genres tend to be more commonly defined by the tropes that they employ.
Yes, that was part of my point. Why are we suddenly departing from this for science fiction?
But of course, if the story really is about the cloning device, then it would be just as much sci-fi even if it was set in the modern era.
But you wouldn’t say “25% of this story is about the cloning and 75% is about the bus rides and handguns, so this modern day story is only 25% sci-fi”. Yet replace bus rides and handguns with spaceships and lasers, and make it a series, and suddenly it’s “not very much sci-fi” because not very much of the technological elements affect society.
(Especially if it’s a series. Something that may appear every week in a series—because it’s a series—may not have social effects every week.)
You couldn’t really do generation ships in a Western
But in practice, a series that is not completely based around generation ships won’t have them most of the time. It’s unrealistic to say that Star Trek isn’t real sci-fi unless each episode with a spaceship has a generation ship or other element that shows the spaceships are having a social effect.
maybe it’s harder to identify the laser that was used to kill for someone than it is with a traditional weapon
Is that a social consequence, though? Or just a consequence? I can easily think of modern analogs for such a thing, after all.
Why are we suddenly departing from this for science fiction?
Because the “sci-fi is about exploring consequences” definition is useful for identifying a cluster of stories that some people (me included) find particularly interesting and enjoyable, and purely trope-based definitions wouldn’t identify that cluster correctly.
But you wouldn’t say “25% of this story is about the cloning and 75% is about the bus rides and handguns, so this modern day story is only 25% sci-fi”. Yet replace bus rides and handguns with spaceships and lasers, and make it a series, and suddenly it’s “not very much sci-fi” because not very much of the technological elements affect society.
(Especially if it’s a series. Something that may appear every week in a series—because it’s a series—may not have social effects every week.)
I can give a rough estimate of whether or not a story gives a sense of doing the kind of novel exploration of concepts that I haven’t seen done before. If a series only very rarely gives that kind of a sense, then it’s not very sci-fi.
But in practice, a series that is not completely based around generation ships won’t have them most of the time. It’s unrealistic to say that Star Trek isn’t real sci-fi unless each episode with a spaceship has a generation ship or other element that shows the spaceships are having a social effect.
I don’t think I ever said that the exploration had to always be about the spaceships? Plenty of other concepts that Star Trek could explore as well.
Is that a social consequence, though? Or just a consequence?
Sociological sci-fi was defined to be about social consequences, but sci-fi in general doesn’t have to be about them in particular. Could be e.g. the logical consequences as well—Asimov had a bunch of stories about the Three Laws of Robotics that were essentially just logic puzzles.
I don’t think I ever said that the exploration had to always be about the spaceships? Plenty of other concepts that Star Trek could explore as well.
So something can have many strange or futuristic elements, but only one or a few of those elements needs to have an effect in any one story for it to count as sci-fi?
If that’s the case, then even the Star Trek movies count as sci-fi. Even the first movie has a time traveller affecting history, Vulcan being blown up, and a transporter rigged up to go a very long distance. It’s hard to do those in a modern day story or a Western without something very contrived.
Heck, even Star Wars counts. It has the Force. Having a world where mysticism works is a big change that has noticeable effects on what the characters can do, and how the audience would react to them. Plenty of people here, watching a similar story taking place in the modern world where mysticism has no reproducible effects, would think that Yoda is a charlatan and that Luke should flee to keep his rationality intact (This goes double because in the real world there’s no such thing as a combat skill that only a few dozen people in all of existence are capable of learning. You’d have a very hard time writing Star Wars as a Western without wondering why Darth Vader shouldn’t be fought by a posse instead of by a single hero.)
Yes, that was part of my point. Why are we suddenly departing from this for science fiction?
But you wouldn’t say “25% of this story is about the cloning and 75% is about the bus rides and handguns, so this modern day story is only 25% sci-fi”. Yet replace bus rides and handguns with spaceships and lasers, and make it a series, and suddenly it’s “not very much sci-fi” because not very much of the technological elements affect society.
(Especially if it’s a series. Something that may appear every week in a series—because it’s a series—may not have social effects every week.)
But in practice, a series that is not completely based around generation ships won’t have them most of the time. It’s unrealistic to say that Star Trek isn’t real sci-fi unless each episode with a spaceship has a generation ship or other element that shows the spaceships are having a social effect.
Is that a social consequence, though? Or just a consequence? I can easily think of modern analogs for such a thing, after all.
Because the “sci-fi is about exploring consequences” definition is useful for identifying a cluster of stories that some people (me included) find particularly interesting and enjoyable, and purely trope-based definitions wouldn’t identify that cluster correctly.
I can give a rough estimate of whether or not a story gives a sense of doing the kind of novel exploration of concepts that I haven’t seen done before. If a series only very rarely gives that kind of a sense, then it’s not very sci-fi.
I don’t think I ever said that the exploration had to always be about the spaceships? Plenty of other concepts that Star Trek could explore as well.
Sociological sci-fi was defined to be about social consequences, but sci-fi in general doesn’t have to be about them in particular. Could be e.g. the logical consequences as well—Asimov had a bunch of stories about the Three Laws of Robotics that were essentially just logic puzzles.
So something can have many strange or futuristic elements, but only one or a few of those elements needs to have an effect in any one story for it to count as sci-fi?
If that’s the case, then even the Star Trek movies count as sci-fi. Even the first movie has a time traveller affecting history, Vulcan being blown up, and a transporter rigged up to go a very long distance. It’s hard to do those in a modern day story or a Western without something very contrived.
Heck, even Star Wars counts. It has the Force. Having a world where mysticism works is a big change that has noticeable effects on what the characters can do, and how the audience would react to them. Plenty of people here, watching a similar story taking place in the modern world where mysticism has no reproducible effects, would think that Yoda is a charlatan and that Luke should flee to keep his rationality intact (This goes double because in the real world there’s no such thing as a combat skill that only a few dozen people in all of existence are capable of learning. You’d have a very hard time writing Star Wars as a Western without wondering why Darth Vader shouldn’t be fought by a posse instead of by a single hero.)