Yes cos the definition of science fiction is a story that has as its backbone change brought about by technological advences. Much sf doesn't rely on scientific advances but rather on people caught in a sudden and un explained change to their environment.
That's just it: Ballard's work has very little to do with technological advances; in fact, it could be said he eschews such as much as is possible in contemporary fiction. His "apocalypses" are more alterations in the natural environment, or a shift in the psychology of those involved, or the conflict between the media-presented reality (read "myth") and our inner psyche; and, more often than not, they are much more fantasy (in the broader sense) than science fiction. Which leads me to:
In RAH era the word had a point since alot of the SF of those days was harder SF.
Today even casual readers of SF knows its a huge genre that isnt only about science oriented SF. People like PKD,Vance and many others has made sure people know that.
Thats why i dislike it when speculative is used these days by SF bizz people and fans when they talk about books.
When people talk down to the genre as a hole it makes me frustrated.
Sure you can like a certain type of SF more than other but no need to make it look like another type is worth less.
It isn't necessarily talking down, but making a distinction between the two. One branch, if you will, of science fiction is harder, another is more space opera, another is more given to new versions of the pulpish tropes, etc. Speculative fiction can embrace all these, but it is a rather different fish; it isn't concerned with the future-oriented aspect so much as the present, but dealt with in mythic terms. And there is still very much a reason for the label because of that and other factors....
All fiction is speculative, is it not (by it's very definition)? All SF and Fantasy do is speculate within far wider parameters...
No, not really; certainly not in the same sense. It's a little difficult to define, but while all fiction weaves a web upon some fictional, proposed inner reality, "speculative fiction" -- the branch of literature from which that label evolved, at any rate -- has its own specific (even though quite broad) orientation to it. Now, that orientation may involve the future, but most often does not -- at least, not in the way that most science fiction does. It is much more, as I noted above, concerned with the present and the "inner" realms of the human condition, but presented (again, as said before) in mythic terms -- creating modern myths to deal with modern conditions in the human psyche, the effects of our outer environment on our inner life. It is often more allegorical than the majority of fiction (though again, not always); its purpose is much more to examine the nature of our perceived reality than to explore other worlds (be they alien planets, other dimensions, alternate histories, or fantasy realms where magic is real, etc.); and because it uses such a broad range of techniques, approaches, and motifs, "speculative fiction" is really the best descriptive label that one can place on it... at least, that has evolved so far.
And, lest I be thought to be taking the thread too far off topic, Ballard is and always has been one of its main exponents (and, for that matter, proponents); often opening up new realms which others have since explored; and certainly being one of the most daring, original, and innovative (both in style and content) within this branch of literature. To read his work is to read "speculative fiction" in the most concentrated sense of the term....
), that one should do it for you....
