Breaking down the sci-fi genre

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The dead horse *is* starting to smell, isn't it?
We need to find something else to dissect.
Murder mysteries, anyone?

You'll need a new thread.

Personally, I've always considered SF to be of two types: Stories mainly centered around technological and social issues; and stories centered around psychological issues (the human condition). The latter is the considerably smaller group, consisting of stories like Solaris, Through A Glass Darkly, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, etc.

Yeah, I know... I really wasn't gonna do this...

[BeccaPrice]

Where does Lois Bujold fit in then? Most of her non-biologically-oriented technology is unobtanium and handwavium. In some she addresses social issues (Cryoburn most clearly, although it's a technology and social issue that don't exist yet), and I'm not sure they reflect psychological issues, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by psychological issues.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Yeah, I know... I really wasn't gonna do this...

So the horse wasn't quite dead.
(Not a bad breakdown, that one.)

The second category in that breakdown is one that many people tend to forget and a perfect illustration that SF is *not* about the trappings or the settings but about the ideas; that you can have a story set in the mundane world about (mostly) mundane events that *still* perfectly exemplifies the core goals of the genre.

Sturgeon's THE WIDGET, THE WADGET, AND BOFF comes instantly to mind. MORE THAN HUMAN, right behind it. You don't see it often but when it is done right it tends to stay with you.

I can sign up to that breakdown.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Where does Lois Bujold fit in then?

Bujold is a one of a kind.
She does character-based stories focused on specific biotech concepts.
The narrative may vary from straight adventure to outright combat SF or murder mystery and even comedy of manners but the heart of her SF stories is almost always an exploration of biotech.
Classic SF.
Might even call it hard science SF.

[Xanthe]

So in the broadest terms, we have/require:

People (sentient beings)

Places (Earth, planets, galaxies)

Things (technology, robots/androids, creatures, spaceships, infrastructure, etc.)

Concepts (time, emotions, politics/economics, society, etc.)

one of which will provide the defining emphasis of the story, and at least three of which need to be in some sort of conflict with each other. The reader of science fiction is also required to accept "What if X..." as a basic premise of the story, with X being something that is seemingly impossible scientifically at this point in time, but is accepted as a given within the context of the story.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

The reader of science fiction is also required to accept "What if X..." as a basic premise of the story, with X being something that is seemingly impossible scientifically at this point in time, but is accepted as a given within the context of the story.

The reader of science fiction *may* be required...

The "one impossibility" rule is more of a free pass for the writer than a requirement. A more liberal interpretation of the science "requirement" is to say the story should not be overly dependent on elements generally considered unreal by contemporary rationalists. (Unless there is a darned good reason.)

Your deconstruction is pretty good and a good summary of where the genre stands today. Things will undoubtedly change.

In the early days of the genre editors were pretty strict about the extrapolation aspect and Campbell's Astounding in particular required solid scientific extrapolation in service of the narrative. Preferably as the core idea. To this day, this focus is considered to be "Hard SF" with the science in the narrative being physical sciences, ideally. A good classic example being Larry Niven's NEUTRON STAR. Or Bujold's CRYOBURN.

When Boucher and McComas set up F&SF they were a bit more liberal and didn't mind a little leaking between the genres; good writing was the main criterion. Over time, the core idea requirement was "relaxed" and by the 60's we got "soft" SF, where the science wasn't the core idea but a supporting element. After that, the "New Wave" writers relaxed the requirements even further so that the genre traits could be simply background while the core idea could actually come from the humanities or politics. To them, style and mood was at least co-equal to the idea and it can be argued that some just drowned the idea in mood.

It's a far-ranging and living genre so it is still evolving.
The experienced/inspired writers know enough to take them more as guidelines... suggestions, even ( ), but they can be useful for readers interested in serious exploration of the genre.

An amusing development for some of us long time fans of SF is how in recent times some elements of SF have filtered out into other media and other genres. Romance, mysteries, and thrillers now routinely use SF settings and tropes to dress up their narrative. There is even an entire sub-genre of Thrillers that has adopted the some of the SF narrative tone and discipline, the Techno-thriller, which on occasion seem almost like throwbacks to the Hugo Gernsback era.

At least the genre isn't much of a whipping boy for the snooty "high culture" types anymore. (Thank you, sparkly vamps. )

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

At least the genre isn't much of a whipping boy for the snooty "high culture" types anymore. (Thank you, sparkly vamps. )

Oh, I don't know... some snooty, high-culture types seem to be pretty good at excluding new authors from their established professionals' clubs, awards programs, advertising venues, media outlets...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Oh, I don't know... some snooty, high-culture types seem to be pretty good at excluding new authors from their established professionals' clubs, awards programs, advertising venues, media outlets...

True, but do we really need to bring Scott Turow's country club up now?

It *would* be nice if Hugos and Nebulas got comparable coverage to the snooty awards for disposable "little-rature", but hey; that's life.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Nope.
Science Fiction isn't about the trappings or the setting.

Not the good stuff.
Good SF starts with ideas and then a rationalist narrative is built around it.

Yes, I think this is mostly right.

Science Fiction needs a core of science; whether physics or biology or psychology or even cybernetics.

I think this is almost completely wrong. The most common technology used in SF, I think, is FTL travel. Not only does FTL travel not exist, based on everything we know about physics, it *can't* exist. If it existed, pretty much all of our physics would be broken. It would be like biology if evolution didn't exist. FTL travel is the intelligent design of science fiction.

However, it doesn't matter for science fiction because science fiction is not really about the real science. All science fiction has to do is posit the impossible technology and then realistically treat it as if it existed and had been created through the scientific method. But the real purpose of the technology is just to further the story - if the story is about the interaction with humans and aliens, for example, the FTL drive just isn't important to the story. In the same way that the fact that Yoknapatawpha County doesn't really exist doesn't matter for Faulkner's work.

Of course, once we've posited the "technology," we do need to treat it realistically, so the FTL drive will probably need fuel of some sort, and will work in a certain way, and may need maintenance, and may break down...and we want all of these to be internally consistent and superficially plausible (given the impossibility, of course). But the genre is science *fiction,*, not science. And the science has usually been as fictional as anything else. And that's okay.

It needs ideas that challenge our worldview.

SF requires discipline and consistency; good SF is *always* about something of significance. Even when entertaining us, good SF will make us think.

Yes.

Of course, as Theodore Sturgeon said; "90% of SF is crap."
He also added; "80% of everything is crap."

He may have been an optimist.

STAR WARS is fun stuff. It introduced a lot of people to the trappings of the genre and the sense of wonder that is Science Fiction's calling card. It led some of those to the good stuff. A lot of them have simply bought into the mythology of the movies and the books and the toons and the toys. No harm done as long as they're having fun.

But Star Wars is simply too sloppy, too mystical, too undisciplined to be anything more than good fantasy.

Star Wars is science fiction. It requires too much special pleading to argue otherwise. You can't just wave away the aliens, spaceships, technology, etc. It's as least as "sciency" as, say, "The Demolished Man."

I suppose I might call it "science fiction lite," though.

[Nancy F Furner]

And remember, Harlan Ellison panned Star Wars. I believe he remarked that it was nothing more than a cheap, grade-B Western performed in outer space.

I adore Ellison's work, but I also enjoyed the living daylights out of Star Wars. A good story is a good story, regardless of the trappings.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

This is about the history of sci fi but I think it's also a nice breakdown of various genres:

http://www.wardshelley.com/paintings...HistSciFi2.jpg

eP

I love the SF Cephelopod!

[jgaiser]

I have nothing to add, but Wow... What a great thread.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Nancy F Furner

And remember, Harlan Ellison panned Star Wars. I believe he remarked that it was nothing more than a cheap, grade-B Western performed in outer space.

Ellison wrote for one of those "grade-B westerns in space." He had no business panning Star Wars or anything else. I do not hear his words.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Ellison wrote for one of those "grade-B westerns in space." He had no business panning Star Wars or anything else. I do not hear his words.

And also had his name removed from the credits when they ignored his criticisms...

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Nancy F Furner

And remember, Harlan Ellison panned Star Wars. I believe he remarked that it was nothing more than a cheap, grade-B Western performed in outer space.

I adore Ellison's work, but I also enjoyed the living daylights out of Star Wars. A good story is a good story, regardless of the trappings.

He's a good writer, but I don't pay much attention to his rants.