The Pub Discussion Board

Here's the original rant:
http://storiesonline.net/blogentry/13954

I would send the author a comment, but one, I don't think it would make any difference, and two, SOL only told me that I had to be logged in to send the message after it had removed it from my screen.  But I think that this person's view on science fiction needs to be publicly challenged.  Since this is the forum I prefer to spend time on, it's where I'm going to say my piece.

Science fiction, contrary to the belief of CWatson, is a very broad category of works.  Unfortunately for him, and very much fortunately for me, one thing that is NOT required is social commentary.  I'm sorry, CWatson, but no, a story does NOT need to tell me whether or not we should use a technology in order to be science fiction.  All it has to do is contain science and technology that we don't yet have.

Personally, I find your assertion that it can't be science fiction without social commentary to be offensive.  My very least favorite science fiction author is Robert Heinlein.  Why?  Because the guy preaches at me.  Contrary to your belief and Mr. Card's assertion, I DO NOT read to learn how to live.  I figured out how I wanted to live a long time ago.  I read... to ENTERTAIN MYSELF.  My life is often unpleasant, and in order to get a break from that, I occasionally immerse myself in a world where I know the problems will get resolved.  I have no interest in someone telling me how to live, or reading about how society is all fucked up.  I want an escape.  If I wanted to hear about how bad the world is, I'd watch the news.

Furthermore, any avid science fiction fan knows that there are two big categories of science fiction:  hard, and soft.  Hard science fiction adheres to the strict rules of science as we know it, extrapolating only as far out as our current knowledge can go.  The best (in my opinion) example of this kind of writing is Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote stories based on technology that was either known to be possible, or that had solid theories to suggest that it was possible.  He never wrote about faster-than-light technology, because it is supposed to be impossible.

On the other side of the equation is "soft" science fiction, often referred to as science fantasy.  In essence, this is fantasy written in a technological setting.  It doesn't work too hard to explain the science behind it, though they often do attempt to at least make it sound plausible... whether or not they actually have a foothold in reality.  The two stories that CWatson decries as destroying the science fiction genre are both, in fact, science fantasy.  Star Wars makes no attempt to really explain itself scientifically.  In fact, it spends far more time explaining the fantastical "Force" than it does explaining how Hyperspace works.  (Please note:  I'm sticking to the movies here; I've never read the books, and neither have the vast majority of SW viewers.)

Star Trek made attempts to explain its 'science', but in most cases, this was completely made up, but designed to sound plausible.  Star Trek is often referred to as "Space Opera" because it is far more concerned with the inter-character relationships than with any of the science OR technology.

Science fiction isn't really about the style of writing so much as it is the setting of the story.  If your story takes place in a setting that either happens in our future, or in some other place where technology is more advanced than it is right now, then you've written science fiction.  There is no requirement that you talk about whether the technology is good for ANYONE.  If you want to write social commentary into your science fiction, go right ahead.  I won't read it, but I doubt that will bother you.  There is NOTHING, however, at all wrong with writing science fiction for pure entertainment value.

I find CWatson's comments to be rather elitist, declaring that only those people who can adhere to an extremely narrow description have the right to call their work true science fiction.  For the most part, his definition actually rules out Arthur C. Clarke, who rarely bothered to moralize in his stories, preferring to actually just tell a good story about characters in a future setting.

There is real value in doing an activity "just for the fun of it."  Even thousands of years ago, it was understood that humans need down-time.  It is the basis for the Jewish Sabbath, and Christianity's "Lord's Day".  (If you believe in these religions, then it was God who was smart enough to know we needed downtime.  If you don't, then it was some guy's good sense.)  Not everything in life has to have a high and mighty purpose.  Sometimes, people do need to just cut loose and enjoy themselves.  As I said, I do not read to learn to live.  I also do not write my stories with any attempt at teaching people how to live.  I write my stories to entertain myself, and hopefully a few other people in the process.

In closing, I'd like to urge CWatson (not that he'll ever see this) to consider that not everyone sees the world as he does, and that a fair number of real science fiction fans would take a great deal of issue with his so-called definition of our genre.

Eric Storm
Soft Science Fiction (Science Fantasy) & Fantasy Author