So. Is it science fiction?

Science fiction is a topic about which I am very, very passionate. I will, if you allow me, talk for hours and hours about science fiction. I'll expound on dystopia and wax lyrical on post-apocalypse. And I'll do all this for a genre that, really, lacks definition.

I'm sure that you have some idea of what science fiction is--or, at least, what the phrase means to you. But bookstores and genre literary magazines (not to mention the ridiculous SyFy cable channel) tend to lump science fiction and fantasy together in a larger "speculative fiction" category. I find this abhorrent. To me, science fiction and fantasy represent completely different concepts. On opposite ends of the spectrum. Diametrically opposed. And for whatever reason, I can't find anyone else who gets this worked up about it.

So I've started this blog. Every week, I'm planning on coming back and addressing a work of TV, film, or literature, then explaining why it deserves or does not deserve to be called science fiction. Hopefully, someone out there in the vast internet collective will be as passionate about this topic as I am.

There is one person who comes to mind. Sam Hughes, a bit of a genius who blogs over at Things of Interest, has written before about what makes fiction true science fiction. In his words:

"Because I am of the opinion that in order to be truly science fiction, the science has to be important. The science has to take the centre stage. Star Trek falls under this category. Stargate does too. I don't know if Battlestar Galactica does. Futurama? Most definitely! But Star Wars doesn't - the technology you see in Star Wars is the backdrop to a story which is actually about glowing swords, magic and redemption."

There's just one problem, though--I disagree with him. He's certainly right about most of it; Star Trek is mostly science fiction, as is Stargate, as is Futurama. And Star Wars definitely isn't (more on that later). What I disagree with is why this is. For me, the science definitely doesn't have to take center stage for something to be science fiction. I mean, look at some of the staple sub-genres of science fiction: dystopia, post-apocalypse, alternative history, and others. None of these inherently depend on technology in any way. But the other thing to consider is how technology manifests itself in science fiction: it's fictional. Certainly, the pseudo-science in some science fiction is more realistic than the pseudo-science in others, but none of it actually exists, and in nearly every instance there are major obstacles standing in the way of its existence. To me, the difference between the fiction that includes pseudo-science and the fiction that doesn't just isn't wide enough to be meaningful.


Which brings me back to Star Wars. If Star Wars's lack of science doesn't disqualify it as science fiction, then what does? Well, kind readers, as much as I love Star Wars, it's a fantasy story, pure and simple. The original can be summarized as a story in which a smuggler, an old knight, and a farm boy go on an adventure to rescue a princess from the dark lord's fortress. Along the way, the old knight teaches the farm boy to use swords and magic. This is a literal summary, using (most of) George Lucas's original terminology; if you think it's just a coincidence that Leia is a princess and that Jedi are called "knights," you're positively batty. Lucas knew what he was doing, and he sure as hell knew that he was creating something other than science fiction.

"But it's set in space!" you say, "There are laser guns and aliens!" Yes, but in my book, science fiction is not a setting that can be so casually defined. For me, science fiction must be grounded in reality. Our reality, and yet a reality that differs just enough from our own for the difference to be meaningful. But it is a reality in which human beings are still human beings, and we act like them: We see ourselves as fundamentally distinct from alien beings. We react in surprise and amazement and fear to people who have supernatural abilities of any kind. We have religion. We have science. And, very importantly, we come from Earth. None of these things could be said of the humans in Star Wars. Science fiction does not take place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away; it takes place somewhere just close enough to Earth to make it ring true.

Because, to me, science fiction is a genre that asks a series of fundamental questions that could not possibly be asked by any other genre: What are the implications of self-awareness? What is the nature of reality? And most importantly, what does it mean to be human? None of these questions can truly be asked when a story is grounded in our present-day reality, nor can they be asked in a universe that is as far removed from our own as is Star Wars. We need to ask them in a setting that is enough our own to be recognized--but slightly off. Many times this distinction occurs because of some new technology. Most times it is our future. Sometimes, it is a slightly tweaked present or past. But in all cases, we can see ourselves reflected in the stories' characters.

I'm sure that some of you will disagree with this analysis, or come up with exceptions to my classification of science fiction. But that's what this blog is for. I mean to address these exceptions and explain to whoever might be listening why it is that I love science fiction so, so much.