|
Post by Teskas on May 26, 2008 17:50:57 GMT -5
This may seem obvious, but it is beginning to confuse me. What makes a story science fiction?
If someone writes a story involving an adventure on a Martian desert, it is science fiction. If someone writes the same story but sets it in the Kalahari, is it just an adventure story? Why isn't it science fiction?
Is it setting that makes a story science fiction, or is there some other element?
The reason I ask is that I've been working on a collateral story about a character who appeared in a minor role in a sci fi story I've been working on for the last two years. I'm fast developing an adventure story for him, but there doesn't seem to be any sci fi in it. I could throw in a lot of little references to space colonies, alien ambassadors, and space travel, but that seems a cheat.
So, what makes science fiction?
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on May 26, 2008 18:00:38 GMT -5
A most excellent question. I really feel that most of what passes as science fiction is in fact merely fantastic adventure. I always thought that at the heart of the matter, science fiction should be at least in part predictive (having to do with technology or scientific concepts that are at least within the realm of possibility). Even though the 1986 version of THE FLY is considered horror, I believe it was one of the best pieces of science fiction I've ever seen, because it dealt with one simple concept, and played it out to its natural conclusion. That is the very backbone of speculative fiction.
I've always thought of Jules Verne as the quintessential science fiction writer. Virtually all of his books "came true" in one sense or another. H.G. Wells is only now starting to have some of his concepts within the realm of possibility (specifically, The Invisible Man).
I think the real question, though, is why you feel it necessary to define your story as sci-fi just because one of the characters happens to be involved in a book of another genre. I think it's a rather interesting notion to have a kind of crossover. (I haven't read Stephen King in years, but I always found his stories fascinating, because you'd see characters from The Shining showing up in It, etc., and while most of his stories are horror, not all of them are. In fact, some might even be considered "general" fiction, and these still have characters from his horror novels showing up in cameo or central roles.) Talk about an opportunity to get your readership's tastes broadened.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Gerke on May 27, 2008 8:08:54 GMT -5
Teskas, there are purists who wrangle endlessly over these matters. I recently had someone roll his eyes and say, "Time for an education," when he realized I didn't know the difference between fantasy, historical fantasy, and heroic fantasy. Really boils my beetle juice, if you want to know.
There must be a usefulness for such precision, but I'm thinking it is pretty much limited to the halls of geekdom (yes, even more deeply into those halls than we are here...).
For most of us, fantasy is wacky weird stuff that takes place in the (usually medieval) past and science fiction is wacky weird stuff that takes place in the future. That's probably as detailed as we need to be for most discussions.
Jeff
P.S. Sorry if that's a bit brusque. Guess I'm still stewing over my boiled beetle juice.
|
|
|
Post by Teskas on May 27, 2008 9:09:58 GMT -5
NP, Jeff. It didn't come across as brusque, merely short and sweet.
I've been working on the outline of a new novel lately--a spin off from another one. While my principle characters in the main, developed story were most definitely living in a futuristic society, this particular somewhat minor character had a story which could be set just as well in the present, or for that matter, a hundred years ago.
If my target market were science fiction, I'd have to be careful about the genre of fiction I'm writing. It occurred to me while I was wrestling with the problem, I wasn't clear what actually constituted science fiction.
Thanks for your input.
|
|
|
Post by Spokane Flyboy on May 27, 2008 16:02:07 GMT -5
For the most part they're interchangeable. I believe that's why most bookstores just have a Sci-Fi/Fantasy section and not separate sections of each. I would argue Star Wars as more fantasy with the mystical elements introduced by the force, though the prequel movies tried to build in the whole midiclorian (spelling?) explanation. To me, science-fiction seems it could be plausible in reality. It makes you say, I can see something like that happening eventually. Fantasy, while it can suspend your disbelief enough to seem plausible, you never really find yourself saying, "I could see myself someday willing magical forces to fire a ball of flame out of my palm!"
|
|
|
Post by Teskas on May 29, 2008 20:16:09 GMT -5
Thank you all for your comments. They have each been distinctive takes on the nature of sci fi. You've all been a great help.
|
|