Does the fact that a work of fiction is set in post-apocalyptic future (with no other details being known about it) make the work automatically in scope for this site?
UPDATE: Please don't post "yes"/"no" answers devoid of any reasoning as to WHY it's a "yes" or a "no". This us a question, not a radio button poll :)
I would vote on post-apocalyptic fiction being a subgenre of Science Fiction (SF) as SF is subgenre to Speculative Fiction which would include Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Some authors disapprove of strict genre labelling. Witness Anne McCaffrey's Pern where most of the story elements are fantasy, yet the story is set in a SF setting.
No matter whether you agree with my opinion on post-apocalyptic as a subgenre.
What does matter is that Post Apocalyptic fiction is speculative fiction, no matter what themes are explored. This is due to the fact that you have to accept a world after an apocalypse as suspension of disbelief (which is actually a qualifier for SF). I think that any sort of Speculative Fiction should be welcome in SF&F discussion.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "yes". Although I'm sure we could brain-storm and find some exceptions (perhaps certain kinds of horror fiction?) I'd say that in the absence of any factors disqualifying it from consideration, the default position should be that something set in a post-apocalyptic future should be on topic:
Since the world of the present day clearly doesn't match the world seen in the film, in the absence of a science-fictional explanation for the present setting (e.g. what happened), there must be some element of fantasy involved. Either way it ends up back on-topic.
No, but the vast majority will be on topic. All such questions should be evaluated using the default site guidelines, but I think most of them will be on topic.
Worse case, it's a technothriller. Referencing a very popular answer on spy/technothrillers, technothrillers are on topic, most of the time. Post-apocalyptic works typically fall in to one of the following scenarios, all of which I believe are on topic: Anything beyond that goes in to the realm of purely on topic.
If a disease was naturally created, and the work took place during the outbreak, it probably isn't on topic. I can also imagine maybe an asteroid impact scenario, or other natural phenomena, that might not be on topic. Otherwise, it probably is on topic.
Depends if the apocalypse is technological or supernatural in its nature -- they're either SF or fantasy, because they're certainly not set in the here-and-now.
It depends. Mad Max is certainly scifi. It warns of a future where our greed has destroyed society. It doesn't postulate magic, aside from film magic.
Compare with something like Ralph Bakshi's Wizards which features a post-apocalypse where a faction of evil wizards bases a society on films they find of Nazi Germany. It has robots. But it is really dark fantasy. (the robots are no more scifi than the tin man is in Oz)
Let's apply the current guidelines:
- If it's marketed as SF, it's on-topic.
Depends on the work, not automatically on-topic.
- If magic, futuristic science or technology, alternate history, or other sf-nal concept is an important part of the overall plot, it's on-topic. (Alice in Wonderland, Clockwork Orange, etc.)
Depends on the work, not automatically on-topic.
- If the question is specifically about an sf-nal element, even if it's only a minor part of the work, it's on-topic.
Depends on the specific question, not automatically on-topic.
- If it's set in an on-topic universe, it's on-topic.
I suppose this is the crux of the question. I'll address it later.
- If you're not sure it's SF but you think a good case can be made for it, it's on-topic.
Depends on the work, not automatically on-topic. Related to previous case.
- If there is a minor supernatural element (e.g. a fortune teller's prediction comes true, or someone sees a ghost, or a story for children involving anthropomorphic animals) but it's just a throwaway plot element that's not particularly relevant to the question, it's off-topic.
Depends on the work, not automatically on-topic. If anything, this point would suggest that setting alone isn't enough to make a work on-topic.
To address 4, I'll use a reductio ad absurdum.
Take a work that's clearly off-topic. Say, To Kill a Mockingbird. Instead of being set during the great depression (nearly post-apocalyptic in itself), imagine that the first sentence or two mention that the year is somewhere after publication, and some big apocalypse happened and threw society back into the stone age. Society has begun to recover, so there is some law, but still a lot of racism and distrust. The rest of the story could plausibly happen in such a society with little to no further modification of the story.
Should we be allowed to ask anything we want about To Kill a Mockingbird just because of a sentence or two at the very start of the book? Clearly not.
If you want a simple answer: the stuff that is filed under science fiction at your local bookstore is science fiction and in scope. This would mean that On the Beach and The Road are not in scope, but Damnation Alley and A Canticle For Liebowitz certainly are in scope. As I say, this is mostly appealing in that it's a simple answer that most people can apply without much difficulty.
In the absence of a convincing yardstick for determining that a work is "really" SF based on its content, I vote for the simplistic and easily-applied answer. The fact that it generally gets us the right result is an added bonus.
Are post-apocalyptic settings SciFi?
Not necessarily. Three examples of non-scifi post-apocalyptic novels include:
I wouldn't say so. The Road by Cormac Macarthy is "post-apocalyptic" but it's certain not SciFi. Last Light and Afterlight by Alex Scarrow are also post-apocalyptic novels and again are not Science Fiction.
I'd say yes, unless it is in a time period not so far in the future as to make the time period an actually relevant factor. (That is, a marked difference)
For example, ignore the fact that the Walking Dead Contains zombies. Suppose some completely reasonable apocalypse happened. While the first episode may depict some 'present' or 'near future', it isn't there for the sake of being a future or some kind of speculation on possibilities regarding our future. It's just contemporary, set slightly forward to give that edge of uncertainty. For example, if we made a Walking Dead series where the events took place in the 1960s, it would be strange. The whole idea of a post-apocalyptic future is rooted in either fear, speculation, or fun concepts.
If the future is realistic (that is, contemporary with little to no technological or scientific speculation) then the future is not really a point of the work, and almost redundant I'd say. If the time period [a future] is of import to the actual story, then I would say that that condition would necessitate it as a work of science fiction. Otherwise, I'd say no. Do I make sense?
