Science Fiction CMN117 – Week 3 Study Notes

Undefinable by nature → always expanding, mutating, hybridizing.
Core classroom question: “How would you define Science Fiction?”
Early publishing landmark: April 1926 launch of Amazing Stories (ed. Hugo Gernsback) featuring H. G. Wells, Jules Verne, Edgar Allan Poe.
Student expectation prompt: list personal ideas before lecture.

Long treated as “not literary” ⇒ fight for academic legitimacy.
Hybridity: merges natural sciences, social sciences, philosophy, aesthetics.
Generates simultaneous feelings of Fear & Wonder (“sense-of-wonder” tradition).
Representation spectrum:
• Positive inclusion – celebrates diversity, imagines equitable futures.
• Negative inclusion – exposes / critiques oppression, tries to reverse harms.
• Neutral inclusion – focuses on universal human/planetary experiences.

Natural sciences: Physics, Engineering, Computer Science, Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy, Atmospheric & Ocean sciences.
Social sciences: Political Science, Psychology, Anthropology, Economics, Geography.
Humanities lenses: Ethics, Philosophy, Literary theory.

Being: a literary mode grounded in plausibility & conceptual change.
Doing: forecasts futures AND reflects present conditions (mirrors + crystal ball).

Isaac Asimov
• “Consistently considers the nature of the changes that face us… impact of scientific advance on human beings.”
Ray Bradbury
• “Sociological studies of the future.”
• “Fable teacher of morality.”
• “Art of the possible” vs. fantasy’s “art of the impossible.”
• Labels James Bond films as “romantic, adventurous… science fiction.”
Philip K. Dick
• Requires at least one coherent conceptual dislocation that generates a new society.
Ursula K. Le Guin
• Science-fiction = thought-experiment describing present reality, not prediction; “not predictive; it is descriptive.”

Begin with a concrete research-based question.
• “What is the known data?”
• Investigate how technology & culture co-evolve.
Extrapolate: imagine $\text{If }X\to X'$ or $Y(t)=Y_0e^{kt}$ and ask “What if $k$ doubles?”
Sample “What if…?” prompts provided:
• Scarcity of vital resource $Z$ .
• Reanimated life.
• Continued social-behaviour-driven evolution.
• Declining fertility.
• Alien colonisation.
• Emotionally complex androids.
• Functioning anarchist society.

World must remain internally consistent.
Six common frames:
• Alternate-but-consistent world.
• Our world, slightly different.
• Our world, radically different.
• Off-world parallel.
• Off-world contrast.
• Utopian / Dystopian.
Detail is king: every invented element serves story effect; ground details in real precedents.
Margaret Atwood on The Handmaid’s Tale: used only real historical practices ⇒ minimal “pure invention.”

Both sides essential: facts/details (science) + character/plot/conflict (fiction).
Key craft ideals:
• Authenticity & plausibility (even if improbable).
• Complexity via accessibility: avoid jargon overload; explain or dramatise.
• Nuance: resist clichés.
• Brainstorm → freewrite → iterate; tease out hidden possibilities.

Pre-workshop list: choose 3 sci-fi works & interrogate:
• Driving scientific field?
• Central question?
• Science / fiction balance?
Free-write exercise: “WHAT IF?”
Orienting questions: expectations of SF, define extrapolation.

All Systems Red (Martha Wells)
• Voice: sardonic Murderbot; hacked governor module; binge-watches 35 000 h of entertainment; immediate immersion.^
Fahrenheit 451 (Ray Bradbury)
• Lyrical pyrotechnic imagery; inversion of firefighters’ role; visceral pleasure of burning.
Year of the Flood (Margaret Atwood)
• Eco-dystopian rooftop perspective; hymn “The Garden”; vultures as “God’s dark Angels of bodily dissolution.”
“Harrison Bergeron” (Kurt Vonnegut)
• Absurdist 2081 equality enforced by Handicapper General; satire via mandatory mental handicap radios.

Pure extrapolation often yields dystopian “cancer” outcome ≈ Club of Rome limits.
Better view: SF as dramatic concentration of contemporary trends, not crystal-ball prophecy.

Strategy: throw reader into the altered reality instantly (see All Systems Red opening).

Playing with Extrapolation
• Brainstorm plausible breakthroughs: life extension, “perfect” babies, AI, cloning, time alteration, atmospheric shifts, $\text{CRISPR-Cas9}$ gene edits, etc.
Research the Field
• Identify: Genetics, Cybernetics, Astrophysics, Ecology, Biology, Physics.
• Separate: known vs. assumed vs. still-theoretical.
Setting Design
• Where on timeline? Pre-shift ripple / immediate fallout / post-entrenchment.
• On-world vs. off-world; control & access politics; power asymmetries.
Character Construction
• Impact of science on protagonist.
• Motivation, hope, fear, strengths, weaknesses.
• Voice & emotional hook.
Scene Drafting Options
• Encounter with scientist.
• Branded radical.
• Discovers damning data.
• Meets another victim of new science.
• Survival scene in changed environment.

Genetics: What is CRISPR’s off-target error rate? Ethical frameworks?
Cybernetics: Current neurally-controlled limbs latency? <100\,\text{ms}?
Astrophysics: Viable exoplanet count within $50\,\text{ly}?$
Ecology: Tipping-point CO$_2$ ppm for coral die-off $\approx 450$ ?
Biology: Is biological immortality observed (e.g., $\textit{Turritopsis dohrnii}$ )?
Physics: Feasibility of Alcubierre drive; negative energy requirements.

Visual, social, economic, political implications when extrapolation is pushed to extreme.
Who funds / controls the breakthrough? Open-source vs. corporate monopoly.
Unequal access, black-market variants, resistance movements.

Central figure embodies tension of new science.
Potential archetypes: scientist, regulator, hacker, dissident, fringe religious convert, everyday citizen.
Emotional stakes must align with broader thematic inquiry.

Immediate immersion; minimise exposition dumps.
Use sensory detail anchored in speculative elements (smell of synthetic rain, weight of exo-suit, UI overlays).