TV Watchtower: Good Sci-Fi Gone Bad

/Home/Articles about Science Fiction and Fantasy

TV Watchtower: Good Sci-Fi Gone Bad
July 13, 2010
By TIFFANY VOGT
Airlock Alpha

A few months ago I was invited to review a book by a new science-fiction author, and after finally finishing it, I found myself wondering, "Who on earth wants to read this?"

The story was interesting enough about alien planets with interesting beings and a war between good and evil, but the characters were all deeply flawed and engaged in sadistic practices. By the end, I hated every single one of them and wished they would burn in hell.

There is a faction of science-fiction that thinks this is what sci-fi audiences want. But do we really? Some of the greatest science-fiction of all time had nothing to do with graphic, gory violence. Ask a sci-fi buff what their favorite film or television series is, and they will cite Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, "Doctor Who," "Torchwood," "Babylon 5." Other favorites include "Alien," "Matrix," "The Terminator," "Blade Runner" and, while each of those are extremely violent, they still observed the rules of violence which is acceptable in science-fiction -- such as, violence toward women and children was typically taboo.

So while each of these films and series may have explored the darker psyche, they rarely depicted it crossing the line into the forbidden.

Yet there is an alarming trend in modern science-fiction to glamorize and spotlight extreme violence -- and the taboos and forbidden zones of classic science-fiction appear to have been tossed out the window.

The film "Kick-Ass" is a good example of a film that walked the fine line. It was perhaps one of the most bloody, gory films this year. But its redeeming factor was that it did not depict violence toward women or children. We watched Kick-Ass get pulverized, Big Daddy burnt to a crisp and one of the unfortunate background characters blown up in a microwave, but the film still observed a code of morality -- it kept Hit Girl, for the most part, out of harm's way. She was in the thick of it, but untouched. It is permissible to torture men on film, but never a woman.

Another example would be the film "V for Vendetta." It dared to show its star Natalie Portman's character undergo basic torture and the fans turned their backs on it for its audacity. Yet upon closer inspection, her character was never cut, beaten or brutalized, she was simply subject to water torture. It was permissible by science-fiction standards because it did not cross the line of what we as viewers and society will tolerate. Plus, the goal of Evie's ordeal was not to break her spirit, but to spur her spirit into taking a stand. It was not to degrade or delight in her debasement.

From last year, "District 9" is perhaps one of the most disgusting films I have ever seen, but it also did not cross the line of acceptable violence. It understood that it is OK to punch and shoot people, blow things up, and threaten to torture, but it stepped back from the edge by not going there.

There are those who will offer up Stephen King as an example of the darker side of science-fiction. But Stephen King is considered the King of Horror, not the King of Science-Fiction. While several of his works are considered great science-fiction like The Dark Tower series, "The Stand," "The Running Man," and "The Green Mile," to the world at large, he will always be the King of Horror.

King simply knows how to scare everyone. His intent is not to explore space and science of the future, he wants to explore the darker psyche of human beings and the monsters that may rise up amongst us. One caveat may be that he did enflame his audience by having a child pedophile be the villain in "The Green Mile," but even Mr. King dared not cross the taboo line by depicting it. He was smart enough to realize that his audience may find that unforgivable.

Yet so many writers fail to recognize that there is a line and do not hesitate to rush right in and break all the taboo rules. "A Clockwork Orange" is a great example. Credited as a classic fantasy/sci-fi film, it is revered by a cult fandom. But truly is it considered science-fiction? Perhaps it falls within the category of horror more than science-fiction.

Films like "Seven," the Saw series, and the Swedish films based on the books "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" are more likely to fit the horror category than qualify as science-fiction. Frequently, horror is confused with science-fiction. In fact, for many, horror is a sub-category of science fiction. However, here at Airlock Alpha, we believe it is its own category and afford it the courtesy of its own website.

Horror should not be considered a sub-category of science-fiction. It is called "horror" for a reason. It is meant to horrify its audience. The term alone gives a viewer the heads-up about what it is about. But from Comic-Con to your local book store, science-fiction usually is the umbrella which horror is casually tossed under. Oh, the horrors!

However, science-fiction is something else entirely. It is meant to challenge our hearts and minds by inviting us into worlds and realities that do not exist. It does not delight in finding ways to turn our stomachs and gape at the new levels of depravity human beings can dream up. Science-fiction may scare us and inflame our emotions, but it also knows that unless it engages us, we will not watch or read the stories it has to offer.

Would Star Wars fans have been as fanatical if they had tortured Princess Leia? Would Star Trek fans have been as passionate and loyal if it were not for the strict code of conduct observed by the Federation? Would "Battlestar Galactica" have enflamed a whole new generation of fans if it had not been careful to treat the humanoid looking Cylons as beings with human rights?

Great science-fiction is careful to engage and entertain its audience, not alienate it.

How many times have we watched a particularly disturbing scene on television and simply turned the channel? Or walked out of a movie theater because the film went too far down the dark path? Or thrown away a book because it gave us nightmares?

This is the last thing that any writer should want. What good does it do if the intended audience determines the book, film or television series too disgustingly awful to watch or read?

In today's modern world where Twitter posts can make or break a film within hours of its release, the power of "word of mouth" recommendations is enormous. Labels and initial reviews such as "piece of trash" or "waste of time" can kill any fledgling work of science-fiction before it even hits the theaters or sits on a bookshelf.

While self-censorship is not always ideal, it may be beneficial in ensuring that a good story gets a chance to be told. Any writer (whether for books, film or television) should ask their self, "Is there any part of this story that is unnecessary and which will dis-engage my audience?" If the answer is "yes," then by all means, take it out. But if you are a writer that feels that they can only be true to their vision by including scenes that will horrify and sicken the audience, then you must be content with only reaching a fringe audience.

For I hazard to say that the larger percentage of science-fiction fans are not willing to condone and promote such atrocities, even in fiction -- and better yet, they will not allow writers to profit from violations of our basic moral code. While atrocities do exist, we as a society and as fans of science-fiction do not have to sanction it.

I hereby posit that sci-fi audiences will tolerate only a certain level of extreme, graphic violence, in books, movies and television shows -- but only if it does not cross the line.