E.M. Forster’s “The Machine Stops” is no doubt an influential text in the genre of science fiction, and an important read for anyone seeking to learn about the history of the fear of technology. The beautiful part about science fiction is the freedom to create a true mystery for the reader. Since the reader is not privy to the rules and ways of the society portrayed in a science fiction piece, the author may release as little information as possible along the way to keep the reader guessing. Forster failed to take full advantage of this opportunity. For example, when the concept of Homelessness was introduced, Forster left no room to the imagination: “Homelessness means death. The victim is exposed to the air, which kills him.” This was incredibly frustrating to read. For Forster to put such a dramatic, important element of the story in extremely simple, almost condescending sentences is disappointing to read. I would have much rather liked to be left guessing about the customs of this futuristic dystopia rather than explicitly told every detail. By handing us all the information about the world of “The Machine Stops” in such unexciting terms, it made the process of imagining the scenarios more difficult to read, because I simultaneously could not fill in any of the blanks with my own imagination and was left with very few specific details.
Perhaps Forster preferred to focus his efforts on social commentary rather than mystery and excitement. Perhaps, as a pioneer of the genre, he did not see the opportunity to add some real suspense. Or maybe, when it comes down to it, E.M. Forster just is not as big of a fan of science fiction mystery as I would like him to be.
I am intrigued by this paradox, “it made the process of imagining the scenarios more difficult to read, because I simultaneously could not fill in any of the blanks with my own imagination and was left with very few specific details,” but need you to give a few more examples. I do see the vagueness, but not the specificity you both dislike and desire.