# On Science Fiction **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 2, 2015, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491 "2015-06-02T23:38:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/21 "2015-06-03T18:31:23Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I think you misunderstand me - I don’t think it’s just shorthand or stereotyping, I think it’s objectively true (I haven’t done a survey, but this is my opinion based on observation): Most SciFi, whether movies or books, really does feature _at least_ one of those 3 things. Cyberpunk and the dystopian YA stuff stuff being the only _common_ exceptions in recent SF, I think. Even hard Sf that has STL-only ships usually has some sort of pew-pew rayguns or monsters of some description. I guess I did misunderstand you. It may be true that popular-outside-of-subculture examples are somewhat dominated by those things, but I don’t feel like that is the case for the material I read (almost exclusively short SF) - I find this to be a fairly even mixture including the items you mention, but also: Time travel Alternate history Artificial life/AI Genetic engineering Post apocalyptic (including ecological and technological disaster) Juxtaposition of primitive culture and tech Causality weirdness Dimensional weirdness Afterlife weirdness Technology/invention Etc. Spaceships, lasers and BEMs sometime feature in these stories, and sometimes they are the story, but not in ‘most’ cases. (I’m interpreting ‘most’ to mean, say, \> 75%, right?) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/22 "2015-06-03T19:49:31Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > “Laser Guns” covers more than just strictly actual lasers, and it’s disingeneous to think ST phasers or SW blasters aren’t covered when a mundane uses the term. Ditto for the distinction you make between “monsters” and “aliens” - The 2001 aliens count as monsters in that story, for instance. > Let’s look at this top 25 list of yours. I’m highlighting the ones that I already know contain at least one of the 3: > > I’d argue that “most feature one of the 3 tropes” is a perfectly valid characterization when 72% of a list _you_ proposed do. Geez. Aliens have not necessarily been monsters since at least “A Martian Odyssey” and probably all the way back to Skylark times. Many, many covers of sf magazines in the '50s (the lower rent ones) did have BEMs - I can’t think of many from the '60s with them, except maybe ironically, and I have most of them. Zap guns? Pretty rare. FTL travel, while not in a majority of stories, at least registers, but usually as a way of getting people from here to there. I get the impression that many writers about science fiction in the mainstream press would be somewhat surprised if told the stuff actually came in books. This is recent. When I started reading SF films were few and far between. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/23 "2015-06-03T20:25:21Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Geez. Aliens have not necessarily been monsters since at least “A Martian Odyssey” and probably all the way back to Skylark times. Many, many covers of sf magazines in the '50s (the lower rent ones) did have BEMs - I can’t think of many from the '60s with them, except maybe ironically, and I have most of them. > Zap guns? Pretty rare. FTL travel, while not in a majority of stories, at least registers, but usually as a way of getting people from here to there. > > I get the impression that many writers about science fiction in the mainstream press would be somewhat surprised if told the stuff actually came in books. This is recent. When I started reading SF films were few and far between. I tend to interpret “monsters” broadly: we’re talking about distinctly inhuman entities that probably evolved separately from humans, are probably intelligent, and are perceived by humans as dangerous. Their definition when discussing literature should be according to their literary function: they frighten and challenge the protagonists with their inhuman nature. Frankenstein’s creation is a monster, as is the creature in Alien. But so is Wintermute from **Neuromancer**. So is the titular **Wind-up Girl**. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/24 "2015-06-03T20:36:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Geez. Aliens have not necessarily been monsters since at least “A Martian Odyssey” and probably all the way back to Skylark times. Not necessarily - but they’re often still written that way. The aliens in Blindsight, for example - complex, mysterious, dangerous - but also, monsters (and not the only ones in the story) But they don’t have to be sentient aliens - sandworms are monsters, the Shrike is a monster, etc… ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/25 "2015-06-03T20:38:26Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Spaceships, lasers and BEMs sometime feature in these stories, and sometimes they are the story, but not in ‘most’ cases. (I’m interpreting ‘most’ to mean, say, \> 75%, right?) I was going by \>50%. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/26 "2015-06-04T02:04:03Z")
The original quote didn’t say that most science fiction has FTL and laser guns. It said that most science fiction has superior technology, _such as_ FTL and laser guns. Most SF does, in fact, center around technology superior to what we have now. FTL spaceships and laser guns are two examples of such technology, but they aren’t an exclusive list. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/27 "2015-06-04T03:12:34Z")
**Chronos** : You’re right, but you left out the damning first sentence. “This is not science fiction. Most science-fiction plots describe a world in which Sapiens - identical to us - enjoy superior technology such as light-speed spaceships and laser guns.” That’s like saying “Nebraska is not a state. Most states have a bicameral legislature.” The conclusion does not follow from the given reasoning, even though the stated reason, itself, is true. Some science fiction does not involve advanced technology. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/28 "2015-06-04T03:15:18Z")
Eh, the point is close enough to true. A relatively small proportion of SF deals extensively with beings other than current-era _Homo sapiens_, and a far smaller portion yet deals with our evolutionary descendants. It is science fiction, but it’s not the vast majority of science fiction. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/29 "2015-06-04T06:16:00Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I was going by \>50%. Weak. Simple majority is not, I think, what most(!) people expect the word ‘most’ to mean in everyday terms. I flip a coin 1000 times and get 499 tails, 501 heads, I don’t say ‘most of the time, it landed on heads’ ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/30 "2015-06-04T07:30:28Z")
Fair enough, if that’s what you think, that’s fine. I’m still not going to concede that 72%\* isn’t\* most because it doesn’t cross a magic 75% threshold. 72% looks like “most” to me, especially with as low a sample as 25. 13/25 is a lot more “most” than 501/1000, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/31 "2015-06-04T08:47:47Z")
IMHO, 66.666…6%, or a 2:1 ratio, is the minimum threshold for “most”. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/32 "2015-06-04T19:21:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Eh, the point is close enough to true. A relatively small proportion of SF deals extensively with beings other than current-era _Homo sapiens_, and a far smaller portion yet deals with our evolutionary descendants. It is science fiction, but it’s not the vast majority of science fiction. But lots of sf deals with a tiny bit of advanced technology. Flowers for Algernon does, for instance. But I’m not sure I’d include it with the regular bunch of very advanced technology stories. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/33 "2015-06-04T19:37:16Z")
Exactly. I bristle at the common notion that sci fi is, by definition, about space ships, lasers and monsters. It ignores the more subtle and thought-provoking stuff like _Her_, _Robot & Frank_, _Eternal Sunshine_, _Gattaca_ and the like, as well as even action spectacular types like _Inception_. Never mind mind-fuck time travel flicks as diverse as _Back To the Future_ and _Primer_. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/34 "2015-06-04T20:07:38Z")
_Flowers for Algernon_ is built entirely around a technological advance. It fits the standard SF template of “posit a technological advance, then explore how people react to that”. I’ve even seen that template presented as a definition of science fiction, though of course there are still exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/35 "2015-06-04T20:17:38Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > _Flowers for Algernon_ is built entirely around a technological advance. It fits the standard SF template of “posit a technological advance, then explore how people react to that”. I’ve even seen that template presented as a definition of science fiction, though of course there are still exceptions. But the science isn’t explained, is it? The story could be exactly the same with the “technological advance” replaced with a magic spell. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/36 "2015-06-04T20:34:06Z")
I don’t get where people are getting prescriptivism from the two quotes in the OP. To me they sound like people’s observations of what (they understand) SciFi to be, not what they think it _should_ be or\* has to be\* to be considered SciFi. And as just the top 25 lists show, they are _not_ wrong. If laypeople get the idea _most_ SciFi is hyperdrives, rayguns and BEMs, that’s because that’s what they see. This isn’t ignoring the subtle stuff, it’s pointing out that for every _Her_, there’s how many _Transformers_ flicks, 4? _Robot & Frank_ - vs how many \*Marvel Universe \*movies, 11 so far: hell, _even the WWII one had rayguns_ and only the modern Cap one had none of the 3 tropes. One _Eternal Sunshine_ vs … how many is the _Star Trek_ series up to now, 9 or so? One _Gattacca_, 8 _Star Wars_ movies and counting… One _Inception_, 6 _Alien_ movies. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/37 "2015-06-04T20:47:29Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Fair enough, if that’s what you think, that’s fine. I’m still not going to concede that 72%\* isn’t\* most because it doesn’t cross a magic 75% threshold. 72% looks like “most” to me, especially with as low a sample as 25. > > 13/25 is a lot more “most” than 501/1000, IMO. Yeah, 72% is most. Happy enough with that, but not really sure this sample is representative of the genre. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/38 "2015-06-04T21:01:45Z")
> [@garygnu](#): > > Exactly. I bristle at the common notion that sci fi is, by definition, about space ships, lasers and monsters. I’m not sure I’ve ever encountered that notion, with the “by definition” part. I mean, I remember overhearing a high school librarian tell a class that fantasy novels were about young men setting off to discover their destiny, and I sure bristled at _that_. But as MrDibble points out, the quotes in the OP are observations, and they’re fairly accurate–especially if you use a broad definition of laser gun (which, why wouldn’t you, a “laser gun” is a fairly unlikely weapon and not actually one I’ve seen depicted almost ever in SF), and a narrative-function definition of monster, as I suggested before. Edit–and extraspecially if you acknowledge the “such as” in the OP’s quote. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/39 "2015-06-04T21:12:55Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Yeah, 72% is most. Happy enough with that, but not really sure this sample is representative of the genre. I don’t know - find a different list then. I do know that if _I_ list my favourite SF, the stuff that’s on there mostly fits the tropes and in a big way - Banks is all over those 3 tropes, Brin likewise, Cherryh too. Le Guin is best at not following them, with her non-FTL ships and sociological message. But even she often has monsters… ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491/40 "2015-06-04T21:18:29Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > a “laser gun” is a fairly unlikely weapon and not actually one I’ve seen depicted almost ever in SF The only two I can think of offhand are the antique Lassiter laser pistol in _Firefly_ and possibly some of the CREWs (Coherent Radiation Emission Weapons) in the _Culture_ books [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-science-fiction/721491.md?page=3)