Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I know I've said this before, but I usually define sci-fi as needing to be 
> about the science and technology rather than the personalities. An 
> exploration of "what would the world be like if this science were 
> available." If you can tell essentially the same story without the science 
> element, it isn't sci-fi.

  There's a difference between not being good sci-fi and not being sci-fi
at all. Just because the storytelling doesn't rely heavily on the sci-fi
elements doesn't mean that story is not sci-fi. You might argue it's poor
sci-fi (because the sci-fi part is more or less just decoration), but it's
quite a stretch to say that it's not sci-fi at all.

  If the story told by an action movie could be quite well told in a story
belonging to a different genre (such as film noir), that doesn't make the
movie less of an action movie. It might make the story more detached from
the genre, but it doesn't destroy the genre per se. Likewise with sci-fi:
Just because the story doesn't rely on the science fiction elements doesn't
mean there are no science fiction elements. If there are, then it can be
considered a sci-fi story. (Whether it's a *good* story of that genre is
a matter of opinion.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message