The article by the New York Times entitled, “Room for Debate”, discusses different views and thoughts about the genre cli-fi and what it’s purpose is in the eyes of six different writers. Half of the writers were in agreement that climate change fiction can possibly lead to solutions and a stir of emotions created in the reader while on the other hand, the other half of writers stood by the viewpoint that cli-fi would enable discussion about the various issues tied with climate change, but that is about all individuals could expect. I will be discussing three writers who stood out to me the most from this article.

The first writer, Sheree Renee Thomas believes that an imagination is crucial in the solution making process. She states, “As we learned from Hurricane Katrina and Sandy, it is not enough to simply predict extreme weather. To survive and thrive, we will need to have the fortitude and the commitment to imagine community-based solutions as part of our shared future” (NYtimes.com). I completely agree with this viewpoint because I feel that without having a wide imagination for change, change cannot take place. Just like how sometimes we imagine crazy, turbulent futures, solutions come from imaginative scenarios as well. The second writer, George Marshall, does not agree so much with Thomas. He believes that climate change fiction will not create a change or do anything more to help this issue. He states, “I predict that ‘cli-fi’ will reinforce existing views rather than shift them. The unconvinced will see these stories as proof that this issue is a fiction, exaggerated for dramatic effect. The already convinced will be engaged, but overblown apocalyptic story lines may distance them from the issue of climate change or even objectify the problem” (NYtimes.com).

Marshall goes on further to say that in order for people to want to make a change and start creating solutions, authors need to write about stories that entail successful struggles, that shares resolutions in a more promising world. I am not sure as to how I feel about his views on cli-fi. I can see his point when he says that cli-fi reinforces existing views, but I also believe that while cli-fi may do that, it has the possibility to shift views depending on the intensity of the novel and how much background knowledge one already has on the issue of climate change.

The fourth writer, Heidi Cullen, discusses the impact of personal stories and how it can change a person’s thoughts. She writes about her work on a global warming documentary film series which brought her to this realization. She states, “It was the personal stories that made the issue of climate change hit close to home for many viewers” (NYtimes.com). She believes that the best films and novels not only tackle the most gripping issue of time, but also evokes strong emotions in the reader/viewer. She states, “When done right, true stories are explosive. They provide us with new ways of seeing the world and our place in it” (NYtimes.com).

I feel strongly about Cullen’s beliefs on climate change fiction. I agree with her completely because I can personally relate. While reading some of the novels and short stories during this term, I found myself time and time again feeling emotionally attached to the words and scenarios in front of me. I found myself in the shoes of the characters I was reading on, so afraid and sad for the future. I started to visualize a different future that did not look very happy nor successful. But I believe that one of the main purposes of climate change fiction is just that, creating a stir of emotions in the audience so that they feel compelled to make a change or at least start thinking along those lines.

For me, the short story Diary of an Interesting Year did it. Reading on the lack of common resources, lack of food and water, and complete destruction of normal everyday life really brought out strong emotions that made me not only more interested in the issue, but also created a desire to make a difference.