The Green Literature Proposal

I think I mentioned this on my Twitter a few times, but if you don’t follow me there, then this may be new to you. I recently sent out an abstract for a paper to a conference about green literature (specifically in science fiction). I haven’t heard back yet, but regardless, I wanted everyone to see what I was thinking about doing. So, here goes: The notion of the environment as an inanimate, and particularly harsh “other” brings to the forefront a particularly challenging question following what will likely be an inevitable requirement for humans to move into non-traditional living spaces: how must we survive at home or elsewhere when the potential range of environments leans heavily to what we currently accept as uninhabitable? Science fiction posits that this move will entail a variety of responses, and of particular interest are subaltern responses to cultural othering. Sly Mongoose by Tobias S. Buckell, Marseguro by Edward Willett, and The Silver Ship and the Sea by Brenda Cooper all imagine the future of subaltern figures as merging with an otherwise inhospitable environmental space. This symbiosis with the environment develops as a result of a desperation to seek shelter from a dominant human culture that seeks to purge the subaltern class from society. In this paper, I intend to analyze two things: 1) the symbiotic relationship between the subaltern and the environment and the fragility of such a relationship, even in far-future human vision; and 2) the implications/affects of such a symbiotic relationship on the nature of identity, both to the self and to the environment. So, thoughts? P.S.: It should be noted that I was partially inspired by Matt Staggs and his greenpunk manifesto.

The Future Spells Doom?

I know this has been discussed before, but I find it curious how prevalent the pessimistic has become in science fiction. I don’t think this is a bad thing, mind you, but it is something to acknowledge. But why? As curious as this whole thing is, the reasons why seem more intriguing. What draws science fiction writers to the more dark aspects of the human condition? To me, it seems that we focus on the bad because the good isn’t always so interesting, or perhaps because the good is already covered by an entire community of individuals with the future of the world in mind (we call them folks “scientists”). Maybe the bad is just that much more entertaining to write. For me, this is definitely true. It has something to do with beating up on my characters; I find something entertaining in torturing them. Maybe there is something similar going on with more well-established authors than myself. I don’t know. What do you think are the reasons why there is such a strong focus on the pessimistic in science fiction? Why is the optimistic not as appreciated? I’d like to know what you all think.