One of the definitions of Escapism is: “A mental diversion
by means of entertainment or recreation, as an escape or dissociation from the
perceived boring, arduous, scary, or banal aspects of daily life.”
Undoubtedly, there is some truth to that, but I believe some
of us just enjoy a good story!
 |
| The Great Hunt |
Humans have been telling stories to one another for time
immemorial. Troglodytes once gathered around the fire in the safety of their
caves to relate stories of the day's hunt. I have no doubt that the hunters
would oft times exaggerate―and so, fiction was born!
Likewise, cave drawing, and hieroglyphics painted inside
ancient tombs, told stories―stories of the pharaohs’ great victories in war,
or of the mass sacrifices the Maya and Aztec made to their various gods.
The Sumerian ‘Epic of Gilgamesh’ was first written down
somewhere between 2150–2000 B.C.!
 |
| The Epic of Gilgamesh |
Along came paper, bound together, and books were invented.
It really wasn’t until the invention of the printing press that books became
available to the masses―well, the masses who could afford them.
Then, in the 18th century, there began to appear
books delving into topics other than religion, science, and poetry. Stories of
romance, and then adventure. Robinson Crusoe, by Daniel Defoe, was published in
1719. Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus, was written by English author
Mary Shelley, and published in 1818.
 |
| Frankenstein and his monster |
Then came the grandfather of modern science-fiction, Jules
Verne,
 |
| Verne's Nautilus |
whose stories of great adventure and scientific achievement began in
1862. Of course, he had his contemporaries: Camille Flammarion, and Edward
Bulwer-Lytton to name a couple. But no author reached the level of Verne
until…H.G. Wells.
 |
| HG Wells |
Wells's stories use science fiction devices that both entertain
and make points about the society in which he lived. In The Time Machine,
published in 1895, the technical details of the machine are quickly glossed
over, so that the Time Traveler can tell a story that criticizes the
stratification of English society. In The War of the Worlds, published in 1898,
the Martians' technology is not explained, as it would have been in a Verne
story, and the story is resolved by a deus ex machina, albeit a
scientifically explainable one.
The differences between Verne and Wells highlight a tension
that exist in science fiction to this day. The question of whether to present
realistic technology, or to focus on characters and ideas.
An author must decide whether to write an exciting
story, and make only a passing reference to science, or write a story that
adheres strictly to the science behind the story.
Then the author must decide if his story is going to make an
obvious or an underlying didactic point. In our modern age of heightened
sensitivities, this can be a very dangerous thing to do, as someone is likely
to be offended. This could mean the alienation of a segment of your market, and
even result in "bad press" on social media. However, as a wise man
once said, “All press is good press.”
I don’t know that any author attempting to be a futurist can
write anything that does not make a political statement. The most benign
description of a future culture or civilization can’t help but exclaim the form
of government that the author sees surviving the test of time.
Here, the author must walk a thin line. Should the author,
in his/her attempt to be educational and moralistic, be perceived as "preachy"
they may very well drive readers away.
It is, I think, important that fiction―all fiction―should
make a statement about the human condition. But to do so too loudly will remove
the author’s work from the genre, “escapism.”
Every author’s work I cited above made a point about
humanity. The author entertained us, and left the thinker with something to
chew on. The best authors’ stories, and messages, have transcended time.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI believe your statement is at the heart of all subgenres within historical romance, also:
'An author must decide whether to write an exciting story, and make only a passing reference to science [detailed historical accuracy], or write a story that adheres strictly to the science [historical-lite] behind the story. Then the author must decide if his story is going to make an obvious or an underlying didactic point.'
As an example, I think of Victor Hugo's 'Les Miserables', which is a story that has transcended time. Even with it's longevity and appeal to generation after generation of readers, it is the plight of Jean Valjean as he avoids the relentless pursuit of his nemesis, Inspector Javert, that draws us. There are so many preachy and political places within the story that it's difficult not to skip fifty pages at a time (or more) to get back to the "people-ness" of the story, even though we know the politics of the era are critical to the plot and characters' motives.
How much historical or scientific information is too much for the reader? As you said, this is the thin line the fiction writer walks when crafting the perfect blend of entertainment and escapism, while managing to convey the subtle message of the human condition.
I'm looking forward to your Book III of the Unborn Galaxy series.
Kaye, you certainly got my point!
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite reviews from a reader started with her explaining that SciFi was not her cup-o-tea. She was worried she'd get bogged down in relentless science and pseudoscience speak. She stated that there was just enough of both to reminder her that she was in the future, and on the Moon. Now THAT is a review I was proud of - she was telling me that I had achieved my goal. Plus...she loved the story! SCORE!