Scientists Make It... Politicians Abuse It.

There is an important question that all writers must someday answer for themselves: “Should I write about social and political issues?”



The socio-political impacts of E = mc²
cannot be understated.

Now the first thing I should point out is that I am a writer of science fiction, so my answer can only be in relation to sci-fi. And as I see it, scientific advancement is the driving force that carries all significant changes forwards.  That means if I am to write about science, I must also look at the socio-political impact of any given theory.

William Gibson is the foremost writer of “cyberpunk”, a branch of sci-fi that concerns itself with the digital world. Gibson could have contented himself with writing high-octane computerised thrillers, but he didn’t. Instead, his novels look at the potential impacts of the virtual world on our lives. The results are both fascinating and startlingly foresighted.

In other words, his books are worth reading. Would they have been if he had refused to engage with socio-politics? No. As a rule, I would say that any sci-fi that doesn’t force the reader to question something—either himself or the world around him—is hardly worth the paper it’s written on.

This is not confined to science fiction. For example, Emily Dickenson is vague to the point that I often find it difficult to tell what she is writing about, whilst John Cheever is direct in his criticisms of American society. Somehow, Cheever always manages to be more engaging, always leaves something behind when the book is closed. Of these two writers, it seems to me that Cheever is the greater.