Is Science Fiction inherently anti-establishment?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, April 19, 2008 17:10
VIEWED: 5811
PAGE 5 of 6

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
it was a liberal society with a freely elected government - the only requirement in the society was that people had to play a part in that society in order for their vote to count. And ideologically, I find that to be a very satisfying premise

---

Well, book wise, I see no problem with that, I'm just sayin' I think the movie was more from Verhoeven's anti-Fascist POV.

---

Chris, you really need to read Starship Troopers one of these days. However, if you end up liking the movie more than the book I'm afraid I'll have to stop talking to you altogether.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
if you end up liking the movie more than the book

---

I'm certain that will not be the case. And I will get around to it.

Trooper Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

The Matrix - who the hell knows?!

---

Oh, ABSOLUTELY anti.
We're gonna eff the world so bad AND create the machines that dominate & use us...

We are a plague Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Virtually all fiction, or at least works of fiction worth reading or viewing, are anti-establishment for the simple reason that it makes for interesting characters and plots. As an author or artist, one gravitates to outsiders because that's where the action is, literally and figuratively. People who are satisfied with the status quo rarely give rise to compelling drama, except perhaps as foils for a protagonist.

Moreover, one cannot seriously contend that "the establishment" is a Good Thing because it is manifestly clear to everyone that the system -- whatever that might be: communist, capitalist, freewheelingly democratic, or rigidly authoritarian -- doesn't work particularly well. (...As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government ever conceived, barring all the others we've tried.) It is difficult, to say the least, to muster a morally sound defense of a state which represses its own citizens or leaves millions of them wallowing in ignorance and poverty, let alone one which does both at the same time, and there is a word for literature which endeavors to do so: propaganda.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 34cygni:
there is a word for literature which endeavors to do so: propaganda.

---

Wow- give it up for 34cygni!!! Excellent post, my man!

Words fail Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 34cygni:
It is difficult, to say the least, to muster a morally sound defense of a state which represses its own citizens or leaves millions of them wallowing in ignorance and poverty, let alone one which does both at the same time, and there is a word for literature which endeavors to do so: propaganda.

---

I would contend that propaganda goes both ways. What you seem to be arguing is that the “establishment” is always a bad thing - which could be considered as much propaganda as arguing the opposite. In fact, that could easily be viewed as Left-wing propaganda.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

The Matrix - who the hell knows?!

---

Oh, ABSOLUTELY anti.
We're gonna eff the world so bad AND create the machines that dominate & use us...

---

Once again, that’s a post-apocalyptic theme, not anti-establishment. There seems to be a confusion between the two. I happen to agree with you that the Matrix is anti-establishment, but that has nothing to do with effing up the world. The anti-establishment theme in the matrix deals with the “red pill” concept. The Matrix is a metaphor for a society that has abandoned reality in favor of media or electronic -reality, which means that what we conceive to be truth is controlled by the media, or an established consensus. Now one can disagree on this premise, I happen to think it has some validity, but this is what makes the Matrix anti-establishment.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Haven't checked all responses yet...
Always thought Heinlein was pro-establishment.
Deep Impact as well.

For scifi to envision a drastically changed world in a near enough time frame that the writer can have some hope of prediciting what will happen and how similar/different it will be from now, a mojor malfunction of the existing system is an easy way to introduce drastic change (Waterworld, Dark Angel). This means a failure of the exisiting government, which let down the population, and then they would have a poor view of establishment.
A nature of the beast when wielded by lazy (or liberal) writers.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

I think the movie was more from Verhoeven's anti-Fascist POV.

---

Those of us who read the book before Verhoeven made a movie out of it were truly p***** o** about how much he distorted the book, its plot, its theme, and its characters. Kinda like some folks here feel about Fox.

Even if ya don't agree with RAH, he makes a reasonable case, and his ideas are thought-provoking, although not practical.

But the thing on the movie screen was nothing even remotely close to what he wrote-- to argue against RAH's viewpoint based on the film is totally invalid.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME