Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 11:33:25 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bryan A. Alexander" <bnalexan-AT-umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Scary novels/future


Well, when it comes to Huxley vs Orwell, I've always felt BRAVE NEW WORLD 
to be a little too topical, too focused on local tendencies.  1984 
doesn't have to make you think of a British version of Stalin in order to 
work.  But when it comes to science, WE (Zamiatin) is much better: it 
hits the universal abstractions square on, and earlier.
	SF in general... this is a *huge* topic.  SF has always been 
deeply political, massively engaged with history.  From Mary Shelley on.  
A casual glance through Wells reveals this (FOOD OF THE GODS a hilarious 
and brutal satire on British politics; TIME MACHINE on class warfare); 
Gibson is deeply interested in modern capital and its effects.  Recent sf 
carefully avoids class and state issues, which is interesting (see 
Gwynneth Jones' much-raved WHITE QUEEN, or Kessel's GOOD NEWS FROM OUTER 
SPACE) - as sf becomes more socially acceptable, it becomes more 
accepting of society?  The Soviets, of course, have a long tradition of 
sf which engages the problems of their society, from Bogdanov through the 
Strugatskiis.
	This should be a thread on its own, if anyone cares enough.


Bryan Alexander					Department of English
email: bnalexan-AT-umich.edu			University of Michigan
phone: (313) 764-0418				Ann Arbor, MI  USA    48103
fax: (313) 763-3128				http://www.umich.edu/~bnalexan

On Sat, 2 Mar 1996, J Laari wrote:

> Scary scifi?
> 
> Now that's interesting. I'd like to know, Hugh and Bryan, why Orwell 
> instead of Huxley? 
> 
> I've thought Orwell's 1984 as manifestation of all hidden fears of 
> bourgeoisie in the cold war period.. I mean, who thinks Orwell's vision 
> is scary today? Surely novel was well written, but so is Huxley's too.
> 
> But think about Huxley now when there's great promises of biotechnology 
> and the like: genes of our grandchildren could be determined, and because 
> of capitalism, to put it bluntly, the more your own the better genes your 
> children can get. Add to that Huxley's view of near future as 
> entertainment society, or as German sociologist Gerhard Schulze says, 
> 'Erlebnisgesellschaft', 'Society of Experience' (where the logic of 
> social life is based on new experiences). You get very realistic 
> picture. I know that for some folks there's nothing scary, but for us 
> fundamentalists that's worst to happen. 
> 
> In this sense I'd prefer Huxley.
> 
> But what about other scifi 'genres'? 
> 
> Scifi as reflection of its own time: Orwell comes first to my mind, but 
> Asimov's "Foundation" series could be quite illuminating; the original 
> trilogy from 1950's is straight expression of belief in 'positivistic' 
> social sciences and social engineering. Later Asimov haven't been so 
> naive and 'scientistic' anymore, but...
> 
> Scifi as meditation on the state of human race: Russian Strugatsky 
> brothers wrote some nice novels? 
> 
> And finally, what about scifi films? Is Tarkovsky's "Stalker" best? Or 
> might it be "Solaris", or perhaps "Bladerunner" (great stalker 
> aesthetics...)? 
> 
> Yours, Jukka L
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------