What separates a Science Fiction Novel from Standard Fiction?

If you worked at a book store you should know the answer: sales.

It's a marketing category only. Labelling a novel "science fiction" changes nothing about the novel. All it does is tell readers where to find it in the book store and gives an indication of what they'll get if they buy it.

A novel like Oryx and Crake might be considered by some to be science fiction, but it's also literary and dystopian. Pick a category, any category, but you'll still get the same novel.

Any fiction with strong speculative elements based on actual science is science fiction. There is also science fantasy, where the speculative connection to actual science is getting a bit tenuous. Then there's fantasy, where the speculation is based on myth or magic or invented systems akin to myth and magic. And THEN there are all the subgenres of SFF. SF and fantasy are cousin genres, in any case, with the common features being the speculation and their appeal to the reader's curiosity, imagination and sense of wonder.

I'd say that Oryx and Crake and Jurassic Park are both SFF. I'd put Angels and Demons more in the thriller category -- thrillers often recruit science in the service of thrilling, sometimes without concern for plausibility.

In my opinion, the elevation of certain genre works to "General" or "Literary" fiction is artificial. SF, mystery, romance, whatever, can sport just as fine a prose and just as deep a characterization as any literary fiction, and when it does, I don't think it should shun its real name and put on airs, like Josef Adama styling himself Joseph Adams (to drop in an SF reference.)

In practical terms, I've noticed that these factors can get SFF (or other genre novels) parked in General or even Literary fic:

-- The author, who's known for writing nongenre fic as well (Margaret Atwood, Joyce Carol Oates)
-- The author, who consistently writes genre to a very high standard and to critical acclaim (P. D. James)
-- Huge popularity (Dan Brown)

Speculation on the effects of technology on society. Past, present, near-future, or far-future. Plausible or not.

Demiansky said:

Right, I understand that changing a novels category doesn't change the content, just like calling a person by a different name doesn't change the person. But there is a certain logic that fits certain books into certain categories, the same way that particular lifeforms were plopped into Claudistic categories. You didn't plop a reptile into a mammalian genus.

So what standards assert that a specific novel is science fiction or literary fiction?

Edit: Your post showed up after I posted mine, Chris. Excellent explanation!

Click to expand...

Again, it's subjective. It depends on where the publisher's marketing department believes a particular novel has the best chance of selling. If the author already has a following by the literary community (Atwood) a novel about society falling apart because of a scientific discovery or advance will be still be categorized as literary. If the author has a science fiction following (Crichton) a possible mainstream novel will get a science fiction designation.

For a debut author, I expect the marketing department looks at the aspects of the novel as a whole, like the prominence of the role of science or the style of the prose (literary or mainstream), and makes a decision on where to categorize it based on that subjective analysis.

Crichton was pretty much always spared the genre ghetto -- some say he created a genre of his own, the guaranteed blockbuster.

Phaeal said:

Crichton was pretty much always spared the genre ghetto -- some say he created a genre of his own, the guaranteed blockbuster.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think Crichton is quite firmly lodged in the science fiction, action, and (medical) thriller genres. The fact his work often sells to readers who don't typically read those genres simply speaks to the extremely high quality of his writing, and widespread interest in his subject matter.

The line can be extremely blurred if you don't understand that science fiction, fantasy, and speculative fiction all have different definitions.

Sci-fi and fantasy are speculative fiction, but not all speculative fiction is sci-fi and fantasy. This is where readers and authors alike tend to get confused.

A novel like Time of My Life by Allison Winn Scotch is a perfect example. It is a modern day romance, for the most part (has also been labeled women's fic and chick lit), but it also involves time travel. The fact that a time travel element is involved does not automatically make it sci-fi, but it DOES make it spec fic.

To confuse things even further, there are sub-categories of sci-fi that do not make it necessary to include science in the story to hold it up. In fact, the only sci-fi that must be held up by scientific fact or conjecture, is hard sf. Space opera, for example, does not.

So the answer to the question is simple, but not at all satisfying: It's up to the individual publishers to make that distinction.

I wouldn't worry about it. If you're subbing to an author who doesn't do sci-fi, call it mainstream/contemporary/literary whatever; if you're subbing to an agent who likes sci-fi, call it sci-fi.

SPMiller said:

Speculation on the effects of technology on society. Past, present, near-future, or far-future. Plausible or not.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the definition I've always heard, although I'd add to that "alternate history," as long as that alternate history speculates upon the effects of technology (and it should be read as a parable of modern or possible future times.) A good example of an alternate-history sci-fi novel is Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle, wherein Japan and Germany won World War II, and the story takes place in the late fifties or early sixties in this alternate history. It is still sci-fi, because it speculates on the way society would change in relation to the particular sciences and technologies employed by the victors of the war.

Science fiction must be speculative. It must ask "What if?" And it must involve a real or plausible science or technology. That's about it -- after that, the universe is the limit.

In book stores, works by multi-genre authors are often shelved based on what the author is best known for. Oryx and Crake would be shelved in literary fiction since Margaret Atwood is best known for her literary works. Angels and Demons would be shelved in thrillers or in general fiction since that's where you'd put The DaVinci Code. Readers who want to find more books by their favorite authors aren't going to want to look all over the store, in every different section, to find what they want. They want to go to one shelf.

Sci fi is a story with fantastical elements that are grounded in science.

Fantasy is a story with fantastical elements that are grounded in fantasy.


The name kinds give it away.

How "science fiction-y" must a kind-of science fiction book be to query it as "science fiction"?

How out-there can a mainstream contemporary-ish book get before it should be queried as science fiction?

I'm going to answer slightly differently here since you've had some reasonable explanations.

I'm going to mention the snobbery factor. There is a pretty well known concept in the SF community that the second a SF novel gets recongnition as being quality it is immediately taken out of the SF section, as if that is for some reason some lowly category not worthy of any books other than pulp books. Margaret Atwood herself has constantly denied that she writes SF, for example.

It's a pretty insulting way of looking at writing, and is wonderfully discussed in this article: Why Science Fiction Authors Just Can't Win

An excerpt:

In an article about the death of science fiction author J.G. Ballard in the New York Times (April 21, 2009), Ballard’s American editor at Norton, Robert Weil, said “His fabulistic style led people to review his work as science fiction. But that’s like calling Brave New World science fiction, or 1984”

Apart from demonstrating that Robert Weil is amazingly silly, this quote highlights the problem: if you’re a famous writer in the literary world who writes a science fiction novel - and Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984 are clearly science fiction works - then you’re not writing science fiction as far as publishers and the literary establishment are concerned. Great literature can never be science fiction. When established “great” authors are writing it, it’s something else entirely. No wonder science fiction is always viewed as second rate. Anything good or even above average is simply reclassified.

Click to expand...

Toothpaste said:

I'm going to answer slightly differently here since you've had some reasonable explanations.

I'm going to mention the snobbery factor. There is a pretty well known concept in the SF community that the second a SF novel gets recongnition as being quality it is immediately taken out of the SF section, as if that is for some reason some lowly category not worthy of any books other than pulp books. Margaret Atwood herself has constantly denied that she writes SF, for example.

It's a pretty insulting way of looking at writing, and is wonderfully discussed in this article: Why Science Fiction Authors Just Can't Win

An excerpt:

Click to expand...

Be aware that the reverse is also true. Many genre readers shun so-called "literary" novels.

Kuwisdelu said:

How "science fiction-y" must a kind-of science fiction book be to query it as "science fiction"?

How out-there can a mainstream contemporary-ish book get before it should be queried as science fiction?

Click to expand...

Depends on which agent you're talking to, I'd say. This is why people need to really RESEARCH THEIR AGENTS (as individuals) before querying, instead of just blasting out a bunch of queries and hoping one sticks. I think it's much more about impressing the agent with the tone and style of your book than with the specific genre.

Libbie's unofficial list of stuff to look for in deciding whether to query an agent:
-How similar is your book to books on their list? Not only in genre and subject, but in tone, atmosphere/mood, and literary style (that is, if your writing is more commercial, don't hit up agents who have a lot of success with more esoteric writing.) Go to a book store or library to browse through the books on their list. Or go on Amazon and use the "look inside" feature.
-What kind of books does this agent like to read? If you dig hard enough, you can find out this info about most of them. Their favorite authors or genres are often posted on web-site bios, and many agents do interviews in which they are asked this question. If they're reading Twilight for leisure, and you've written something similar, chances are good they'll enjoy your book.
-What conferences does this agent attend? If you're looking to sell sci-fi or fantasy, agents who do panels on writing at sci-fi cons would be a better match than agents who attend conventions for picture-book authors. An agent who taught a class at Clarion would be a great match for a sci-fi or fantasy writer.
-If your agent has a history as a writer, what did he/she write, and where was it published? Chances are good that if your book is similar in some way to what your agent wrote, it's the type of writing he or she likes.

All of these rules of thumb are in place to ensure you're putting your book into the hands of people who are likely to be really enthusiastic about it -- not just interested, but psyched. My totally inexperienced belief is that it will sell better if the agent is just drooling over it.

(The irony here is that although I used these guidelines -- and some others that aren't related to the topic at hand -- to query the fifty-one agents on my list, my agent was not one I queried. Not really. She's the first line of defense against the slush pile at her agency, and the subject and setting of my book happened to catch her eye at a time when she was just beginning to build her list. Even though the query was addressed to a different agent at her agency, she was the one who responded with interest. And my setting is unusual enough that I wasn't about to turn down the attentions of somebody who was excited to read it. It turned out to be a great match -- or I think so, anyway. So take everything above with a grain of salt. I believe it's a pretty sound way to query only those who are likely to be super-excited about your book, but it's always possible that interest can come from somewhere you never expected.)

Toothpaste said:

"But that’s like calling Brave New World science fiction, or 1984”

Click to expand...

THEY ARE SCI-FI!

Sheesh.

Shadow_Ferret said:

THEY ARE SCI-FI!

Sheesh.

Click to expand...

But those novels are much more society oriented than science oriented. To me, that makes them dystopian. Calling them pure science fiction is misleading.

Demiansky said:

I used to work at a book store, and I had this argument at least once a week with my co-workers. I know that science fiction tends to be more "fantastic" than anything you'd find in fiction, but where is the line drawn?

You find plenty of Science Fictiony books lurking in the category of fiction: Oryx and Crake, Jurassic Park, and even Angels and Demons (anti-matter bomb? Seriously?)

Is it like the difference between Fiction and Romance or Fiction and Mystery? (literary fiction being character driven rather than plot or setting driven.)

Click to expand...

The key component of a Science Fiction story is a speculative element, involving science or technology, that forms a key component of the plot.

I wouldn't classify Angels and Demons as SF. The antimatter bomb could have been a nuke, or just sticks of dynamite with an odd timer. It was not essential to the plot.

Jurassic Park *was* SF -- reanimating dinosaurs using science was an essential ingredient. If they had done it with necromancy, it would have been Fantasy.

Haven't read Oryx and Crake, but from everything I hear it is SF, even if the author denies it for marketing reasons. It probably falls into the subgenre of 'social science fiction', which is what you get when an author speculates about the interplay of technology and society. In social science fiction, the science may or may not be speculative but the society is, and it is that way as a result of technological influence. 'Brave New World' was social SF (in fact, it exemplifies the term.)

There are no differences between Fiction and Romance or Mystery -- Fiction is a broad genre, Romance and Mystery (and science fiction) are all subgenres of Fiction. You might be confusing the term 'fiction' with 'literary fiction', which is what they call it when a book plays around with language and structure. 'Literary fiction' is really a style, not a genre. There are literary science fiction stories, and literary romances, and so on.

The big problem is that opinions on this differ. All the above is my opinion, based on studying my genre (SF), conversations I've had and articles that I've read. Your mileage might vary.

CaroGirl said:

But those novels are much more society oriented than science oriented. To me, that makes them dystopian. Calling them pure science fiction is misleading.

Click to expand...

So if someone were querying Brave New World, what would you call it?

I have a few ideas for stories with sci-fi elements and some with fantasy elements, but they're strongly character-driven, and these elements simply make up the reality of the world, but aren't the focus.