#Modern utopian

[bea-lele-carmen]

[sunlitmiracle]

smashes my current interest together with my old interest (aka yet another "what Dungeon Meshi but Gamers?" AU)

Once when I was a child I had a complete crying meltdown over Creatures, because the manual insisted that the complicated AI of the Norns made them truly alive and 10-year-old me was freaked out at the idea of being solely responsible for making sure these real animals wouldn't die. The funny part was that this was the Playstation version of Creatures, which has no biochemistry and very basic AI compared to the PC/Mac games where players actually were debating whether or not it was true artificial life. A PSX manual gave me existential dread and it wasn't even telling the truth.

Anyway, kid!Marcille would also have a meltdown over the Creatures series, especially if she had the computer games and got to see how vastly different some breeds' lifespans are. Like in C2 where you have Norns that live for around 5 hours and Norns that live for 10, both of which are vastly more than Ettins who don't even live for 1.5 hours (and usually less due to radiation or starvation).

Lucky for her, having the computer version means she could download modified genomes made by other players that make creatures live longer or even outright remove certain death triggers. However I think she'd have more fun learning to read and edit the genomes herself, to get a better understanding of how the game works and how to change it to suit her own tastes. And because she could pretend she's one of the mysterious ancient Shee who created the Norns, Grendels, and Ettins and then vanished, leaving behind relics of their old society.

(Speaking of Grendels, she would unfortunately dislike them because they're the Designated Evil Species and she'd hate how they harass and attack her Norns. I think she'd also pity them though, because they get sick a lot and have short lifespans. Likely she'd just end up downloading/creating a genome without the aggression towards Norns. Ettins she'd like except for in C3 when they dismantle her meticulously-placed gadget setups, so she might mod out their hoarding compulsions too. Both of them would of course also live for however long her Norns would live.)

Also. While standard creatures' lifespans are counted in hours, if you modify the half-lives in the genome editor you can increase it to centuries. Or even just over a millennium if you set the half-lives to their max length (assuming you also leave the old age death trigger at its vanilla value).

and I like to think that elven Creatures players would pass around copies of what they consider a template genome that's appropriate to their own lifespans. Something that would make their creatures live for weeks or months of continuous play. I also like to think the Creatures DS Warp is still active in this AU because of the hilarious frustration when these long-lived Norns travel to worlds run by short-lived players whose Norns have vanilla lifespans, and vice versa.

(Most of the time in Creatures, offspring of parents with different lifespans will just have one or the other, but there's a chance the genes cross over right in the middle of the various age triggers and cause unstable aging rates. Like a Norn that goes through the childhood stages in hours but then has a very extended adulthood. Or a days-long childhood followed by suddenly dropping dead of old age once the vanilla adulthood genes kick in. Or, if the child has one parent's half-life decay rate and the other parent's age triggers, all sorts of odd things could happen. I once had hybrid Norns who lived for 20 hours and would die of organ failure before reaching the old age threshold!)

(Now that I think of it, Marcille would absolutely hate fast-agers. The first time she watches a creature hatch, turn old, and die in just one brief minute of life, she would be sobbing for days. One of the first things she'd learn to mod out would be mutations that cause the Ageing/Life chemical to decrease unusually fast.)

On a lighter note, while I don't know what her favorite designs would be I think she'd love choosing cute breeds to use in her world. Once she figured out how to give her creatures the comfortable life she wants them to have I can see her redirecting all her gene-editing efforts into changing color expressions. She might even learn to sprite or model her own custom designs.

[meat-loving-meat]

I want to write a Vanyel/Stefen modern-with-magic AU soooo bad but I don’t know Valdemar lore like at all. There are six books standing between me and feeling comfortable enough in the lore to imagine what Valdemar might look like with the internet and planes

[vamptastic]

ok so. nobody who says i want to be able to eat a banana year round in the utopian future is saying they also want someone living a shit life to pick it for them. it's not the hill i'd die on but what they're saying is they don't want a downgrade to their quality of life. they usually have a quality of life that i think we can all agree is reasonable to want. why bother trying to constantly tell people they should actually want to virtuously suffer for other people's sake when the real goal is in fact for nobody to suffer At All.

[joncronshawauthor]

Nobledark: Balancing Grimdark Nihilism and Noble Bright Hope

In the vast landscape of modern fantasy, readers find themselves navigating between two rather extreme realms. Grimdark and Noble Bright. It’s a bit like choosing between spending a weekend in a haunted mansion or at a blissful monastery. Both have their appeal, depending on your taste for misery or calm. But what happens when you want a bit of both? That’s where the delicate balance of…

[theparanoid]

Giant Claw - Deep Thoughts

(2015, full album)

[Progressive Electronic, Utopian Virtual, Modern Classical, Sequencer & Tracker]

[astrologydray]

Uranus through the degrees👽

👽Uranus represents rebellion, innovation, sudden change, and liberation. The specific degree Uranus occupies in a chart can add a layer of nuance to how its energy manifests.

0° – The purest expression of Uranian energy: radical, unpredictable, and ahead of its time. A powerful pioneer in societal change and personal breakthroughs.

1° – A sudden awakening or an urge to break away from the past. Strong individuality, but may struggle with authority.

2° – A balance between structure and rebellion. Can introduce unconventional ideas in practical ways.

3° – Highly intellectual and innovative, with an almost futuristic way of thinking. Can be erratic in decision-making.

4° – A deep urge to challenge norms while creating new foundations. Often linked to alternative lifestyles.

5° – Restless and experimental. May change career paths or personal philosophies abruptly.

6° – A revolutionary mindset with a humanitarian focus. Likely to be drawn to technology, social justice, or alternative medicine.

7° – Strongly intuitive and possibly clairvoyant. Can channel Uranian energy into artistic or spiritual breakthroughs.

8° – Fiercely independent with a rebellious streak. Doesn’t conform easily but has a unique leadership style.

9° – A visionary degree. Can foresee trends before they happen and often acts as a catalyst for societal shifts.

10° – A mix of genius and unpredictability. May struggle with consistency but thrives in creative or scientific fields.

11° – The “Master Number” energy amplifies Uranus’ innovative and electric qualities. Often a game-changer in their field.

12° – A highly intuitive disruptor. Feels compelled to challenge outdated traditions.

13° – Known as a degree of transformation, often bringing sudden upheavals that lead to long-term progress.

14° – Creative genius with a rebellious edge. May be drawn to experimental art or alternative technology.

15° – A strong-willed disruptor, but can also be stubborn. Seeks radical independence.

16° – Often brings unexpected success through unconventional means. May experience sudden life shifts.

17° – Associated with breakthroughs in communication, media, and futuristic thinking.

18° – Can be a “lightning rod” for change, drawing chaos but also profound innovation.

19° – Balances rebellion with responsibility. Often takes on leadership roles in unconventional movements.

20° – A degree of heightened awareness and spiritual awakening. Uranus here can indicate a unique life purpose.

21° – Drawn to utopian ideals and progressive social movements. Can be eccentric but deeply inspiring.

22° – The “Master Builder” degree combines Uranian genius with practicality, leading to tangible innovations.

23° – A wild card degree. Experiences sudden reversals of fortune but always lands on their feet.

24° – Can be a bridge between the past and future, blending old traditions with modern ideas.

25° – Highly eccentric and independent, often rejecting conventional life paths.

26° – Genius in technology, astrology, or metaphysical studies. May have a talent for predicting societal shifts.

27° – A revolutionary thinker who thrives in periods of change. Often ahead of their time.

28° – Associated with radical enlightenment. Can be a guide or teacher in alternative fields.

29° – The “Anaretic Degree” (critical degree) of Uranus intensifies its erratic and unpredictable nature. Often brings shocking life events or a last-minute awakening before a major transformation.

[schlock-luster-video]

On March 28, 1956, Forbidden Planet debuted in Los Angeles.

[apas-95]

As much as the term is misused by reactionaries to mean 'cultural degeneracy', there is in fact such a thing as postmodernism, and it is in fact, like the other ideological currents that become prominent under capitalism, bourgeois in character.

Modernism was the ideological undercurrent of the historical materialist works of Marx, the nationalism of fascists, and the utopianism of the liberals. It was the shared belief held in the early capitalist period that the universe, the world, and human society were all fundamentally knowable and understandable to mortal men. The advance of the sciences and liberal enlightenment philosophy were, genuinely, an incredible and liberatory force in the revolution against the feudal world-system. Only in the capitalist period, with the development of the means and relations of production, could such an understanding of society as Marxism exist - Marxism being, fundamentally, the application of the scientific method to human history in service of the proletariat.

Post-modernism, as an ideological current, was developed in the NATO block following the second world war, though it had been incubating prior, at a much increased rate since the establishment of the first socialist state. It represented a rejection of modernism's 'grand narratives', and an assertion that each and every individual experience was so utterly unique and varied that it was impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions about society at large - only about specific people. Post-modernism is not only the basis of the genocidal neoliberal ideology whose economic shock doctrine wracked the global south, but also of a significant portion of 'progressive' ideologies (the similarity, ultimately, of the Margaret Thatcher quote to the belief of the average 'communists are homophobic!' claimant not escaping notice). Fundamentally, it begins its analyses not from the scale of society to progress towards the individual, but from the individual to extrapolate out to society - it is an idealism that reduces all things in society to individual psychological quirks (or disorders, egads).

In the context of a post-modernist system (even world-system), the correct theory (in order to carry out correct practice) will necessarily need to deviate from traditional, modernist thought in some ways. In which ways it must deviate can only be discovered through practice, but we know that it cannot simply absorb elements of postmodernism in an eclectic manner - it must be a genuine synthesis, whose principal purpose is to overcome, annihilate, and replace postmodernist thought (along with the rest of bourgeois thought in general).

[centipedve]

yes that's the bookie

the reason why we find it funny is because utopian socialism/collectivism is associated with a real world historical movement where groups of people managed to establish ACTUAL communities and do ACTUAL shit and while they failed in the end it was a fairly proactive movement unlike basically most other ideologies in reali which have a rich history of dicking around

which makes it funny that the character who shares a name and concept with the ideology is the chill af no problems one. he seems to be crafted from the philosophical concept of inherent human goodness and success in an abstract way more than how it literally came about. but it would be interesting to look at utopian keeping this history in mind

we rlly love utopian cuz his character makes no sense in the context of his ideology and its history. It's really funny to us. Unless there's some alternate more modern form of utopian socialism but that'd be lame

[tanadrin]

The other term we need to know if we want to understand the Shire is “clientelism”, perhaps more commonly refereed to as “patron-client relationships”. This is a social-political structure that emerges organically in many different contexts, and consists of a set of mutual, hierarchical obligations between powerful “patrons” and a network of “clients” who depend on them, economically, socially, or politically. It seems likely, from what we see of the Shire, that clientelism is the main organizing force within Hobbit politics. This would be far from unusual, in this sort of system. To understand this, let’s look at a prototypical example of this; the relationship between the Baggins and the Gamgees. Both Samwise Gamgee and his father, Hamfast Gamgee, are employed by Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, but the relationship is clearly far deeper than that. Throughout Lord of the Rings, Frodo treats Sam almost a feudal retainer, not just a person in a employee relationship, but someone who owes personal fealty to him, an attitude clearly reciprocated by Sam. There’s affection, friendship, and even love between them, but in the context of a hierarchical relationship. It’s never in question who “Mister Frodo” is, though it’s clear that this loyalty comes with expectations and obligations. Sam is not a slave, not is he bound by oaths of vassalage, or contract. He is loyal because he is expected to be, and because the Baggins repay loyalty with patronage, both to him, and his family. The Gamgees are likely tenants of the Baggins, or at least dependent on them for access to agricultural capital. They likely send much of their income up to Bag End in rent, and provide services, as gardeners, batmen, valets, traveling companions, etc. They also provide support, in a social and civic sense, as we see. If Frodo had gone to the Free Fair to run for Mayor, the Gamgees and other tenants would have voted for him, and would have accompanied him in public, to demonstrate his status and prestige. But in return for this, they could expect generous gifts on holidays, loans of money on favorable terms, lax enforcement of rental arrears in time of drought and famine, and legal support in disputes. ... For bachelors Bilbo and Frodo, these were personal, individual relationships. But the norm was likely closer to webs of debts, favors, and obligations, traded back and forth between families, cemented by marriage alliances and social ties. We’re told repeatedly that gift-giving and hosting feasts are two of the primary preoccupations of Hobbits. To modern ears, this may come across as utopian, or idyllic, but these sorts of status displays were a key part of many economic and social systems. In many Pacific Northwest Native American tribes, this was known as “potlatch“, and served as both a political and economic system, in which conspicuous displays of generosity were used to denote power and prestige. The Shire clearly has a monetary economy, but gift-giving remains important. The entire first chapter of Lord of the Rings is devoted to Bilbo’s 111st birthday party, which is a huge event that attracts intense attention from across Hobbit society, and involves massive displays of largess, solidifying the Baggins’ social position, and cementing ties with neighboring families and rival clans. Or at least, it would have been, if Bilbo hadn’t had an ulterior motive.

[bea-lele-carmen]

I was surprised, as always, by how easy the act of leaving was, and how good it felt. The world was suddenly rich with possibility.

Jack Kerouac, On the Road

Our battered suitcases were piled on the sidewalk again; we had longer ways to go. But no matter, the road is life Sal, we gotta go and never stop going 'till we get there.' 'Where we going, man?' 'I don't know but we gotta go. But why think about that when all the golden lands ahead of you and all kinds of unforseen events wait lurking to surprise you and make you glad you're alive to see? Jack Kerouac, On the Road

[sylvanus-cypher]

I see a lot of people asking why the Third Committee in Lancer is unambiguously the utopian good guy. In most other settings and worlds, the Third Committee would be the secretly corrupt allegory for postwar Europe, full of dirty secrets and colonial exploitation under its otherwise pristine exterior.

However, by my estimate, it's not an allegory at all; it's a counter to Capitalist Realism. A major problem with most media is that it takes the premises of modern capitalism as a given, that humans are self-interested to a fault and any system or structures that exist are built first and foremost to enrich the people at the top of the pyramid. Even most openly anti-capitalist fantasy and sci-fi settings seem to accept this premise.

Lancer rejects this framing, and I think that's what makes the RPG special. The Third Committee exists under the premise that non-authoritarian democratic systems can exist for the explicit and unambiguous welfare and self-actualization of the people who live in them. The foundation of the Third Committee is not greed or consolidation of power through wealth; in fact, they use a sort of mock currency to engage with diaspora worlds that still use money in order to smoothly transition them into post-monetary societies.

If we had more media like this, more media that acknowledges that humans can build societies not based on the accumulation of power, then maybe it would be easier to imagine a life without capital.

[stumpyjoepete]

Thinking a bit more about Megalopolis (see prev post). It's not really the case that the script is as disjointed or schizophrenic as my post makes it out to be. The central plot is pretty simple: an egotistical city planner has an ambitious and futuristic vision for redeveloping the city, and he butts heads with the Mayor and others who oppose him in this. He ultimately succeeds in building his utopian "megalopolis". Everyone is happy, the end.

And yet.

There's this... intense centrifugal force that prevents everything from cohering into a unified whole. It's like a puzzle where all the pieces are cut from the same picture, but upon closer inspection, no two pieces quite fit together. Or like that collection of nonsensical objects. A fork where the tines and the handle are connected by a chain. A watering can with the spout facing the wrong way. A quick glance leaves you confused, and that confusion is only deepened by further contemplation.

I think this is especially clear in the pseudo-intellectualism of the title cards, narration, monologues, and quotations/references:

Laurence Fishburne does this heavy-handed narration at the beginning and end of the movie (and several random points in between). And there are these associated title cards that look like they were made by applying an "Ancient Rome" theme to some PowerPoint slides. "Or will we too fall victim, like old Rome, to the insatiable appetite for power of a few men?" My brother in Christ, you are making a movie where the hero is named Cesar, and the happy ending is when he successfully pulls a Robert Moses. This is not a story about power corrupting or good intentions going awry. What are you doing???

Cesar Catilina interrupts Mayor Cicero's speech (where he is introducing a plan to build a casino) in order to lay out an early plan for "megalopolis", which is an ambitious and long-term alternative to the (short-term) casino plan. He prefaces his megalopolis pitch by reciting the Hamlet soliloquy. What exactly does Coppola think "To Be Or Not To Be" is about? He must thinks it means, "I am a dark and brooding bad-boy intellectual", since it's hard to see how "I'd like to kill myself, but I fear death" fits into an argument about the importance of long-term thinking in urban planning.

Cesar says several negative things about "civilization". "[Imagine] humanity as an old tree with one misguided branch called civilization... going nowhere." (Shot of notebook shows an illustration with 'war' and 'cruelty' offshoots from said branch.) "Emerson said the end of the human race will be that we'll eventually die of civilization." (Note: unsourced, probably fake quote.) "Civilization itself remains the great enemy of mankind." Umm... you're an urban planner! You're doing a high modernism. What exactly does it mean for you to call civilization the enemy? Is "megalopolis" somehow anti-civilization because it looks like a Georgia O'Keefe painting instead of a bunch of straight lines and right angles? Will the "war" and "cruelty" branches wither and die when buildings have labia?

Also, there's this amazing line read that completely inverts the meaning of a fake Marcus Aurelius quote (the quote was attributed to him by Tolstoy but is not actually something he said). "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape... finding yourself in the ranks of the insane." Why did you put in that pause??? Fake Marcus Aurelius is turning in his grave! You're supposed to be fleeing FROM the ranks of the insane! I suppose this isn't really inconsistent with the characterization of Cesar, it's just such a fucking batshit thing to say.

All of the cargo-cult intellectualism listed above could perhaps be excused if the vision that the film is supposedly about had any content whatsoever. Or, alternatively, if the movie was about something more substantive, and the vacuous megalopolis vision took place off-screen in an epilogue, like the "happily ever after" of a children's story. But no! The movie repeatedly interrupts the plot to grab you by the shoulders and scream in your face: "I have a vision! For the future!". And then--now that it has your undivided attention--it shits the bed like a man who has just polished off an entire bag of sugar-free gummy bears and washed them down with a fistful of Ambien:

"Conversation isn't enough. It's the questions that lead it to the next step. But initially, you have to have a conversation. The city itself is immaterial, but they're talking about it for the first time. And it's not just about us talking about it. It's the need to talk about it. It's as urgent to us as air and water."

"Mr. Catalina, you said that as we jump into the future, we should do so unafraid. But what if when we do jump into the future, there is something to be afraid of?" "Well, there's nothing to be afraid of if you love, or have loved. It's an unstoppable force. It's unbreakable. It has no limits. It's within us. It's around us. And it's stretched throughout time. It's nothing you can touch. Yet it guides every decision that we make. But we do have the obligation to each other to ask questions of one another. What can we do? Is this society, is this way we're living, the only one that's available to us? And when we ask these questions, when there's a dialogue about them, that basically is a utopia."

After the revolution, we won't have conflicts anymore; we'll have dialogue instead. We won't have a need for the "jobs" and "sanitation" of "now"; we'll have the "imperishable" "dreams" of "forever". We won't have problems that need solving; we'll all be too busy asking each other questions. Now, if everyone could just shut up and get the hell out of the way and let Cesar implement his vision, then "everyone" will soon be "creating together, learning together, perfecting body and mind." A chorus of children's voices gradually morphing into Laurence Fishburne's, chanting, "One Earth, indivisible, with long life, education and justice for all." It's eschatological anti-politics made entirely from cotton candy. Please, for the love of God, stop making Adam Driver monologue at me! Let's get back to Aubrey Plaza stepping on horny fascist Shia LaBeouf!

The incoherence of Megalopolis's vision is compounded by how anachronistic its depiction of our fallen world is. There are some half-hearted (and ham-fisted) gestures in the Clodio sub-plot towards the dangers of Trumpian populism, but the script was first written in the 80's, and it's extremely obvious that Coppola is writing about New York City in the preceding several decades. The city's finances are in dire straights. (There's literally a "Ford Tells City: Drop Dead" reference!) The city is full of slums, the streets are full of crime, and the elites are all decadent. (For Coppola, decadence means that ladies are doing cocaine and smooching each other in the cluh-ub.) The main character is Neo-Roman Robert Moses, and the conflict of the film is about urban renewal. In case you, like Mr. Coppola, have not been made aware, slum clearance is not a major political issue in 2020's Manhattan.

Two thirds of the way through the movie, a falling Soviet satellite provides a deus ex machina, blowing up the financial district and clearing space for megalopolis to take its place. Ironically, a previous attempt to produce the film came to its abrupt end when two planes flew into some buildings in the financial district. Perhaps you heard about it. The financial backers of the film at the time considered Megalopolis's plot a bit too close to current events for comfort and withdrew their support.

But Coppola's depiction of Manhattan was already decades out of date by then. Moses stepped down in '60. Jacobs' book railing against urban renewal came out in '61. The Power Broker came out in '74. One presumes popular opinion of Robert Moses soured in the following years. The crisis of the city's finances that peaked in '75 was over by '81 when NYC balanced its budget and reentered the bond market. The crime wave of the 70's and 80's had receded by the year 2000. The demand for housing in NYC proper is as high as it ever has been, and it's only getting higher. Megalopolis imagines America as an incoherent mishmash of several decades of mid-century NYC, dressed up in the toga of the late Roman Republic, calling out for (Robert) Moses to part the slums and take us into a promised land that is literally beyond any description, and whose only concrete feature seems to be glowing people-movers.

A Robert Moses with the power to stop time, at that!

Oh, did I forget to mention that part? Cesar discovers he has the power to stop time in the opening scene of the film. I forgot because it's literally irrelevant to the plot. Time stops a few times, and then it starts back up again, and the events of the film just plod inexorably forward. For a movie as temporally dislocated as Metropolis, perhaps that's just as well.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Science Fiction

Science fiction - a genre of speculative fiction that contains imagined elements that don’t exist in the real world.

It spans a wide range of themes that often explore time travel, space travel, are set in the future, and deal with the consequences of technological and scientific advances

Subgenres & Related Genres of Science Fiction

Fantasy fiction: Sci-fi stories inspired by mythology and folklore that often include elements of magic.

Supernatural fiction: Sci-fi stories about secret knowledge or hidden abilities that include witchcraft, spiritualism, and psychic abilities.

Utopian fiction: Sci-fi stories about civilizations the authors deem to be perfect, ideal societies. Utopian fiction is often satirical.

Dystopian fiction: Sci-fi stories about societies the authors deem to be problematic for things like government rules, poverty, or oppression.

Space opera: A play on the term “soap opera,” sci-fi stories that take place in outer space and center around conflict, romance, and adventure.

Space western: Sci-fi stories that blend elements of science fiction with elements of the western genre.

Cyberpunk: Sci-fi stories that juxtapose advanced technology with less advanced, broken down society.

Steampunk: Blend technology with steam-powered machinery.

Classic Elements of a Science Fiction Novel

Time travel

Teleportation

Mind control, telepathy, and telekinesis

Aliens, extraterrestrial lifeforms, and mutants

Space travel and exploration

Interplanetary warfare

Parallel universes

Fictional worlds

Alternative histories

Speculative technology

Superintelligent computers and robots

Tips for Science Fiction Writers

Draw inspiration for your story from real life. Take an idea from current society and move it a little further down the road. Even if human beings are short-term thinkers, fiction can anticipate and extrapolate into multiple versions of the future.

Do some research. It may seem paradoxical, but research will strengthen your project, no matter how far you end up straying from historical facts. Conducting research too early in the drafting process can sidetrack or slow down the plot, but it’s critical to keep your reader immersed in and believing the world you’ve created. Getting the details wrong can throw off their belief in your story.

Create a set of rules for the world of your novel—and stick to them. Sci-fi is not automatically interesting; it must be made compelling, plausible, and accurate within its own set of rules. Rules add weight to the material or change the stakes for your characters and/or readers. Once you establish a rule, if you break it, you break the illusion of a believable and compelling world.

Keep it grounded in reality. Any technological or fantastical element in sci-fi should have roots in what our current species can already do or is on the road to being able to do.

The History of Science Fiction Literature

The science fiction genre dates back to the second century. 

A True Story, written by the Syrian satirist Lucian, is thought to be the first sci-fi story, which explored other universes and extraterrestrial lifeforms.

Modern science developed during the Age of Enlightenment, and writers reacted to scientific and technological advancements with a wave of sci-fi stories like New Atlantis by Francis Bacon (1627), Somnium by Johannes Kepler (1634), and Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon by Cyrano de Bergerac (1657).

Classic Science Fiction Novels to Know & Read

Familiarize yourself with these classic works of science fiction that inspired novelists and screenwriters in many different genres. Many have been turned into movies and television shows:

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne (1870): features underwater exploration and a technologically advanced submarine—two things that were primitive at the time the novel was written.

The War of the Worlds by H. G. Wells (1898): tells the story of Martians invading Earth and includes themes of space, science, and astronomy.

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932): set in a futuristic dystopian world with many scientific developments where people are genetically modified.

Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell (1938): tells the story of an alien creature that’s a shape-shifter and has the gift of telepathy.

Foundation by Isaac Asimov (1942): follows a galactic civilization after their empire collapses.

1984 by George Orwell (1949): set in a dystopian version of the year 1984 where the world has succumbed to extreme levels of government interference in daily lives.

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury (1953): set in a futuristic dystopian society where books are banned and will be burned if found.

Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein (1961): tells the story of a human who was born on Mars and raised by Martians who comes to live on Earth.

The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick (1962): set 15 years after the end of World War II, offers an alternate history of what could happen if the Axis Powers had defeated the Allied Powers.

Dune by Frank Herbert (1965): set in an interstellar society in the distant future.

2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke (1968): tells the story of ancient aliens who travel the galaxy and help develop intelligent life forms in other worlds.

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood (1985): tells the story of the women who lose their rights after a totalitarian state overthrows the U.S. government.

Common Characteristics of Science Fiction

Science fiction is often called the “literature of ideas.”

Sci-fi novels include a wide variety of futuristic concepts.

Since they’re so imaginative, anything is possible, especially in soft sci-fi novels.

It can be about space, time travel, aliens, or time-traveling aliens in space.

Regardless of the setting and characters, all sci-fi stories are complex, contain nuanced detail, and explore larger themes and commentary—sometimes satirically—about society beneath the surface.

Hard Science Fiction vs Soft Science Fiction

Science fiction is divided into 2 broad categories:

Hard sci-fi novels are based on scientific fact. They’re inspired by “hard” natural sciences like physics, chemistry, and astronomy.

Soft sci-fi novels can be two things: Either they are not scientifically accurate or they’re inspired by “soft” social sciences like psychology, anthropology, and sociology.

The terms are somewhat flexible, but they help readers quickly understand the foundation of a novel and what to expect from it.

Source ⚜ More: Notes ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs ⚜ Word List: Science Fiction

[cantsayidont]

When attempting to critique the values of a long-running franchise like STAR TREK, it's important to draw a distinction between superficial issues and structural ones.

"Superficial" in this sense doesn't mean "minor" or "unimportant"; it simply means that an issue is not so intrinsic to the premise that the franchise would collapse (or would be radically different) were it changed or removed. For example, misogyny has been a pervasive problem across many generations of STAR TREK media, which have often been characterized by a particular type of leering-creep sexism that was distasteful at the time and has not improved with age. However, sexism and misogyny are not structural elements of the TREK premise; one can do a STAR TREK story where the female characters have agency and even pants without it becoming something fundamentally different from other TREK iterations (even TOS, although there are certainly specific TOS episodes that would collapse if you excised the sexism).

By contrast, the colonialism and imperialism are structural elements — STAR TREK is explicitly about colonizing "the final frontier" and about defending the borders, however defined, of an interstellar colonial power. Different iterations of STAR TREK may approach that premise in slightly different ways, emphasizing or deemphasizing certain specific aspects of it, but that is literally and specifically what the franchise is about. Moreover, because STAR TREK has always been heavily focused on Starfleet and has tended to shy away from depicting life outside of that regimented environment, there are definite limits to how far the series is able to depart from the basic narrative structure of TOS and TNG (a captain and crew on a Starfleet ship) without collapsing in on itself, as PICARD ended up demonstrating rather painfully.

This means that some of the things baked into the formula of STAR TREK are obviously in conflict with the franchise's self-image of progressive utopianism, but cannot really be removed or significantly altered, even if the writers were inclined to try (which they generally are not).

What I find intensely frustrating about most modern STAR TREK media, including TNG and its various successors, is not that it can't magically break its own formula, but that writer and fan attachment to the idea of TREK as the epitome of progressive science fiction has become a more and more intractable barrier to any kind of meaningful self-critique. It's a problem that's become increasingly acute with the recent batch of live-action shows, which routinely depict the Federation or Starfleet doing awful things (like the recent SNW storyline about Una being prosecuted for being a genetically engineered person in violation of Federation law) and then insist, often in the same breath, that it's a progressive utopia, best of all possible worlds.

This is one area where TOS (and to some extent the TOS cast movies) has a significant advantage over its successors. TOS professes to be a better world than ours, but it doesn't claim to be a perfect world (and indeed is very suspicious of any kind of purported utopia). The value TOS most consistently emphasizes is striving: working to be better, and making constructive choices. Although this can sometimes get very sticky and uncomfortable in its own right (for instance, Kirk often rails against what he sees as "stagnant" cultures), it doesn't presuppose the moral infallibility of the Federation, of Starfleet, or of the characters themselves. There's room for them to be wrong, so long as they're still willing to learn and grow.

The newer shows are less and less willing to allow for that, and, even more troublingly, sometimes take pains to undermine their predecessors' attempts along those lines. One appalling recent example is SNW's treatment of the Gorn, which presents the Gorn as intrinsically evil (and quite horrifying) in a way they're not in "Arena," the TOS episode where they were first introduced. The whole point of "Arena" is that while Kirk responds to the Gorn with outrage and anger, he eventually concedes that he may be wrong: There's a good chance that the Gorn are really the injured party, responding to what they reasonably see as an alien invasion, and while that may be an arguable point, sorting it out further should be the purview of diplomats rather than warships. By contrast, SNW presents the Gorn as so irredeemably awful as to make Kirk's (chronologically later) epiphany at best misguided: The SNW Gorn are brutal conquerors who lay eggs in their captives (a gruesome rape metaphor, and in presentation obviously inspired by ALIENS) when they aren't killing each other for sport, and even Gorn newborns are monsters to be feared. Not a lot of nuance there, and no space at all for the kind of detente found in TOS episodes like "The Devil in the Dark."