Dostojevskij, Science Fiction and Humanity

Why is science fiction usually categorized as bad literature? And what is “good literature”?

Lets start with some personal reflections of the definitions of “good literature”.
I guess the definition of good literature varies depending on whom you ask. In school we get one message. The classics; Shakespeare, Dostojevskij, Voltaire, and so on, and of course, the Nobel Price winners. Yeah, they sure knew/know how to write. But what makes the establishment deem them so high? And why do people still read them?
I’m certainly no expert on literature and I haven’t studied the subject in any academic way. But I have read some of the “great authors” and other works of literature honored by professional critics and other experts. My personal guess is that those authors and acclaimed authors of today have/had a rare ability to address universal human topics in ways communicating over the centuries. The big human questions, feelings and doubts experienced by people are in the whole, approximately the same today as they were ages ago.
With the exception of skilled language (the technique), I believe “great writers”, to fulfill the above criteria, must have gained a lot of life experience to be able to address these topics in a competent ways.
So maybe what “great literature” does, is helping you understand yourself and the world around you, then and today, – based on the writers experience and observations. Experiences and observations from his or her past.
This is what I’m getting at. The past. Sure, as I said before, a lot of life as a human today is the same as it was even hundreds of years ago. And sure history sometimes repeats itself. This is important to remember. But the world has never before been as it is today. And it has never ever been as it will be tomorrow. And that is where we are all going.
Among the “great writers” there are a few exceptions, not leaning on the past, but I suppose you could debate whether or not they are among the “great authors”.
Anyway, Mary Shelley is one of them. Her novel Frankenstein was first published in 1831. Besides being an entertaining horror story, it shone some light on the moral issues of man being able to create life.
H. G. Wells and his first novel The Time Machine were published in 1895. A story about the implications of time travel, if it ever will be possible. Followed by The Island of Doctor Moreau, 1896, where he addressed the coming misgivings of biophysics. Other stories by Wells addressing different “what ifs” and possible futures are The First Men in the Moon and the well-known The War of the Worlds.
This new type of literature, today called Science Fiction, gives us a better chance to control the future of mankind. It can prepare us and start debates far in advance. It can also inspire to brand new technologies and fields of study. A lot of things we now take for granted were originally ideas from science fiction literature; robots, GPS, mobile phones, computer servers, and so on. Have a look at this list at Technovelgy.com for more SF related inventions.
One of the more recent topics of SF literature (and movies) are virtual worlds and artificial intelligence.
And I bet a lot of scientists and developers in different areas read SF for new ideas.
Today the numbers of writers addressing possible futures are enormous compared to just some decades ago. But do they get the respect they deserve? I would say no, they don’t. In my opinion, giving humanity possible scenarios of the future and knowledge of possible new technologies that drastically may change our society, through literature accessible to the masses, are very good things to do. Thanks to movies like the Matrix and books like Permutation City by Greg Egan we can start to understand the implications of those technologies long before they are fully evolved and put into practice.

The question it’s all boiled down to: Why is what is considered “good literature” devoted to the language and experiences from the past? Why are futurism not deemed higher?

In the end, all we have left is the future.

Fight the system

In a previous post I had some thoughts about if we ever will be able to look outside the universe. Or if a simulated intelligence, in a virtual environment, ever will be aware of CPUs and circuitry.
Well it sure seems like a hard thing to do.

So how about relationships? Aren’t relationships like other systems? If so, they seem, on a higher level, above the physics rendering us, to be based on emotions, feelings and needs.
Is that why it’s so hard to change things in relationships - because you can’t see the system from above? Even when great effort is put into renewal, you still go by the old rules?
But let’s have a look into the really small systems.

According to quantum theory, it is impossible in principle to measure both the position and momentum of an object to within a certain degree of precision at the same time. Because if you do, you will alter it.
Great! That’s probably what your counselor will tell you too: alter it! Break free from the system of every day. Put something new into it. Go on a trip or something.
It seems that everything really is tied together somehow, doesn’t it? From the smallest to the largest. And isn’t that what scientists all over the world is looking for – the theory of everything. String theory? Well, Try one if you like…