Why is there no pure Sci-Fi on TV today?

[Mistral]

Funny, Christopher, I just finished a book like you describe. Turtledove's Valley-Westside War. Talk about the concept holding the tale together. H.T. was never great at characters but he was really feeble in this one-which isn't to say I didn't read it in one sitting-I did. I liked the premise, the concept (in this case, the world) being explored.

 

[RyanKCR]

And when the SF becomes more important than the characters, the story has failed as a story.

Historically, a lot of SF has been more about the ideas than the characters. Just look at anything Hal Clement or Robert L. Forward ever wrote. SF is somewhat unique in its tolerance for that, the elevation of setting above character, because the ideas it explores can just be so rich and interesting in their own right (at least in the hands of a writer who's good at exploring and developing such ideas, and in the eyes of readers who have a taste for such things). Essentially, the "main character" in such a story becomes the universe itself, or the specific world or phenomenon that the writer is focusing on, and that "character" can be developed very richly in a way that an ordinary, everyday setting cannot. Although that tendency to sacrifice characterization did make it hard for SF to be seen as respectable literature for decades. Since the '60s and '70s, it's increasingly become a more "literary" genre with more of a balance between concept and characterization, but there are still subgenres that tend more toward one or the other.

My favored approach as a writer is to emphasize both equally, but as a reader I can get into a novel that's just an exploration of a fascinating world or concept even if the characterization or writing is weak, because I enjoy learning about the science that drives the story. It's the kind of entertainment that appeals to the intellect, like reading Scientific American or doing the New York Times Sunday crossword, rather than the kind that appeals to the emotion.

So I wouldn't call it failing as a story; it's just telling a different kind of story. I mean, there's no substantial characterization in "Little Red Riding Hood;" it's just a series of events. But no one would deny that it's a story, and one strong enough to endure through generations.

See that is probably why I like Star Trek The Motion Picture more than most Star Trek Fans. I didn't know of our about Star Trek when I saw the movie. I did not have the character baggage seeing it. It, to me, was about humanity exploring something unknown and descovering something fascinating about what's out there and about us.

Now the characters have to be real but I don't want to know who the captain is secretly in love with or about the argument he just had back on earth when the story is about encountering something new and unexplored.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Historically, a lot of SF has been more about the ideas than the characters.

Those are the books I avoid reading, and/or drop when I realize the characters are cardboard and uninteresting. But I can see how you can get away with characters that people don't really care about in novels.

Doesn't work that way on TV or movies, where the opposite is true: the sci fi ideas can be junk, or just maguffins that exist to drive the plot, but if the audience doesn't get into the characters, they leave and you're sunk.

 

[Christopher]

^True, TV and film are aimed more at mass audiences, while concept-driven hard SF is more of a niche thing. But just because something is a niche market doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate creative style.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'd agree that TV viewers absolutely need characterization; or if they do now, it hasn't always been thus. I've lately been catching reruns of Mission: Impossible on the American Life cable network, and it's surprising how totally devoid of characterization the regulars are. Except for the opening exposition scenes, they usually spend the entire story undercover in assumed roles, never have any personal conversations that aren't part of a scam for the benefit of others, etc. Only rarely did we find out anything about the characters' pasts or their true personalities and feelings, in "Very Special Episode" contexts, and even then, what we learned was never referred to again thereafter. And this was a show that ran for seven years.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Could Fox's 'Past Life' 2010 Detective Show Signal The Death Of Scifi?

There are sub-genres .
Witch Science Fiction you have:
action-sci-fi (Jumper)
police procedureal-sci fi (Unfinished Business new WIll Smith Show)
horror-sci fi (Event Horizon)
Space Opera (Star Trek TNG, Voyager, Star Wars)

-
Past Life, airing spring 2010 on Fox,
Fox kindly sent us a DVD of this pilot,...

it feels like an uneasy fusion of a few different genres, into something that I'm not sure is ever going to be as thought-provoking as other Fox shows like Fringe or Dollhouse (or the late lamented Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.) Rather than boldly venturing into speculative territory, this show reflects the gathering consensus that any speculative themes must be subtle, vague, and swaddled in formula.

http://io9.com/5304717/could-foxs-reincarnation-detective-show-signal-the-death-of-scifi

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Anyway, I'm not sure I'd agree that TV viewers absolutely need characterization; or if they do now, it hasn't always been thus.

I don't watch police procedurals, but isn't the appeal of CSI et al in all the mucky details and the characters are just there to do the forensics?

Except for the opening exposition scenes, they usually spend the entire story undercover in assumed roles, never have any personal conversations that aren't part of a scam for the benefit of others, etc

Yeah that sounds like cops shows which are on TV now - it's just a show about people doing their jobs, and they could be anyone. So there's plenty of that still around, it just doesn't interest me.

I think the shallow-characterization segment of TV has also been taken up by reality TV. Whatever characterization exists is gratingly phony and exists simply for the sake of pumping up the drama and competition.

I just don't see sci fi in the same category. You have to have a situation grounded in reality (police work, dance competition) so people can relate to that. If the situation is fantastical and unrelatable, the characters need to be, or the audience has nothing to hang onto.

 

[Christopher]

^As before, I agree that's true where mass-media SF is concerned, but not necessarily where prose SF is concerned. A lot of the audience for hard SF consists of people who are interested in the scientific speculation itself, so that can be the hook even if the characters are lacking and the situation is wildly unfamiliar. To those readers -- myself included -- an extraordinary situation isn't unrelatable because they can relate to the science and discovery. And sometimes it's not necessarily the hard science, but more generally the sense of wonder, the excitement at discovering the exotic and unusual. You're saying that a situation far removed from reality is a turnoff for audiences, but to the fan who reads science fiction for sheer sensawunda, the opposite is the case.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

science fiction

You're saying that a situation far removed from reality is a turnoff for audiences, but to the fan who reads science fiction for sheer sensawunda, the opposite is the case.

While not a TV episodic series a feature film like The Thirteenth Floor (1999) was a science fiction-thriller genre film.
It was a virtual world but also had a real-world. The parallel worlds idea are science-fiction.
This type of thing could have worked for television as "Life on Mars" (2008) series did with the 1970s.
The costs to do a 1937 period TV show would have been astronomical.

 

[roguephoenix]

depends on one's definition of "pure" scifi. technically "pure" scifi would be a show very much like a lecture about scientific principles except that the science would be theoretical or fictional. even i would not be able to watch that too many times. so there is no such thing as "pure" scifi. it evolves. it includes various aspects that would make it "impure" by definition. i don't think there's ever been any "pure" scifi. just shows that have used the science fiction vehicle to deliver drama, suspense, comedy, etc.

 

[Christopher]

depends on one's definition of "pure" scifi. technically "pure" scifi would be a show very much like a lecture about scientific principles except that the science would be theoretical or fictional.

That's not even remotely true. Science fiction is fiction that posits a hypothetical scientific discovery or technological or social advance and explores its consequences. The story is not just about discussing the advance. It's about showing what its effects are on human nature and society.

That's what defines "pure" science fiction, insofar as that label can be presumed to have a meaning. It's not about how much scientific lecturing there is in it. SF is fiction predicated in a "What if?" question and offering a possible answer. It's a literary thought experiment, testing out a hypothetical scenario and seeing what happens. The reason most mass-media sci-fi is less "pure" than true science fiction isn't because there's less science, but because the science and technology are often just surface trappings on a more conventional kind of story. If you can take away the hypothetical science and tech and still tell the story, then it's not pure SF.

For instance, Star Wars is basically a sword-and-sorcery epic with space-opera trappings superimposed on it. Outland is basically "High Noon in space." They aren't driven by speculative concepts, they just have speculative concepts superimposed on more conventional storytelling. Conversely, one of my favorite examples for a movie that really is science fiction in the purest sense is The Truman Show. It may not seem like it superficially, but at its core, it's a story that wouldn't exist without its speculative concept: the sociological premise of reality television being taken to such an extreme that a man's whole life could be broadcast without his knowledge, and to a lesser extent the existence of the microcamera and other technology that made that possible. It was a classic SF premise, taking a real cultural and technological trend (reality TV) and extrapolating it to its logical extreme. Most SF concepts can be boiled down to one of three questions or statements: "What if...?", "Why not...?", and "If this goes on...." The Truman Show is a classic example of the third category. Yes, it's mostly a character-driven story, but it explores how characters behave in a situation that couldn't exist without the speculative element of the story. A story doesn't have to be buried in heavy science to be pure SF. It simply has to be a story where speculative progress is the very thing that makes the story happen -- even if the answers to the "What if?" question are more sociological and personal.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

"pure" scifi would be a show very much like a lecture about scientific principles except that the science would be theoretical or fictional.

I think of "pure" sci fi as being the same as "hard" sci fi - that just means the writer accepts the limitation of adhering to plausible science rather than bringing in the more fanciful notions that are a shortcut to writing compelling drama that people can relate to - Earthlike planets around every corner, alien species mainly being humanoids, everyone conveniently speaks English or uses a flawless universal translator that never gets cultural nuances wrong, even in the case of completely unfamilar cultures and that sort of thing. Even FTL travel might not be "hard" sci fi to some folks, since there's no proof it's ever going to be possible.

The demands of fiction writing will be the same regardless of whether the sci fi is hard or not. You'll still need relatable characters and a premise that the audience cares about seeing a resolution to. Hard sci fi just removes a lot of the tricks from the writers' bag, and because there's a limited audience that will appreciate the restraint, why should writers do things the hard way? If you're writing for the hard sci fi market (and that would be prose only), then fine, but otherwise it's just not worth the added burden.

The what-if aspect of sci fi is the other "burden" that is hard to reconcile with the mass market. There are some attempts at what-if sci fi on TV now, struggling to survive or not surviving - Journeyman, Dollhouse, Virtuality and Caprica are all in the what-if category, but to audiences who want some basic premise they are familiar with, like the war story or the cop show, it can be the so-what category. The upcoming Flash Forward is going to be another entry in this category, which is why I'm not sanguine about its chances for survival, vs something like Fringe, which is the familiar cop show type with sci fi trappings.

Then there are the shows that combine a familiar, relatable premise with a what-if format - Lost fits that pattern. We can relate to the survival story, but as the story has developed, it's become apparent that without the what-if element, the story could never have happened. I'm hoping that V might also fit the category - basically a war story (underground resistance style) about humans meeting a truly alien species that makes the story distinct from a normal tale of two human societies in conflict. It all depends on just how alien they're willing to write the Visitors as - if they're more than just metaphorical humans, then it could be a true what-if story.

 

[Christopher]

I think of "pure" sci fi as being the same as "hard" sci fi - that just means the writer accepts the limitation of adhering to plausible science rather than bringing in the more fanciful notions that are a shortcut to writing compelling drama that people can relate to - Earthlike planets around every corner, alien species mainly being humanoids, everyone conveniently speaks English or uses a flawless universal translator that never gets cultural nuances wrong, even in the case of completely unfamilar cultures and that sort of thing.

No, that's not a fair definition, because it excludes a vast cross-section of science fiction. Hard SF is merely a subgenre, and speaking as a hard SF writer myself, I would never be so arrogant as to claim that my subgenre is the only one that qualifies as "pure." That would be an insult to the likes of Bradbury, Sturgeon, Ellison, LeGuin, and countless other greats. Heck, it would exclude Shelley's Frankenstein, which is generally considered the first work of science fiction. It would exclude the entire canon of H.G. Wells, and it would be outrageous to claim that H.G. Wells didn't write science fiction. So no. "Hard" SF is not "purer" than other branches of SF.

Science fiction, as I said, is fiction that is grounded in a "What if?" question, a speculative premise based on scientific or technological progress. It doesn't have to be strictly rigorous science; that's just one approach, one style. It just has to be a story that couldn't be told without the speculative element at its core.

The demands of fiction writing will be the same regardless of whether the sci fi is hard or not. You'll still need relatable characters and a premise that the audience cares about seeing a resolution to.

As I've said before, that's less true in hard SF than it is in other genres, because a lot of the audience base for hard SF can be satisfied just by the science and worldbuilding and forgive weak characterization. Of course, these days, that doesn't go over as well as it did in the past, and most modern hard SF writers try to balance the "literary" stuff like characterization and writing style with the more technical stuff.

Hard sci fi just removes a lot of the tricks from the writers' bag, and because there's a limited audience that will appreciate the restraint, why should writers do things the hard way?

I think that hard SF adds more than it removes. There are so many wondrous possibilities that the real universe offers, possibilities that are ignored by film and TV writers who don't know about them. Just to cite one example, "soft SF" tends to give us aliens that are just humanoids or energy beings or familiar tropes like that, whereas a grounding in biology, physics, and other sciences can allow you to design far more imaginative and extraordinary aliens, like Niven's puppeteers or Egan's Wang carpets. And studying real planetary science can produce ideas for all sorts of extraordinary environments that nobody would've ever thought of without science to point the way. Nobody ever imagined that Europa or Enceladus could have an ocean beneath an icy crust until real science showed us it was possible. Science doesn't limit the imagination, it guides it to new places.

And "why should writers do things the hard way?" Because that's what good writers do. They don't look for shortcuts and settle for routine approaches. Good writers aren't afraid to challenge themselves. Working within limits is a good way to do that. When Robert Hewitt Wolfe developed Andromeda, he made a point of refusing to use FTL communication, teleportation, forcefields, tractor beams, and other hoary old tropes, precisely because those were easy outs, convenient and familiar fixes to story problems. By embracing more of a hard-SF approach, he challenged his writing staff to come up with fresh solutions and rise above convention and cliche. And it worked, making the show fresh and interesting, until Robert got fired and replaced with a hack who just regurgitated all the familiar cliches of sci-fi TV and robbed the show of any intelligence or originality.

The what-if aspect of sci fi is the other "burden" that is hard to reconcile with the mass market. There are some attempts at what-if sci fi on TV now, struggling to survive or not surviving - Journeyman, Dollhouse, Virtuality and Caprica are all in the what-if category, but to audiences who want some basic premise they are familiar with, like the war story or the cop show, it can be the so-what category.

On the other hand, Galactica was a "What if?" premise: "What if human civilization were destroyed and the last survivors fled as refugees?" "What if we created an artificial race that was just as human as we were?" Heroes is a take on "What if humans had super powers?" and it was quite successful initially; its decline is not because of its premise, but because of a deterioration in the quality of the exploration of that premise.

 

[RyanKCR]

Christopher I agree with the way you look at Sci-Fi. It is the way I perceive it too. It is always about "what if."

Today the biggest problem with many genre shows is that the focus is not on the genre itself but only on characters that just happen to be in that environment. Those can make some good stories but I believe it defeats the purpose of using a specific genre background and calling it that genre type of story.

PS. I have now read at least two of your Trek books and loved both.