Do you wish there was a bit more science fiction in Star Trek?

[ProtoAvatar]

Deranged Nasat:
Actually, Thrawn said that "social issues made it sci-fi", and not extrapolating how ideeas will affect society:

[...]Trek is pretty sharply tackling some very valid modern societal difficulties or human feelings.[...]

Analysing 'modern' societal difficulties or social feelings is not sci-fi, Thrawn.

Extrapolating how society will develop when exposed to new influences and technologies is sci-fi.

I disagree completely. As one of a billion examples, TOS itself had several episodes explicitly designed to confront things like racism and the vietnam war.

Now - can we move to something more constructive?
It seems we agree on the issue of what constitutes sci-fi.

 

[Thrawn]

Those scenarios and possible worlds with their speculative tech, etc, are often being created for the express purpose of exploring issues past and present as well as future. Not for the, I don't know, "pure" sci-fi of just speculating for its own end. That's what Thrawn meant, I assume- that this type of sci-fi is Trek's strength.

Yes. Very will put.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Thrawn:

Once more - analysing the morals of CURRENT societal problems is NOT what makes star trek - or any other work - sci-fi - as you mistakenly affirmed.

 

[Thrawn]

I never said it was. The CONTEXT is what makes it sci-fi. I've said so three times now.

The MORAL is what makes it a story worth telling, though. And my point is that I don't care that the context isn't changing much; they're still making stories worth telling. Why is that hard to understand?

 

[Christopher]

Analysing 'modern' societal difficulties or social feelings is not sci-fi, Thrawn.

Extrapolating how society will develop when exposed to new influences and technologies is sci-fi.

That's a false dichotomy. A lot of science fiction is allegory, using exotic situations to comment on the issues of the present. Yes, it shows alternative societies, whether ones changed by new influences or technologies or ones from alien or alternative worlds, but the meaning of doing so is "to hold, as 'twere, a mirror up to nature," to address things that are relevant to the audience in the here and now. For instance, H. G. Wells' The Time Machine wasn't just a story about a guy travelling to the future; it was a satirical commentary on class warfare in 19th-century England, with the extreme divide between Eloi and Morlocks being an extrapolation of the social divide of his own time. And Joe Haldeman's The Forever War was nominally about a soldier fighting an interstellar war in the future, but it was more fundamentally about Haldeman's own experiences as a Vietnam vet.

To put it another way, while the text of science fiction is about societies different and changed from our own, its subtext is about the society inhabited by its authors and readers. Otherwise it wouldn't have relevance to its audience.

 

[Thrawn]

^ Yes, exactly.

And what I was trying to say was, in answer to the thread title's question: no I don't. The text may, debateably, be a little out of date, but the subtext is just as relevant. For my money, better than ever.

 

[JarodRussell]

I've read many discussions about Star Trek portrayal of the future now, and almost every time it comes down to this "this looks ridiculous, so we don't include it". One example is the male crewmember wearing a skirt. I also think it's ridiculous to look at, but I also I think the same thing about fashion of the 18th century. Why should the future NOT be like that? Just because the audience is uneasy with it?

Which is why I think Trek's vision of the future looks more and more pale and unvisionary. Things could be shaken up quite a bit, but because market research seems to dictate everything, we only get the usual, easy-to-swallow stuff.

Roddenberry had some pretty nifty ideas. Love instructors, brain implants, men wearing skirts, people living under ground, etc... the fact that I don't agree with these ideas should not be a reason to exclude them from the fiction. It's provocative, hence interesting.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Analysing 'modern' societal difficulties or social feelings is not sci-fi, Thrawn.

Extrapolating how society will develop when exposed to new influences and technologies is sci-fi.

That's a false dichotomy.

Did I ever said it was a dichotomy, Christopher?
I merely said that, without the extrapolation part, the story is NOT sci-fi.

Thrawn disagreed - as his previous posts testify.

 

[Thrawn]

No, actually, for the fourth time, I didn't. Please read my posts.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

No, actually, for the fourth time, I didn't. Please read my posts.

I did read them. Let's quote one:

Analysing 'modern' societal difficulties or social feelings is not sci-fi, Thrawn.

Extrapolating how society will develop when exposed to new influences and technologies is sci-fi.

I disagree completely.

 

[JoeZhang]

I don't think any science fiction concepts of the last 30 years have made any advance into the Star Trek universe - AI ships are a rarity, Human have no enhancements (genetic, cybernetic or otherwise) and have not changed in any significant way, social structures are the same, even the advent of things like social networking seems to missing in this future.

I think a number of more modern SF concepts have worked their way into the novels. Titan: Synthesis deals with AI, as does the character of Torvig and the increasing emergence of sentient holograms. I've tried to introduce hard-SF ideas into my novels, like transhumanism in The Buried Age and ocean planets in Over a Torrent Sea, and Dave Mack did a great job portraying a posthuman(oid) nanotech-based civilization in Destiny. The Federation hasn't changed much from its pulp-SF roots, but we're managing to work some new ideas in there.

Thing is - they are always other, for me it would be more interesting to have a human crew-member who has enhanced himself. What I found very disappointing about Synthesis is at the end, the AI dies and we go back to a dumb ship.

 

[Thrawn]

No, actually, for the fourth time, I didn't. Please read my posts.

I did read them. Let's quote one:

Analysing 'modern' societal difficulties or social feelings is not sci-fi, Thrawn.

Extrapolating how society will develop when exposed to new influences and technologies is sci-fi.

I disagree completely.

Ok, I give up. The point I was trying to make is flying so far above your head it may as well be the International Space Station.

 

[Thrawn]

Thing is - they are always other, for me it would be more interesting to have a human crew-member who has enhanced himself. What I found very disappointing about Synthesis is at the end, the AI dies and we go back to a dumb ship.

Well, except for Torvig...he isn't human, but he is mechanically enhanced in order to achieve sentience.

That said, I too was disappointed when the AI died at the end of Synthesis. I would've liked that book a lot more if it'd established an ongoing ship-AI character for everyone to deal with.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

No, actually, for the fourth time, I didn't. Please read my posts.

I did read them. Let's quote one:

Analysing 'modern' societal difficulties or social feelings is not sci-fi, Thrawn.

Extrapolating how society will develop when exposed to new influences and technologies is sci-fi.

I disagree completely.

Ok, I give up. The point I was trying to make is flying so far above your head it may as well be the International Space Station.

Thinly weiled insults when you run out of arguments, Thrawn? Rather disappointing.

I'm done with you.

 

[JoeZhang]

Thing is - they are always other, for me it would be more interesting to have a human crew-member who has enhanced himself. What I found very disappointing about Synthesis is at the end, the AI dies and we go back to a dumb ship.

Well, except for Torvig...he isn't human, but he is mechanically enhanced in order to achieve sentience.

That said, I too was disappointed when the AI died at the end of Synthesis. I would've liked that book a lot more if it'd established an ongoing ship-AI character for everyone to deal with.

I remember at the time thinking - "wow it looks like they aren't to have the AI die at the end and hit the reset button"... and then they did.

 

[Greg Cox]

They're both sci-fi. Placing social and cultural issues in fresh perspectives or through allegories involving fictional societies (or hopefully something more complex than direct allegory) is part of science fiction. Extraterrestrial societies, future societies, alternate universe societies- that's all sci-fi speculation. And so is the speculation on real society's possible adaptations to new and developing concepts or technologies.

And in ALL your examples, the sci-fi stample is given not by the 'contemporary societal issues', but by 'future', 'alternate universe', etc - extrapolations on how societies would have developed/will develop given certain influences.

Sure, I see what you're saying. But I don't think anyone said the social issues made it sci-fi, or that alone = sci-fi, we're saying that's one form of sci-fi; that type of sci-fi concerned not with technologies and physics and future developments primarily but in using newly created worlds to explore social and cultural issues, with those worlds generated through scientific speculation. Those scenarios and possible worlds with their speculative tech, etc, are often being created for the express purpose of exploring issues past and present as well as future. Not for the, I don't know, "pure" sci-fi of just speculating for its own end. That's what Thrawn meant, I assume- that this type of sci-fi is Trek's strength.

Exactly. The problem with defining sf too narrowly, as in saying that it needs to be about technological extrapolation, is that you end up excluding much of the field and its history. To my mind, any definition of sf that excludes, say, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Ray Bradbury, Theodore Sturgeon, Richard Matheson, Fritz Leiber, or Philip K. Dick is essentially meaningless.

Hard sf is just a subcategory of science fiction. And sf itself is just a subcategory of a larger genre that also embraces fantasy and horror . . . .

 

[Christopher]

The basic definition of speculative fiction is fiction that postulates a conjectural, unreal scenario and explores its consequences to individuals and society. A science fiction story is one where the conjectural scenario arises from scientific or technological progress, new discoveries, and the like. Fantasy is where the conjectural scenario is based on magic or derived from myth and folklore. Alternate history is, well, self-explanatory.

Put another way, it's fiction that arises from posing a "What if?" question and proposing a possible answer. I like to think of it as literary thought experiments.

 

[Ferd Burfel]

I did read them. Let's quote one:

Ok, I give up. The point I was trying to make is flying so far above your head it may as well be the International Space Station.

Thinly weiled insults when you run out of arguments, Thrawn? Rather disappointing.

I'm done with you.

You kept quoting him out of context and ignored him everytime he tried to clarify. Just reading it made me as frustrated as he is.

 

[Ferd Burfel]

I think the original poster was displaying a certain point about how since TOS and TNG debuted not much has come along to advance it. We still fly around in the same ships doing the same things with our same technology.

I'm actually ok with that though. Star Trek has become its own genre, one which I am familiar with and know what to expect from. So I don't expect authors to throw curveballs and create way new and different things, but they do a great job of staying within the Star Trek walls and creating new things.

 

[Thrawn]

^ I sort of feel that way too, that Star Trek has become its own genre. I haven't seen much sci-fi these days that's anything like Star Trek, even though as recently as 15 or 20 years ago I think there was quite a bit of it (Brin's Uplift series comes to mind). But Trek has this paradigm that seems to really work for it, and the stories that keep coming are incredible, so I don't mind at all.

I had a recent exchange with a friend; I gave him Vanguard and he gave me the Mistborn fantasy series. We both had the same reaction - "this is really well-written, has great characters, and would be a great story if the author quit using all these genre tropes that piss me off". I never read fantasy; he never reads Trek. We talked about that some, and realized that the particular tropes we enjoy align towards our own worldviews; he's interested in the examination of power and how people use it and/or are corrupted by it, and I approach the world as a series of problems to solve. I think fantasy does a good job at framing fictional worlds in such a way as to explore his interest, and I think Trek as its own genre has done an amazing job lately at framing its fictional worlds in such a way as to explore mine.