New Ideas for a New Century of SF

I have spent the last few weeks reading the stories in the Fiction Archive of this web-site. Some of them are actually quite good, just an edit or two away from professional caliber. On the other hand, if I can make a general criticism, too many stories rehash tired old cliches that should have been put out to pasture long ago. I, for one, think it's time for some new cliches.

A lot of these stories are based on the theme of "Future As Dystopia." A pathologically dysfunctional society can be a great backdrop for innovative story-telling, but dystopia can take many, many forms. A lot of writers fall back on hackneyed depictions of a future world made insufferable by pollution or overpopulation. We see depictions where the rich exploit, oppress, hunt, eat and otherwise annoy the poor. Yadda Yadda Yadda. People, SF writers have been banging away those tired old drums since the 1950's. This is not strictly an issue for amateur writers like myself and my colleagues. When was the last time you saw an original, challenging, dangerous idea on Star Trek Voyager or Outer Limits?

First of all, overpopulation. Yes, it would be a horrible thing if the entire world had the population density of Bangladesh, but one, it’s been done to death, and two, it ain’t gonna happen. Do the math. For the land area of the Earth to have equivalent population density to contemporary Bangladesh, global population would have to exceed 121 Billion people. No one, not even the hysterical Paul Ehrlich predicts anything like that. In fact, after peaking in the mid-twenty- first century at something less than ten billion, most models predict a steep decline in human population. By the year 3000, if present rates continue, the population of Japan will be 500 people. Consider, for a second, writing a story based on that factoid.

Next, Pollution. Pollution is bad, but the idea that pollution is bad is now part of mainstream culture. We have thousands of activists, academics, and government bureaucrats whose entire livelihood is based on propagating environmental doomsday scenarios. We don't need science fiction writers for that.

Class warfare? A worthwhile potentially interesting topic, with many interesting and profound implications, but a lot of writers fall back on caricatures when they play the rich versus poor card. Making the villain a contemptuous middle-aged white guy running over children in his hover limo --- I mean, come on. You might just as well have every robber in your story wear an eye mask and a black and white striped shirt and tiptoe around carrying a bag with a big dollar sign on the side. You can do better, and your stories will be more interesting if your characters are not convenient stereotypes.

Same goes for war stories. Making every general into a warmongering maniac is cheap shot, unworthy of anybody who wants to write meaningful fiction, and unrealistic besides. Warfare is more than an application of brute force, it is a tremendous intellectual challenge. I have had the privilege of meeting many high-ranking military officials through my work. For the most part, they are highly intelligent individuals with a variety of intellectual interests, including history, art, literature, philosophy ... anything you can name. Even if the villain in the piece does happen to be a military commander, a complex villain is always more interesting than a one-note stereotype.