An excellent essay. I agree with a lot of your points- the idea of SF as a mode seems to better incapsulate what it is capable of, and respectfully categorizes the subgenres based on content.
And "speculative" is a projection of reality. Stock speculation, real estate speculation are extensions of what might be not what could never be.
Fantastical fiction are stories that, given our pretty good understanding of reality, are impossible. Magic, FTL, time travel, all fantastic representations of what can never be.
Speculative fiction, contrary to what most call it, must be rooted in reality. We "speculate" about what the future may bring.
I like the impossible/improbable distinction. That's a good way to put it. How would you classify Kafka's "The Metamorphosis"?
Your comment just made me realize something. On the one hand, SF that seemed impossible sometimes comes true. But on the other hand, serious SF predictions of the future often don't come true. I'm thinking of all the space stories I read that thought fax would still be a thing. Yet few thought of personal computing devices that include hi-rez video cameras, GPS, and more. Dick Tracy's wrist communicator came true in spades.
Good point about "speculation". I wonder if that's why I never took to the term.
I admire your endeavor regarding defining scifi. Is there a sciency theme underlying the storyline? Are main characters using physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, astrophysics, etc. to further the plot? If there's romance, horror, war, intrigue, adventure -- great. All science fiction should blend those genres in some proportion. That's civilization. And where would we be without science?
Maybe it's a choice of problem type? If the protagonist is not using science-stuff to get out of trouble--maybe it's not scifi.
I was a fan of McCaffrey's work in general (she wrote a lot of stories about people with mental powers) and loved the Pern series because, as mentioned in the post, it put a science fiction explanation to dragons, which I thought was really cool. I've always leaned towards harder SF.
Heh. I think all my hardback SF is from the SFBC. Was a member for many years!
All I read now is sci-fi and I'm catching up, so a lot of it is old sci-fi which feels like a bit of a contradiction? rn I'm reading The Dispossessed from 1974! I was 9 when it came out and to make it even odder, my 23yo kid gave it to me.
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is the other Fantasy Series I remember back from Dragon riders of Pern time.
I think Chronicles is about the best serious fantasy since Tolkien. Donaldson is one hell of a writer. He wrote a second and third series about the Land as well as one of the strangest hard-SF series I’ve read, The Gap series. So moody and dark.
I like your definition. I’ve never really thought about defining it, but I am also a science fiction fan over any other fiction.
I tried to write one because I’ve had an ongoing story in my head for years, but every time I start it, I cringe at the results, and then my ADD sends my focus off on a hunt for information in a particular field outside of my own, and so on.
Also, I didn’t know Robert J. Sawyer was on Substack until I read your post!
An excellent essay. I agree with a lot of your points- the idea of SF as a mode seems to better incapsulate what it is capable of, and respectfully categorizes the subgenres based on content.
Yeah, Sam Spade… or Sam Spade on Mars!
(I mentioned Robert J. Sawyer. His book Red Planet Blues is almost exactly that, Sam Spade on Mars.)
p.s. And thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Impossible vs improbable.
And "speculative" is a projection of reality. Stock speculation, real estate speculation are extensions of what might be not what could never be.
Fantastical fiction are stories that, given our pretty good understanding of reality, are impossible. Magic, FTL, time travel, all fantastic representations of what can never be.
Speculative fiction, contrary to what most call it, must be rooted in reality. We "speculate" about what the future may bring.
I do like your "mode" concept, though.
I like the impossible/improbable distinction. That's a good way to put it. How would you classify Kafka's "The Metamorphosis"?
Your comment just made me realize something. On the one hand, SF that seemed impossible sometimes comes true. But on the other hand, serious SF predictions of the future often don't come true. I'm thinking of all the space stories I read that thought fax would still be a thing. Yet few thought of personal computing devices that include hi-rez video cameras, GPS, and more. Dick Tracy's wrist communicator came true in spades.
Good point about "speculation". I wonder if that's why I never took to the term.
I admire your endeavor regarding defining scifi. Is there a sciency theme underlying the storyline? Are main characters using physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, astrophysics, etc. to further the plot? If there's romance, horror, war, intrigue, adventure -- great. All science fiction should blend those genres in some proportion. That's civilization. And where would we be without science?
Maybe it's a choice of problem type? If the protagonist is not using science-stuff to get out of trouble--maybe it's not scifi.
Per my definition, science + imagination, it would be questionable. But the science has to be, at the least, improbable, if not plain impossible.
For my first novel I wrote a speculative fiction, reality projected into the future. What I portrayed *could* happen.
#2 was pure fantasy, Greek gods, monsters and titans brought into the 21 century. High adventure, no science whatsoever.
Sounds like a science fiction novel followed by a fantasy novel. I know a number of authors who’ve done work in both.
As a kid I got hooked on sci-fi with Dragon riders of Pern. Talked my parents into paying for book club, one a month. Cool to see you reference it.
I was a fan of McCaffrey's work in general (she wrote a lot of stories about people with mental powers) and loved the Pern series because, as mentioned in the post, it put a science fiction explanation to dragons, which I thought was really cool. I've always leaned towards harder SF.
Heh. I think all my hardback SF is from the SFBC. Was a member for many years!
All I read now is sci-fi and I'm catching up, so a lot of it is old sci-fi which feels like a bit of a contradiction? rn I'm reading The Dispossessed from 1974! I was 9 when it came out and to make it even odder, my 23yo kid gave it to me.
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is the other Fantasy Series I remember back from Dragon riders of Pern time.
I think Chronicles is about the best serious fantasy since Tolkien. Donaldson is one hell of a writer. He wrote a second and third series about the Land as well as one of the strangest hard-SF series I’ve read, The Gap series. So moody and dark.
I like your definition. I’ve never really thought about defining it, but I am also a science fiction fan over any other fiction.
I tried to write one because I’ve had an ongoing story in my head for years, but every time I start it, I cringe at the results, and then my ADD sends my focus off on a hunt for information in a particular field outside of my own, and so on.
Also, I didn’t know Robert J. Sawyer was on Substack until I read your post!
Yeah, it's surprising how many people are here. Neal Stephenson is, too!
Yes, I saw that a short while ago, but didn’t see that Sawyer was here too.