Science fiction is "speculative fiction" that has at it's core some aspect of a science fact and then begins with "What if ...," followed by "What then ..."
Example ...... What if ... we could travel at the speed of light? ... What then...?
Example .... What if ... we could create a perpetual motion device? ... What then ...?
Example ... What if ... we could suspend gravity? ... What then...?
Example ... What if ... we could create artifical intelligence? ... What then ...?
With this definition, "sword & sorcery," "horror" and "fantasy" can pretty much be eliminated as "Science Fiction." Incorporating a science fact or two in these genre stories would allow it to overlap with science fiction.
I always describe sci fi as "a story that could possibly happen."
This eliminates horror, fantasy, and sword & sorcery.
Personally, I prefer science fiction to any of the other genres.
It's insulting to label "The Twilight Series" science fiction.
This definition pretty much holds true.
Comments?
##
i agree. Unfortunately, they call what you described as sci fi as hard core, and until recently hard core sci fi has been considered as unsaleable. That may be changing. One can only hope.
Actually, since 1970 hard core sci fi has been in eclipse and there is a generation of sci fi readers who have no experience with hard core sci fi. They really expect their hero to have a ray gun in one hand and a wand in the other.
Let's hope the pendulum swings in the other direction.
I agree that hardcore SF has waned since the 70's. SF has somewhat been the victim of its own success. I think of the commercial side of SF as having a discontinuity at the release of Star Wars. By having achieved a major commercial success, Star Wars moved SF out of the domain of a genre belonging to geeky guys with thick glasses into "something we can make money off of" because of a level of interest among the general public.
But the general public is a lot less interested in science than are the geeky guys with thick glasses. So other aspects of SF have eclipsed science.
Personally I don't lose a lot of sleep over it, because my taste in fiction extends beyond hard SF. I can be as happy with a story that has magic as I can be with a story that has faster-than-light travel -- if they are both well-written stories. Fiction that pushes at the boundary of "what is possible?", of which both SF and fantasy are examples, are enjoyable to me as long as the author builds some new boundaries and stays within them. I have as little patience with a fantasy author who builds a world of magic powers where someone can just discover that they are able to bend the world to their will without effort or cost, as I have with an SF author who allows their character to invent a time travel machine tinkering in their garage with old car parts just because the character is a scientific "genius".
It's possible (but admittedly rare; after all remember that 90% of everything is crap) to have good stories that have ray gun in one hand and a wand in the other -- as long as you're not stuck on genre pureism. Check out the Metamor City podcast (http://www.metamorcity.com/). Somehow they manage to have a world that includes futuristic high tech, magic, psi, and horror staples like vampires, and make it all work.
Too many people fear the future today. Does sci fi bear responsibility?
