Sci-Fi is Dying...Because of Atheism?
October 17, 2007 I recently came across an interesting article on Mark Chadbourn's blog "A Jack of Ravens". The article, "Richard Dawkins Is Killing SF!", posits a very interesting concept.He starts off by noting that Sci-Fi "...is in a slow sales decline" and "...is failing to resonate with the wider public in the same way that it used to do". This is pretty much true. Although the Fantasy genre is alive and well, pure Sci-Fi efforts do not seem to be received that well by the general public. "Battlestar Galactica" and "Doctor Who" fit the mold...but not much after that.
Chadbourn continues with a fairly interesting look into the age around us and psychology. Then, he gets to his point - Athiests (specifically Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion") are causing the decline.
Huh? He's crazy, right?
Maybe not. Chadbourn makes the argument that "...society is much more rational than it ever was" and I find it hard to argue with him. The world values science - even bad science - very highly. Al Gore just won the Nobel Prize, largely based on a movie about Global Warming (which people can't even agree on!). Just the fact that it was looked at scientifically gives it merit.
Even the most religious among us are desperately trying to find facts that the world is only a couple of thousand years old to definitively (or should I say scientifically) validate their beliefs. The "Brights" (a self-appointed term for Athiests) have been very successful in knocking down these challenges - and in the process, are subtlety setting up the concept that everything must be validated by scientific fact before it is to be believed, or even enjoyed.
I'll admit, I find myself holding the current crop of Sci-Fi programming to that standard. Can that hyperdrive technology happen, given the rules of the world that the show has communicated? "Heroes" is has a pretty poor record in this regard - luckily, it flows well enough that I can overlook those plot/environment inconsistencies. In fact, it is probably more a fantasy than pure science fiction, which is probably its saving grace.
As Chadbourn concludes, "Right now...society needs fantasy. It doesn’t really need SF." Society wants to deal in scientific facts. If a story, whether it be in print or on the screen, is too close to reality, the world currently requires proof before it can be enjoyed. This is an unfriendly climate for Sci-Fi. Fantasy, on the other hand, serves as an escape from the realism - and is booming right now.
So, Chadbourn has something here with this theory. I'd just like to see what Robert A. Heinlein would have said about it.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to FriendReferences (2)
-
-
Response: St Louis Medical Malpracticejust stopped by, good stuff
Reader Comments