The definition of Science Fiction

you

Well-known member
someone should mention the difference between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi
 

john eden

male pale and stale
I think it sci-fi is about a scientific/technological angle as has been said.

But it's also that this angle is the dominant feature of the story.

Orwell's 1984 was set in the future when it was published and also includes various technological innovations (like surveillance). But it's not sci-fi because the dominant feature is politics.

Is "A Clockwork Orange" sci-fi though?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I think the difference is meant to be that 'hard' sci-fi is more about the implications of future technology while 'soft' is more about societal changes, right? So the latter would include 1984, which doesn't really feature any technology not available in the late '40s when it was written (edit: apart from some of the surveillance stuff, as JE mentions - although even then, it's mostly just a refinement of technology that already existed at the time, isn't it?). I guess this would put Gibson in a sort of intermediate position.

In the broader definition, sci-fi doesn't have to be about futuristic technology per se, I think. So Neil Stephenson's Cryptonomicon can be called sci-fi, even though it's set partly in the 'present day' (or the late '90s, when it was written) and partly in WWII, and you could even make the case for his Baroque Cycle being sci-fi too, despite being set about 300 years ago, because of the central importance of science and technology to the plot(s)*. But that could be as much because Stephenson was already widely known as a sci-fi author when he wrote those books as for any other reason, I dunno.

Conversely, a book about, say, the reawakening of King Arthur to fight ancient forces of evil would pretty clearly be a fantasy novel even if it were set in 2050.

*then again, the stuff about the apparently immortal Enoch Root and the magical properties of the 'Solomonic gold' could almost be classed as fantasy, or at least magic realism.
 
Last edited:

firefinga

Well-known member
I think it sci-fi is about a scientific/technological angle as has been said.

But it's also that this angle is the dominant feature of the story.

Orwell's 1984 was set in the future when it was published and also includes various technological innovations (like surveillance). But it's not sci-fi because the dominant feature is politics.

Is "A Clockwork Orange" sci-fi though?

I am with you on this.
 

firefinga

Well-known member
The technology/science-heavy aspect doesn't have to be projected into the future necessarily. Take many x-file episodes or the 2004 Manchurian candidate. Scenarios of present times, but with (just slightly) interpolated technology.
 

droid

Well-known member
I am with you on this.

Yeah, yourself and the distinguished JE are both wrong. Science and tech are a red herring. Consider just a few examples:

The Dispossessed,
The Handmaids tale,
Slaughterhouse 5,
The Drowned world,
Ada, or Ardor,
The Master and Margarita,
A Clockwork Orange,

Science and tech play little or no role in these books but they are generally considered to be SF.

Id like to expand the suggestion I made earlier:

SF is about 'anything that could happen in the future that differs in some way from current or past human experience'.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Where do aliens fit into this?

Alien (Ridley Scott) is sci-fi because it's set on a spaceship and has an alien in it. Standard.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind is sci-fi cos it's mainly about human interaction with aliens and spaceships. (And is set in the present, so ner de ner ner).

ET though? Not really sci-fi?
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Also I disagree with Droid about A Clockwork Orange for two reasons.

Firstly it is stacked to the gills with technology - its whole schtick is based on style and fashion in the future, which has to be a product of technological innovation.

Secondly I don't think people regard it as science fiction. Dystopian perhaps. No aliens or spaceships though innit.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
SF is about 'anything that could happen in the future that differs in some way from current or past human experience'.


What about The Leftovers, then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leftovers_(TV_series)

It is actually set in 2011 but that's largely immaterial. It definitely differs in some way from current or past human experience though.

Not sci-fi though as there are no aliens or spaceships, sorry.
 

droid

Well-known member
SF is about 'anything that could happen in the future that differs in some way from current or past human experience'.


What about The Leftovers, then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leftovers_(TV_series)

It is actually set in 2011 but that's largely immaterial. It definitely differs in some way from current or past human experience though.

Not sci-fi though as there are no aliens or spaceships, sorry.

I know you grew up at a time when young master Wells was making waves with his fantastical stories of space travel & alien invasions, but things have moved on since then.
 
Last edited:

john eden

male pale and stale
I know you grew at a time when young master Wells was making waves with his fantastical stories of space travel & alien invasions, but things have moved on since then.

I am glad to hear it but we can't seriously suggest that a novel set in the year 2018 in which carrots had disappeared from the world (with no involvement of either aliens or spaceships) was science fiction, could we?

I mean it's cool that you like science fiction and want everything in the future to be it - I just don't think it stacks up.
 

droid

Well-known member
As stated above, lot's of Sci Fi actually isn't set in the future. Another example would be Jurassic Park.

Hmm... firstly, not really (but I agree there will always be outliers, hence my qualifiers on the suggested definitions). Secondly how do you know? When was Jurassic park set?
 
Top