The question remains, What counts as speculation, and to who? I think that nothing is inherently speculative (in that sense we usually set aside for SF/F), or else everything is. Are stories about serial killers speculative fiction? Are stories about romance in strange but perfectly realistic circumstances speculative fiction? For the term to have meaning, it has to have limits. Otherwise we might just put “genre” in place of “speculative”, but I’d resist that. Being inclusive about genres means (I think) accepting that other people’s definitions might differ from one’s own, not modifying our definitions to be all-encompassing. It is mere coincidence that here we appear to be in agreement!

I asserted in my previous post that werewolves etc are not inherently speculative. OK, suppose that they are inherently speculative. It is interesting to wonder whether some of these things that we think of as being typically or inherently speculative could lose that status. There are of course many examples, like satellites and late-60’s missions to the Moon, but what about — say — werewolves? What would it take for our opinions about werewolf stories to change so much that we would assume, by default, that they are not speculative fiction, but some other, distinct genre? What would it be like if some people already thought that way? What would we do if we disagreed with those people? Seems to me that Tate offers one thought-provoking answer to that question in her original post.

Unfortunately, I think there will always be cool kids. All groups subdivide, no matter how persecuted they might be by other groups. Pecking order seems to be part of the human condition.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to rise above it.

Unfortunately for my tidy little world of SpecFic and non-SpecFic, what counts as valid speculation is culturally dependent. This isn’t just semiotics. One just has to consider the kind of things that are commonplace today (communications, most dramatically) that were once science (and speculative) fiction. A novel about mobile phones and their implications on society is not speculative — today — but would have been even 30 years ago. Even today, that novel would still be SF if marketed to, say, lost Amazonian tribes.

Werewolves, aliens, artificial intelligences and so on are not inherently speculative. If paranormal romances, in general, and werewolf lovers, specifically, are not considered SF, perhaps its because those who judge them so do not consider the romantic implications of lycanthropy to be valid “speculations”?

Perhaps for them lycanthropy has become so commonplace that such fiction is no longer speculative?

I realized after rereading my post before reading your responses that I forgot to answer my own question. What exclusion gets us is dwindling sales numbers that force is into other genres (which are more inclusive!)

Damn it.

/rant

I think that those people who perpetuate the genre ghettos find strength in limited numbers - many hard-charging, strong-believing folks who mirror back to them the things they already know and believe. They don’t want to expand boundaries, because it’s scary and uncomfortable to be on unfamiliar territory. (And while I probably sound snide, I don’t mean to be.)

In a lot of ways, I think there’s a lot in common with genre ghetto readers and people who discuss politics only with people who believe as they do. “How could ANYONE champion McCain/Obama/Biden/Palin? No one I knows can stand him/her!”

There are a lot of voices out there, and the world’s a more interesting place when we listen to them all!