past and the role as a teacher of the school where her fated adversary and her party attends. I bring it up becuase the ending had an emphasis on destiny and fate and the defiance of it but more egenrally also becuase I want to ask about what role the demon lord archetype tend to fill in recent media as I think it had became an Undead Horse Trope by now, as often skewered or twisted as it is played straight if not more so.

Realist Hero is still an isekai. It's both set in the distant future and taking place on another world. The setting isn't a future Earth, it's a world humanity was initially preparing for colonization via terraforming.

Edited by M84 on Apr 28th 2024 at 9:56:05 PM

Tensei Slime does that as well. It's how the Eastern Empire has magitek weapons and firearms whilst Rimuru focuses more on cultural creations.

Edited by doomrider7 on Apr 28th 2024 at 10:00:22 AM

@ dRoy

I dare say, if there was any remaining optimism in science fiction at the turn of the millenium, it took a deep dive after we had an entire generation of tech bros who are more than happy to put the proverbial high tech collar on everyone else either to make a dime or to cosplay as John Galt.

Edited by raziel365 on Apr 28th 2024 at 7:09:12 AM

Heck, Star Trek has had a lot of material that shows the Federation is still very much a work in progress. The TNG episode "Drumhead" also shows that it's all too easy for the Federation to fall back into the same kind of paranoia that leads to witch hunts.

There's a reason this series gave us the Insane Admiral trope.

Edited by M84 on Apr 28th 2024 at 10:13:18 PM

Fiction does capture the zeitgeist and the current zeitgeist around technology is roughly:

• escape a dying world to found a new one
• spying
• enshittification of existing services
• spying
• pollution
• geopolitics of oil and gas
• spying
• techbro creates shittier version of existing service by nuking the old
• spying
• did i mention spying?

Edited by devak on Apr 28th 2024 at 8:56:11 PM

TBH, sci fi writers have played up the Science Is Bad or at least dangerous angle long before modern times. HP Lovecraft once made air conditioning something sinister and evil in "Cool Air". And f course there's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Stevenson's The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde.

Don't forget the existence of abstract Alien lifeforms that has morality beyond belief... And may be spying on us too.

Cynical Sci-Fi is older than regular sci-fi, so there's that.

I'd say I'm sick of cynical sci-fi, but I think that's actually an oversimplification.

To use an example, I'd normally say Star Trek is too utopian for my tastes, but that's not quite true, it's more like "I like more raygun battles in my sci-fi". Really, that's it. For example, Mass Effect scratches that basic itch.

With Sci-Fi, I'd say a lot of Sci-Fi fans are interested in imagining a cool society with lots of neat tech. These are people that are excited about the future, so grimdark is probably wearing on them a bit.

But I'd probably put it down as "society as antagonist is something I'm a bit sick of, though it should be done in general.

Of course, it's probably useless to ignore partisan biases here, and how we view society. I have a largely positive view of the society I live in, so dystopia doesn't resonate with me that much.

And even the pulpy ray gun zeerust stuff ala Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon has plots that revolve primarily around conflict. Hence the ray guns.

Dr stone, someone mentioned earlier, is very optimistic. And modern.

I dont mind cynicism or criticism in scifi, but it does get a little irritating when the cynicism shades into outright Science Is Bad territory. Mostly because it doesnt seem to offer any alternative— its not a suggestion of how to handle things better, or a warning about like, capitalism or specific types of technology— a lot of them just seem to suggest that any change is negative and scary. Thats a rather boring approach to such an interesting genre, imo

You shouldn't conflate Science Is Bad with cynical works.

Lord of the Rings isn't really cynical, but it's made clear that industrialization is evil.

If you want works that portray science and innovation as a good thing — though not without complications — read Asimov's work.

Edited by M84 on Apr 29th 2024 at 4:35:59 PM

sure, LOTR is a great story. its not scifi tho— im really only talking about the narrow genre where the entire premise is "see this new/fictional technology? its scary!"

Like some of the less imaginative black mirror episodes

disliking technology, in general or in specific, is not a position i generally agree with in real life, but can absolutely be done well in fiction. It just makes for a rather repetitive type of sci-fi when that's the main premise of the story

Edited by Tremmor19 on Apr 29th 2024 at 4:39:57 AM