Science fiction as a device v the subject.

I just read “I Who Have Never Known Men” after seeing it pop up in a few places on Reddit. I really enjoyed it although “enjoy” may not be the right word.

This book got me thinking about the genre of science fiction. If you don’t want any spoilers at all, might be better not to keep reading although I’ll only speak in generalities.

I know there’s already an established distinction between hard v soft science fiction, and although I enjoy science fiction, I’m not really versed in the discourse. So apologies in advance if what I’m about to say is extremely obvious or already has established discourse around it.

I think maybe the most typical idea of science fiction is a book that explores the consequences of technological development. Like what happens if technology develops so much that we get isolated from each other, we become controlled by technology, we end up destroying the planet, etc.

Another type is where the technology or its consequences is not the point, but the point is a study of the human condition. The first type of course also includes this as a component, but this second type uses the freedom that science fiction offers to tell a story more effectively. The same study of the human condition (loneliness, humanity, etc.) could be done in a non science fiction setting as well, but being science fiction allows the writer to put the characters in extreme situations that wouldn’t happen in our reality to better tell the story.

Just was wondering if this distinction matters to you and if anybody has anything interesting to add. I almost feel like the second type isn’t necessarily science fiction per se, and I don’t mean that in any derogatory way.

I also just kind of want to keep talking about the book if anybody wants to do that as well lol