After watching the recent movie adaption of "The Time Machine" with Bill, we got to talking. First topic of discussion was the fact that the movie, while very pretty to look at, stank like week old fish. Much style, little substance, and no soul. (But every now and then, one really does just want to watch something pretty with no redeeming value, so that's ok.)

Actually, that discussion happened *during* the movie. After, I started musing about why any modern adaption of Welles's work was doomed to failure. Well, any modern movie adaption that Hollywood got it's grubby mitts on. Why? Because even the most venerably old and honored stores, when adapted to movie form, have to get a whole honkin' load of modern sensibilities dumped into them. Why? 'Cause you just can't make a move these days where there's no happy ending, or an ignoble hero (unless he's a suave, sexy, anti-hero), or bias (racial, gender, religous, etc...) of any sort being displayed. (Unless these traits reside in the villian. Then it's ok.)

The problem being that most literature was written in far less "enlightened" times. Early steampunk, and golden/silver age pulp sci-fi authors were products of their times. Which means the can come across to modern readers as crass, sexist, racist, blah blah bliddy blah.

I don't have a problem with this. I can deal with the fact that very few of the "classic" authors couldn't write a decent female caracter to save their asses, over idealized "primitive" (non-western) cultures; or conversly, demonized them. To ask that the work of these (mostly dead) people conform to a current definition of "proper" (or worse, faking that PC-ness not out of a craven desire to avoid giving offense, but out of the crass desire for even more profits) kills the very story they are trying to make a buck off of.

When we write about the future, we are almost never correct. What we are envisioning, is a possible world shaped completely by what we know *right now*. Many of the steampunk stories were rendered obsolete when the atom was split and the old euro-centric political hegemony was replaced by the two nuclear superpowers. The golden age writers, basing much of their work on what was current (scientifically and politically) in the 30's through the 50's, were unable to forsee what changes global computer networks would wreak upon sciety, and on and on. Even William Gibson's Neuromancer says more about the wide eyed "what-if" period of the early internet than it does about the world today. (Which it was, in theory, actually describing.)

So Sci-Fi isn't about the future at all. And this is never so apparent as when we try to take a story that was the product of a very certain era (late 1800's) and try to make it acceptable to an early 21st century audience. All the oomph gets drained out, and we're left with pretty people running around.

If I want a sci-fi story that conforms to modern conventions, you know what I'll do? I'll go pick up a modern author. (Nancy Kress, Sharon Shinn, Edward Lerner, and Richard Chedwick all come to mind.) But if I *really* want to time travel, I'll pick up some Welles, Shelley, Doyle, Asimov, or Clarke.