Literature of new ideas

On March 28, in No. 225 of the Triv-hunger, an interesting article by Anton Pervushin was published “ Problems of science fiction in Russia: imaginary and real ”. I would like to continue the conversation, especially since A. Pervushin rightly noted, "the NNF segment needs to be created, in fact, from zero, conquering the attention of readers." In this regard, it is necessary to clearly determine what exactly is being discussed, why it is necessary to recreate the science fiction area from scratch in Russia, and if it is really necessary to recreate the NNF, what needs to be done for this.

I agree with A. Pervushin in determining the subject of conversation. NNF (“Scientific science fiction”, in the West, usually the Hard Science Fiction) is a fantastic text that “differs from the rest with the explicit presence of a scientific search (in a wider sense - scientific thinking) as a narrative dominant.”

However, the article has statements with which I would like to argue, and there are no NNF criteria that, it seems to me, should be present, otherwise the goal of reconstructing the NNF will not be achieved in Russia.

Pointing to scientific thinking as a narrative dominant, A. Pervushin continues: “... focusing, of course, on the best Western samples, as happened a hundred years ago-in the early 1920s.” Indeed, the Soviet (and then Russian) science fiction was guided by the best Western samples. As a result, the Soviet NF systematically lagged behind the development of the Western (English) Science Fiction for two to three decades. The reason for the lag in the 1930-1940s was the strongest ideological pressure. American science fiction writers mastered other planetary systems using John Campbell Hyperproduction, and Soviet wrote about electric tractors and rare flights to the nearest planets of the solar system. Of course, the point is not only that the American authors “flew” further, higher, faster. The classic of American science fiction Hugue Gernsbek did not shine with literary talents, but in the glory to him the novel “Ralph 124s 41+”, he scored so many new scientific- (I emphasize- scientific-) fantastic ideas that they were enough for a whole generation of science fiction writers. Soviet authors were limited to the popularization of well-known scientific and technical achievements, often even lagging behind the real developments of scientific and technical thought.

Of course, Soviet science fiction writers did not write about that and not like Western colleagues (different worlds, different ideologies ...), but in terms of the level of ideas they mainly followed in the fairway of English-speaking fiction, lagging behind (and even now too) for two or three decades. We are talking about the average level-of course, there were unique authors with independent NF ideas: Ivan Efremov, Heinrich Alts, Valentina Zhuravlev ... I do not mention the Strugatsky brothers-they still worked in the suck of social fiction, although in their works interesting and new ideas were found-it is enough to recall the “homeostatic world outbreak” from telling “for a billionaire” years to the end of the world. "

It is the new NF ideas that is one of the main criteria for the quality of the NNF. This was strong Soviet science fiction of the 1960s-early 1970s. By the novelty of the ideas put forward, Soviet writers could compete with the Western. Not all, of course, but also in Anglo-American science fiction, we are talking about the peaks (Heinline, Azimov, Saimak ...), and not about the average level, about which Stanislav Lem spoke unequivocally: “slag”.

In 1982, Henry Altshuller and I came up with the scales for evaluating the science fiction ideas “Fantasy-2”. The need forced: Henry Saulovich held seminars on the theory of solving inventive problems (TRIZ), advised listeners for the development of the imagination to read science fiction, then the need arose in the system of evaluating ideas - so that different opinions could be compared. They were evaluated according to five criteria, the first of which was the novelty of the NF Idea, the second-its reliability. I will quote Perevushina: “However, her (NNF. - p . A. ) The construction should comply with well -known principles, look reliable . The requirement of reliability is key. ” I agree: this is one of the key criteria. A. Pervushin, however, does not say about the novelty, and this is symptomatic: the novelty of the ideas necessary half a century ago when evaluating the NF production, now it was removed from the appeal. Repeatedly (and in the article by A. Pervushin also) it was said that modern Russian science fiction repeats the same plots. Half a century ago, one could read that “the imagination of science fiction writes science”, to which the scientists answered: “Whatever you imagine, we will still overtake you.” Both were true: science fiction writers (in the best works, of course) offered new NF ideas, which, they used to become scientific discoveries, and scientists, perceiving or rejecting NF-ideas, opened new horizons not only to science, but also to science fiction. The mutual influence was obvious and gracious for both science fiction and science.

In the zero years, there were no new ideas in Russian science fiction. It did not become so that when the science fiction writers who called themselves “revived” (A. Pervushin among them) made the failed, unfortunately, attempt to revive NNF in Russia, they began to talk not about new NF-ideas, but instead of this an unsuccessful, in my opinion, the term “fantastic assumption”. As a result, the term has not only changed - changed - more precisely, it disappeared - meaning. “Fantddor” can be anything: let's say that there is a world where all the inhabitants of the telepath; Suppose that the friction force disappeared, and so on. Fantddorment does not require justification and has no logical consequences. This is a fundamentally different (and not for the better) approach to NNF. Yes, and the “fante -attachment” as a verbal monster is perceived. On New Year's Eve, I remember, one of the fantasy writers wished his colleagues “new fantastic ideas” on Facebook. A good wish, but imagine: "I wish you new fantils!"

The new NF-Yidea necessarily has a background, the reason; A new idea arises as the development of scientific ideas, scientific search. NF-Yidea affects the development of fantastic science (see the article “ The Science of Fantastic Discoveries ” in the Trav-Hawk, No. 128 of May 7, 2013).

Of course, the death of the NNF in Russia has more than one reason, and the article by A. Pervushin states this. But the main thing, why the NNF dies, whether in Russia or anywhere else is the absence of new NF-idi. There are no new ideas - there is no movement, stagnation begins, chewing the old, the pace is lost ... and that’s it.

You can talk a lot of why the new NF ideas disappeared. To say that scientists have ceased to write science fiction (they didn’t do this before), that science has ceased to interest society (but popular science literature in Russia is now on the rise, and this is also noted in the article by A. Pervushin), that publishers do not want to publish “non-format”, which is difficult to sell ... and all this rests on three words that are not spoken in the article: “There are no new new ones ideas ". In science-there is, popular science literature talks about this; And in the NNF there are no new ideas. Moreover, even A. Pervushin, one of the brightest representatives and propagandists of the NNF in Russia, writes: “NNF is an ideal tool not only for modeling worlds and creating reasonable futurological extrapolations, but also to illustrate the most difficult concepts of the philosophy of science.”

Please note: we are talking about "futurological extrapolations" and "illustrations of concepts." Extrapolation means that there are no fundamentally new ideas and will not be. Futurology is therefore not able to create long -term forecasts, and even medium -term are rarely justified: the main method of futurologists is extrapolation of existing trends. But the trends have the property of “breaking” when a new (moreover - fundamentally new) idea, a new direction arises in science or technology. And the forecast fails.

Another futurological technique is the method of expert assessments. But how do they use it? They interview experts, receive grades, after which the most extreme, marginal opinions are filtered out, the “scientific and technical mainstream” remains. That is, the opinions that, most likely, have to create a new tendency in the future, are led out of discussion and the “predictive field”! NNF topics, in particular, differs from futurology (science) and all other areas of science fiction (literature), which is strong with ideas that predict (in any case, it tries to do this) a new quality. New discovery in science, new inventions in technology. In our altov scale “Fantasy-2”, such ideas are evaluated according to the criterion of “Novelty” by the highest score 4. But also points 2 and 3 are given to ideas where the new quality is present, although to a lesser extent. A point 1 is evaluated by the novelty of the NF-Ide, if this idea is in no way change the already well-known prototype. In other words, not a prognostic, but a popularizing idea.

Here we approach the discussion of another thesis of the article by A. Pervushin: whether in modern NNF the function of popularization and education is needed. “With education,” says Anton, “modern popular science literature successfully copes. The authors of the NNF must provide only references to the relevant work. ” This really acts in the article by A. Pervushin Peter Watts, aiming readers on an independent study of the subject, which is discussed in the NNF. However, it is the educational, popular science side-the main plot-forming element of such works of the NNF as the “breakthrough beyond the world” of Boris Stern, the trilogy of the Astrovite Nick Gorky, and in Western science fiction-the “anathemas” of the Nile Stevenson, the Martian trilogy of Kim Stanley Robinson and many others. NNF needs any (like any other frying fantasy), including educational. I already wrote in the article “Scientists, journalists, science fiction writers (TRV-HOW, No. 217 of November 15, 2016) on the return of educational function to science fiction at the current stage of development.

How far in his ideas can the author of the NNF go? What new quality should (or maybe) have an idea with a criterion for novelty in 4 points? Is it possible to agree with the thesis of A. Pervushin that “the NNF is able to model“ fictitious ”cognized worlds with the restriction that their laws do not enter into an irreconcilable contradiction with those that we know at the moment”? Herbert Wells's “Time Machine” is often attributed to social fantasy, but then social fiction should be attributed to all the NF production of the English writer without exception, since in any of his novels he explores the social consequences of purely science fiction ideas. The idea of ​​a time machine fundamentally contradicts the ideas of modern science about the nature of time. However, in 1895, when Wells published a novel, the idea of ​​time as a fourth dimension (and the possibility of moving on this measurement) was quite scientific, and the writer heard about it at a popular science lecture. Alchemy is a pseudoscience, but the story of Arthur Conan Doyle “The Opening of Ralfza Hou” (1891) in the year of its publication could be called a work of NNF if such a definition existed at that time.

On the other hand, the idea of ​​John Campbell about the existence of a hyperspace in which you can instantly move from one point of the Universe to any other (1931, the novel “Island of Space”), at the time of publication fundamentally contradicted the then scientific ideas. Now it is no longer so obvious - described, for example, “Mole -free holes”, moving through which, according to theory, almost endless energy. But there is no longer a fundamental contradiction.

Another example. A fantastic novel about the distant future, where the stars fly on atomic starships, does not enter into an irreconcilable contradiction with modern science, and G. Altova’s story “Starry River” is entered. NF-ideas of the story: The speed of light in explosive processes can many times exceed 300 thousand km/s. Nevertheless, this story for the NNF seems more important and interesting than many works about the flights of “ordinary” starships. The story contradicts the letter of modern science, but does not contradict the spirit of science, scientific methodology. The story is taught even according to Popper's formal criteria: the NF-Ide of the story can be refuted (this is not a problem) and check (which the hero of the story does).

* * *

To recreate the Russian (wider - Russian -speaking) science fiction from scratch, I agree. That's just the reason causes doubt. “Why do we need our own scientific science fiction, if there is a developed English -speaking one? - asks A. Pervushin. And he answers: - In the “fiction” worlds generated by Western NNF, Russia and Russians are not at all. They seem to be denied the right to the future. ”

I do not think that, becoming an offended pose, you can create a new NNF. The reasons should be internal. “Our answer to Chamberlain” does not imply new ideas, new directions, you can continue to follow the western science fiction, copying its best samples and still behind 20-30 years. New NNF is needed because this requires challenges of the 21st century. There is no future without science, and interest in science in Russia fades away. Without expectation of the future, there is no development. Scientific and popular literature talks about the current state of science in the world, and the future NNF literature of fundamentally new scientific and fiction ideas should be engaged in the future.

Pavel Amnuel