Should Dystopian books be labeled as Sci-Fi?

[vortex189]

Do you think dystopian books should be labeled as Sci-Fi. When I think of Science Fiction I see Star Wars and things of those sense. Dystopian is something that could happen even though it hasn't it is fiction. But a nuclear holocaust could happen.

Just curious if other people feel the same way.

[gali]

I agree, and think they shouldn't be labeled as such. They are more subgenre of science fiction, and can be classified as social science fiction.

[vortex189]

That would be nice but most do not have a sub genre choice

[moderntimes]

Okay, and this comes from a lifelong SF fan... First we've got the "true fan" definition per no less a writer than Harlan Ellison. The term "SF" or science fiction" should apply to "real" SF -- Heinlein, Asimov, Larry Niven, Roger Zelany, and of course to "real" SF movies, such as "2001", "Blade Runner" etc.

Whereas the term "Sci-Fi" however you spell it applies to bad and cheesy SF, like you mostly see on the SyFy channel -- stupid giant robots who travel across interstellar space to smash things with their fists (Transformers) or other buzzy junk.

So the term SF should be applied to serious, genuine science fiction only, and "Sci-Fi" to crud. And hey, I didn't define it thusly -- ask Ellision if you disagree.

As for dystopian futuristic fiction, yes it certainly comes under the umbrella of either fantasy or SF, within the over-reaching category of "speculative fiction". Now the split between fantasy and SF is this: Fantasy describes something which cannot occur within our own universe or human spectrum. LOTR is fantasy. Anything involving magic is fantasy. Magic cannot occur within SF because it's not real.

Of course we can set aside the tales of advanced civilizations which are so far ahead of us that they resemble magic, per Arthur Clarke and his "2001" aliens. They're so advanced that they're godlike. But generally, spells and witches and sorcerers and wizards are fantasy, never SF.

As for dystopian stories, most of them would fall within the above mentioned sub-genre of "social science fiction" -- they deal with a future world which is physically possible, and therefore is SF not fantasy. One of the originals is of course "1984".

Perhaps the most dark and devastating of any dystopian story is Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" which was made into a very accurate movie, very close to the book. That novel is one of the darkest and most depressing stories ever. Flashy juvenile stuff like Hunger Games is a distant challenge.

But "The Road" is entirely possible -- a huge meteor strike devastates the world and civilization is nearly gone -- and so it falls under the general term of SF, even though some might not think so. But in pure definition, SF means that which COULD happen. So yeah.

[vortex189]

I appreciate this. You breaking is down makes more sense.

I have read "The Road" it is such a dark eerie book but I agree so much more accurate then "The Hunger Games"

I have also read "1984". Another book I enjoy which is a series is the Ember verse series by S.M. Stirling.

And another note since I appreciate your knowledge. Would witchcraft or Wiccan books also be llabeled as fantasy?

-- 27 Nov 2015, 15:20 --

I appreciate this. You breaking is down makes more sense.

I have read "The Road" it is such a dark eerie book but I agree so much more accurate then "The Hunger Games"

I have also read "1984". Another book I enjoy which is a series is the Ember verse series by S.M. Stirling.

And another note since I appreciate your knowledge. Would witchcraft or Wiccan books also be llabeled as fantasy?

[moderntimes]

Anything involving spells or witches or wizards or whatever is fantasy. Any story line which is scientifically impossible, like magic, is fantasy. Anything which is scientifically possible, like futuristic space travel or a destroyed Earth and feudal rule, that is "technically" SF although there's no real "science" in the story. I'd label it fantasy without anything being fantastic? Hey, it really doesn't matter, right?

[LaraC]

I think it depends on the book. If it is a dystopian storyline with science fiction themes it could be labelled as such, but in my experience most dystopian books don't seem to have those themes, at least to a significant degree.

[LivreAmour217]

I think dystopian fiction should not be classified as SF. There may be some futuristic elements, but to me it seems that the societies depicted in these stories have gone back in time, rather than forward. Also, I tend to associate SF with space travel, and there doesn't seem to be much of that in dystopian novels. Just my two cents

[anonanemone]

I've noticed that a lot of times alternate history is placed in the SF section. Most dystopian books can also be categorized as a product of the alternate history group. I think most people have an overly narrow stereotype that they apply to SF. Generally, there is much more to SF than 'space guns' and a lot of subgenres are covered under this category.

That being said, it depends on the book and the individual case to me. Consider 1984, it definitely fell into the SF category at the time it was published (1949). The technology in this book falls well within our technological capabilities for the most part today but this was not the case at the time. Because we have actually passed that point in time, the scale tips more toward alternate history but is still obviously dystopian.

[moderntimes]

Good analysis, anon

I think that as you say, SF covers a far wider field than "space opera" and seems to correctly include dystopian or alternate reality. I suppose that it might be categorized as fantasy on occasion, which makes sense too.

Not that it matters, really. But if the dystopian book is akin to "Hunger Games" (I'm speaking from someone who never read the book or has seen the movies) but I guess that it might tend more toward fantasy, in that there are elements in the story beside alternate reality --- anytime I see people using a bow and arrow in lieu of a modern firearm I think "fantasy" and any fictional attempt to impose ancient weapons upon modern society is more fantasy than SF for sure.

I'm always intrigued how in, for example, LOTR, society could exist for thousands of years with zero technical advance. If you have a feudal society like the Gondor (humans I guess) or Elves or Dwarfs or whomever but existing for ages with zero advancement at all? No mechanical, scientific, technical, or other discoveries at all? Even our ancient history involved development of steel which replaced iron swords, ballistic gear and lances and arrows which could pierce armor (Battle of Hastings) yet we have total stagnation among supposedly intelligent beings? Which firmly plants this into fantasy, in that it's not realistic.

But there are plenty of dystopian stories which are not fantasy -- Cormac McCarthy's very grim "The Road" has zero fantasy, very dark but very realistic and even the cause of the disaster, meteorites create environmental havoc, being very scientific in format. And in the novel there is nothing "fantasy" oriented at all -- people fight and shoot and, sadly, eat one another. But zero fantasy.

And if for example we look at "2001" which is the greatest of all science fiction movies ever, even though the time of the film has come and gone, the tenets of the film are still pure SF.

But it's a case of picking at straws anyway. Fun but hey.

[anonanemone]

Would we be here if we didn't enjoy picking at straws?

[moderntimes]

"Of course not," he said, enjoying his fave novel "Ulysses", the most straw-picking book ever written.

And I've posted this before, but my favorite take on your sigline:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll drink beer all day.

[anonanemone]

Sounds like my co-workers...