Will the Future Also Be Violent Because Science Fiction is Violent?

Will the Future Also Be Violent Because Science Fiction is Violent?

Remembering Pacifistic Anthologies: Lewis Shiner’s When The Music’s Over, and Harry Harrison and Bruce McAllister’s There Won’t Be War.

By Ryder W. Miller

It was a very satisfying feeling to hold a sword in my hand during the first annual Golden Gate Renaissance Faire. Not being skilled with swordsmanship I held it akwardly. All the blades on display, and the many fair goers with weapons, made the celebration somewhat nerve wracking. I would have felt less nervous if there were a lot of phony ray guns rather than all the sharp enough blades, and was surprised at myself for enjoying the feeling of a sword in my hand.

In these times, we need ask if science fiction and fantasy adds to the forces that make the world violent? Or does science fiction need to be violent to represent the world-the universe-realistically?

Can science fiction and fantasy authors envision solutions to the impasse of war and the violence of the world? They have tried in some parts of the vast science fiction universe, and there have been successes.

In his 1991 anthology When the Music’s Over, Lewis Shiner attempts to stem the onslaught of a violent world with tales that show there are solutions and alternatives to war and violence. Collected are original stories by Bruce Sterling, Nancy Kress, Robert Anton Wilson, Pat Cardigan, Paul McAuley, Jack McDevitt and others. The good guys are not always good guys (or gals) and the bad guys are not always bad guys (or gals) in these tales. The stories are not all about the battlefield, and there are also stories about work, conscience, and romance. Included are a variety of types of tales including alternative war stories, social stories, dreams, horror, fantasy and science fiction. These complicated tales bear close reading especially because the battle lines are not clearly drawn. Shiner found most of his contributors in idealistic California and Austin, Texas.

Though a book whose funds were donated to Greenpeace, there is not a lot about environmentalism in When The Music’s Over. But in its way, the book contends that environmentalists need to acknowledge the violence of the world. A violent world is everybody’s problem. Whether it is the environmentalist’s purview or responsibility is another question?

Shiner’s anthology is hopeful and visionary. It is also an example of science fiction as a vehicle for social change.

Printed in tandem and in the same spirit is the anthology of collected-not all original-stories There Won’t Be War (1991) edited by Harry Harrison & Bruce McAllister.

There Won’t Be War is a more satisfying anthology because it not only presents hopeful stories, the stories also explore the means to attain a more peaceful world. The emphasis is on solutions, and the anthology contains stories by such science fiction luminaries as Isaac Asimov, Frederick Pohl, Joe Haldeman, Robert Sheckley, Jack McDevitt, and others.

These anthologies were conceived as a reaction to Jerry E. Pournelle’s long running series There Will Be War.

In his series, Pournelle beats the drums of war and comments upon military history, the need to defend democracy, and our détente with the Soviet Union during the 1980s. Here one finds the writing of Rudyard Kipling, a number of science fiction luminaries as well as others, and old famous war slogans. The series is jingoistic, but not always bad.

In Volume III: Blood and Iron (1984) Pournelle argues against MAD (the Mutually Assured Destruction deterrence strategy) offering Star Wars and Assured Survival as an alternative:

“Assured Survival was defined as a strategy that sought to ensure the survival of the United States, not merely to assure the destruction of the Soviet Union.” (Page 16)

Pournelle relays that in 1969 with Stefan Possony he tried to convince the incoming administration to adopt Assured Survival instead of MAD, but they failed.

In Volume IV: Day of the Tyrant (1985), Pournelle criticizes Stalin, but he sounds paranoid when he writes:

“The truth is that no nation is safe. Tyrants seldom come openly, their hands dripping with blood, their eyes blazing with hate. More often they come as friends of the people; tireless workers for the public good, heroes who will save the nation; who will cut the Gordian knot of parliamentary babble; who will carry out people’s will.” (Page xiii)

Pournelle goes on to quote Thomas Jefferson who “said it well”: “the tree of liberty is a delicate plant. It must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

In his series Pournelle argues for American interests. In Volume VI: Guns of Darkness (1987) he justifies the need for “the Fog of War”, and argues for the need to use new technologies. One can hear the drums of war when Pournelle writes “The truth is that war is a contest of wills.” (Page 1) In the same introduction he relays the argument that what will “bring down” the Soviet Union is a free press there.

In Volume IX: After Armageddon (1990) Pournelle argues for the need for environmentalism and proposes that we put all the polluting industries in space. Just like he writes that wars are necessary, he also writes about how expansion into the solar system can solve our problems. He is visionary:

“Next question. Is the global disaster required? And again we know the answer. Clearly it’s not, so long as we act sensibly.

What’s sensible?” (Page 403)

Later Pournelle writes:

“Who chooses the future? Those who dream the future choose the future.

You can’t predict the future, but you can invent it.” (Page 404)

But Moses was not able to enter the Promised Land. Maybe it is better for the visionaries to not have only experienced in John Dewey’s (who Pournelle quotes in Volume VI) words: “the debris of man’s past experience.”

In reaction to Pournelle’s long running anthology Shiner writes:

“There are many of us who find this a self fulfilling prophecy. Until we are willing to believe that war is not a necessity, until we turn our hearts and minds and creativity to finding other solutions, then history will continue to repeat itself.” (Page 2)

Shiner whose contributors produced stories where conflict was resolved without violence wrote:

“I would like them to cast at least small shadows over Rambo and Dirty Harry and the other gun-toting icons of our time. I would like people who read this book to stop for a second and see the world through somebody else’s eyes.

That would be enough.” (Page 3)

The cyberpunks, with a reputation for pessimism and presenting dark futures show a different side in Shiner’s anthology. One could argue that they have found the grist of modern problems more inspirational, but Shiner’s anthology differs from the categorical stereotype. Many of the famous cyberpunk writers are anthologized including Pat Cardigan, John Shirley, Bruce Sterling and others. Most of the stories are excellent, but they require close reading because the battle lines are not always clearly drawn. Some of the solutions include helpful drugs, foreign traditions, creative thinking, and fantasy.

There Won’t Be War (1991) is also hopeful, but it is more interested in the techniques to solve world problems. Harry Harrison in the Afterword to There Won’t Be War wrote: “Those who write about the glories of future conflict are writing the pornography of war.” (Page 303)

Harrison wrote that Gorbachev was the most “imaginative science” fiction writer living having invented “Glasnost and Perestroika” which came true and ended The Cold War.

“The authors of the stories in this anthology have risen to Gorbachev’s challenge. All of them are aware of that very simple yet tremendously vital concept:

We are what we think we are.” (Page 303)

McAllister wrote hopefully in the Introduction to There Won’t Be War:

“Is it that, as human beings, we’re doomed never to make everlasting peace-or is it simply that we distrust ourselves, that we’re cynical, the way any idealist who very much wants something and never gets it in life becomes cynical-though indeed we do have the potential to make peace?” (Page 2)

McAllister and Harrison’s anthology also explores the psychological obstacles to peace:

“That very distrust, however-that cynicism, as we continue to dream our dreams of peace-may tell us more about what it means to be human than we realize.” (Page 3)

The ramifications of fiction’s impact on the public has been explored by social scientists. Introductory textbooks in Mass Media have documented that the media can impact knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and values. Our humor, maybe also as result, is sometimes violent. Is there any reason to believe that stories cannot have the same potential impact on the collective psyche? But we do have choices. It is very possible to prefer the Theatre or Literature to television and movies because the “values” are different.

But the verdict is not in yet. Some have argue that violence in the stories we encounter provide catharsis: the expunging or working through of our angry emotions. Violence in film and story sometimes argues for itself, and for some convincingly. The movie The Postman (based on the novel by David Brin) is a prime example, where the protagonist in the movie must eventually confront the need to be violent when he fights in a duel against the evil leader of a militia. In this vision, if he was violent from the start there would have been a lot less problems. The film Clockwork Orange argues that we may become victims if we let our defenses down.

But there are also examples of fiction which argue about what is necessary for us to strive for a peaceful world like Joe Haldeman’s Forever Peace where painful experiences result in people having empathy and desire to stop war. This is presented as an onerous task because it is not expedient to do this one person at a time. One of the ways to be part of this effort is to respect our educators.

Violence in story can also act like junk food, something we have developed a craving and taste for. The plot does seem to pick up in John Brunner’s Stand on Zanzibar when Donald Hogan is “eptified” and given the mission to kill. Star Wars and Star Trek are exciting, but not necessarily always intellectually challenging, because of the framing of these intergalactic battles.

And there is something satisfying in watching the destruction (or disappearance) of your enemies. Holding the sword at the Renaissance Faire, Ranger Ryder holding the sword in his hands, was like biting into a double cheeseburger, something tasty and satisfying, but not necessarily good for the body or the planet. It would be even more fun, or felt safer, to have had a ray gun in my hand. We have played with these things, with no real harm to ourselves, when we were young. But maybe we hurt the future with these games? Maybe Dungeons & Dragons generated deviance? Even though it is imaginary, why shouldn’t violent science fiction be included in the violent and harmful media category?

The future may also be violent because of the past, television, movies, our lack of patience, and desire for retribution. A desire for violence sometimes originates from our inability to solve conflict, also the failure of our political, legal, and economic systems. Violence results from the frustration that results from living in social systems that force us to compete to meet our basic needs. Some turn to violence because they cannot meet their basic needs. Some are violent because they feel the need to scare off others. Society does not have enough prime living spaces or opportunities (with good jobs, significant others, etc…), and the military presents itself as a way to improve oneself and one’s life (to be a hero instead of a bum).

It is important to remember that there are solutions and techniques to resolve conflict. The Monsterification of the enemy results in us being less likely to find the necessary common ground to make peace. There are ways to effect the impasse of war and violence. There are consensus decision making processes where individuals can block the process if they are being treated unfairly. There is mediation and arbitration which allows individuals or nations to work through conflict. Democracy can help the world eventually root out leaders who cause war and misery. There are benign and idealistic International laws. Technology has drastically improved our ability to communicate and therefore understand each other. The field of Political Economy can teach us how to distribute the wealth more equally. Science fiction can be a vehicle to explore and plan the future.

Science fiction also provides an alternatives. One can find some nonviolent science fiction if they look. There have been a number of fine recent science fiction movies that did not receive major fanfare like Solaris, The Stepford Wives, and Robot Stories. Though not perfect under this consideration, these films were about love rather than warfare.

But the answer to the question of the mass media as an accomplice in creating a violent world is also not clear cut or black and white. As mentioned earlier, the experience of violent science fiction maybe pacifying the reader through indirect means. One may only need to make threats when they communicate by recommending movies or television to others. There are also far more dangerous crowds than the science fiction and fantasy fandom. Killing the bad guys, who in many famous science fiction scenarios are needlessly violent and destructive (The original Klingons (Star Trek), The Imperial Forces (Star Wars), The Magog (Andromeda)) sets an example that we can aspire to greater things like altruism, pacifism, knowledge, and cooperation. Science fiction at its best does not need to be violent. A number of the less popular Star Trek movies are excellent having departed from the space cowboy scenarios to be more conceptual like the first film, The Return Home, and The Search for God.

Some have argued that we are violent by nature, that it is inherent, but the stakes have become much higher recently. Our violent “predisposition” is no longer attached to clubs, nails, rocks, and swords. We now have rifles, atomic bombs, grenades, etc…. In the future we may have ray guns, Death Stars, directed asteroids, and interplanetary missiles. We need to control the violent impulse in order to survive whether or not it is inherent or learned.

As an agent of social change, science fiction can also present techniques and solutions to the impasse of a violent world.

Most of the stories in Shiner’s, and McAllister and Harrison’s anthologies are excellent and thought provoking. When the Music’s Over can remind us of the dream for a more peaceful world. There Won’t Be War also forces us to confront the problem, and provides solutions. These anthologies suggest that the other “bad guy” (or “bad gal”) out there may not necessarily be much worse than us. We can change and put down our weapons together.

Bibliography:

Harrison, Harry and McAllister, Bruce. (Editors). There Won’t Be War. (1991) A Tom Doherty Associates, Inc. Book.

Pournelle, J.E. , and Carr, John F. (Editors). There Will Be War. Vol III: Blood and Iron. (1984) Tor Books

Pournelle, J.E. , and Carr, John F. (Editors). There Will Be War. Vol IV: Day of the Tyrant. (1985) Tor Books

Pournelle, J.E. , and Carr, John F. (Editors). There Will Be War. Vol VI: Guns of Darkness. (1987) Tor Books

Pournelle, J.E. (Editor). There Will Be War. Vol IX: After Armageddon. (1983) Tor Books

Shiner, Lewis. (Editor). When the Music’s Over. (1991) A Bantam Specta Book.