What Is Science Fiction?

So the first specific section of my exhibit that I'm going to discuss is the only one that is not dedicated to a specific author. When I first decided to include this section in my exhibit, it sounded easy and necessary enough. Tell my audience what science fiction is, both in case they do not know and to help put the items and authors in context. The problem is that defining anything, particularly as diffuse a concept as science fiction, is nigh impossible.

A quick look at the beginning of Robert Heinlein's essay "Science Fiction: Its Nature, Faults and Virtues" shows that not even science fiction authors can agree on the definition of what it is they write. Heinlein even accused Theodore Sturgeon of creating a definition so narrow that it excluded some of Sturgeon's own work. Heinlein also brings up the distinction (or lack there of) between the terms "science fiction" and "speculative fiction." Heinlein believed the phrases should be used interchangeably, but he does describe some work as more speculative rather than scientific, which implies that there is a difference. That is an issue which I will be addressing in the portion of the exhibit devoted to Harlan Ellison, as he was an acknowledged master of speculative fiction.

This part of the exhibit will have the most boring text on display. I will use the tombstones (the official term for exhibit labels) to try and draw the viewers attention to passages and phrases in the text to look for. Unfortunately, showing a closed book of science fiction criticism might look more interesting, but it does not convey the same level of meaning that the body of the work can. My favorite piece in this section of the exhibit is not a book, however. It is a transcript of an award acceptance speech made by Arthur C. Clarke, and in it he rhapsodizes about the importance of science fiction. It's rather beautiful.

Assembling this portion of the exhibit has clarified in my mind that I have no idea what the definition of science fiction actually is. And I am okay with that. I also think it will make it more interesting for the viewers this way. If they begin with this section, it will not prescribe for them how to interpret the rest of the exhibit. If they see it at the end, they might feel willing to draw their own conclusions or form their own definition based on what they saw in the rest of the exhibit. Either way, I am all about making viewers think! I confess that I am worried that this will be the weakest part of the entire exhibit. But I hope that the other parts are quite simply awesome, so "weakest" being a relative term, this part of the exhibit will be fine.