Is it merely to entertain, or also to instruct? Should it be coldly realistic or maintain idealism and optimism? A world better or worse than the current one? Utopia or dystopia? Or neither?
I think SF should instruct whenever possible. SF written from a scientific point of view, where scientific (or at least pseudo-scientific) concepts are expressed and used, is more edifying than SF which betrays a shallow perspective. To the extent SF is shallow, it has led to the perception of the entire genre being trivialized and not taken seriously. SF should be taken as seriously as any other fictional genre, or even, in some cases, as seriously as non-fiction. [Since I also enjoy fantasy, I would like to say a word for it as well. Fantasy is by definition not scientific, but it can be an honest attempt to represent a world in as much detail and with as much faithfulness as possible, where the reader or viewer achieves complete suspension of disbelief.]
Indeed, this should be the goal of all speculative fiction, and the task is more difficult when the author has to create a complete world, instead of thinking in terms of the current world and creating characters there. Therefore SF deserves respect (when the goal is achieved) at least equal to that contemporary fiction gains when it achieves the same thing.
Once suspension of disbelief is achieved, instruction can follow. In fact, the success of instruction achieved this way is greater than that done through ordinary, nonfictional means. If I tell you to do something, even if it would be very beneficial to you, your first instinct will generally be to resist my instruction because of your natural tendency to assert your autonomy and willpower. If I give no good reasons for following my advice, your instinct will be to resist even harder - your level of resistance will rise in proportion to my attempt to persuade. Only those in complete subjection, such as in a dictatorship, respond to any given proposed instruction with immediate obedience, and the process required to achieve that is very expensive in time, money, and energy. Not to mention, it is doomed to fail. When instruction is received from a trusted and wise source, who has issued instruction before and whose words have been proven true by experience, the resistance is less.
If I tell you a story effectively enough that suspension of disbelief is achieved, and I apply the instruction indirectly, to the characters, your tendency to resist will be much less, and you may even absorb the lesson subconsciously, as a side effect of enjoying my story. So in this way, fiction has a responsibility to instruct, because its potential is greater than nonfiction. Its potential to lead astray is also greater than nonfiction; "with great power comes great responsibility." It should teach the audience things they did not previously know, and ideally should introduce ethical dilemmas that challenge the audience's default way of thinking. If it can do this while achieving suspension of disbelief, story can be among the most powerful and influential kind of text available. Or put another way - wouldn't you rather be entertained while being instructed? Or would you prefer instruction the old-fashioned way?
There is a clear tendency in contemporary SF to adopt the most realistic posture possible. To some degree, this may be to achieve a deeper suspension of disbelief - if the externals of a world do not appear substantially different from our own, we may be moved by the characters more than we would have been otherwise. Battlestar Galactica is the most contemporary and obvious example of this; the world is clearly futuristic and fantastic, but many of the characters and events are hardly distiguishable from our own. All of the social and ethical issues of the moment are on display, making the series easy to identify with.
I would like to warn against this tendency, though. I don't know about most others, but I don't turn on SyFy to be reminded of the war in Iraq - although if themes of war are brought up, I can identify with that. But if I want to learn more about Iraq, I'll watch Frontline. I tune in to SyFy to escape - perhaps not completely, but putting Iraq in front of my eyeballs disguised seems a clever sleight of hand, and I mildly resent it. So the purpose is defeated - the suspension of disbelief is lost, and whatever lesson the writer was trying to tell me has little effect. This is why we must avoid too much realism - we must maintain suspension of disbelief. When our fictional world looks too much like the real world, so that they are indistinguishable, the suspension is lost.
Related to the issue of realism is the issue of pessimism. Few will deny the technical and literary excellence BSG achieved. Few will also deny it was one of the most pessimistic SF series ever produced. I could not watch it consistently because of the depressing subject matter it continually engaged in. I am no prude, but I do not honestly see the value in making the audience witness to a suicide as part of a narrative. It reinforces the realism, and shocks us to the core, but does little else.
This invites a larger, more important question - why is great art so often focused on the least admirable qualities of people? One answer is, because it reflects the real world. I think that is the easy way out, especially for SF. "Tell the truth but tell it slant" - focusing on the negative presents as distorted a worldview as a Utopian vision does. Again, pessimism is the business of the news - SF must work to stay optimistic. Star Trek provides the most illustrative example of this optimistic worldview. The new film presents the classic characters infused with a 21st century sensibility. But that sensibility does not have to lead to pessimism. There is conflict, and resolution. The Federation is there, serving its purpose of maintaining order and justice in the galaxy - although, like our U.N., it does so imperfectly. I take the imperfection as a guarantee of humanness, not as a constitution for despair. So Star Trek represents the world we would like - it shows us what is possible. That is something garden-variety fiction sometimes tries to do, but is the birthright and inheritance of SF. It is what SF is for, because it is what SF is capable of. Let the newspapers and the modernist novels tell the world as it is. Let SF show us the world that could be, so that we are inspired to try to make that happen.
Comments