So, recently I have been reading more science fiction and I've started to notice a annoyance in the back of my mind about my reading choices. It isn't so much a criticism of the authors, as I enjoyed their writing (prose, characters, plot, exploration of interesting ideas, etc.). But somehow I repeatedly come back to the same question: Does this particular story need to be told in a scifi setting? And more often then not the answer is a big fat NO.
It isn't necessarily about the distinction between soft vs. hard scifi. Soft science can be fairly authentic to the genre if, for example, it explores the societal implications of a speculative technology (regardless how realistic it might be). If I could classify my concerns it would rather be about narrow vs. wide, or even shallow vs. deep scifi.
Does a thriller about palace intrigues really need be told in the setting of an interstellar empire if it could equally be told in the setting of historical Ming China or even a modern multi-national cooperation? Does a study about identity really need a bunch of aliens when a contemporary, multi-cultural, urban setting would perfectly suffice? Wouldn't a neo-noir detective story told in a dystopian future setting work as well as in 1920s Shanghai?
Sure, the scifi setting gives more opportunities for exploration. But to me it often boils down to minor plot contrivances and entertaining effects rather than substance. It feels as if the scifi setting isn't used as a canvas, but more like a stylistic choice.
Sorry for the rant. Maybe someone of you want to contribute to this discussion.