How can I dig conflict out of an optimistic SF-nal premise?
I frequently have ideas for what could be called "optimistic" science-fiction premises - imaginary technological or social changes which I think would create an unusual and interesting setting, and "optimistic" in the sense that they have no immediate, obvious downside (or if they do, that's not the area I'm interested in exploring).
Finding conflict in a "pessimistic" premise is clear to me - if the premise is a cruel one (or has a central dark side), then people are suffering, and you can build your story around that. But, when I'm trying to portray a premise as mostly benign, I can't go that route.
Just to throw out a few examples, The Matrix and Minority Report take SF-nal concepts (simulated reality, precognitive crime prevention) and find ways for them to be used for horrible oppression. Asimov's robot stories present a far gentler society, but a great many of them still boil down to "How did this technology go wrong?," or "How can this technology be abused?".
How can I introduce and explore an SF-nal premise, while focusing on its positive aspects and largely ignoring the negative ones? If I want stories to explore the kind of society that would arise in a commonly-controlled simulated reality, or in one where PreCrime worked unquestionably well and was well-managed - where could I look for my story's driving conflict?
I am particularly interested in responses addressing short fiction. In longer form, "optimistic" sf-nal premises can be a single element in a larger setting with plenty of conflict. (For example, Star Trek is pretty archetypal "optimistic SF," but the stories aren't much about transporters, replicators, and warp drives.) In short fiction, I am finding this approach unhelpful, because there simply isn't room to expand a major concept that isn't central to the story.
3 answers
PROGRES.
Is there still anything left to achieve? If there is, why isn't this achieved yet? What obstacles are to be overcome? How do you overcome them?
Or maybe... the utopia deemed progress is the road to ruining the utopia? In that case you have a wonderful conflict: Someone decides to "improve upon the paradise". Following the premises of the utopia, this backfires horribly. We must deal with the fallout.
Or maybe everything that was to be achieved has been achieved? Wouldn't that make for a bitter victory? Wouldn't you hold a grudge for being shoehorned into the role of custodian of the museum of past glory? Nothing you do can surpass your ancestors. Problems deemed unsolvable were proven unsolvable and will remain unsolved forever. It's a sad world to live in.
Or maybe the descendants are even wiser. Maybe they came to a brilliant conclusion about how to avoid these caveats. In that case presenting that will make for an awesome story.
And if you want something more down-to-the-ground, pick any of hundreds standard conflicts of our days, the ones that provide food for most heart-wrenching dramas, and subvert them in resolving them with a snap of your fingers, using the miracles of your world. Yay, that was easy!
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/8572. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
If your change solves a problem that previously had no solution, there are likely people who have a stake in preserving the problem.
If your change solves a problem better than some previous solution, there are people who have a stake in the old solution.
If your change opens up new possibilities for people, then people don't yet know how to make the most of the new technology or its possibilities. They will have differing opinions about that, and those differences offer the possibility of conflict.
The new possibilities will likely draw people's attention, which will leave them less attention for some of the things that they used to attend to. Somebody has a stake in the things people used to attend to.
If your change solves problems without creating any new ones [see below], then some previously low-priority problems will become the highest priority problems. First-world problems like: "My god, so many paint colors to choose from for my ping pong room. How am I ever going to choose?"
It is highly unlikely that your change solves problems without creating any new ones. If you can't think of at least three problems created by your solution, it's almost certain that you haven't thought deeply enough about the ramifications.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/8469. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Conflict is fairly simple:
- Someone wants something.
- S/He/They cannot get it.
- What does s/he/they do about it?
So your optimistic TECH can be the solution to the problem, rather than the problem itself.
Basic ideas which could be solved with Happy TECH:
- Fish out of water: an alien from some much less optimistic society arrives and flails about trying to accomplish some task (deliver a package, meet someone, make repairs, purchase something).
- Fish out of water, domestic variant: country bumpkin comes to big city, marvels at bright lights and big buildings. Decides to stay in Gay Paree rather than go back to the farm.
- Pick a fairytale, any fairytale: Puss in Boots. The Frog Prince. The Princess and the Pea. Cinderella. Any of these could be solved faster (or at least made more interesting) with the application of TECH.
- Missed connection: I saw you on the train as we passed, I fell in love, now I have to find out your name.
- Plan Mom's surprise birthday party. Mom could be 150, if you like.
Watch any sitcom, boil the plot down to an elevator pitch, and rebuild it in your universe.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads