Abstract
For more than 30 years, many scholars have owed their insight to Darko Suvin's definition of science fiction, while in the post-structural paradigm it has been severely criticized simultaneously. This paper attempts to reevaluate his definition by reading closely both his theory and the criticisms against it, and also to clarify some of the significant generic characteristics of SF. Most of the studies criticizing Suvin refer to the ambiguities in his formalistic parameter composed of estrangement and cognition. They have also questioned whether science fiction does in fact constitute a genre, claiming that it should rather be called a mode or tendency. Furthermore, they have also repeatedly pointed out that SF is not able to objectify modernity although it is certainly involved in SF. In this brief paper, we will examine Suvin's discourse and retrace the essence of his theoretical achievement. In this process, we will confirm that SF is characterized by a number of oxymora, and that Suvin's theory, which is not merely formalistic but also dialectical, clearly reflects this character. This dialectical perspective enables Suvin to transcend the binary opposition between SF as a genre and a mode. Besides, it helps Suvin's cognitive estrangement explain how SF objectifies modernity. We finally discuss the significance of the radicality of SF, and demonstrate some of its most crucial functions.
