|
I liken the debate about whether something is or isn't science-fiction(1984 et al) to similar debates in martial arts circles.
Is Wing Chun kung fu or not? Is Hapkido a form or Tae Kwon Do? Is Aikido really only a version of JuJutsu?
What it always seems to come down to is nobody can agree on a definition and even when they do these arts can be defined within those broader umbrellas but can also be classed as distinct and different arts.
If you define something by inclusion then I can't see how 1984 and the rest of the works mentioned in this thread are not science fiction. They have all or many of the tropes and themes of science fiction and so can be classed as science fiction regardless of whatever else they are classed as.
What it boils down to, I think, is that great writing will rise above the genre it is generally defined within. Orwell, Bradbury etc were great writers and therefore so much more than simplistic science fiction themes can be gotten from their works. This does not negate the science fiction themes that are there though and therefore the label of science fiction is valid if one is inclined to label them in the first place.
Cheers,
PKFFW
|