Am I actually writing scifi - or something else?

[Bloom]

I am a new self-publishing author who is publishing a trilogy under the scifi banner.

The series is about a boy's adventures in parallel universes. There's no heavy science in it - after all, no-one could explain parallel universes, because they probably don't exist (though some scientists now think they might). So it's more about the adventures than anything else.

However, I have recently been taken to task by two scifi fans, one who said parallel universes is not scifi (if it isn't, what the hell is it then?) and another who said the idea was drivel and I couldn't call myself a writer unless I could back up my ideas with fact.

Neither of these people (both on Google+, by the way) had read my book before they slagged my ideas off. Everyone who has read it has thoroughly enjoyed it, and it's getting consistent 5-star reviews. No-one who's read it has worried about the implausibilty of parallel universes as a concept.

My question is: Am I putting it in the correct genre? Should it be scifi or something else? Am I losing readers by calling it scifi? Any ideas?

 

[zmunkz]

Genre is a lose categorization normally, as many stories play with many elements that "belong" to different genres. But I guess to try and answer the question, do you focus on the science bits at all? If yes I would say sci-fi. If you really don't and you are calling it sci-fi just because a few parts of the world building rely on speculative science, I'd personally think of it a science fantasy or some other fantasy genre.

As you will soon see I'm this thread, I suspect, there are no clear lines or agreement on exactly where one genre ends and another begins, so at the end of the day, keep it where you want it.

 

[Brian G Turner]

If the settings are contemporary, it may be worth considering if it's better categorised as Urban Fantasy, or similar.

However, the caveat is that you will always get a minority of hard SF readers dismissing various accepted science fiction books as fantasy, because they lack hard science.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

You'll always get people who believe sf should be plausible - despite the fact half the genre at least aren't too worried about it. But do have a look at the amazon categories. Science fiction adventure might be more honest. But don't get too hung up on it - once your book is out there you'll get all sorts of 'helpful' feedback....

 

[Biskit]

However, I have recently been taken to task by two scifi fans, one who said parallel universes is not scifi (if it isn't, what the hell is it then?) and another who said the idea was drivel and I couldn't call myself a writer unless I could back up my ideas with fact.

Sail serenely on - there's no shortage of people who will be unpleasant if you don't conform to their preconceptions and, bluntly, unless you are writing something that strictly adheres to the limits of current science then I think that demandin 'facts' get a bit questionable. Parallel universes have been given serious attention from philosophers and folks in the quantum physics world, and they are certainly something I would consider as a staple of SciFi.

 

[VinceK]

another who said the idea was drivel and I couldn't call myself a writer unless I could back up my ideas with fact

In that case there must be an awful lot of people who read an awful lot of books that were written by people who are not writers.

 

[Bloom]

In that case there must be an awful lot of people who read an awful lot of books that were written by people who are not writers.

My thoughts exactly. I couldn't understand what she was trying to get at, to be honest, and kept pointing out the 'fiction' bit of science fiction means it's made up.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts. I did put the book in the

Science fiction adventure

category, as well as general scifi, but was getting a bit worried I had made a mistake.

 

[ErikB]

I am a new self-publishing author who is publishing a trilogy under the scifi banner.

The series is about a boy's adventures in parallel universes. There's no heavy science in it - after all, no-one could explain parallel universes, because they probably don't exist (though some scientists now think they might). So it's more about the adventures than anything else.

However, I have recently been taken to task by two scifi fans, one who said parallel universes is not scifi (if it isn't, what the hell is it then?) and another who said the idea was drivel and I couldn't call myself a writer unless I could back up my ideas with fact.

Neither of these people (both on Google+, by the way) had read my book before they slagged my ideas off. Everyone who has read it has thoroughly enjoyed it, and it's getting consistent 5-star reviews. No-one who's read it has worried about the implausibilty of parallel universes as a concept.

My question is: Am I putting it in the correct genre? Should it be scifi or something else? Am I losing readers by calling it scifi? Any ideas?

I suppose you could list it as fantasy or science fiction or any other applicable genre you wish.

I don't think you are losing readers, if anything you might be gaining them if the genre is a bit off but readers are enjoying the work in spite of the label.

As to critics and detractors I would say two things about them. First of all they do not count any more than you. Their opinions or ideas are theirs. It should not affect your work or confidence.

Secondly, these are two people versus the many fans of the story. Why do two negative opinions hold any weight against the opinions and tastes of the positive majority? The answer is that they do not!

If these critics were writers they would know better than to be so judgmental so quickly. I would not worry about them. Go with your gut on this one...

Cheers!

 

[Bloom]

Thank you for your kind comments. I think it's because I'm new to all this that I'm still a bit sensitive about criticism, although I know it's natural to get detractors (both justified and not), and that at some point I'll get some bad reviews.

I have communicated with a lot of writers over the last six months while preparing to publish, and the vast majority of them have been supportive, kind and helpful and generous with their time and advice. I have been overwhelmed at how nice a varied bunch of people can be to each other.

Your comments have confirmed my belief that my books are in fact scifi adventure, which is fine by me. Anyone who believes otherwise is welcome to believe what they want, though no-one can slag off my writing until they've read it first. I don't think that's asking too much.

Thanks again!

 

[Dan Jones]

However, I have recently been taken to task by two scifi fans, one who said parallel universes is not scifi (if it isn't, what the hell is it then?) and another who said the idea was drivel and I couldn't call myself a writer unless I could back up my ideas with fact.

I really wouldn't lose too much sleep over what newspaper editors call the "Green Inkers". Scifi seems perfectly reasonable for what you're doing.

Neither of these people (both on Google+, by the way) had read my book before they slagged my ideas off.

Well that says it all, really, doesn't it? Ignore!

 

[SilentRoamer]

if the setting is contemporary then I would argue this is more Fantasy than Sci Fi - similar to how I would argue Zelazny's Amber series is Fantasy or Brooks Word and Void is Fantasy. An "adventure in parallel worlds" story can be seen in the Northern Lights Trilogy - which again I would consider fantasy.

In all honesty though as long as you get the book out there and it's well received don't worry too much.

Those that say sci fi needs to be backed up by fact need to go and read Dune and Hyperion and have a long think in a dark room.

 

[CWScott]

Ignore them. There is a hard sci-fi category. They should be looking there. I've been reading many books in the top 100 of sci-fi, and I wouldn't classify any of them as hard sci-fi. They'll get reviews about their blatant disregard for physics. But it is such a small group it's not worth fussing over.

Its that whole 80/20 argument. Don't change your story to appease the minority.

 

[RX-79G]

I would think that part of the problem would be if the universes the character travels to have magical elements that ultimately don't appear to have an internally consistent explanation for their existence. Then it starts to look like the sci-fi labeling is just a device to justify a character that travels between genres, rather than universes.

 

[Challenger2090]

The parallel universes setting makes me think of His Dark Materials (the Northern Lights trilogy mentioned above), which I consider a hybrid between science fiction and fantasy. Is the science hard? No, but there is fictional science underpinning much of the world created in the books. I think the approach is what makes some of the difference, whether the fantastical things are explained by natural laws in some way, realistic or not (science fiction), or if the fantastical things are simply something that is (fantasy).

Plus vampires.

 

[MemoryTale]

Hi, first off I would say that parallel universes are probably sci-fi. There is hard and soft sci-fi. In the hard version the science is pretty much expected to be plausible, soft sci-fi can get away with more. It could also be fantasy, but it would depend on how your protagonists travel, what they find when they get there, etc.

Secondly if you want to be a writer I'm afraid you'll need to develop a thicker skin. Whatever you write, someone's going to hate it, and not be shy about telling you. That doesn't mean that what you've written is bad, but not every thing is for every person. Also even just your editors and beta readers can be very blunt when they've found something that needs looking at, and these are the people who genuinely want to help you!

Lastly these two people sound like internet know-it-alls. I would treat their opinions as the detritus they are, especially when weighed up against all the people who have read and enjoyed it.

 

[RX-79G]

I really didn't complete my thought earlier:

I don't generally care for or read fantasy. If I go to the bookstore and purchase a "Science Fiction" book, I'm going to be a dissatisfied consumer if what I bring home is not sci fi but fantasy. The labels aren't for critics, they are there so consumers know what they are getting. It doesn't matter how good something is if it isn't what you wanted. Orange soda in a Coke can would not make many Coke fans happy.

 

[sozme]

I have a related question - is there a disadvantage to publishing a book under the "space fantasy" genre?

 

[psikeyhackr]

The series is about a boy's adventures in parallel universes. There's no heavy science in it - after all, no-one could explain parallel universes, because they probably don't exist (though some scientists now think they might). So it's more about the adventures than anything else.

H. Beam Piper has what he called Para-time stories. But the means of moving between parallel universes was done via an invented technology. An entire culture is built on the economics of transferring resources across parallel Earths, and a Paratime Police Force to prevent criminal activity across time.

It is not Hard SF but it has long been accepted as SF.

If your character has a "magic mirror to enter parallel worlds then it is definitely fantasy.

psik

 

[RX-79G]

"Space fantasy" sounds interesting, if it posits magic getting people into space. It should be marketed as fantasy, but a very fantastic fantasy.

 

[MemoryTale]

"Space fantasy" sounds interesting, if it posits magic getting people into space. It should be marketed as fantasy, but a very fantastic fantasy.

Star Wars is generally seen as science fantasy. The spaceships and droids and weapons are all definitely sci-fi, but the inclusion of the Force makes it more of a fantasy.