which as far as I recall, wasn't originally based on a scientific theory). This consists of tales that use something so theoretical that it's considered almost impossible as the primary basis of a major thing in the "suspension of belief" to make it work (the "force" being a philosophical force in the universe, the Warp drive. Wells books in this category because I can't think of something from his stories that it scientifically true). I would put "2001" (despite the time-frame it takes place in) and "Space" (by James Michener) in this category, especially michner's novel (that follows the advances of science form the Manhattan project to the space shuttle).Īfter that is "science fiction" where both Star Wars AND Star Trek reside (I'd also include Metropolis and H.G. "Scientific fiction" will be fiction based LARGELY on science. I almost want to make a new category of fiction to deal with the new line that has been created by these advances. It's easier to to think of some stories as having a scientific basis than others. The Nuclear Bomb is no longer theoretical, humans have not only flown in space but also been on the moon. With that said, the knowledge of science has actually grown in the 70+ years since then. I suspect there wasn't such a line in the time when it was first created. Superman and Star Trek are science fiction by that definition.For me, a fan of fantasy more than Science Fiction (not that I don't enjoy it, just that fairytales and the related fantasy are what I think of a "fantasy" while the plausibility in the science/philosophy has to be present for Sci-fi) Superman definitely toes that line hard. Personally, I go with 2, that the intent of the writer is what matters. However, taking impossible things and just wrapping th em in a science or technology cloak and saying they are science when they are not is fantasy. We may not be able to do it yet but there are indications we eventually will and there is no reason to believe we will not. Basically, the science has to be plausible. Campbell definition, neither Star Trek nor Superman would be. Yes it is all semantics because what he fits into depends upon how you define science fiction. Superman and Star Trek are science fiction by that definition. Oh, the explanation doesn't work at all in reality but it is presented as science in the DCU. But people in the DCU seem to regard Superman's abilities as scientifically explainable. There could be realms where magic is called magic and yet is considered a science. Is it science within the context of that setting? This has flaws, of course. Though the explanations obviously don't work in reality and are flawed science that ignores a lot of things, the intent of Superman was to be based in science.Īnother possibility is how characters in the story look at it. Or you could go with the writer's intent. However, taking impossible things and just wrapping them in a science or technology cloak and saying they are science when they are not is fantasy. He's definitely not Hard Science-Fiction, and fairly close to the border where science-fiction meets outright fantasy, but still counts. I say Superman falls cleanly within the bounds of Science-Fiction. And I really want to know what side of the proverbial fence they ultimately fell on. Secondly, there is a reason there are only two options: I feared too many people would choose an (obvious?) third option of "Both" or possibly even an (even more obvious?) fourth option of "Neither", rendering the entire exercise moot.
I hold the character in high regard no matter what label is ultimately applied to him and his world. Science Fiction is the label that Superman famously hangs his cape on.īut, after 76 years of different super-powers and origins, is he really a character of science fiction? Does he belong to House Science-Fiction (home of Star Trek) or House Fantasy (home of Star Wars)?įirstly, I acknowledge that is may be largely a semantic debate.