The Sword and Laser discussion

So I was looking at /. earlier today and saw there was a thread devoted to "The most depressing science fiction you've ever read." How...depressing.

Some interesting books and short stories mentioned over there:
Brave New World
Childhood's End
On the Beach
All Summer in a Day
The Screwfly Solution
The Forge of God

And many others. To the list, I'd add The Machine Stops as a depressing short story and The Sheep Look Up as a book. Most of the books that come to my mind are already on their list. What else would people here add?

And why do people want to read depressing books?

Harmony, a story that begins in a dystopian future and then gets worse. You know you're in for a depressing ride when (A) the author was in the hospital with terminal cancer while writing the story, and (B) the chapters are titles after Nine Inch Nails songs.

Sean wrote: "...the chapters are titles after Nine Inch Nails songs"

Now this, I can get behind!

Frank Herbert's Dune series can get very depressing. Both Paul and and his son Leto II's story arcs are very tragic.

Fahrenheit 451 has a somewaht hopeful finale, but most of the story is deeply touching and depressing.

And of course George Orwell's 1984 is as depressing as it gets.

"Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me..."

I Who Never Known Men
The Windup Girl
Children of the Thunder
Fail Safe
Mockingjay
H.G. Wells' short story "The Star"

The Gap series by Stephen Donaldson ( also his Thomas Covenant series for most depressing fantasy)

i09 had a great Top 10 in this category last month...

10 Great Science Fiction Novels with Go-Back-To-Bed Depressing Endings

Just read Bitter Seeds... it makes you feel sorry for Nazis. That's depressing in a sort of meta way.

isn't science-fiction depressing by nature?

Other than already mentioned Childhood's End, The Futurological Congress: From the Memoirs of Ijon Tichy was funny until I finished it at which point it became one of the most depressing books.

Kamil wrote: "isn't science-fiction depressing by nature?"

No.

Cormac McCarthy's The Road is built on a science fiction premise, even if the plot doesn't feel very sci-fi. It is also one of the most depressing books that I've ever read. I still loved it, though.

Lovecraft's work, which is predecessor to horror, fantasy and science fiction genres, mostly have very depressing, disturbingly dark finales. Though more horror than science fiction, I especially felt deeply disturbed when I first read "The Statement of Randolph Carter".

Just about every Philip K Dick novel. It's usually depressing to me when I can find real world equivalents. Like, a lot of the politics going on now remind me of dystopian science fiction.

Kamil wrote: "isn't science-fiction depressing by nature?"

No. It's mostly a recent phenomenon to have SF be overwhelmingly dystopian and frankly it's one of the reasons I read sparingly in the genre. Sometimes it feels like the authors are trying to be part of that cool, "I'm more alienated than you" group from high school. Dystopias, post-apocalyptic stories, etc are fine... but at some point it starts to feel like people are doing it not because they have something new to say but because those novels are selling and, well...

SF from the Golden Age certainly has its issues but it was fundamentally optimistic. I'd like to see a swing back to that with the leavening of realism. Instead of doing emo SF about how the world is going to go to hell in the next 100 years, I'd like to see authors start with this... 'Humans have made it through climate change and other issues. It's a few hundred years from now... What's happening?"

This isn't me being Pollyanna, rather it's me thinking that we've made it through some very tough, dark times (Black Plague anyone?) and generally come through OK. But we're only 5-600 years past the Renaissance, the point when much of the our advancement really took off. What will another 500 years bring? Skip the stock answers (Singularity, First Contact, etc). What's life like? What stories does that allow someone to tell?

terpkristin wrote: "And why do people want to read depressing books? "

Because it makes us FEEL (I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic or not, I'll have to think about it). I also love depressing music.

BRING ON THE DYSTOPIA!

Are sci-fi movies we watched alone on late-night TV when we were in elementary school allowed in this discussion? If they are, well, I'm going to tell you all that I cried like a baby when I watched Silent Running. Geez, I get choked up just thinking about it. And that was a long, long time ago.

Rick wrote: "Kamil wrote: "Instead of doing emo SF about how the world is going to go to hell in the next 100 years, I'd like to see authors start with this... 'Humans have made it through climate change and other issues. It's a few hundred years from now... What's happening?""

I'd suggest 2312 if you are up for some hard sci-fi. It is certainly a book where things aren't all peachy (eg the Earth is pretty much a shithole), but also you'd like to live there (in the belt somewhere, not Earth probably :P).

Ulmer - thanks, I'll check that out. It still does the "Earth is a shithole" thing though and that's part of what I'm getting tired of. It gives the author a reason for us to be out in space much like Varley had aliens take over Earth and we got the other planets so his stories were set everywhere but on Earth.

Think about it like this - 300 years ago was 1712. Now, a LOT of bad things happened between then and now. Many wars, famines, etc. But we're still around and who here would really want to live then vs now? THink about all of the vast changes between 1712 and 2012. Now, thnk about 300 years in the future. Sure, it's nice, easy and PC to do the "we've ruined Earth, etc etc" dance... but what if we haven't? What if we've gone through tough, traumatic events but the world is more or less whole? LE Modesitt does some of this in works like Elysium but those don't feel like several hundred years from now, but just 150 or so.

@jenny - joy, hope, wonder and more are feelings too. Sadness, hopelessness and despair are part of the range, not the whole range.

Someone mentioned already but I thought The Road was a heck of a depressing read. I think its a combination of me being a parent and that a kid is a main character.

I also have to say Flowers For Algernon. I thought the second half was a punch to the gut.

I think The Killing Star would probably qualify -- it opens with a relativistic assault that kills 99.997% of the human race, then things go downhill from there.

Lucifer's Hammer gets pretty grim in the middle, although it ends on kind of an upbeat note.

Joseph wrote: "I think The Killing Star would probably qualify -- it opens with a relativistic assault that kills 99.997% of the human race, then things go downhill from there.

Lucifer's Hammer gets pretty grim ..."

The perils of growing old. I was trying to remember the title of the "Killing Star" but for some reason I kept thinking of Starfire. Anyway I totally agree with that one. Also the aliens are so systematic and determined in wiping up humanity.

I once heard a director explain the reason why there were so many dystopian/apocalyptic sci-fi movies made. It was not any deep philosophical reason. It was simply because the budget was so much cheaper.

Drive to the desert, visit some slums, or just go into the country side with a beat up old car and -BAM- you have 80% of your post-apocalypse set made for you. Much cheaper than hiring special effects people to build those gleaming shiny cities of the future.

But depressing Sci FI book - well how about almost every single short story in Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles ?

Heck just make that almost every single short story ever written by Ray Bradbury :)

Alain wrote: "Also the aliens are so systematic and determined in wiping up humanity."

Systematic and determined in a preemptive strike/pest control kind of way. That's the worst thing -- they're just very matter-of-fact about it.

Use of Weapons is pretty damn depressing.

Silent Running is one of those movies that only works because it was produced before self-aware irony took over filmmaking. I mean, the scene where he gives the pep talk to the three little robots that look like air-conditioners...that REALLY shouldn't work, you know?

Alterjess wrote: "Silent Running is one of those movies that only works because it was produced before self-aware irony took over filmmaking."

Plus I was just a kid. I was probably watching the TV premiere after the film had finished in theaters. I bought (and anthropomorphized) the robots lock, stock, and barrel.

I like Silent Running too.
It's one of Kermode's favourite movies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUsV5L...

Thanks for that great YouTube video, Michael. He hits the nail on the head.

One author who has really depressing MOMENTS is Lois McMaster Bujold. These are usually offset by equally happy and inspiring moments, but then those happy moments tend to make the depressing moments that much more depressing. A sign of a great writer.

Not a book, but I thought of I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream as soon as I read the post title. The audio version with Harlan Ellison narrating is probably the best way to read it.

Rick wrote: "Kamil wrote: "isn't science-fiction depressing by nature?"

No. It's mostly a recent phenomenon to have SF be overwhelmingly dystopian and frankly it's one of the reasons I read sparingly in the ge..."

As you pointed out, most sci-fi is about humanity overcoming the mistakes our generation made and eventually coming in contact whith aliens, but it all happens in the future... And I'll be food to the worms by then, that's what makes sci-fi depressing

By certain standards, you can say that ALL literature is depressing by nature. And I think that would be wrong.

How about Flowers for Algernon. The thought of losing my intelligence(slight though it may be) is enough to make me weep

I wish I could remember which book or story it was but I remember one where aliens came into our solar system and attacked another planet, more of a 'bankshot' laser angling or something. Earth meant nothing, wasn't on their radar, inconsequential. Now *that* is depressing.

I'm looking for books with some very specific plot and I thought I'd ask here, since it kinda fits depressing science fiction type, though depressing ending is largely optional I just want the general feeling of hopelessness.
I want sci-fi where humanity (or just galactic civilization in general) is fighting a slow hopeless war. The enemy might be either more technologically advanced or have overwhelming numbers, in either case their only goal is total genocide, they come and destroy planet by planet, the fight might take many years, but everyone knows that it's only a question of time until the last planet falls.
In other words I want military sci-fi with pointless heroism.

Liudvikas wrote: "I'm looking for books with some very specific plot and I thought I'd ask here, since it kinda fits depressing science fiction type, though depressing ending is largely optional I just want the gene..."

Revelation Space and sequels.

How about The Handmaid's Tale. A very large-scope depression, especially as a female!

Liudvikas wrote: "I'm looking for books with some very specific plot and I thought I'd ask here, since it kinda fits depressing science fiction type, though depressing ending is largely optional I just want the gene..."

It's not exactly like that (not a lot of actual military action), but I suggest at least the first four books of Gregory Benford's Galactic Center series, beginning with In the Ocean of Night. The first two books are set on Earth as everything goes pear-shaped; the latter books in the series take place thousands of years in the future far across the galaxy when the last survivors of humanity are regarded more as a household infestation than as a genuine threat.

Also Greg Bear's The Forge of God and Anvil of Stars, which were mentioned upthread, should fit the bill.

And at the very end you have Pilgrim by Gordon Dickson

Liudvikas wrote: "I'm looking for books with some very specific plot and I thought I'd ask here, since it kinda fits depressing science fiction type, though depressing ending is largely optional I just want the gene..."

Resurrection of Liberty I think would be up your alley as well, though it's more young-adult oriented, it's a pretty decent read, if not a bit depressing.

I don't mind dystopian, but I don't care for depressing. There can still be uplifting, happy, and downright fluffy moments even in a dystopian setting. Just because the world sucks doesn't mean your characters have to put up with that.

Has nobody mentioned Tom Godwin's "The Cold Equations?"
Single-handedly turned my wife off of sci-fi for 25 frakking years.
The horrid thing about that one is that it's so bloody *stupid*. A reader can easily figure out about a dozen ways around the supposed 'impossible conundrum' which leads to the story's tragedy. But nope, Godwin just blunders forward, making this one of the most self-defeating scifi stories ever in its absolute rejection of the genre's primary strength, i.e., the belief that humanity can overcome problems.

"The Cold Equations" is a classic, part of the Science Fiction Hall of Fame, as decided by a vote of the Science Fiction Writers of America, who selected it as one of the best SF stories published prior to 1965. It's been dramatized in other media numerous times. It's certainly not "stupid." Does Godwin stack the deck? Sure. But the story illustrates that not every problem has a solution. You might prefer Don Sakers' short story "The Cold Solution"(Analog, 1991), but that story just stacks the deck differently.

There are serious critiques of the story, such as http://home.tiac.net/~cri_d/cri/1999/... which is worth reading.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php... is another critique of the story, but it's more fun to read. That page contains this rebuttal, which I agree with:

"Let me say two quick things in favor of Tom Godwin, the author of this short story. The first is, he DIDN'T want [the depressing ending]. He sent the story to Astounding Magazine multiple times, each time with a [happier ending]. It was the magazine's editor John W. Campbell who rejected each of Godwin's happier endings. It was Campbell, not Godwin, who wanted the [depressing ending]. The second is that [if it had a happier ending], NO ONE would remember this story 50+ years later. The cruelty of dealing with the situation in such a harsh manner is what made this story immortal, and I suppose Campbell probably understood that. The fact that it's horrific and goes against convention is what makes it stick out in a sea of similar stories."

I highly recommend reading The Science Fiction Hall of Fame 1, by the way. It really gives you a good understanding of the history of the genre.

My suggestion is more of a thriller novel with sci-fi elements.
R. Scott Bakker's novel Neuropath is one of the most depressing books I've read.

Using the neuroscience he developed at the NSA, Neil can control the human brain. With just the flip of a switch, he can manipulate pain, pleasure, faith, morality....even love. He taunts the FBI with videos, forcing them to watch as his victims destroy themselves at the direction of their captor. He leaves no clues and the FBI cannot predict his next victim

Definitely The Sparrow
Excellent characters and a great first contact story, but don't stand near any ledges when you read it.

I second Ed's recommendation of the Science Fiction Hall of Fame. In fact it would make an excellent book club choice.

Rick wrote: "Ulmer - thanks, I'll check that out. It still does the "Earth is a shithole" thing though and that's part of what I'm getting tired of. It gives the author a reason for us to be out in space much l..."

Well the Earth in 2312 has people living better than people lived in 1712. I'd rather be a scrapping by in a 2312 slum than a king in 1712. And its probably better than 2012 for the average peasant. I mean if you look around a bit, the bar is already pretty low.

If that makes you feel better. :D

So maybe that is where the Earth is a shithole thing comes from - it's not great currently and it's pretty Utopian to predict otherwise. And SciFi is all about casting a critical eye on the present day.

Overall I'd say 2312 is fairly Utopic, just not on Earth so much.

Rick wrote: "SF from the Golden Age certainly has its issues but it was fundamentally optimistic. I'd like to see a swing back to that with the leavening of realism. Instead of doing emo SF about how the world is going to go to hell in the next 100 years, I'd like to see authors start with this... 'Humans have made it through climate change and other issues. It's a few hundred years from now... What's happening?"

I think it was J. Michael Straczynski who wrote that film and TV sci-fi was always 20-30 years behind the ideas explored in literary science-fiction. So in Golden Age SF they were exploring optimistic futures, while films of the same era were all about using giant monsters and alien invasions as metaphors for the evils of nuclear energy and Communism. You finally got an optimistic future with the original Star Trek, but even that was wary of certain forms of progress: I can't really remember an artificial intelligence portrayed very positively, nor any form of transhumanism.

James Patrick Kelly's "Plus or Minus" is written in response to "The Cold Equations":

http://www.locusmag.com/Roundtable/20...

That so many people have bothered to publish rebuttals and revisions of "Cold Equations" is testament to its essentially flawed nature. I don't object to the story because it is unhappy but because it is contrived, worthless shock-fiction, which violates its own essential premises as well as the aesthetic of the genre.

That enough people who ought to know better have drunk its miserable Kool-Aid disheartens me.