Let’s say that you were transported without warning into the 14th century. The results would likely not be good. Let’s say that you were transported without warning into the 14th century. The results would likely not be good.

Think about it. You wear motley, bright clothes. Your teeth are shiny, straight and still in your mouth. Your pocket contains a strange device that you claim can tell the time of day, help you communicate with people hundreds of miles away and make images that are better than any painting of a time that hadn’t mastered the art of perspective drawing. How does the device work? Somehow your protestations that it’s all the work of flowing, charged particles infinitesimally smaller than the eye can see — and special types of light that the eye can’t see either — aren’t very convincing. Clearly, these people are not fans of science fiction. But the idea that you are a sorcerer sounds pretty good to them. I hope a fire extinguisher got swept back in time with you. It’s your only hope.

Even in the present day, many people see science fiction as a genre not to be taken seriously. This is unfortunate, as science fiction allows writers the ability to explore novel story elements and retell old stories in new ways.

I don’t blame people for not taking science fiction seriously. There is an awful lot of terrible science fiction out there, from books that could be used in class as examples of how not to write, to shows so stupid even my dad — who will watch 15 minutes of anything as long as there are aliens involved — won’t watch them. Science fiction also faces derision as the devotees of the genre are usually the same set of people everyone makes fun of anyway: nerds.

If we are to move to an understanding of good science fiction, it helps to define bad science fiction. Aside from general things that define bad literature in any genre, there are three specific themes that tend to crop up that are particular to sub-optimal sci-fi. First, some authors become so enamored of technology that technology becomes the main character, and sometimes the only character that is developed at all. Second, some technology is 17-dimensional in all 375 dimensions the work posits; the devices might be far-fetched and violate fundamental laws of physics because the plot requires it. These two points often merge to create the Central Ignominy of Bad Science Fiction: the use of technology to paper over deficiencies in the underlying writing. It often befalls the writer who paints himself into a corner, and instead of having the 1-D characters come up with a clever solution, the writer has the characters merely reverse the polarity on the Hyperfreem Drive and the problem is solved. Bad science fiction is bad in the same way some romance novels are mortifying: The romance novel uses sex in the place of technology to resolve similar writing deficiencies.

Science fiction is also a source of merriment because its fans are the target of derision anyway. The same guy going to the “Star Trek” convention on Friday might be going to the D&D convention on Saturday, followed by a meeting of the Carl Sagan Fan Club. Then on Monday he goes to work as a particle physicist. As unfair as it is to make fun of a genre because its fandom likes to dress up as Klingons, this does explain why science fiction is not considered a serious art form.

Yet this generalization, that science fiction is fit only for popular culture and pulp literature, is a false one. Science fiction allows us to put humans in situations “where no human has gone before” and dress up age-old questions in unique ways. What happens to a person when he is presented with control over an immensely powerful weapon? To what extent would you be prepared to abandon your morals to fight aliens hell-bent on conquering Earth? What if an ordinary human being was hailed as a god or a messenger from the afterlife of an alien race? How would somebody deal with that kind of pressure? Last, through plot devices such as holodecks and time-travel, we can pose some interesting questions about our society today and how it would interact with the society of the future, or that of the past. All of these premises have been used, and it is still possible to take unique angles on each of them. Science fiction also allows us to handle controversial topics in ways that don’t hit as close to home. Many people would be offended if a show were to suggest that Jesus wasn’t at all interested in being a religious figure. Fewer people would be offended by a show with a central plotline revolving around a human starship captain considered a prophet by the local aliens, much to his surprise and consternation.

So before we dismiss science fiction as artistically void, we should realize that there is  potential to create good literature out among the stars.

Write [email protected] … if the townspeople don’t take away your iPhone first.