I would define sci-fi as any work of entertainment that deals in the universe as it could be through different technology or physics. This, clearly is too broad a definition - but I guess that's because there are so many distinctly different works of science fiction. If 1984 is Sci-fi and Star Trek is Sci-fi and Hell is the Absence of God is also Sci-fi, it starts to become clear that we're dealing with a big slice of entertainment.
After all, if we're going to count Star Wars, for instance, then a work like Harry Potter can't be excluded - for even if it feels like fantasy and not sci-fi, how is magic any different than the Force? If the force is fair game in the realm of science-fiction, so too must be magic.
When I was a really young kid, my mom explained it to me like this: "Fiction is a work that's not true. Non-fiction is a work that is true. Science fiction is a work that isn't true, but it could be in our universe or another."
That's not a perfect definition either, but it's no worse than any other I've heard.
I like your mom's definition of science fiction, and it definitely broadens what works would be considered part of the genre. Going by that definition, what do you consider some of the criteria for deciding what "could be true" from what can't?
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between what could be true from what could not be true is up to the discretion of the writer in my opinion. Many works of science fiction are completely and utterly farfetched but some audiences still enjoy them. As long as the work is not totally unimaginable and continues to grasp the readers' attention, it should be fair game.
ReplyDelete