> science and technonology are for science fiction.

There isn't one universally accepted definition of science fiction, but historically, the Hugo Awards have been broader than just stories about science and technology.

Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, published in 1961 and winner of the 1962 Hugo Award for Best Novel was 1) extremely political, 2) about people and relationships, not science or technology, and 3) is beloved as a classic science fiction book.

Philip K. Dick's Man in the High Castle is an alternate history book - it doesn't deal with science or technology as such, but it won a Hugo Award in 1963

> Hugo awarded novels core prediction is whether there are gender multiplicities in the novel which is not that scientific of fantastic

Gender as a theme in science fiction goes back at least to Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness, published in 1969 (it won the Hugo too).

What you're complaining about isn't new, and it isn't killing science fiction or the Hugo Awards.

> What you're complaining about isn't new, and it isn't killing science fiction or the Hugo Awards.

Ha! Just because a situation isn't new doesn't mean that it's good or shouldn't be improved or wasn't flawed or doesn't warrant criticism.

As for killing awards: the concern is that audience interest in the output of awards will be killed or has been killed already. But "killing" is too dramatic a term, and institutions can take an impressively long time to die: it's more that our natural constituency of nerds will be bored to death, not that anyone cares; and the general audience won't see anything uniquely valuable.

As for killing sci-fi, you correctly noted that there's no universally accepted definition of the genre! It's difficult to kill what one can't even identify! Or is the inability to define it a sign that it's already dead? (Hence the ridiculous and gutless "sci-fi and fantasy" lists where everything is fantasy?)

But as that judge once said: "I don't know how to define [sci-fi], but I know it when I see it." If we're being honest, we all know what sci-fi is: It's the genre of literature that takes science and scientific methods of problem solving seriously. It looks at the world through science. That's not so bad. :-)

> Science Fiction has a long history of exploring the political climate of the day by extrapolating from the current period. Frankenstein is a good classic example…

I would like to know your reasons for thinking this. I see Frankenstein as something far more perverse. Mary Shelly wrote it after the traumatic loss of her child in childbirth. Knowing this, it is hard to understand the novel as anything other than a speculation: ‘if men could make life, what form would that life-giving take?’

I think political was probably a poor word choice by me. Maybe just societal would have been better. I see the primary comments to be bothered by sci-fi that is addressing more than just “what if X was possible.” Frankenstein addresses both grief(or trauma to tie it to my first comment) and societal acceptance of outcasts(relationships). Maybe those things flow freely for you from “what if X was possible.” They do for me. But the comment I was initially responding to seems to think they don’t, or at least shouldn’t be core to science fiction.

“If men could give life what form would that life-giving take?” Is the first portion of the book. The remainder is “and how would humanity react”. That second piece is core, in my opinion, to any good science fiction and will always include much more than just science and be molded by the time in which it’s written.

You said it better than I could. :-) Thanks.