Many readers assume science fiction literature should mainly focus on illustrating new concepts. These concepts can take many forms: space travel, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, etc.; but they almost always fall under humanity’s reaction to technological and social change. The idea that each new SF book should (must?) break the mold, push the envelope, and focus on social commentary regarding technology and how it changes our lives. Those are valid assumptions, and they are part of the reason I love to read and write SF.
Then there is the notion that if a science fiction story doesn’t meet this criteria, then it’s pulp garbage. It’s not ‘literature’ (I loathe how that word gets tossed around to imply superior writing vs. what that person regards as inferior). Or the age-old complaint ‘it brings nothing new to the table’. Sure, we all want fresh ideas, or new take son old ideas and tropes, but none of that is necessary to make a compelling story.
These concepts, as much as I cherish them, are not why I write stories. Many have posited that the foundation of SF is that it is a thought experiment disguised as a story. The ‘what if’ scenario, given literary flesh by these narrative vehicles. That certainly feels true when one reads Golden Age SF, when ideas received far more of the author’s attention than…
