According to a common definition science fiction, or sci-fi for short, deals with any fiction having science and technology in it. That is, for example, IPs like Star Wars, Guardians of the Galaxy, Mass Effect, Space Odyssey, Interstellar, and the Martian are all clumped together even though their science base varies broadly. Using the same definition, one could perhaps even classify post-apocalyptic IPs such as Fallout and Mad Max under the same umbrella. Also cyberpunk games would be classified as sci-fi if we followed the classical definition about science and technology.
I think this umbrella is too wide. I'd rather think science fiction under one-dimensional continuum, a line segment. In one extreme, we would have science fiction relying purely/strongly on the contemporary understanding of science at that time. In the other extreme we would have fiction that is not loyal to science but takes inspiration from it. I call this science fantasy, sci-fa for short.
Using the examples above, the Martian would be closest to the sci-fi end, followed by the Space Odyssey and Interstellar (apart from the end which would be strong sci-fa). On the other hand, Guardians of the Galaxy and Star Wars would be closest to the sci-fa end and Mass Effect would get placed somewhere in the middle, progressively moving toward sci-fa from the first to the fourth entry.
That is not to say that my definition of the sci-fi extreme could not improvise on science, because the best sci-fi just does that. It plays on things deduced from science and often ends up predicting the future to some extent. It is thought provoking and fascinating rather than a fantasy story that could never happen in the world we live in.
Such a classification could also clarify the confusion and misunderstanding sci-fi creates for people who are not working with science.
What do you think about this?
I think this umbrella is too wide. I'd rather think science fiction under one-dimensional continuum, a line segment. In one extreme, we would have science fiction relying purely/strongly on the contemporary understanding of science at that time. In the other extreme we would have fiction that is not loyal to science but takes inspiration from it. I call this science fantasy, sci-fa for short.
Using the examples above, the Martian would be closest to the sci-fi end, followed by the Space Odyssey and Interstellar (apart from the end which would be strong sci-fa). On the other hand, Guardians of the Galaxy and Star Wars would be closest to the sci-fa end and Mass Effect would get placed somewhere in the middle, progressively moving toward sci-fa from the first to the fourth entry.
That is not to say that my definition of the sci-fi extreme could not improvise on science, because the best sci-fi just does that. It plays on things deduced from science and often ends up predicting the future to some extent. It is thought provoking and fascinating rather than a fantasy story that could never happen in the world we live in.
Such a classification could also clarify the confusion and misunderstanding sci-fi creates for people who are not working with science.
What do you think about this?
Last edited: