Amitav Ghosh’s article about climate
change and fiction does raise realities and concerns valid for anybody in the writing
community, however loosely it may be. We don’t often see many fictional media
texts that use climate change as the forefront or vehicle for their story or
its arc. He creates an honest perception of the public’s assumed interests and
the originator’s intent to sell an idea as both compelling and probable. With this in mind, my question is simple: What texts
have you seen or listened to that did use climate change in fictional realms
that do not branch off into the surreal/magical, terrifying, or apocalyptically
romantic? A follow up question: What dignifies the sense of improbability for
readers and observers? Is it the lack of knowledge, disregard of the truth, confusing
rhetoric and language, or something else entirely? If you believe it to be something
else, why and what makes our public (including us) so disconnected with this crossover
facet of science and of literature?
“…let us make no mistake: the climate
crisis is also a crisis of culture, and thus of the imagination.”
-Amitav Ghosh, “Where
is the fiction about climate change?”
As a clear advocate for all sides
of a conversation, do you believe newer generations of writers will utilize
social topics such as climate change to slide their fictional stories into a
relevant mainstream, nonfictional debate and discussion? In other words, could
we use available fiction texts to progress those in the science community and, in
turn, to the public’s perceptions? We have grown in a time of retelling old
stories in new ways. And we have lived in a world mostly accepting of climate
change and been immersed in these discussions ever since Bush’s presidency. I’d
like to believe that this new but very real environmental development isn’t being
used not because it is boring or difficult to latch onto without adding
characters like a magical elf, hungry zombie, or something like, let’s say, an authoritative
tyrant with the mental capacity of an irrational and rash decision-making
leader of a country’s Twitter account, but because the newness of climate change
(historically speaking in comparison to others) is tough to tackle in an
extended form without a predetermined outline for doing as such.
One concept stuck out from the text
to me, to paraphrase: nature does not make leaps, it demolishes in an unpredictable
manner. Isn’t this true for all first-time instances and ideas? When Gustave
Whitehead said, “Yeah, I’ll fly this bat-like contraption before those brothers
in North Carolina…”, was the public going to believe him? Frankly, a quick search
proves it is still being debated within the aviation community. So, what does
this have to with the climate crisis? Because it is new, people will find it unthinkable.
Do you think this is the issue with fiction and climate change?
Lastly, can audiences remain
interested in high science-based fiction like climate change? Do we have so few
examples of novels (and even poems) because of appeal? Can climate change sell
as a backdrop and driving force? If we look at a medium experienced more by
Westernized communities, it might be apparent. With The Day After Tomorrow, critics went after “scientific inaccuracies”
and it holds just above a 40% on Rotten Tomatoes. With The Happening, well, it has an 18% on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics seem
unsure of these films, but when we peer into audience share, we see a slightly
different story. The first film was the sixth-highest grossing film in 2004. The
latter eventually made over $100 million in profit from the box office. Even if
those viewers found the films, at least, semi-unfavorable, they found it fascinating
enough to spend money on it. My last claim is that people were and remain attracted
climate change concerns, we just don’t have the mode or storytelling blueprint
for (objectively for the majority) successful media.
Your ever-fearful being,
- PanLibDem
No comments:
Post a Comment