I propose the following theorem (with corollary) regarding discussion of science fiction as a genre.
(ETA: Now revised for clarity! Plus a tentative title, and a suggested additional theorem.)
Theorem of Science Fiction Denial:
If an artist makes a point of asserting that a creative work is not science fiction, then (1) the odds that the work is science fiction increase to a near-certainty, while (2) the odds that the work's science fiction elements (e.g., world-building, science) are good decrease dramatically. Nb.: the work as a whole may still have artistic merit.
Corollary:
If an artist makes a point of asserting that a creative work is not science fiction because "science fiction is X", then the statement "science fiction is X" is almost certainly wrong.
Proposed Theorem of Genre Denial:
Take the above theorem (and corollary), replace "science fiction" with "genre," and remove the parenthetical.
* * *
prior comments, edits (kept because otherwise comments wouldn't make sense):
Comments, discussion, thoughts on snappy names? (While I believe it's traditional to name theorems after their originators, I rather doubt that I am the originator; moreover, "Nepveu Theorem" is awfully hard to properly spell or say.)
[Edit post-morning-dog-walk: I strongly suspect that this is generalizable to just "genre", but don't have the background to demonstrate it. For fantasy, the only example that's coming to mind is Phillip Pullman, and while the corollary definitely holds for him, I don't remember enough about the ways the His Dark Materials trilogy failed to say if the theorem does.]
I would get snotty and call it Atwood's Law, but I'm not suggesting you should get snotty that way.
This was provoked by _Firefly_ DVD extras, for instance.
But it's a thought.
(You could always include a pronunciation note somewhere, if you're worried.)
(I happen to know Snacky, the originator of Snacky's Law, quite well. It is like hanging out with Socrates! Except for the poison part.)
I'd never heard of Snacky's Law before, but it's the kind of thing you can't understand how you lived without once you've heard it.
Oh, but he really really likes Terry Brooks.
I may need to tweak the wording, or put in a provision that if you're simultaneously admitting to being in another genre, then you're exempt; or perhaps this is why it should be generalized to all genres. Hmm.
I think the new edit, "If an artist makes a point of asserting that a creative work is not science fiction," might address what you're saying. I mean, there's a difference between answering a question like that with a more specific statement than a genre label, and blurting out, "But it's not science fiction! Really! It's something completely different and better that just happens to be set in the future and have spaceships!"
Does that make sense?
Transcending genre carries with it the standing implication that something that satisfies all the genre elements cannot be a work of literary merit; to be a work of merit, it must Transcend.
::hisses, feebly::