atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#7377: I get it, but I don't get it.

It's supposed to be 100% not politically correct. Here's the 8-second summary of one story: "The Martian colony Bradbury sends an investigator to pursue a gay Uyghur murderer in a future Australian city where members of each ethnic and grievance group are invisible to all those who don't belong to their tribe."

Science fiction used to be a place you could explore concepts which run counter to the norms of society. Back before the left seized control of "the establishment" the SF community liked it when society's sacred cows were gored by the cutting edge writers, who wrote about things like free love and sex changes and created societies where everyone was gay, or put any of half a million other thumbs in "the man's" eye.

But once the establishment became what it is now? No deviation from its orthodoxy is allowed. Remember the foo-raw over how a machine intelligence that evolved from the Internet deciding humans couldn't be trusted because they kill their own children? There are no depictions of the future which are allowed to deviate from current leftist thought on ecology, or homosexuality, or abortion, or--well, anything, really. For example, you're not allowed to ask, "What if the Earth is not warming?" If you do, you're denying science.

If you want to write about a future society that is not a dystopia, then it must be exactly like every other present-day science fiction utopia where gay marriage is normal, where global warming is man-made and has melted the ice caps, where transsexuality is normal, and so forth. Okay, your future society where homosexuality is vanishingly rare? If it's not presented as a dystopia, but a high-functioning world which is pretty well focused on things other than what people do with their genitals, then you're a bad person and must be destroyed. Especially if the reason there's almost no homosexuality is in conflict with whatever the current homo-orthodoxy is.

So I understand the frustration with the way that the establishment has declared certain ideas to be completely off-limits.

But--and bear in mind I haven't read any of this person's work--from what I've read at the link and at the article it links to, I don't get the point of the book. Is it just to put any of half a million thumbs in the establishment's eye? The guy behind the book says the idea started as a riff on Ellison's Dangerous Visions (another book I never read).

I guess I don't know enough to make any real commentary here, so I'll just say this. I like science fiction because there are no limits to it; you're not fettered by what is possible right now, by what is understood at this moment. I like science fiction because you can posit a set of circumstances and see where they take you. I don't like the political correctness which has suffused it because it automatically declares certain circumstances to be entirely off limits, even if there are historical (or even present day) situations like them.

Circle around to the machine intelligence thing: the book did not offer an opinion on abortion. It wasn't about abortion. It was about how and why a machine intelligence declared war on humans. One of the reasons was because human beings kill their own children. That was why the book and its author had to be canceled: because a fictional machine intelligence considered abortion to be bad.

Even though the machine intelligence was the story's BAD GUY, to boot!

* * *

I don't know what was so exhausting about today, but I came home from work and slept for three hours.

At least it's Friday.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments