Is today's SF too pessimistic?

[RDaneel54]

If you'd like to see crime statistics for your state for the years 1965 - 2010 you can go to disastercenter.com/crime.

It breaks out by the gross numbers across a wide range of crimes and also shows the per capita. One example: New York's per capita murder rate has been substantially lower the last 10+ years than the preceding 30. The high being from 1971-1994 with an annual murder rate twice that of the last 10 years.

Oddly, I thought about these numbers from reading crime fiction of the 70s and noticing the murder rate seemed higher than today. At least in New York that's true.

I'm not discounting other facts or anecdotal data, just saying that our impression of violence depends on our experience, real and perceived.

I was an Emergency Medical Technician for 5 years. The results of violence I saw was totally outside my experience previously and warped my thinking for awhile. All I saw was violence so it seemed that's all there was. But for most of the people in our area here it is only news on TV.

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

That measurement is only an indication that the U.S. is top of that list. But how many people in the U.S. experience crime or violent crime, against how many people do not? That proportion is smaller than you think, and only seems big thanks to media coverage of the bad things, not the good. The crime per capita measurement is a perfect example of using statistics to say what you want to say (the U.S. is bad), or... being pessimistic.

(So, it's not really off-topic at all.)

Um, I'm an American living in Belgium.

I never said the US was bad, just that the crime rate is statistically high in the United States when compared to most other nations. Especially other Western democracies. I didn't make any other judgements besides stating that fact. If anyone's interested, just google the info yourself.

Also, the only way to have a rational discussion about crime (or anything else, for that matter) is to use statistics. Saying violent crime isn't that bad in the US because I've never experienced it...isn't that kind of like saying...
"I just looked out the window and it's raining, ergo it must be raining everywhere."

This is (or was , apologies for going ) a discussion about Science Fiction.

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

i stand corrected.
i'd argue that it's because much of the world has somewhat more homogenized societies, which we lack. no common language, no common culture, no common beliefs which lead to a large amount of strife when you have absolutely nothing in common with large swaths of your own country.

Belgium is not a great example of a homogenized society. The Flanders vs Wallonia conflict has been going on for centuries. (not to mention the German speaking Belgians) Still crime rate here is incredibly low, though rising. That has more to do with economic difficulties than anything else, I suspect.

Originally Posted by xg4bx

america isn't a melting pot, it's a tossed salad with every group of croutons trying to soak up the most dressing for themselves homogenized cultures usually run more smoothly.

Putting aside whether I agree or not with the sentiment, I like the image.

Originally Posted by xg4bx

but that's neither here nor there, i don't want to completely send the thread off the rails.

Too late! Utterly my fault though.

[DiapDealer]

Saying violent crime isn't that bad in the US because I've never experienced it...isn't that kind of like saying...
"I just looked out the window and it's raining, ergo it must be raining everywhere."

I certainly wasn't trying to imply anything like that when I mentioned I was personally unaffected by crime... I was simply responding to a previous question that asked: "who are...?" -- "well, I guess I are."

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

Um, I'm an American living in Belgium.

I wasn't implying that non-Americans see the U.S. differently thanks to the media; the same thing is at work in the U.S. and everywhere else. The U.S. sees itself as the media presents our country to us.

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

Saying violent crime isn't that bad in the US because I've never experienced it...isn't that kind of like saying...
"I just looked out the window and it's raining, ergo it must be raining everywhere."

This is (or was , apologies for going ) a discussion about Science Fiction.

Well, it's the same effect at work: "I go to the theatre and look at the Amazon storefront, and all I see is pessimistic SF. Therefore it must all be pessimistic." When in fact the predominantly visible SF is chosen by marketers for its money-making capability, not its prevalence or dominance; which in turn is supported by those who want to cash in on the money-making ability and popularity of pessimistic SF by creating more. But it's not representative of everything out there.

And again, "pessimistic" is relative. Brave New World described a society that was very clean and efficient, in which (almost) everyone was happy with their lives and lot. Was it pessimistic because it reached this level by taking steps that we, today, don't approve of... or was it optimistic, because those methods worked for everyone except outsiders and the rare "eccentric cog" in the machine?

[fjtorres]

Yes, visibility matters.
Marketting and promotion is a feedback loop after all. Heavily-promoted stuff sells.
Likewise, people's judgments are molded by the information they can get their hands on even if the information itself is flawed/skewed/misinterpretted. "Truth" is what you are told is true. (Big lie theory and all that.)

Examples abound: every week we see media reports of medical studies linking a specific food type/behavior pattern to a specific medical condition, yet rarely do the reports bother to remind people that statistical correlation does not imply, much less prove causation. Instead, we see people running around in a panic to rid their household of the "tainted" items.

Quality of data that gets broadly reported is rarely addressed, especially if doing so gets in the way of a good headline. One example that comes to mind is the "awful" infant mortality numbers in the US, as compared to other UN published numbers. Lost in the fine print is that different countries use different criteria in compiling their data and some define "live births" as any infant still alive after 48 hours while the US tallies premies and other infants that elsewhere are classed as stillbirths. (And never mind factoring in context that might explain what the numbers really mean.) Mark Twain's "Lies, Damed Lies, and Statistics" comes to mind.

The movie industry is getting itself in trouble that way. In their haste to hype intended blockbusters to maximize up-front revenue they are creating an environment where any movie that fails to rack up enormous numbers (for whatever reason) is instantly branded a failure and all marketting ceases, thereby ensuring that the masses bypass it and that it does in fact fail. Unlike previous decades where movies were allowed to find their audiences with sneak previews or just waiting for word of mouth to let attendance grow over time, the studio beancounters essentially give up after one week. It's as if they are putting out movies that they themselves don't understand or believe in.

So, I guess the question about pessimistic SF really comes down to why is the pessimisstic stuff more visible?

I already presented my thesis: times suck so the negative stuff resonates better with those readers not actively looking for escapist entertainment. It's cyclical.
Wait a year or ten (or until the Hunger Games Frenzy dies out) and we'll be up to our gills in bright sunny narratives.

[DiapDealer]

It's cyclical.

This I makes the most sense to me.

I already presented my thesis: times suck so the negative stuff resonates better with those readers not actively looking for escapist entertainment.

Not to mention, that some SFF authors may not be attempting to write escapist entertainment. Good, bad or indifferent... the genre simply doesn't consist entirely of fiction about science and/or escapist entertainment anymore (though I believe there's more than enough of that still being written to satisfy those to whom that sort of thing does appeal).

Sure the market helps dictate... but they'd change their tack in a heartbeat if what they were pushing wasn't being gobbled up.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not to mention, that some SFF authors may not be attempting to write escapist entertainment. Good, bad or indifferent... the genre simply doesn't consist entirely of fiction about science and/or escapist entertainment anymore (though I believe there's more than enough of that still being written to satisfy those to whom that sort of thing does appeal).

Nope.
Not even close.
Sure, there is lots of room for adventure SF and even (usually neglected) Space Opera, the core of the genre is supposed to be the exploration of ideas.
I love Space Opera, myself, but Science Fiction to me is serious business about the world we live in, where it is going, what we can or may make of it. The exploration can be light-hearted or serious but the best SF needs some meat underneath the trappings.

If the exploration leads to tragedy instead of triumph, then so be it.
Negative answers are valid answers too.

[astrangerhere]

As an interesting side note, conversations very similar to this are happening right now in the video game world regarding the conclusion of the Mass Effect video game trilogy. I just found it interesting to see the thread here as well.

[Penforhire]

astranger, those Mass Effect discussions are not primarily about whether or not the ending is pessimistic. They are about how nonsensical and poorly presented that ending is. I agree the ending choices are artistic failures, having played the entire trilogy myself. We expect death and destruction. We resent 'deus ex machina' endings and a negation of every role-playing choice made during the entire series.

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I certainly wasn't trying to imply anything like that when I mentioned I was personally unaffected by crime... I was simply responding to a previous question that asked: "who are...?" -- "well, I guess I are."

No worries. I was picking on SLJ, not you.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

As an interesting side note, conversations very similar to this are happening right now in the video game world regarding the conclusion of the Mass Effect video game trilogy. I just found it interesting to see the thread here as well.

Uh-huh.
The problem with the ME3 debate is that everybody is annoyed in a *different* way. Very appropos for a game built on the premise that everybody got to play a different character a different way. Some are upset over the lack of difference between the endings, others by the disconnect between their game choices and the limited endings offered up, and some are just upset that none of the endings led to a "happily ever after--'til the next game" ending.

I'm in the "procedural" camp, myself; I don't care if my heroine survived or not, or that the only endings are "The villains are right", "The traitor is right", and "everybody loses", but rather that I think the ending is heavy-handed, sloppy, and disconnected from the rest of the series. It was just poorly executed. (Plus they lied--you can't get the "best" ending without playing the online component.)

To put it another way; Mass Effect is both a Story and a Game and the ending fits neither. The debate, however, has floated a dozen or more alternative endings, both positive and negative, that would have better suited the gameplay and/or story. And it is interesting to see the significant divide between those comfortable with a range of outcomes and those that insist on the happy ending. Something like 80/20 from what I've seen.

The fight has cost them enough sales that they are now promising some sort of relief but I'm not holding my breath for a more cohesive ending.

In truth, the pessimist/optimist debate is ongoing all over.
But the root of the (non-literary) debate, at this point, is simply too compicated and too political for these forums.
I'll just quote Geoff John's Green Lantern: "Hope is sitting around doing nothing and waiting for somebody else to solve your problems."

Whether you think that is a viable strategy for these times is a sign of how optimistic you may be.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Nope.
Not even close.
Sure, there is lots of room for adventure SF and even (usually neglected) Space Opera, the core of the genre is supposed to be the exploration of ideas.
I love Space Opera, myself, but Science Fiction to me is serious business about the world we live in, where it is going, what we can or may make of it. The exploration can be light-hearted or serious but the best SF needs some meat underneath the trappings.

If the exploration leads to tragedy instead of triumph, then so be it.
Negative answers are valid answers too.

I'm frankly not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with;
"Nope. Not even close."
But just to clarify my position... I was agreeing with everything you said earlier—and just now.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm frankly not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with;
"Nope. Not even close."
But just to clarify my position... I was agreeing with everything you said earlier—and just now.

Sorry.
We're agreeing.
I just meant that SF is not even close to being limited to escapism.

[DiapDealer]

Gotcha!