05-11-2010, 12:05 PM
To me the faults of Sci-Fi lies in the faults of its writers, the most glaring of their shortcomings being lack of boldness. Star Trek had the first interracial kiss on TV, but they can't ride that one forever.
To motivate a reader one must give of oneself freely without reservation, not stopping when someone somewhere could take offence based on their conditioned taboos and social norms. Some willingly seek to offend and some write about their fetishes, but how different this is from Sci-Fi's potential to let us explore what it means to be human.
Many writers settle for imagining themselves as monsters terrorizing the weak, or flying space ships to escape from whatever bothers them. The psychology behind such work is laughable in its inanity and the plot is always so aimless that it is easy to forget what good fiction is.
Time and time again reality proves itself more fantastic and fanciful than fiction, like WWII and quantum mechanics, so whenever a writer settles for the simplistic instead of reaching for the inspired I feel like a part of me dies.
Examples from movies. Independence Day and Avatar. Both are Hollywood blockbusters and both have a weak plot, but Avatar is like 2001ASO because it is visually stunning and it takes the audience on a sensual adventure. ID had explosions and Will Smith's dependable acting.
Star Wars is some of the most prudish footage ever to find itself to the silver screen, while District 9 is downright gritty and provocative. Twelve Monkeys has you frying synapses to get ahead, while Aliens opts to just rot them away.
|