Now see, that's YOUR category error. "Science fiction" is a genre, descriptive of the type of fiction being published. "Good story" is subjective and is up to the readers -- and also reviewers -- to decide.
No they're not. Strictly speaking, the only classification that WE control is the reputation of the authors and their work; WE get to decide what good/bad fiction is, despite the best efforts of publishers to try and tell us what we like.
Culture has no real opinion on the matter because most people don't really care what the GENRE is. It's actually the film companies and video distributors you have an issue with who continue to classify Star Wars as science fiction because they believe it fits their definition of what science fiction is and therefore it will be easiest to find under that category.
Now, if you believed that Star Wars was a boring story whose characters are completely lacking in depth or reliability, THEN you would find some cultural disagreement since a huge chunk of western civilization found it NOT boring and (for some reason) not particularly shallow.
Like alot of people on this board, you're conflating genre classifications with judgements of quality. Just because a story fits the definition of "science fiction" doesn't mean it's a good story.
Rabin could write about anything he wants. But if he wants to get published he would have to be able to demonstrate to publishers that the story will resonate well with his target audience and it's doubtful he would be able to make that claim if he was writing for a science fiction audience.
Culture isn't the determining factor of that, but the judgement of publishing companies based on their experience. What gets decided in culture is whether or not Manic Pixie Dreamgirls is an entertaining story or the fantasy equivalent of a Zane novel.
Once again, I have not made any statements about what SHOULD happen, only what DOES happen. You know as well as I do the first science fiction writers weren't taken seriously from any of the major publishers until their works picked up a noticeable following in periodical publications. And yet even then it was the publishers, NOT the authors and NOT the readers, who originated the term "science fiction" to describe the new classification of those works, and the main reason they did it was to distinguish between that category of fiction and other categories (fantasy and paranomal, for example) that appealed to a different readership with different expectations.
Genres are marketing categories, not cultural ones.
No, the publishers and distributors only decide on what shelves the books are placed when it's time to sell them. That's really what a "genre" is; those categories are only necessary because it would otherwise be really difficult to find and purchase a book that contained the subject matter you're interested in; breaking them down into categories makes them searchable, using sub-categories makes them even more searchable (and yet even now, there's so much science fiction in the world that it's often hard to find something arranged around a particular subject even when you can browse the different sub-categories).
No I didn't. Read that again: writers are not a relevant part of the DEFINITION OF SCIENCE FICTON. Publishers are.
That means that even if a hundred thousand writers all submit manuscripts about Manic Pixie Fairies and tell the publishers they are science fiction stories, they will NOT get published as science fiction stories, because publishers believe (probably correctly) that sci-fi readers won't buy books about manic pixie fairies. FANTASY readers will, though, so those books will be published under a category where their intended audience will more easily find it.
This is why Star Wars usually winds up on the same shelf with Star Trek and Babylon 5 as opposed to, say, Lord of the Rings or Willow (although Krull can't seem to make up its mind). People who want to watch a movie about space ships and aliens and a cybernetic psychopath in a black samurai suit probably won't be looking for it in the fantasy section.
True as that is, you have to take into account that the publisher has ALSO analyzed that book and found that its themes are more appropriate for juvenile readers than for an adult audience, a few adult themes notwithstanding.
And that, after all, is the point. Books ARE a commodity, and the genre categories were decided to support that reality. Publishers are VERY good at putting things into their proper category; the same cannot always be said for writers.
Yes, they COULD. It would piss everyone off and disrupt the entire market substantially and it would undoubtedly cost them a small fortune in book sales, but they could make that decision if they decided to.
This is because they physically control all the PHYSICAL outlets where these genres have meaning: stores, wholesalers, literary magazines, etc. Culture can think whatever it wants, but culture isn't going to call up the marketing department at Barnes & Noble and tell them that they're using a new set of category guidelines for all future publications and you should probably get on board if you want us to keep distributing through you.
Culture decides what GOOD science fiction is. That's all we've ever been responsible for. It's a thankless job, but we're especially good at it.
I am.
It literally IS their property. It's copyrighted material, they will sue you if you try to sell it without their permission. In fact, they'll even sue you if you try to write a derivative work BASED on it without their permission. Only in a handful of cases do the rights to those stories remain or revert back to the original author.
How is it that you did not know that?
I don't. But it doesn't really matter, because I'm not the one you have to convince.
Ironically, you're under the impression that genres are decided by cultural consensus, which puts you in the position of having to convince the collective masses of the english speaking world to change their definition to align with yours. I'm telling you you don't even have to do that, you just have to convince the boards of four or five large publishing companies that a new category called "science fantasy" will be more appropriate for a specific category of readers than either science fiction or fantasy. That is ALOT easier to do.
I don't work for the publishers, so I don't have to take orders.
Backwards, my friend. It's an industry standard because readers of Historical Fiction would find Cryptonomicon insufferable and readers of military history would be angry and confused. You can't really sell a fiction novel that involves Robert Turing as a main character unless you sell it as science fiction, because only science fiction readers know--or care--who Robert Turing is.
Culture has something to do with this only because publishers know enough about culture to establish genre categories to fit people's expectations. But it is still THEIR decision on how those categories are defined, not the readers.
Mainly this is because you have no stake in the matter. You're not running a distribution chain and you're not trying to get published either, so you're not risking anything by using unconventional genre categories that your customers/readers may or may not find helpful.
Armchair innovators are always the most creative.
Good.
So how about Flight of the Intruder?
How about The Hunt for Red October?
How about Tom Clancy's "SSN"?
How about Space Camp?
How about NetForce?
How about Sum of All Fears
How about Space Cowboys?
You realize that all of these stories are primarily driven by science and technology without which those stories cannot be told. But none of them are categorized as science fiction (I actually think Space Cowboys SHOULD be, but it isn't). And why not? Because they were published under OTHER categories that publishers decided would better fit their readers/viewers.
You seem to think you have all the answers, so explain this to me: what is the difference between military fiction and science fiction?
What is the difference between "Action/adventure" and science fiction?
It wouldn't. Not unless the element that is counter-to-historical-fact is a scientific element. The only way to determine THAT is to read the entire story and evaluate it, THEN categorize it accordingly.
it isn't mine, it's the one used by publishers. If you believe your definition is superior to theirs... well, good for you.
I am assuming that you are a published novelist yourself (if you weren't this entire conversation would be incredibly silly, right?) So answer one question with complete honesty: is your knowledge of science fiction--particularly, the tastes and patterns of science fiction readers readers-- superior to the editing staff of Baen Books, Harper Collins, Bantam Books and Penguin Press? If so, how many of YOUR novels have made it to the best seller list?
