Settings: revisiting cyberpunk and its cousins

This entry was originally posted on 22 March 2005 at 9:55 a.m.

I'm a bit curious about the film Steamboy, which is reviewed over on Wired (review here). I started reading the review and stopped about five paragraphs in, when i read this:

It's no MIT dissertation -- Otomo has created a lavish, elaborate piece of entertainment that's quite aware of mainstream audiences. Still, Steamboy takes its subject -- the corrupting influence of science -- seriously. That alone sets it apart from most contemporary sci-fi.

And then i remembered an entry i posted here ages ago (...goes to search for it...found it!--it's the first one on the page, "The purpose of cyberpunk") where i asked these questions:

Does it all boil down to setting, or is there actually something different about this kind of story? Is it just another way of telling a tale that already exists--with a setting that's more reflective of today's technology (and hence, updated, or at least more fashionably clothed metaphors)?

Bottom line: is there really anything that cyberpunk can do that non-cyberpunk fiction can't? Is it just fancy dressing, or does it really teach us something new about humanity?

And i think i have an answer. Well, half an answer. I think a setting, especially a setting in which the technology and morality are different than that of the audience (at the time of publishing), can be used to highlight moral/ethical/social quandaries--and a disparate setting can do so more effectively in some cases than stories set in contemporary times (and without magic or cutting-edge technology as plot devices). The example of this that comes most immediately to mind is Orwell's 1984. Several books by Kurt Vonnegut also come to mind, especially Player Piano.

But this raises a new question: should it be the province of speculative fiction to always answer big what-if questions about the future of our species? I don't think so. In a sense, i think that constantly expecting great revelations from speculative fiction will ultimately drive it into the territory of moralization--a sure-fire way to kill its value in the eyes of mainstream readers.

And if moralization isn't the danger, then repetition, staleness, cynicism, and a steadily shrinking idea pool are. Great epiphanies or revelations about the future of humanity should be rare and precious, not a dime a dozen--once they're around every corner, they cease to be meaningful. And this is where i have to ask another question: is it possible for speculative fiction to address low-level issues (i.e., basic human interactions--not about the future of the species, but about how we are now), to act as a mirror in a way that mainstream/contemporary-set fiction can't?