Even if you’re not a Dr Who fan, you might still be aware that the outgoing Doctor is Jodie Whittaker. (Overlooking the whole David Tennant coming back for some specials thing). At the beginning of her stint the adverts, on BBC at least, had the strap line “It’s about time…“, a clever play on words given the premise of the show, and the length of time it had been running before they cast a woman as the Doctor.
Having been doing some deep thinking about the characteristics of Speculative Fiction (Part 1 and Part 2), it occurred to me that implicitly or explicitly, overtly or covertly, it’s about time. Whilst time travel is obvious, alternate histories are alternate due to a fundamental difference of choice at one point in time. Science Fiction is usually set at least a little in the future, Fantasy in the past, or in a setting that owes its decor to some bygone era. We could get bogged down in the minutiae of sub-genres (steampunk, dieselpunk and the like), but as a general basis for a discussion, this arbitrary distinction feels reasonably fair.
The fundamental question at the heart of all speculative fiction must be “What if…?“, but it’s hard to think of an example that doesn’t require consideration of the fourth dimension.
I’ve been reading some Science Fiction classics recently, some for the first time, some for the second or third time but with a distance of at least a decade since I first engaged with them. Some, but not all struck me as a little dated, perhaps tied too closely to the social environment of the time of writing. Others, particularly those set in the nearish future suffer from being linked to specific dates which have been and gone. For example, Kim Stanley Robinson’s epic Mars trilogy, whilst extending a fair way into the future, begins at a point that is already in our past. We’re definitely off schedule when it comes to crewed missions to the Red planet, let alone colonisation. On the other hand, it does give us more time to have the debate about whether we should… (Although I don’t suppose any such debate will ever really happen).
In thinking about this datedness, I wondered if any genre under the speculative fiction umbrella was completely immune to the ravages of time. I was beginning to conclude that, ironically, Historical Fiction might stand the best chance when I came across an article about a new discovery which put something or other in a different light, and it reminded me that everything I’d thought I’d learned from Rosemary Sutcliff’s Eagle of the Ninth about the loss of the Ninth Hispania in the wilds of Caledonia was probably, in fact, nonsense. (It’s still a good story, but now we might have to think of it as Alternate History, the history of a parallel Earth). The story still has the power to influence though, as in the Capaldi-era Dr Who story ‘The Eaters of Light’. You can’t keep a good story down, even when the evidence is against it…
So how does speculative fiction stand the test of time? Can it stand the test of time? It depends a lot on the readership, I think, and what people are interested in reading. I got into Science Fiction properly aged about 11 or 12 when an uncle recommended that I read Asimov’s Foundation stories. Today these have something of a bad rep. Asimov was a man of big ideas and clever twists, but a distinctly underwhelming ability to create characters. That probably matters less when you’re 12, but as you get older, it does make things a bit 2D. (In its defence, the early books started life as short stories, published in magazines). One of my all time favourite Asimov books is Caves of Steel, possibly because the characters feel a bit less 2D than elsewhere, possibly because the setting is just so well imagined. It’s difficult to know who I might recommend it to though, because it is dated – it couldn’t help be anything but within the context of the era in which it was written.
As a writer, there are numerous reasons for setting words down for others to read. Getting the voices out of our heads is more than critical, and whilst there is the fantasy of selling a million copies, I think most of us are honest enough to know that the likelihood of that happening is slim. Even so, there is the hope that our stories will have some sort of longevity.
So, where does this get us? At the heart of Speculative Fiction is the What if…?. The longevity of the story then becomes an issue of linking the what to when. Time travel stories give us an opportunity to take characters who exist in a point in time, and hence are burden with a particular set of cultural baggage and place them in a different time when there are are other cultural mores, which can be used to challenge our own, for comic effect, or to make some philosophical point. But a reader cannot live by time travel stories alone, and neither can a writer.
If a story is to have any kind of staying power then it needs to display some level of timelessness that means that it transcends the moment in which it is written, or it needs to be so perfectly representative of its time that people will continue to read it and recommend it to others. I mentioned the Foundation series earlier and it is interesting to note that there is a new TV series based on Asimov’s work, although I understand with some substantial changes and better defined characters. Mark Twain’s Connecticut Yankee in the Court of King Arthur is a classic that was of its time, but has been retold for different audiences many times over, and no doubt will provide inspiration for writers in the future.
As writers, where does this leave us? There are so many things to get right, and I could labour the point and talk about aspects like pacing, i.e. the rate at which the action unfolds over, yes, time…but that’s not really the point here. We could talk about successful books capturing zeitgeist, but you can’t really predict immediate success or longevity by how well a story expresses the spirit of the time – all you can do is take your time and write the best story you can. Whether your setting is made up or based in history, it’s about time, the time, and the consistency of your story relies on the consistency of its presentation.
David Jesson, 2017