Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
It sounds like a somewhat pointless distinction to make to me. I've been reading SF for 40-odd years, and consider "Science Fiction", "SF", and "SciFi" to be synonymous. Do people actually care about this kind of thing?  |
Back in the 50's-60's, very much so.
SciFi started out as a pejorative.
http://www.sfnovelists.com/2007/09/2...ole-thing-off/
SF has its roots in the techie world which has always been outside the mainstream. Outsiders by definition get touchy about their perception by the mainstream and when mainstreamers start "dabbling" in their sandbox all the more so.
It does help when particularly good examples of the field get singled out as *not* belonging to it because they're "too good". (Don't have to go too far to find an example of that kind of twisted thinking, do we?)
For that matter, in all the recent debates over HUNGER GAMES and "young Adult" fiction, everybody seems to forget that the Trilogy is very much a story of Science fiction written to the rigor of the field; it has something to say and it explores its ideas using the tools of SF. And because it *succeeds*, as BRAVE NEW WORLD, 1984, and other works succeeded, it gets labelled as something else. It is "too good" to be SF.
On the other hand, light entertainment that merely borrows the trappings of the field but neglects the rigor and the meat, *that* gets to wrap itself in what little legitimacy the field has accrued.
Yes, some people do care still.
Not entirely without cause.