Columbia Science Review
  • Home
  • About
    • Executive Board
    • Editorial Board
  • Blog
  • Events
    • 2022-2023
    • 2021-2022
    • 2020-2021
    • 2019-2020
    • 2018-2019
    • 2017-2018
    • 2016-2017
  • Publications
  • COVID-19 Public Hub
    • Interviews >
      • Biology of COVID-19
      • Public Health
      • Technology & Data
    • Frontline Stories >
      • Healthcare Workers
      • Global Health
      • Volunteer Efforts
    • Resources & Links >
      • FAQ's
      • Resource Hubs
      • Student Opportunities
      • Podcasts & Graphics
      • Mental Health Resources
      • Twitter Feeds
      • BLM Resources
    • Columbia Events >
      • Campus Events
      • CUMC COVID-19 Symposium
      • CSR Events
    • Our Team
  • Contact

Lasers and Wizards and Spaceships, Oh My!

4/1/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Nate Posey

I like to imagine myself as being something of a science fiction connoisseur. As such, I was quite shocked and more than a little embarrassed to discover that until a few months ago I had scarcely even heard of what has been dubbed the single greatest science fiction book ever written: the Hugo-winning, Nebula-winning, all-time best-selling Dune by Frank Herbert. The novel details the ascent of young Paul Atreides, heir to the ducal fief of the desert planet Arrakis, who marshals the native populace against his father’s usurpers to reclaim his rightful inheritance.

Herbert is a masterful storyteller, and the universe of Dune is simply unparalleled in its richness and authenticity. Nevertheless, several of the story elements seemed somewhat out of place in this alleged masterpiece of science fiction. Paul’s mother, the Lady Jessica, is a Bene Gesserit witch, a member of the galaxy-spanning order of mystics whose prophecies and powers of mental suggestion play a key role in Paul’s development from a young princeling into the legendary Muad’Dib, the messiah of Arrakis. Although the mystical elements in Dune never truly cross into the overtly magical realm of sword-and-sorcery fantasy, many of the characters’ telepathic interactions are nevertheless suggestive of supernatural forces. Most peculiar of all, however, is the political order in the universe of Dune; the galaxy is held in a tenuous balance of power between the Padishah  Emperor and the various Lords of the Great Houses who have parceled up the various star systems into feudal estates. Such medieval politics seems glaringly anachronistic in  a futurescape replete with shield generators, laser rifles, and superluminal spacecraft.

To be sure, Herbert was neither the first nor the last to invoke such a topsy-turvy alternate universe. Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series details the emergence of a second galactic empire from among the thousands of fractious “barbarian” kingdoms which sprang up after the collapse of the first, and George Lucas’ Jedi Knights would be more at home in Camelot than in a galactic republic. Such works often straddle the line between the genres of science fiction and fantasy, blending arcane tropes into an otherwise technologically advanced society. Unlike many works of so-called “hard” science fiction, which often explore the inevitable complications arising from the development of new technologies, the fantasy-esque works allow for the retelling of simpler and more familiar arcs: the conflict between order and chaos, between good and evil, etc. Such works represent escapism at its finest, where the classical struggles of heroes can play out on the most spectacular of stages.

The enduring appeal of such works may very well be due more to their traditional elements of fantasy rather than to their science fiction motifs.  Today’s readers vastly prefer the genre of fantasy to that of science fiction, with the former outselling the latter by as much as 10 to 1 in the domestic market. Author Graham Storrs suggests that this shift in popular taste may be the result of a general disillusionment with the once lofty promises of “scientism” (excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques), noting that many of the developments which dazzled spectators with untold possibilities in the twentieth century (spaceflight, nuclear power, etc.) have fallen flat in the twenty-first. He writes that:

These days scientism is a minority religion, science is seen as a golden calf to be cast down, and the scientists we once placed on pedestals are fallen idols. We’re disappointed and disillusioned. We didn’t get answers. We didn’t get squat except Windows 7, genetically modified corn, and electronic trading.
​

Personally, I am still optimistic about the future of science fiction. Although most people have become rather jaded by the apparent trajectory of so-called progress (“The new iPhone 5 is 20% lighter than the last one, you say?”), history shows us that such trajectories are almost always misleading; no one ever really predicts the next big earth-shattering advance until it’s right on  top of us. I am confident that the next few decades will offer us a vision of a future that is once more exciting enough to speculate about without writing in warriors, wizards, or (God forbid) vampires. Who knows? The future of 2050 might just well resemble the future of 1960 more than the future of 2010.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Artificial Intelligence
    Halloween 2022

    Archives

    November 2022
    October 2022
    June 2022
    January 2022
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    July 2009
    May 2009

Columbia Science Review
© COPYRIGHT 2022. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Photos used under Creative Commons from driver Photographer, BrevisPhotography, digitalbob8, Rennett Stowe, Kristine Paulus
  • Home
  • About
    • Executive Board
    • Editorial Board
  • Blog
  • Events
    • 2022-2023
    • 2021-2022
    • 2020-2021
    • 2019-2020
    • 2018-2019
    • 2017-2018
    • 2016-2017
  • Publications
  • COVID-19 Public Hub
    • Interviews >
      • Biology of COVID-19
      • Public Health
      • Technology & Data
    • Frontline Stories >
      • Healthcare Workers
      • Global Health
      • Volunteer Efforts
    • Resources & Links >
      • FAQ's
      • Resource Hubs
      • Student Opportunities
      • Podcasts & Graphics
      • Mental Health Resources
      • Twitter Feeds
      • BLM Resources
    • Columbia Events >
      • Campus Events
      • CUMC COVID-19 Symposium
      • CSR Events
    • Our Team
  • Contact