Science Fiction

The genre is pretty broad. As far as I can tell, sci-fi is generally defined by the presence of speculative science, whether it's part of the plot or setting.

I think part of what you're hitting on re: "classic" sci-fi and "modern" sci-fi is really the difference between "hard" and "soft" sci-fi. My personal favorites tend to be hard sci-fi -- stories that hinge on the science itself, and that science has actual theoretical backing. For example, the Ringworld books by Larry Niven are based in part on a paper written by Freeman Dyson describing a megastructure that enclosed an entire orbit of a star. Niven adapted this idea into a ring. At some point, someone (I can't remember if it was a Niven or a fan) worked out that the Ringworld would be unstable -- and Niven made that a major part of the plot! [Taking a break for fansquee.] The science is inseparable from the Ringworld story. Same with Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars series. He focuses on the character, but the research and science are entwined enough with the plot that there really isn't much of the story left if you remove it.

Soft sci-fi tends to have the speculative science in the background. I'd put Star Trek and Star Wars into this category, along with a pretty large swath of popular sci-fi. I also actually would stick Asimov's Foundation series in this category. It has elements of hard sci-fi -- I think the mathematical theory that went into psychohistory qualifies, but as nifty as it is, it's background to the tales that span the 20,000 years of the series.

Oh man, I need to re-read a lot of those. I loves me some hard SF, but it's gotten harder to find really good stuff.

I wonder, then, if David Weber's Honor Harrington series woudl qualify as hard science. He throws astrophysics and mathematical formulae for ship tonnage and warhead velocity all over the friggin' place.

Weber and the Baen folks tend to be classified as military sci-fi, which usually has a higher hard science component. The genre changed significantly in the 60s as women became accepted, quite frankly. Women like Ursula LeGuin and Kate Wilhelm began writing stories that were set in clearly sci-fi situations, but that didn't focus on the technology. Male writers did, too, but I don't think it's coincidental that it became a trend when women were finally allowed to write under their own names (see Andre Norton) and be taken seriously. harrumph.

As a person who wrote sf, by my definition, which was marketed as fantasy, I did a couple of blogposts on genre, here and here. (Read also the always-intelligent comments of Elisabeth Barrette, who contends that the most crucial factor in the success of weblit is originality.)

Well, consider that the guys figured Judith Merrill was 'the blond' in the sf crowd. And, of course there's James Tiptree. Andre said it was because it was seen as 'allowable' to be a woman writing 'children's literature' which many people still consider to be a valid description of f/sf/horror/magic realism... oh, it isn't? Hmmm. Let me go check my prejudice thesaurus... Sarcasm, just another service we offer for free.

Oh, and I worked for Baen. Yeah I was too slow finishing the last book and Toni pulled it... well, I was late.

Does she really mean "originality", though? Or "novelty"?

There are areas that require "something new and jazzy" to make it. (I worked in mail order catalogs for several years: the boutique catalogs live and die by sexy new stuff)

So you could be writing a medieval wizard story or vampire romance (like everybody else on the damned planet) that was very original in style, plotting, etc. But hardly a novelty.

On the other hand, a zombie love story is novel. Or was: that's the problem with novelty.

I think what she meant was that readers are tired of all the same-old-same-old; that came out in the context of the comment. Which perhaps could be taken either way. Now as a reader myself (insofar as I am) I prefer originality over novelty because I generally prefer depth over cheap gratification, and from what she writes I think Elizabeth feels the same way--but that is certainly not true of all readers. So while I would like her to be right, I can't be certain she is.

Well put.
I visited the States this month and got REALLY depressed by strolls through chain bookstores. I just didn't see anything I wanted to get. (And I live in Mexico where English books are hard to come by and you stock up when you can).

But the big thing that hit me was a big "Teen Reading" section in B&N. A wall of books and EVERY, SINGLE one of them was a vampire romance.

I think there are sort of different rule for blogs (and eBooks) than for print books--and would like to see those differences discussed and tuned in on as this cool forum goes forward.

Just as a TV series and movie do things differently because of the nature of their format, blogs have a different "shape".

One difference I realized early on is that if you're working RSS feeds, you really want those first 40 words or whatever to be really eye-catching.

Another thing somewhat peculiar to electronic formats (at this point in time) is that they tilt heavily towards certain poles of readership. GLBT, for instance. Zombies, for another. Perhaps "wants to be a game" would be another.

I think this might put people working more "mainstream" things in a position of needing more novelty to suck readers in. (Ooops, another vampire metaphor)

Interesting definition of SciFi vs. Speculative fiction - I would have gone the opposite way. To me scifi is Trek, Asimov, Dune... stuff that takes place very much elsewhere and elsewhen. Where's Kim Stanley Robinson (I haven't read the Mars one's, I've read 40 Days of Rain, 50 Degrees Below, 60 Days and Counting) I'd say was speculative fiction - he's speculating on our future.

I've got one story on my site that sort of falls into speculative fiction - GURD 2108. It's set 100 years or so, 2108, in the same area I live. I'm assuming climate change has happened, or at least some. It's mainly an exploration of how community might change, though, more than anything about science.

I thought of calling mine "space fiction", because it's fiction about living out in space. Doubt it would catch on, but there you have it.

@April EEEE EEEE I've only read 40 Days of Rain, haven't read the rest. Are they any good? I liked 40 Days well enough...

Interesting.

I've always taken Speculative Fiction as the supergenre that encompasses Science Fiction, Fantasy, Supernatural Horror, paranormals and similar. That's certainly the definition The Internet Speculative Fiction Database uses as well.

Becky