,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I have to admit I like "classic" sci-fi more than the latest modern sci fi, because it's not so full of "modern anachronisms".
2/ We typically use "anachronistic" to refer to things out of place in history, in the wrong historical context. But it can also refer to sci-fi and speculating on the future, where things from the present are inappropriately projected into the future. 
3/ For example, in one of the first episodes of "Star Trek: Discovery", there was a line about how the main character should care more about slavery because she's black. That's nonsense, a contemporary American concern that wouldn't be so in the future.
4/ Historically, "slavery" has been a concern for all races and culture, and indeed still happens in various places around the world today. Yes, we are still living with the legacy of it in America, and that's an issue, but it's by no means unique to America.
5/ Moreover, the character in question grew upon Vulcan, so is even more divorced from the issue.
6/ The point is that it's an "anachronism", a contemporary issue that's out-of-place in the future sci-fi context.
7/ A lot of recent sci-fi is really more about the anachronisms than the sci-fi, about arguing current debates, instead of being about the future. I find it painful to read. I much prefer sci-fi where current debates are obsolete, and instead considers new debates.
8/ It's not the "current debates" are bad, but it should be in a non-anachronistic manner. For example, the original Star Trek often dealt with race, by projecting the issue onto aliens, giving a perspective OUTSIDE our current debates, rather than just repeating them.
