Comments on: American vs. British Science Fiction

By: Geoffrey Allan Plauché

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Thu, 20 May 2010 06:16:53 +0000

Well, Roderick, I think as the second quote from Graham Sleight suggests that the two approaches/perspectives aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive — that they make up two poles on a continuum. I think either extreme can be problematic and be executed poorly. And it is possible to combine the two, at least to some degree. MacLeod is someone I need to read more of, admittedly; but it was never my argument that all authors could be neatly pigeonholed into one or the other. I was rather speculating about the general, perceived tendencies of two large geographic groups of writers, then using that as a springboard to make observations about what seem to me to be similar perspectives in ethics and politics. From what I have read, MacLeod’s fiction strikes a more realistic balance. I merely worry about and am generally turned off by an excessive focus on the cosmological perspective, especially when it causes us to lose sight of the individual, personal perspective (intentionally or not) that I think is and should be primary. To switch to a different medium of expression, if “all we are is dust in the wind,” what does any of the good we do, our values, our achievements, being virtuous, avoiding vice – what does it all really matter? What’s the point? Why bother? There’s a danger of going too far down that road and getting lost.

By: berserkrl

berserkrl — Wed, 19 May 2010 21:28:04 +0000

Where would you put Ken MacLeod’s fiction in terms of these categories? The main characters in the Fall Revolution stories do change the world, and do so quite drastically sometimes, but they do it against the background of massive changes going on that are far beyond their control.

By: Geoffrey Allan Plauché

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Sat, 01 May 2010 21:21:12 +0000

Hi Mike,

I think this statement:

The focus on the cosmological perspective in science fiction, with its passivity and tendency to dwarf the stature of man, strikes me as being related to the modern, impersonal approach to ethics.

…needs to be read in context with this one:

And while a cosmological perspective, used in moderation, can offer us a wider perspective on the present and our own individual concerns, it is a mistake to think that this perspective is primary for telling/showing us what is really important and valuable.

…and that may clear up your objection.

By: Mike Gogulski

Mike Gogulski — Sat, 01 May 2010 20:51:20 +0000

The focus on the cosmological perspective in science fiction, with its passivity and tendency to dwarf the stature of man, strikes me as being related to the modern, impersonal approach to ethics.

I’m disappointed by this statement.

The cosmological (or even geological) perspective is one that we ought to treasure. After all, we are the only species we know about which is able to appreciate it.

And we ought to recognize along the way that we are small. And, combined with the fact that we’re the only cosmological-scale-perceiving beings we yet know of, we ought to do everything in our power to make sure that we don’t screw up royally.

None of this is to diminish human nature, or to suggest that humanity is insignificant or that an individualist perspective ought be sacrificed in favor of a galactic or universal one. For me, it suggests that an integration of the personal and the universal is necessary, if we are to understand who we are. And, really, I find that awesome.

By: Geoffrey Plauche

Geoffrey Plauche — Sat, 01 May 2010 05:25:36 +0000

RT @libstandard: New blogpost: The Libertarian Standard » American vs. British Science Fiction | http://bit.ly/aqTfh2