![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jun. 26th, 2010
New Statesman article
"the final message is much the same: keep calm and carry on. Once order is restored, all will be well.
Even at its most pessimistic, science fiction has always been a humanist genre. The consoling assumption has been that while civilisation may be flawed and fragile, it can always be rebuilt, perhaps on a better model, if only humans have the will to do it. The possibility that it is the species that is flawed has rarely been explored."
I don't quite see it that way, I still see it as a race between transhumanism and destruction, which seems to be a popular SF narrative these days. I think the writer has missed a trick. The piece starts well but falls apart. By the end it's reached "oh crivens waily waily" levels of miserabalism.
It's true we don't know what's going to happen next and have to hedge our bets, that's why the call it the future and not, like, the jigsaw. No sense seeing that uncertainty as some sort of terrible generic malaise.
Humanistic assumptions no longer credible as fictions, China Miéville's novels not reflective of his politics? Suspect you need to go back and do it again, mate.
"the final message is much the same: keep calm and carry on. Once order is restored, all will be well.
Even at its most pessimistic, science fiction has always been a humanist genre. The consoling assumption has been that while civilisation may be flawed and fragile, it can always be rebuilt, perhaps on a better model, if only humans have the will to do it. The possibility that it is the species that is flawed has rarely been explored."
I don't quite see it that way, I still see it as a race between transhumanism and destruction, which seems to be a popular SF narrative these days. I think the writer has missed a trick. The piece starts well but falls apart. By the end it's reached "oh crivens waily waily" levels of miserabalism.
It's true we don't know what's going to happen next and have to hedge our bets, that's why the call it the future and not, like, the jigsaw. No sense seeing that uncertainty as some sort of terrible generic malaise.
Humanistic assumptions no longer credible as fictions, China Miéville's novels not reflective of his politics? Suspect you need to go back and do it again, mate.
(no subject)
Jun. 26th, 2010 11:24 pmIn a similar vein, and on much stronger footing, a review of Alex Butterworth's A World that Never Was. Astute and miserable sod, this John Gray. Or rather, Butterworth is astute, Gray is astute enough to notice, and both enjoy miserable pronouncements about broader humanity.