• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why is there no pure Sci-Fi on TV today?

Once your in the near future then I'm not sure if you can count that as the "real world." "Battlestar Galatica" for example isn't realisitc.

Okay, that's a complete non sequitur, since BSG was set in a totally alien society 150,000 years in the past. I'm talking about something like The Truman Show or a book like Gregory Benford's Eater -- something set in a future close enough to ours that it's indistinguishable except for one or two technological advances or discoveries that are key to the story. A great deal of science fiction throughout the history of the genre has been in such a setting relative to its date of publication, so it's totally wrong to exclude such stories from the definition.

Heck, go back to the earliest works that defined the science fiction genre as we know it, and most of them are set in the recent past. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the standard conceit for fantastic literature -- indeed, probably for most literature -- was to present it as if it were a true story being related either by one of the participants or by someone to whom the events had been related. This is true of the works of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne, it's true of Shelley's Frankenstein, it's true of Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom novels, etc.

"Fringe" on the other hand feels like something that could be happening right now. It helps that they are working on a college campus instead of some secret underground base and that everyone on the show is a regular human being instead of being a robot or a messenger from God or a clone or a alien.

Exactly my point. There is plenty of science fiction in that "happening right now" -- or 1-5 years from now -- category, and there always has been. And Fringe is obviously not in the real world -- it's in a similar fictional world where a company called Massive Dynamic dominates many industries, where the level of technology achieved by Massive Dynamic and other, private developers surpasses real-world technology by a considerable degree, and where the laws of physics and common sense are far more loosely applied (for instance, it is possible for an organism to grow from an embryo to a full-sized adult within minutes without consuming any food as a source of biomass and without burning up from the heat of its own metabolism, thus grossly violating more than one fundamental conservation law).

For that matter, no fiction is set in the real world. In the real world, there's no Dr. Frasier Crane with a radio show in Seattle. In the real world, Jack McCoy isn't the district attorney of New York City. In the real world, CSI personnel don't interview suspects and solve the cases all by themselves. In the real world, people who leave their front doors unlocked have home invaders and burglars barging in, not just wacky neighbors. In the real world, cars don't blow up unless they have actual bombs in them. All fiction departs from reality to a greater or lesser degree.
 
Once your in the near future then I'm not sure if you can count that as the "real world." "Battlestar Galatica" for example isn't realisitc.

Okay, that's a complete non sequitur, since BSG was set in a totally alien society 150,000 years in the past. I'm talking about something like The Truman Show or a book like Gregory Benford's Eater -- something set in a future close enough to ours that it's indistinguishable except for one or two technological advances or discoveries that are key to the story. A great deal of science fiction throughout the history of the genre has been in such a setting relative to its date of publication, so it's totally wrong to exclude such stories from the definition.

Heck, go back to the earliest works that defined the science fiction genre as we know it, and most of them are set in the recent past. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the standard conceit for fantastic literature -- indeed, probably for most literature -- was to present it as if it were a true story being related either by one of the participants or by someone to whom the events had been related. This is true of the works of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne, it's true of Shelley's Frankenstein, it's true of Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom novels, etc.

"Fringe" on the other hand feels like something that could be happening right now. It helps that they are working on a college campus instead of some secret underground base and that everyone on the show is a regular human being instead of being a robot or a messenger from God or a clone or a alien.

Exactly my point. There is plenty of science fiction in that "happening right now" -- or 1-5 years from now -- category, and there always has been. And Fringe is obviously not in the real world -- it's in a similar fictional world where a company called Massive Dynamic dominates many industries, where the level of technology achieved by Massive Dynamic and other, private developers surpasses real-world technology by a considerable degree, and where the laws of physics and common sense are far more loosely applied (for instance, it is possible for an organism to grow from an embryo to a full-sized adult within minutes without consuming any food as a source of biomass and without burning up from the heat of its own metabolism, thus grossly violating more than one fundamental conservation law).

For that matter, no fiction is set in the real world. In the real world, there's no Dr. Frasier Crane with a radio show in Seattle. In the real world, Jack McCoy isn't the district attorney of New York City. In the real world, CSI personnel don't interview suspects and solve the cases all by themselves. In the real world, people who leave their front doors unlocked have home invaders and burglars barging in, not just wacky neighbors. In the real world, cars don't blow up unless they have actual bombs in them. All fiction departs from reality to a greater or lesser degree.


The question I wonder about though, is there different levels of realism? The reason I used "Battlestar Galatica" as a example is because I find the show to be realstic despite some of it's more outlandish elements. Despite this though I still find "Fringe" to be even more realisitc. Both shows can be seen as a extension of scoeity in a different way. "Galatica" explores what it would like if humans were forced to abandon earth and were stuck living in spaceships while finding a new home. "Fringe" explores the side effects could be like if we tinkered around with science in unethical ways.

"Truman Show" to me is almost a different category in itself. I see it similiarto "Being John Malkovich or "True Blood" or "Watchmen" which feels less like a extension of modern society but more of a fantasy based version of the real world. Heck you could even put Joss Whedon shows in this category as well. There is some realism but the shows exsit in a world were everyone has something clever or witty to say and everything is a methpor to what the characters or going through.

Jason
 
^But none of those distinctions has anything to do with defining what is or isn't science fiction. If you're claiming that SF can't be realistic, can't be grounded in the real world, then you're getting it absolutely backward. Science fiction is supposed to be a plausible extrapolation from what we know about reality. Even the parts that go beyond reality are supposed to be realistic and believable. Good science fiction is so plausible that it often anticipates real-life progress. Just about every major technological and social advance of the past century has been anticipated by science fiction, at least approximately.
 
^But none of those distinctions has anything to do with defining what is or isn't science fiction. If you're claiming that SF can't be realistic, can't be grounded in the real world, then you're getting it absolutely backward. Science fiction is supposed to be a plausible extrapolation from what we know about reality. Even the parts that go beyond reality are supposed to be realistic and believable. Good science fiction is so plausible that it often anticipates real-life progress. Just about every major technological and social advance of the past century has been anticipated by science fiction, at least approximately.


I agree with you that these shows that are grounded in the world of today do count as being science fiction. I even think "Jericho" was sci-fi even though alot of people don't. I was just trying to figure out what "pure SciFi" is according to the OP. I sort of understand what I think he is missing in alot of Sci_Fi shows. As nice as is to see a good sci-fi show like "Fringe" that tries to play down it's Sci-Fi elements for realism I do understand the apeal of having something like "Farscape" were basically you get to visit a whole new world or universe each week. It's nice to have shows that play up it's Sci-Fi trappings as oposed to playing them down.

Jason
 
And why did the article discount Lost as pure sci fi? What genre is sci fi a blend with, to create Lost? It's got action-adventure and soapy elements but there's no other genre besides sci fi that I can point to in that show. it's 100% pure sci fi.
Try telling that to the moderators of this forum. :p

They're stubborn. :wtf:

Those are all pure fantasy, not science fiction.
Well I'm not going to start in on that argument, :D but Ned's powers wouldn't be out of place on Heroes. Sometimes it's a thin line between the two - probably just because there was never any attempt to explain Ned's powers as having anything to do with DNA.

And it's a myth that originality requires using a premise that no one has used before.
That's not the problem with the sf/f cop shows. The problem is that there are too many of them, versus all the other types of sf/f that could fill those timeslots, and most (not all) of them are pretty uninteresting. Pushing Daisies managed to distinguish itself anyway.

So by "originality" I mean, how about 5 different premises and not 5 shows at once with the same premise.

I'm making a guess but I think the OP might be calling things that only exsit within a unique and fictional enviroment as Sci-Fi. "Farscape" and "Star Trek" for example are oviously Sci-Fi because the setting of those shows takes place in a oviously unreal enviroment.
Yeah I'll bet that's the problem with the article - the narrow minded idea that you need elements like "spaceships" or "the future" for something to qualify as sci fi.

But personally I don't feel like sci fi is terribly underrepresented on TV. Imagine if you were a fan of Westerns. You'd be much worse off. I'd just like to see more spaceship type shows and fewer cop type shows, just to get the mix more balanced.
 
Well I'm not going to start in on that argument, :D but Ned's powers wouldn't be out of place on Heroes. Sometimes it's a thin line between the two - probably just because there was never any attempt to explain Ned's powers as having anything to do with DNA.

Well, Heroes is much closer to fantasy. It's comic-book sci-fi, which is basically the semantics of fantasy with the syntax of science fiction -- i.e. totally impossible and magical things happen but are given the pretense of a scientific explanation. (Saying "Bruce Banner was exposed to gamma rays and turns into a hulking green monster" is functionally no different from saying "Bruce Banner was placed under a curse that turns him into a hulking green monster." Only the labels are different. And most comic-book universes have actual magic and deities coexisting with aliens and weird science, though Heroes hasn't gone quite that far.)

I mean, Heroes is a show which postulates that a solar eclipse can be seen from everywhere on Earth at the same time and can last for hours. That can't be called anything but fantasy (except maybe just plain idiocy). Hell, it would require a cosmology more like those of ancient myths about the Sun and Moon rather than anything remotely resembling a heliocentric Solar system and a round Earth.

And sure, maybe you could fit Ned's powers into Heroes, but Pushing Daisies was not defined solely by its protagonist's gimmick. The show was overtly structured and presented as a fairy tale. It was definitely fantasy, albeit a variation of the Richard Matheson kind of fantasy with only one magical element in an otherwise nonmagical (though in this case decidedly fanciful) world.
 
I've wanted to post my thoughts of what sci-fi is for a while, so here goes! :)

I think of science-fiction not so much as a separate literary (or film/TV) genre, but a separate literary technique, one similar to that of fantasy, in that the background rules of the world of the story are altered, and the story (in whole or in part) consists of how characters react to these different 'rules of the game.' So you can have sci-fi drama (Gattaca), sci-fi horror (Alien), sci-fi humor (Galaxyquest), sci-fi action (Terminator), sci-fi romance (King Kong? :lol:), sci-fi crime dramas (Alien Nation) and mysteries (Lost).

My test for whether a story is sci-fi is this: can the changed premises underlying the science, technology or history of the story be rationally explained and connected to our world, or the world of the author at the time? By making the connection between the Colonies and our Earth, BSG finally becomes sci-fi at the last second, however tenuous.

What makes Star Wars science fantasy, and not science-fiction, is not the Force, or Luke/Anakin's heroic journey, but those opening words: "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away". Without any rational connection to our world, it becomes fantasy.

Harry Potter could almost be called fantasy-science; the magic in HP is essentially a substitute for technology. Star Trek is unambiguously sci-fi, despite having many miraculous science and technologies, such as teleportation, telepathy, and omnipotent aliens, that spill over into fantasy.

TV shows like Ghost Whisperer and Touched by an Angel are examples of contemporary fantasy. Finally, alternate history is an interesting case; technically, all fiction in a sense is alternate history, but I tend to view alternate history in which a definite event in the past is changed, as sci-fi.
 
Last edited:
That's what the Sci Fi channel should be. There are so many different types of Sci Fi you could make a whole programming day with original shows.

My Dream Sci FI Channel

6:00 am - 4:00 pm - Playing classic shows and movies with the sci fi theme.

4:00 pm - 6:00 pm - Sci Fi news, movie & television updates, and real scientific discoveries and breakthroughs.

6:00 pm - 8:00 pm - Animation block (Any animation, new and classic involving Sci Fi, Star Trek, Akira, Voltron etc)

8:00 pm - 9:00 pm - One Hour Episodic Sci Fi Drama. Could be Bradbury, McCaffery, or even Zahn writing the show, but it must be someone hevily involved in Sci Fi.

9:00 p.m. - 11:00 pm - Sci Fi theater. Could be a classic Sci Fi movie shown in widescreen, or an original movie.

11:00 PM - 1:00 am - MST3K or any Sci Fi Comedy to round out the night.

1:00 am - 4:00 am - Re-broadcast of the news

4:00 am - 6:00 am - Info-mercials, or off air

Wait a minute. Did I just describe the original Sci Fi channel?
 
Be grateful for the time you live in-there's a lot more out there now than there was.

Much of it is crap, though. I would prefer 2 or maybe 3 really solid shows and that's it, compared to the horde of sci-crap tailored to dipshit audiences that are just going to watch L&O re runs anyway.
 
There is definitely science fiction on television today. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles is unambiguously SF, with no fantasy elements and a strong grounding in technological futurism.

Apart from the utterly preposterous time travel, you mean?
 
That's what the Sci Fi channel should be. There are so many different types of Sci Fi you could make a whole programming day with original shows.

My Dream Sci FI Channel

6:00 am - 4:00 pm - Playing classic shows and movies with the sci fi theme.

4:00 pm - 6:00 pm - Sci Fi news, movie & television updates, and real scientific discoveries and breakthroughs.

6:00 pm - 8:00 pm - Animation block (Any animation, new and classic involving Sci Fi, Star Trek, Akira, Voltron etc)

8:00 pm - 9:00 pm - One Hour Episodic Sci Fi Drama. Could be Bradbury, McCaffery, or even Zahn writing the show, but it must be someone hevily involved in Sci Fi.

9:00 p.m. - 11:00 pm - Sci Fi theater. Could be a classic Sci Fi movie shown in widescreen, or an original movie.

11:00 PM - 1:00 am - MST3K or any Sci Fi Comedy to round out the night.

1:00 am - 4:00 am - Re-broadcast of the news

4:00 am - 6:00 am - Info-mercials, or off air

Wait a minute. Did I just describe the original Sci Fi channel?

That's pretty much exactly what the schedules for the UK SciFi channel used to be like in the late 90's. I miss those days. :(
 
'Jericho' as Sci-Fi

I even think "Jericho" was sci-fi even though alot of people don't.

Jason, I watched both seasons of 'Jericho' on DVD in the last 18 months. I never consciously thought of it as Sci-Fi television. I felt the pilot was well done and wanted to know more but then the story moved very slowly over season 1. Some episodes felt like I was watching an old TV Western genre like Gunsmoke or something.
imdb.com classifies 'Jericho' as
Genre:
Action | Drama | Mystery | Sci-Fi
It's on the SyFy channel Thur. Apr. 30 8:00 AM

I guess it would fall into the action-Sci-Fi category mostly. But then ST:TOS had action in every episode.
Thanks for bringing up Jericho as it is sci-fi grounded in reality. It is an apocalyptic scenario that shows what would probably happen in small and middle sized towns.

With Trek you have to buy into the idea that it is set hundreds of years in the future. Roddenberry deserves a lot of credit for that kind of writing.
 
I think of science-fiction not so much as a separate literary (or film/TV) genre, but a separate literary technique, one similar to that of fantasy, in that the background rules of the world of the story are altered, and the story (in whole or in part) consists of how characters react to these different 'rules of the game.' So you can have sci-fi drama (Gattaca), sci-fi horror (Alien), sci-fi humor (Galaxyquest), sci-fi action (Terminator), sci-fi romance (King Kong? :lol:), sci-fi crime dramas (Alien Nation) and mysteries (Lost).

That's a fair definition. The way it's often expressed is that SF is driven by "What if?" questions -- an SF story poses a hypothetical situation and examines its consequences. I think of it as a literary thought experiment: If X happened, what would be the result? Of course, this is a better definition for speculative fiction in general, including fantasy and horror, than for science fiction alone; science fiction is a subset of speculative fiction wherein the hypothetical situation is based on a scientific or technological advance or a futurist conjecture, while fantasy is a subset wherein the hypothetical situation is based on magic, mythology, the supernatural, or the otherwise impossible.

My test for whether a story is sci-fi is this: can the changed premises underlying the science, technology or history of the story be rationally explained and connected to our world, or the world of the author at the time? By making the connection between the Colonies and our Earth, BSG finally becomes sci-fi at the last second, however tenuous.

Interesting. My view was that, by making it explicit that there really was divine intervention and fate involved and that there was no rational explanation for these things, the BSG finale finally made it definitive that the show was not science fiction so much as a sort of magic-realist space opera.

What makes Star Wars science fantasy, and not science-fiction, is not the Force, or Luke/Anakin's heroic journey, but those opening words: "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away". Without any rational connection to our world, it becomes fantasy.

George Lucas has always characterized SW as space fantasy in the vein of Flash Gordon or John Carter of Mars; he's never claimed it was science fiction. And you're half-right: those opening words were specifically intended to designate SW as a fairy tale, not because they separate the tale from our world, but because the phrase is in the form of a fairy-tale opening, just substituting "galaxy" for "land."

It's not valid to say that separating a work of fiction from our world makes it fantasy rather than science fiction. There have been works of science fiction set on distant worlds with no human beings and no connection to Earth. What's made them science fiction was the rationalist approach, the grounding in known science, the credible speculation. What distinguishes fantasy from science fiction is not whether it's grounded in the planet Earth and its history, but whether it's grounded in the laws of nature as we understand them -- laws that apply the same way everywhere in the universe. You can do science fiction that has zero connection to Earth so long as it's grounded in known scientific reality -- just as you can do pure fantasy that's strongly connected to present-day Earth by incorporating magic and mysticism into an otherwise realistic setting.


Harry Potter could almost be called fantasy-science; the magic in HP is essentially a substitute for technology.

Not really, because science and technology are not synonymous. Science isn't just tools; it's a process of reasoning, an analytical model of the world. The magic in HP is more a substitute for the conventions of the everyday world, particularly the British boarding-school system. It's there to give a gee-whiz feel and a sense of the exotic, as well as to give the series a parodic detachment from the real-life things it's commenting on. But the magic in HP isn't really developed or examined in enough depth to qualify as a science, at least not in terms of the author's approach.

Better examples of a science-fictional approach to fantasy -- a subgenre sometimes called logical fantasy -- would be Larry Niven's Wizard universe and Diane Duane's Young Wizards universe. They both approach magic in a scientific way, portraying it as something with consistent, knowable rules and limits, something that fits into the physical laws of the universe and coexists with them, something that can be understood and mastered as a science or a technology rather than an arcane mystery.


There is definitely science fiction on television today. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles is unambiguously SF, with no fantasy elements and a strong grounding in technological futurism.

Apart from the utterly preposterous time travel, you mean?

No more preposterous than the time travel in most any other SF story. Although there are some inconsistencies in the show's portrayal of its various shifting futures, it otherwise handles time travel fairly well, better than many shows and films I've seen.
 
Did anyone catch any episodes of "Masters of Science Fiction" on ABC a year or two ago before it was quickly snatched off the air? That was a cool show.
 
It's not valid to say that separating a work of fiction from our world makes it fantasy rather than science fiction. There have been works of science fiction set on distant worlds with no human beings and no connection to Earth. What's made them science fiction was the rationalist approach, the grounding in known science, the credible speculation. What distinguishes fantasy from science fiction is not whether it's grounded in the planet Earth and its history, but whether it's grounded in the laws of nature as we understand them -- laws that apply the same way everywhere in the universe. You can do science fiction that has zero connection to Earth so long as it's grounded in known scientific reality -- just as you can do pure fantasy that's strongly connected to present-day Earth by incorporating magic and mysticism into an otherwise realistic setting.

I have to agree regarding rational speculation/extrapolation being the heart of science-fiction. As a practical matter, however, how many 'sci-fi' stories actually provide the necessary legwork which explains how and why their universe works differently? I'd say very few outside the literary context. For example, I've read that transporters in Star Trek were created in part to speed up getting the characters from ship to planet and vice-versa, without having to spend for shuttle shots. I've yet to read even a half-hearted attempt to explain transporters that wasn't scientifically absurd, but I admit I give it a pass.

At what point does one say the elements of a story are so outlandish, so contrary to unassailable scientific fact, that it loses its science fiction 'status' and becomes science fantasy, if not fantasy? I suppose any story which involved breaking conservation laws, or the law of entropy, might qualify. The freedom to tinker with science in sci-fi cannot be unlimited, and how much is too much must ultimately be determined by the state of scientific knowledge at the time that the story was created.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone catch any episodes of "Masters of Science Fiction" on ABC a year or two ago
I mentioned it yesterday on page 1 of this thread:
Last great science fiction I saw on TV?
"Masters of Science Fiction" (2007 series) on DVD this winter. It reminded me a lot of "The Outer Limits" 1960s series in the 1 hour format and pacing.
You guys may want to read what Clive Thompson wrote a year ago on this:
Clive Thompson on Why Sci-Fi Is the Last Bastion of Philosophical Writing
1.18.2008
a nice tidbit from the great article:
If you run a realistic simulation enough times — writing tens of thousands of novels about contemporary life — eventually you're going to explore almost every outcome. So what do you do then? You change the physics in the sim. Alter reality — and see what new results you get. Which is precisely what sci-fi does.
 
I have to agree regarding rational speculation/extrapolation being the heart of science-fiction. As a practical matter, however, how many 'sci-fi' stories actually provide the necessary legwork which explains how and why their universe works differently? I'd say very few outside the literary context. For example, I've read that transporters in Star Trek were created in part to speed up getting the characters from ship to planet and vice-versa, without having to spend for shuttle shots. I've yet to read even a half-hearted attempt to explain transporters that wasn't scientifically absurd, but I admit I give it a pass.

Actually they were created to avoid having to land the Enterprise itself; the shuttlecraft concept came later.

And I disagree that ST had to do the legwork to explain teleportation. It was already a well-established SF trope, used in many stories that had made more or less credible attempts to explain it. Sometimes the explanation doesn't reside in a single work, but is part of the whole collective dialogue of the genre. For instance, if I write a book featuring a space elevator, I don't have to explain how a space elevator works, because authors like Arthur C. Clarke and Kim Stanley Robinson have already laid the groundwork for it in excellent, well-thought-out detail.

Besides, there's never been a requirement that the conjectures of SF have to be strictly plausible or even possible. They just have to have enough conceptual grounding in real science to sound like something other than magic, and to have their ramifications explored in a consistent and well-reasoned way even if the initial postulate is impossible. Most FTL propulsion in SF is like this; the authors rarely bother trying to explain it, since they assume it's impossible, so instead they simply postulate it as an axiom and explore its consequences and workings consistently from there. For instance, Larry Niven's teleportation and Poul Anderson's hyperdrive are both based on the concept of quantum tunneling; even though neither writer had any idea how you could make quantum tunneling work predictably on a macroscopic scale nor made any attempt to explain it, the core concept was grounded enough in scientific reality, at least by analogy, that it allowed for suspension of disbelief. And their overall bodies of work were plausible and science-literate enough that the occasional fanciful premise could be forgiven, so long as it was sold convincingly enough.


At what point does one say the elements of a story are so outlandish, so contrary to unassailable scientific fact, that it loses its science fiction 'status' and becomes science fantasy, if not fantasy? I suppose any story which involved breaking conservation laws, or the law of entropy, might qualify. The freedom to tinker with science in sci-fi cannot be unlimited, and how much is too much must ultimately be determined by the state of scientific knowledge at the time that the story was created.

As I said, there's no way to draw a meaningful dividing line between different categories such as SF and fantasy. They're segments of a continuum, and a lot of fiction blends elements of both. It's not really useful to try to draw arbitrary cutoff points between one and the other, because they're not exclusive of one another. All SF contains some degree of poetic license, and the amount thereof can vary hugely across the entire spectrum from rigorous hard SF to technological fantasy. There is no "point" at which science fiction ends and fantasy begins, any more than there's a "point" where blue ends and green begins on the color spectrum. It's a continuous transition, and there are countless intermediate shades. The labels are just meant to be rough guidelines, and they overlap rather than excluding each other.
 
The last real science fiction movie I saw was:

"Primer"

The science fiction film I am most looking forward to is...a

'Timecrimes'

Primer was probably the best time travel movie I have ever seen. I also am looking forward to Timecrimes. If you want to see a goofy but fun time travel film check out Retroactive.

As for pure science fiction. Here are some definitions of sci-fi:


Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
Fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals, or more generally, literary fantasy including a scientific factor as an essential orienting component. Precursors of the genre include Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818), Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886), and Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726). From its beginnings in the works of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, it emerged as a self-conscious genre in the pulp magazine Amazing Stories, founded in 1926. It came into its own as serious fiction in the magazine Astounding Science Fiction in the late 1930s and in works by such writers as Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein.

Columbia Encyclopedia
Literary genre in which a background of science or pseudoscience is an integral part of the story. Although science fiction is a form of fantastic literature, many of the events recounted are within the realm of future possibility, e.g., robots, space travel, interplanetary war, invasions from outer space.

Science fiction is generally considered to have had its beginnings in the late 19th cent. with the romances of Jules Verne and the novels of H. G. Wells. In 1926, Hugo Gernsback founded the pulp magazine Amazing Stories, devoted exclusively to science fiction, particularly to serious explorations into the future. Good writing in the field was further encouraged when John W. Campbell, Jr., founded Astounding Science Fiction in 1937.

Literary Dictionary
a popular modern branch of prose fiction that explores the probable consequences of some improbable or impossible transformation of the basic conditions of human (or intelligent non‐human) existence. This transformation need not be brought about by a technological invention, but may involve some mutation of known biological or physical reality, e.g. time travel, extraterrestrial invasion, ecological catastrophe. Science fiction is a form of literary fantasy or romance that often draws upon earlier kinds of utopian and apocalyptic writing. The term itself was first given general currency by Hugo Gernsback, editor of the American magazine Amazing Stories from 1926 onwards, and it is usually abbreviated to SF (the alternative form ‘sci‐fi’ is frowned upon by devotees); before this, such works were called ‘scientific romances’ by H. G. Wells and others. Several early precedents have been claimed for the genre—notably Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818)—but true modern science fiction begins with Jules Verne's Voyage au centre de la terre (1864) and H. G. Wells's The Time Machine (1895).


Common to all of these is Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, and magazines like Amazing Stories and Astounding Science.
 
^And Verne and Wells are good archetypes of the main branches of SF. Verne's work, though it often seems fanciful in the context of modern understanding, was firmly grounded in the best scientific knowledge of the day; Verne never wrote about anything that he didn't believe was actually possible. Captain Nemo's Nautilus was merely an elaboration of existing prototype submarines; the cannon-fired moon-orbiting spacecraft was based on the best ballistics science of the day; and Phileas Fogg's 80-day circumnavigation of the globe was based on a newspaper article claiming that such a feat was actually possible given how ubiquitous and reliable the British Empire's railways and steamships had become.

Wells, on the other hand, engaged in wilder flights of fancy, weird-science concepts that had some loose basis in scientific ideas but that were used more as allegories for Wells' social commentary: a dying race of Martian technocrats, a machine for travelling along the fourth dimension of time, a formula that could turn a man invisible. All far beyond the realm of the known, and not explained in any great depth, but still "scientific factors" (as the Brittanica definition puts it) rather than magic or divine intervention. Note that the definitions allow for "imagined science" as well as the real thing.

So Verne was the progenitor of the "hard" branch of SF, developing stories around the science itself -- writers like Hal Clement, Charles Sheffield, and Greg Egan -- while Wells exemplified the "soft" side focused more on science as an allegorical device -- writers like Ray Bradbury, Ursula LeGuin, and Harlan Ellison to name but a few.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top