Liberal SF
Apr. 9th, 2015 11:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
A friend of mine noted that the people who run science fiction conventions, called conrunners or semi-jokingly SMOFs (secret masters of fandom) are largely liberal. I tend to agree with him, and I think I know why. Science fiction may not be inherently liberal, but it is inherently not conservative.
I'm going to adapt a thought from Megan McArdle, a conservative economist. Imagine you're walking in a wood and come across a fence. The conservative mindset would be "this fence is here for a reason, leave it." But the science fictional mindset would be to wonder what function it served and could that function be done better by something different.
Now, that's a broad statement, and much science fiction doesn't reach that exulted level, if only because of Sturgeon's Law. But the definition of science fiction, which is "a story that, without a scientific foundation, can't be told" lends support to my theory. What is science but an investigation into why and how things happen?
And technology changes society. For example, the technology of cooking food changed our digestive tracts! If technology can change our bodies, it can certainly change our society, as evidenced by 1900 House. So, part of the science in our fiction really should be sociology, psychology and political science.
Now, story and entertainment matter, but if science fiction is inherently not conservative, I'm not surprised that the majority of people active in it aren't conservative either.
I'm going to adapt a thought from Megan McArdle, a conservative economist. Imagine you're walking in a wood and come across a fence. The conservative mindset would be "this fence is here for a reason, leave it." But the science fictional mindset would be to wonder what function it served and could that function be done better by something different.
Now, that's a broad statement, and much science fiction doesn't reach that exulted level, if only because of Sturgeon's Law. But the definition of science fiction, which is "a story that, without a scientific foundation, can't be told" lends support to my theory. What is science but an investigation into why and how things happen?
And technology changes society. For example, the technology of cooking food changed our digestive tracts! If technology can change our bodies, it can certainly change our society, as evidenced by 1900 House. So, part of the science in our fiction really should be sociology, psychology and political science.
Now, story and entertainment matter, but if science fiction is inherently not conservative, I'm not surprised that the majority of people active in it aren't conservative either.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-09 07:16 pm (UTC)Ironic really.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 01:44 am (UTC)Regarding conservatives--actually there's a good set of pieces on this: conservatives have been a strain in SF for a very long time. There are four companion pieces: I linked them here at my LJ last year (http://catsittingstill.livejournal.com/311367.html)
no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 03:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 01:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 03:49 pm (UTC)He didn't want to go to Worldcon as an attendee who wasn't up for a Hugo.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 04:27 pm (UTC)Now Larry's current posts are all "Worldcon was mean to me!"
no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 04:52 pm (UTC)Funny thing. In this context, I would have thought 'evolving' would be ignoring Worldcon and Worldcon fans and roll around on a bed of $100s reading his royalty statements.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 08:25 pm (UTC)It comes across as insecure, you know?
no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 08:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 08:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 08:23 pm (UTC)On the other hand I accentuate the positive in many of my blog posts too, so it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he was unhappy at the time.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 08:53 pm (UTC)2011 Renovation - had an OK time, bummed at losing to a guy in a tiara... did you pick up the subtle, 'real men don't wear tiaras dig'
2012 Chicon - did get a nomination... was upset at that, really pissed at what won... decided that if 'schilling' is good enough for Scalzi, he could do it
2013 - Not only not on the ballot but REDSHIRTS WON! BENGSCALZI!!! Obviously the fix is in, so he tried harder with SP #2
2014 - Got on the ballot... got beaten.... Now it's obviously the damn LIBARULS! He was beaten by some weird feminazi junk.
2015 - time to really screw with the SJWs... except he passed to Brad, who tried to be his usual Sealion self (love that term), except actually Ted Beale hijacks it and now he's associated with that toxic mess.
Much spinning later, especially after being attacked, as he sees it by GRRM, he creates a narrative to show he's the victim.
Like with a plane crash, its never one thing that brings planes down but a sequence of events.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 09:30 pm (UTC)Correia didn't get a Hugo nom in 2012--perhaps you're thinking of Torgersen?
Brad's next-to-latest post with him being dragged away to a gulag was... well, weird. Is that really how he sees the world?
I think Correia bailed on his most recent slate nomination because he didn't want to be associated with Vox Day. He's hoping if he doesn't remind us that he taught Vox the power of slates *and* gave Vox his first proof-of-concept demonstration we'll assume he had nothing to do with what Vox is up to.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 09:42 pm (UTC)But yes, cuddling up to VD is like spooning with a porcupine, and three or four years of not handing out awards will greatly dent the value of a Hugo. (One or two years is survivable.) Torgersen's finally figured out that VD's goal is to torch the Hugos, and from reading his own comment threads some of Sad Puppies are bringing matches and gasoline.
Unfortunately, neither man can say "I was wrong." They just can't.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 09:50 pm (UTC)Of course they can't say "I was wrong." They come from a tradition where changing your mind is a visible sign that you are not fit to lead. Instead, when things to pear-shaped it will be "look what you made me do!"
no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 10:42 pm (UTC)I'm still not sure Brad can be quite as clueless as he comes across...
no subject
Date: 2015-04-11 12:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-11 02:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 10:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-10 01:23 pm (UTC)