OPINION Science fiction should not strive to accurately represent reality, but should indulge our imaginations by Brennan Edel | Oct 30 2014 | 10\/30\/14 12:24am <\/p>\n
I have a soft spot for science fiction. Right next to Faulkner in my heart lie Clarke and Heinlein. So Im rightly excited about Christopher Nolans new, anticipated and mysterious science fiction film Interstellar, which stars Matthew McConaughey as the pilot of a team of astronauts tasked with finding a new, habitable planet for the human race. Interestingly enough, however, most of the anticipation regarding Interstellar isnt surrounding the plot. Certainly there is excitement about another Nolan flick, but a lot of the excitement is about how Interstellar a science fiction film is more science and less fiction. <\/p>\n
In fact, the top four 13 Awesome Things We Now Know about Interstellar are about how scientific Interstellar is. Nolan heavily consulted with Kip Thorne, a retired and esteemed California Institute of Technology professor, over the course of the films production to generate equations for the computer-rendering of light around black holes and wormholes. Over the course of his involvement, Thorne actually advanced the field and can, according to Wired magazine, get at least two published articles out of it. However, will this scientific accuracy really improve Interstellar? <\/p>\n
What should be asked of science fiction films is not consistency with our reality, but consistency with their own realities. In the original series of Star Trek, Spock and Captain Kirk, over three seasons, go relatively unscathed as scores of Enterprise security men get eaten, stabbed, shot, mangled and crushed by the multitudinous terrors of extraterrestrial life. In this reality, the heroes always survive; the bad guys are always terrible shots. No random goon can wound Skywalker or Kirk or The Man with no Name: badasses of that magnitude can only be taken down by other badasses. None of this needs to be explained the fantasy just needs to remain consistent with itself. <\/p>\n
Thus Interstellar is taking a huge risk when it purports to be scientifically valid. It then doesnt just need to be consistent with the rules that it sets down, but also consistent with all of reality. The recent film Lucy made the mistake of trying to place itself in reality. Scarlett Johanssons character takes a drug that will unlock the full use of her brain as opposed to merely 10 percent. Lucy becomes ridiculous when you know that the 10 percent myth is so wrong it is almost laughable, according to Barry Gordon of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. In retrospect, the movie shouldnt have tried to justify the drug at all: then we could have accepted the plot. Interstellar is opening itself up to the same criticism of logic if it strays beyond reality an unnecessary risk because science fiction should unapologetically go beyond reality. <\/p>\n
Science fiction, despite its name, isnt based on science or at least it shouldnt be. That its described as scientific at all is really a misnomer, because the vast majority of science fiction works are patently absurd. In Star Wars you can hear sounds in space, and the cruel Empire designs their AT-AT walkers with outlandishly high centers of mass seemingly for the nice view. In William Gibsons Neuromancer computer hacking is performed in virtual reality, like a bank heist. But these irrationalities give science fiction its poignancy, because, unlike our own universe, which is so very often disappointing, science fiction is unconfined by reality and cold logic. Who isnt sobered by the knowledge that the progressive decay of our cells DNA precludes any real chance of immortality? Who isnt saddened by the realization that fuel constraints will probably keep the human race from ever exploring the galaxy, that we will probably never be using flying cars, or teleporters, or that none of us will probably ever make first contact with an alien race? Realistic thinking is good for retirement planning, but its not good for science fiction. <\/p>\n
Interstellar may end up being a visual masterpiece, but it might not be science fiction. Great science fiction allows us to transcend natural limitations: to place humans in world they perhaps wont ever see and to see how they would respond. Science fiction allows us to explore how humanity will react to the impossible. Nolans focus on realism is interesting, but in the end its just a gimmick. Whether Interstellar is a good science fiction flick wont be determined by its adherence to the rational but by its imagining of the fantastic. I dont want to see a universe where a near future Earth has been devastated by drought and famine, causing a scarcity in food and extreme changes in climate. Thats too immediate and realistic a concern for science fiction. Give me grand themes and strange sights, as the genre demands. Ask me what it means to be human when cyborgs have more emotion than man, like in Blade Runner. Show me a planet Hoth and planet Endor. Give me something as unbelievable as 2001. Dont give me science. Give me fiction. <\/p>\n
That said, come November 7th Ill still be the first person through the doors. <\/p>\n
Brennan Edel is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at b.edel@cavalierdaily.com<\/a>. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n View post: OPINION Science fiction should not strive to accurately represent reality, but should indulge our imaginations by Brennan Edel | Oct 30 2014 | 10\/30\/14 12:24am I have a soft spot for science fiction. Right next to Faulkner in my heart lie Clarke and Heinlein. Continue reading
\nEDEL: In a galaxy far far away<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"