|
Your English teacher told you that SF was social commentary because English teachers, at least the kind with degrees in literature, think everything is social commentary.
I'm reminded of the story about the man who went to see a psychiatrist. The shrink showed him various inkblots, and in every one, the man found some sort of sexual image. "Well, Mr. Smith, you seem to be obsessed with sex." The patient looked at him in disbelief. "Me obsessed? Doc, you're the one showing me all the dirty pictures!"
It's hard to define science fiction because it is such a broad field. A rough definition would be stories in which speculative or predicted science or technology forms a significant element of the story. That misses a lot, though. For example, it excludes post-apocalyptic future stories. It misses classics like "Shambleau" in which the science and technology are just tools for getting the main character to where he has to be. It doesn't cover steampunk very well. In a burst of weirdness, I'm writing what you might call a "retro Tom Swift" story -- an "Edisonade" in which the main character is an inventor and adventurer much like Tom and his ilk, with the requisite super-scientific inventions, but all of the inventions are scientifically possible ... with the science of our era, not his. I consider it science fiction, but I can't jam it into that definition. Then we get the alternate-history subgenre, which is its own whole can of worms.
That's one of the reasons people came up with the term "speculative fiction" -- it better describes stories about things that aren't consistent with what we know of reality. But that has its own scope issues. Do we include fantasy? There is fantasy which is more rigorous (and, I dare say, more plausible) in the "technology" of its magic than some science fiction is in its science. Where do we put that? How about supernatural and horror stories. "Frankenstein" is SF; is "Dracula"?
It's hard to discuss a field when just defining it is like nailing jelly to a tree!
|