Is Flowers for Algernon sci-fi?
I finished reading Flowers for Algernon recently. I genuinely enjoyed it but as I progressed I felt it was closer to a human drama than a sci-fi book. I was surprised since it has been recognized as a sci-fi book for so long and won the Hugo and Nebula awards. I was wondering what others thought about it. I will add my rationale below (spoilers).
(Spoilers). The first thing is how shallow the science is, there is only one moment when is commented with ant type of depth and that moment has more big words than science backup, in my opinion. I know it is a book of its time, but I especially missed Charlie doing physical experimentation, taking tissue samples or applying the science that was explicitly mentioned in the book as the source of his intelligence when doing his own research.
The second thing is that the experiment feels like a device to trigger Charlie's specific human drama and to walk us through his childhood trauma. It is an amazing mechanism for that, but I expect sci-fi to hace societal impact and deeper world building. It is a bit reminiscent of the movie Awakenings, that uses specific medical procedures to give someone a window to experience life.
I also feel that the lack of stakes when Charlie escapes and takes Algernon with him are underwhelming, the research lab just let it happen and they don't engage the authorities to bring him back or, at the very least, to retrieve the most valuable mouse lab in the world. It felt as another mechanism to advance the human drama.
Lastly, and this is a common pattern for this theme, there is no time for Charlie to learn all he learns, even with super intellect, he needs to go through the regular knowledge absorption methods of reading and studying, and in a few months, there is just no time for that. He can be a genius, but a genius won't be a neurosurgeon without taking the time to learn.
All in all, I feel that as the tragic story of Charlie the book works exceedingly well. It is cleverly written and Charlie's progress (or lack thereof) felt earned. I would have liked Charlie to be less of a jerk when he became intelligent, but that is of course a creative choice. It does brings a very clear separation between emotional and intellectual intelligence that it is undeniable in the real world, so I can believe it.
I am glad I read it and would recommend it, just not as sci-fi, not sure what others think.
My two cents
I think SF can be small and personal and can contain a human drama (which I don't know that I've seen as a genre category anyway?) as much as it can be societal and wide sweeping. Sometimes it's just the setup, sometimes it's hard science and sometimes the science is handwaved and it's just the futuristic parts that put it there.
I think it's sci-fi (and broader speculative fiction). I usually prefer "softer" SF to detailed science "babble" of any sort. I'd probably clarify it's a story on a smaller scale but I'd also clarify if a story was about the world building and not the plot. I just read a short story that is absolutely set in a climate change driven future but was mostly about a relationship. It's just existing in that space.
Scifi is broader IMO than you describe your expectations!
I would argue it is sci-fi, just not necessarily the hard-science(ish)-focus that fans of the genre might expect. The procedure Charlie undergoes is, in our world, non-existent and thus the work is still speculative fiction in any case, and it would be a hard sell to call this one fantasy.
One of the flaws of calling the genre sci-fi (fantasy kind of has this problem, but not as much imo) is that the umbrella is too wide with too prescriptive of a name. You have works like Flowers for Algernon, which as a story is much more human and character focused, ostensibly sharing space with something like Three Body Problem (which has about 2 actual characters in the whole trilogy and reads like the author's amateur string theory and game theory textbook half the time). Both are excellent works, and both are speculative with a scientific basis, but they're also extremely different, and the genre "science fiction" seems to apply more obviously to TBP in my opinion. This is one of the reasons I prefer the "speculative" genre titling which also groups in fantasy, because it still distinguishes and groups similar works, while also giving them a bit more room to breathe. I understand this is an unpopular opinion in some circles, though.
That all said, I'm glad you enjoyed! It's one of my favourite novels and was very transformative (for the better) for me when I read it as a somewhat misanthropic, "I'm better than others because I'm smart" teenager, and I'd recommend it to just about anyone.
Yeah I think you hit the nail on the head here, sci-fi is just a really big umbrella. I think of it a little like Metal music. If somebody tells you they're into metal that really gives you so little info about what they really like except that it probably has a guitar (probably). Like, Metalcore, Black Metal, and, like, Grindcore really aren't gonna appeal to the same people necessarily, and that's fine. I find the stuff that I vibe with, try to branch out and find things to appreciate about other subgenres, but it's okay if it's not for me if somebody's getting something out of it. That doesn't make it "not metal" or anything.
I think Flowers for Algernon is a type of sci-fi that doesn't get as much attention in recent times as it used to - where the "sci-fi" aspect is mostly just a catalyst or a useful hand-wave for something specific the author wants to explore, but not really the focus itself. Like, Fahrenheit 451 and Nineteen Eighty-four are both technically (dystopian) Sci-fi, but really any sci-fi elements are set dressing or are used as a way to get at the social commentary the author wanted to make. I think this is probably the real difference between "soft" and "hard" sci-fi - in "hard" sci-fi the technological or scientific aspect is a focal point, and the author wants to examine what the world or society would look like if x was true. In "soft" sci-fi, I think, the author has a story they want to tell and the technology is just a plot device to enable telling that story. Personally I don't think one is "more sci-fi" than the other, but I do think they're differently sci-fi, or maybe different subgenres if you prefer, and readers might like one approach over the other but I don't think that makes one more or less valid than the other, IMO.
Where is @Algernon_Asimov when you need him?
I've read a lot of sci-fi. Novels. Short stories.
Algernon is softer on the science fiction than most, but it still uses fictional science to drive the story/ characters, and the ending makes you think in ways you would not have without the use of fictional science.
Some of the best science fiction stories use this approach. Invisible Man, Frankenstein, The Picture of Dorian Grey, The Fly, The Twilight Zone, most of Asimov's shorter stories tbh...
All the best sci fi always focuses on the human drama, then the twist ending that makes you think. If you haven't, read The Ugly Little Boy by Asimov. It's a very short story, that might be right up your alley.
Chatting about Star Trek: The Next Generation over on Reddit currently. That man is sci-fi through and through...
Well now I just lost all respect for the guy. The Next Generation? I thought he was old school cool :)