The way I've heard it explained, in the world of scifi you have two ends of the spectrum- hard science fiction, and space opera. Hard science fiction being, of course, very, very based in real scientific ideas. Space opera being, you know, warp drive, phasers, and light sabers.
But what do you call something that's more like space opera in that the science in it is light, and the story is not about the actual science... but has nothing to do with space?
http://idealog.co.nz/design/2011/03/birth-and-intertwining-evolution-sci...
Enjoy. You may regret asking the question.
And this doesn't even touch the academic research into the genre.
Not exactly what I'd tell a publisher if I were sending an e-mail with a two-sentence synopsis...
I would think that would be fantasy, but I'm having a hard time picturing what the story involves when you say sci-fi with little/no hard science and no space stuff. Could you give a story summary/concrete example of what you mean?
Well fantasy doesn't work because we're talking a future setting with nothing supernatural in any way. Imagine star trek type stories only without space travel. People teleport, people use "phasers" or something similar, none of it's really all that explained tech-wise, it's just there.
Well, here's the thing. In writing that deals with futurity, there is Science Fiction, Speculative Fiction, Space Opera (which has more to do with exploration of morals than the science), Hard Science Fiction, Cyber/Diesel Punk, Salvage Punk, and others, but the ones I named are the biggies.
Using the term Sci-Fi, to the community, is basically calling the work pulp. It's the cheesy crap that gets churned out every other day.
If you really want to start understanding futurity, Buy Frederic Jameson's Archaeologies of the Future.
Or download the pdf.
http://www.cwanderson.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/34824655-Archaeolog...
He literally wrote the book that carved out SF as its own thing...officially, in the English cannon. Others wrote about it, a lot, but he's the one that really solidified the claim. But be warned, there isn't a stray word in the book. Each word is loaded with nuance.
Good luck.
I think your best bet is to look at other stories or books that you feel handle the sci-fi/future elements in a similar way.
For example, I might look at something like the movie Her. That was futuristic, but not SUPER futuristic, and the story has a science fiction element to it, but it's really a love story just told with those elements in place.
Charles Yu also has some books that have sci-fi/futuristic elements, but they're just sort of...there sometimes.
In my experience, at BEA and other similar events, there's less genre talk, more "This is the next X." This is the next Gone Girl, this is the next Da Vinci Code. Whatever it may be at the time. And sometimes it's a combo. "Take Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, combine with some Fault In Our Stars." Y'know, whatever the stuff of the time is.
So, if you're worried about pitching the book, I think I'd look into seeing what familiar media it's like, even if it's unlike anything, in order to hook people.
Huh, I've actually heard that Hollywood loves the "[x] meets [y]" pitch and the publishing world decidedly doesn't. One wonders...
Anyway, thanks for the starting points.
Yeah, I think it's more effective coming from the publisher. And the cross-book thing doesn't light my fire either. But, when you look at things like Her, Douglas Adams' stuff, Charles Yu, all of it is categorized as sci-fi. Even though it's all pretty different and relates to sci-fi in really different ways. Even Super Sad True Love Story is categorized as Fiction, secondarily as Science Fiction, and that has very little about it that looks like Star Wars.
Yeah, sci-fi is so potentially loose a term though. Hunger Games was sci-fi, but I wouldn't really put it in that traditionally "sci-fi" nerdy culture... whatever. (You know what I mean).
I'm kind of leaning toward light sci-fi for this kind of thing.
