How to define Science Fiction

[MacLeod]

The Sci-Fi genre can include many different things. I suspect most people would consider the following to be Sci-Fi. Of course what was once considered Sci-Fi might no longer be considered Sci-Fi ten years later

1.>Set onboard a starship. (i.e. Star Trek)
2.>Uses Time Travel (i.e. Doctor Who)
3.>Involves Travel to Alterante History's. (i.e. Sliders)
4.>Set in the Future[At time of writing] (i.e. Futurama)
5.>Invovles travel to other/from other planets. (i.e Stargate SG-1)
6.>Has Aliens in it. (i.e. Alien Nation)
7.>If set in present day uses technology we currently don't have.
8.>Superhuman powers (i.e X-Men, Heroes)

Of course it's not an exhastive lift, but using a broad definition it's basically a story were we as a viewer/reader have to suspend our disbelief of what we are viewing/reading.

Yes you can argue that we have to that to a certain extend for everything we read/view but there is a difference to doing it for saw a programme like "The West Wing" and one like Star Trek.

 

[RAMA]

My biggest problem is with people with the narrowest definition, often those in the "mainstream" of literature or Hollywood who won't admit when something is SF because it's "serious"

Yeah, it's funny that so many in fandom consider a purist definition of SF to be elitist when the mainstream considers it all a big ghetto.

One of the real reasons fantasy and sf tend to get lumped together is because so many noted sf authors and editors work both sides of the street: Ray Bradbury, Poul Anderson, Gordon R. Dickson, Larry Niven, Fritz Leiber, Robert E. Heinlein, Theodore Sturgeon, L. Sprague de Camp, Richard Matheson, Ursula K. LeGuin, G. R. R. Martin, Roger Zelazny, etc. Ditto for prominent genre filmmakers like Spieberg, Zemeckis, Lucas, Jackson, Whedon, etc. And then, of course, there's Anne McCaffrey and her alien space dragons . . . or Edgar Rice Burroughs, who is technically space opera but sure looks like sword-and-sorcery.

Sure. This is why most objects can't be described with just one adjective. A Saturn V is both loud and fast. Also big. But all of these different types of fiction do have at least one thing in common: Imagination. Generally, imaginative people will be interested in a variety of imaginative literature. That doesn't mean it can't all be subdivided into meaningful and descriptive categories.

Yeah but my thoughts on the mainstream is covered well in Brin's blog...the literati are often too engaged in navel-gazing, ie: excessive introspection, self-absorption, or concentration on a single issue. I find SF a little more mind expanding, which is why I predominately read SF, and also non-fiction(not self-help).

I find fantasy entertaining here and there, but my biggest problem with it is that once you postulate magic, you really don't need to have any rigorous self-consistent sense, you can make up anything (same argument is true in real-life...one reason I don't believe in the supernatural because once you postulate it than nothing else has to coherently make sense, any logical trail you follow can lead to any conclusion).

 

[RJDiogenes]

My biggest problem is with people with the narrowest definition, often those in the "mainstream" of literature or Hollywood who won't admit when something is SF because it's "serious"

Yeah, it's funny that so many in fandom consider a purist definition of SF to be elitist when the mainstream considers it all a big ghetto.

One of the real reasons fantasy and sf tend to get lumped together is because so many noted sf authors and editors work both sides of the street: Ray Bradbury, Poul Anderson, Gordon R. Dickson, Larry Niven, Fritz Leiber, Robert E. Heinlein, Theodore Sturgeon, L. Sprague de Camp, Richard Matheson, Ursula K. LeGuin, G. R. R. Martin, Roger Zelazny, etc. Ditto for prominent genre filmmakers like Spieberg, Zemeckis, Lucas, Jackson, Whedon, etc. And then, of course, there's Anne McCaffrey and her alien space dragons . . . or Edgar Rice Burroughs, who is technically space opera but sure looks like sword-and-sorcery.

Sure. This is why most objects can't be described with just one adjective. A Saturn V is both loud and fast. Also big. But all of these different types of fiction do have at least one thing in common: Imagination. Generally, imaginative people will be interested in a variety of imaginative literature. That doesn't mean it can't all be subdivided into meaningful and descriptive categories.

Yeah but my thoughts on the mainstream is covered well in Brin's blog...the literati are often too engaged in navel-gazing, ie: excessive introspection, self-absorption, or concentration on a single issue. I find SF a little more mind expanding, which is why I predominately read SF, and also non-fiction(not self-help).

I'm not much for the mainstream myself. There's nothing inherently wrong with it-- I've written mainstream stories-- but in general it has less to offer than imaginative fiction.

I find fantasy entertaining here and there, but my biggest problem with it is that once you postulate magic, you really don't need to have any rigorous self-consistent sense, you can make up anything (same argument is true in real-life...one reason I don't believe in the supernatural because once you postulate it than nothing else has to coherently make sense, any logical trail you follow can lead to any conclusion).

Well, any sort of fantasy fiction needs to be internally consistent (and that includes Space Opera and other "sci-fi like" genres). If it's not internally consistent, that's a major problem-- although often fun for discussion. But, ultimately, stories are about characters and events, so there's no reason why the fantasy genres can't be as entertaining and touching as SF.

 

[Mistral]

I would define science fiction as a speculation of what might practically be, however unlikely.

This is the same as mine... the rest is just pigeonholing.

We tend to think a lot alike. You see the sig I adopted...

 

[xortex]

I wonder if it's right to say that it's a story that follows a pretense or conceit that involves futuristic technology or scientific extrapolation.

 

[RAMA]

I wonder if it's right to say that it's a story that follows a pretense or conceit that involves futuristic technology or scientific extrapolation.

Doesn't have to be futuristic...parallel worlds in the past is a common SF trope.

 

[xortex]

So a literary technique that employs the use of scientific tropes.