Where's the line between Science Fiction and the techno-thriller? If you have a fictional thriller that is based in large part on science, doesn't that make it science fiction? Of course science fiction implies other things along the lines of alternate worlds, much more advanced science, extraterrestrials, time travel, etc. So is true Sci-Fi based on things we all know can't happen, or at least can't happen now, but are ready to accept during our willing suspension of disbelief? While the techno-thriller uses things that can happen now, or that we can convince people of, as plot devices?
Why isn't "Hunt For Red October" science fiction? There is no caterpillar drive though the concept is real enough.
Uh. There is a
Caterpillar Drive—in point of fact—and it is so sensitive of material that when Clancy showed the U.S. Navy (to get the okay before publishing) they nearly disallowed it for its use of classified material. However, when Tom Clancy was able to show how he got the information—through ordinary research means—
they published it under their fiction press. I remember reading the details of how Tom Clancy succeeded with
The Hunt for Red October a couple of years ago. It's a good story, and a reassuring one for aspiring writers.
Certainly "Jurrasic Park" was Sci-Fi though it is set today and the science is no less plausible than that in "Hunt For Red October."
The reason that is considered mainstream (and I agree that it
should be considered Sci-Fi) is because Crichton used details of cloning technology that really exist.
"Eater's of the Dead," was Sci-Fi even though it was set in like, 900 AD and had no science in it at all.
Eaters of the Dead I have to disagree with you on—and it's my favorite Crichton book. It was Historical Fiction. Crichton mixed the story of Ahmed ibn Faden with Beowulf, on a bet. A college friend bet him that no one could make either story exciting and
Eaters of the Dead was the result. The "magic" of the Beowulf story was explained away and there was no technology in advance of the Vikings or Arabians.
"Star Trek" (and plenty of others) have no scientific basis whatsoever yet they are considered sci-fi.
That's not exactly true. There are scientific elements—and/or reasonable extrapolations of scientific elements—and the core scientific theory that "the answers are out there" to search for. Also, it uses advanced technology—which is the other principle aspect of science: the advancement of mankind.
What's the common or uncommon thread? Naturally knowing how to categorize your work is very important when it comes to marketing. Or should you make choices early in your development cycle to ensure that your work fits neatly into one category or another?
I think it's a bit of a mixture, really. Michael Crichton, who is your key "mainstream" example, wrote
The Andromeda Strain, which was a medical based thriller—and was written while he was in medical school—which made it more credible.
Five Patients was a follow-up medical thriller, and
The Terminal Man was a medical thriller/psychological thriller.
The Great Train Robbery was still in the mainstream realm, just a different kind of thriller. Four best sellers later came
Eaters of the Dead, which I've already gone into.
Jasper Johns was a biography of sorts, accompanied by the artist's work.
Congo was his first forray into extrapolation (other than his three movies:
Westworld, Runaway and
Coma, the latter was based another author's novel) and that wasn't too much of a leap from what he knew was possible at the time.
Sphere was his first unquestionably Sci-Fi book, and by then, he was a well-known best selling mainstream author. The next two
Electronic Life and
Travels were non-fiction.
Jurassic Park extrapolated, true, but it was based on recent discoveries about dinosaurs and true cloning technology. His next two, you'll notice, weren't in any way Sci-Fi:
Rising Sun and
Disclosure. The came
ER and
The Lost World.
Airframe was a fictionalized version of a true story—with a few well-researched changes.
Timeline was a return to Sci-Fi, but, again with up to date theories of how time travel could be possible.
Prey is another "small leap"—scientifically speaking—nanotechnology is alive and true, how they are programed in the book is speculative.
State of Fear returns to his thriller roots. His last novel,
Next, was actually written after a trip back to the medical school he had attended and learned what's wrong with the U.S.'s current handling of gene patents and with the laws governing human tissues—disturbing facts. There's a trend here. Even his Sci-Fi, for the most part, is based on fact, or popular theories.
