Sci-Fi or Sci-Why?: Readers Debate If Futuristic Settings Are Always Necessary

A curious reader recently ignited a firestorm of discussion within a popular online book community, posing a question that many sci-fi fans have likely pondered in silence: Does this story *need* to be told in a science fiction setting? The reader, expressing a growing "annoyance" despite enjoying many sci-fi books, questions whether an interstellar empire or alien species is truly essential to certain narratives, or if they merely serve as a "stylistic choice" rather than a foundational "canvas."

They offer compelling examples: a palace intrigue could be set in Ming China or a modern corporation; a study of identity might work just as well in a contemporary urban environment; a neo-noir detective story could thrive in 1920s Shanghai instead of a dystopian future. For this reader, the sci-fi elements often feel like "minor plot contrivances and entertaining effects rather than substance."

Read nextBooker Prize 2026 Longlist Sparks Chaos: Snubs, 'Speed-Judging' Backlash, and a 50-Year First

The community's reactions are swift and varied, quickly polarizing into two distinct camps.

One side firmly agrees with the original sentiment. One person said, "I do believe there's a distinction between stories that are just told with a sci-fi aesthetic versus actual SF or science fiction." This perspective suggests that genuine science fiction requires the speculative elements to be integral to the plot, not just window dressing. Another commenter echoed this, referencing Theodore Sturgeon's famous adage: a true sci-fi story presents "a human problem and solution which would not have happened without its science content."

This camp argues that many authors use the sci-fi label as a shortcut, adding futuristic elements without truly integrating them into the story's core. They long for stories where the setting isn't just a cool backdrop but a crucial component that shapes the characters, conflicts, and resolutions in ways impossible in any other genre.

However, a powerful counter-argument quickly emerged, with many readers vehemently disagreeing with the notion that a sci-fi setting needs to justify its existence. "'It doesn’t need to be; therefore it shouldn’t be' is an approach to storytelling that I neither understand nor remotely agree with," one person declared.

Your brand, right here.Reach story-obsessed listeners in 45+ languages → advertise on Avonetics

This camp champions authorial freedom, asserting that if a palace intrigue can be set in a historical court, there's no reason it can't be "at the end of time orbiting a black hole." They emphasize that speculative fiction is a powerful tool for exploring real-world issues from a detached perspective, allowing readers to examine concepts with fewer preconceptions and biases. As one commenter put it, sometimes it's simply because "fictional settings are cool."

Others argue that creating a new, unique world allows authors to "define the ground rules," sidestepping historical inaccuracies and crafting leaner narratives by only explaining what's relevant to the plot. Some even view sci-fi and fantasy primarily as settings rather than rigid genres, preferring any story with speculative elements simply because it enhances their reading experience.

The debate highlights a fundamental tension in how readers define and appreciate science fiction. Is it a genre strictly defined by the essential role of its scientific or speculative elements, or is it a broad canvas where authors can freely paint any story, regardless of whether the futuristic brushstrokes are strictly necessary? The discussion continues to captivate, proving that even within the realm of speculative fiction, the definition of what makes a story truly 'sci-fi' is far from settled.

Our hosts dig into this very question on the latest episode of Plot Twist.