Whither SF?

[xg4bx]

its always been my understanding that the definition of science fiction is how technology and science affects the daily human condition or technology being an integral part of the story. stories with more of a focus on the story and the technology being an afterthought would fall under 'sci-fi'.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

its always been my understanding that the definition of science fiction is how technology and science affects the daily human condition or technology being an integral part of the story. stories with more of a focus on the story and the technology being an afterthought would fall under 'sci-fi'.

You're suggesting the "science fiction" and "sci-fi" are different things?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You're suggesting the "science fiction" and "sci-fi" are different things?

Of course it is considered to be different things. Google it and read the very long discussions about this issue.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by tompe

Of course it is considered to be different things. Google it and read the very long discussions about this issue.

Wow, I had no idea! Here's a snippet from an article at TechRepublic:

According to iconic (and contentious) sci-fi author Harlan Ellison, the term sci-fi is a “debasement” — and a dangerous one — of a proud genre that is properly referred to as science fiction, at least according to this classic Newsweek article. Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski appears to agree with him, at least according to this video, which shows an excerpt from the 1997 show SF Vortex. Sci-fi, to their thinking, equates to science fiction that’s been lobotomized — dumbed down for digestion by mass audiences with little knowledge or care for true, intelligent science fiction.

The article is here, and fairly interesting if anyone wants to fall down that rabbit hole.

[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?

[RDaneel54]

I am constantly finding new SF authors (new to me) and enjoying them. I've been reading Science Fiction for over 45 years. IMO it is far from dying, far from being only one sub-genre deep and far from having a concrete, set-in-stone definition. Like in the past, some soars, some leaves you breathless, and some would be used as kindling (original meaning) if it weren't electronic.

New to me authors I would happily recommend include Nathan Lowell, Connie Willis, Randolph Lalonde, Kristine Kathryn Rusch, David Drake. But then, I grew up on Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Ellison, M.Z. Bradley, Tolkein--so what do I know?

I'm not enamoured with Sci-Fi (or SyFy) but I've given up on trying to change things.

[DiapDealer]

Seems to me that there's huge fluctuations in what sci-fi actually IS and what some readers/authors NEED/WANT it to be. Perception is reality. All the contention (and definition) is basically pointless. I let the authors classify their own work. If they choose not to... then my opinion is the only one I'll recognize on the subject.

As to the idea that science-fiction is lying in a ditch, bleeding from the mouth and rectum, and generally looking terminal..... hogwash.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

I am constantly finding new SF authors (new to me) and enjoying them.

That's the main reason that I'm such a huge fan of Baen's "Webscription" programme, which I've bought every issue of since it began. Because it's a "here's what we've published this month" thing, I've discovered no end of different authors who I may not otherwise have ever come across: David Weber, Steve White, Elizabeth Moon, Lois McMaster Bujold to name but a few.

But then, I grew up on Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Ellison, M.Z. Bradley, Tolkein...

Sounds as if we're perhaps of a similar age .

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

But SF, like life, evolves.

And in the meantime, I've got a half-dozen stories sketched out right now.

And evolving things are nowhere near death.

Anybody who thinks SF is tapped out either has reached *their* limits, or needs to go think a bit. And a field whose older memes and tropes are being adopted wholesale by other genres and mediums is far from being tapped out.

As I said in the other thread: SF is a product of the times. The times change, so do the (good) stories. There will *always* be new ideas to explore (by somebody) so there will always be SF.

Should be interesting to see what comes out of that half-dozen, BTW.

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the main reason that I'm such a huge fan of Baen's "Webscription" programme, which I've bought every issue of since it began. Because it's a "here's what we've published this month" thing, I've discovered no end of different authors who I may not otherwise have ever come across: David Weber, Steve White, Elizabeth Moon, Lois McMaster Bujold to name but a few.



Sounds as if we're perhaps of a similar age .

I'm soooo glad I ran into the Baen website. It's where I found David Drake, David Weber and Eric Flint. I'm looking forward to my next SF "discovery."

So many books, so little time to read them (or reread the great ones). I still have all of Cordwainer Smith's body of work to get through (happy sigh). SF - a deep, broad and wide field extending into the past and future.

[fjtorres]

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.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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?)

Can you give an example of this? I can't think of anything that might be "too good" to be considered SF off the top of my head.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

I'm soooo glad I ran into the Baen website. It's where I found David Drake, David Weber and Eric Flint. I'm looking forward to my next SF "discovery."

So many books, so little time to read them (or reread the great ones). I still have all of Cordwainer Smith's body of work to get through (happy sigh). SF - a deep, broad and wide field extending into the past and future.

I found the Baen website because of David Drake, David Weber, Eric Flint and others.
Apache

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you give an example of this? I can't think of anything that might be "too good" to be considered SF off the top of my head.

Already did: Brave new World, 1984, pretty much all of Vonnegut, Bradbury...
You see it in this very thread.

Easy to bury a field when you deny it its best examples and only recognize its fringes.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you give an example of this? I can't think of anything that might be "too good" to be considered SF off the top of my head.

They get considered "too good to be SF" by people who claim they don't like SF.

The Hunger Games, AFAIK, isn't specifically denied as science fiction, but the media blitz about it certainly seems to be avoiding the label.

Margaret Atwood insists that her novels are spec fic, not science fic, because "Science fiction has monsters and spaceships; speculative fiction could really happen."

The Cliff Notes for Flowers for Algernon say "To define Flowers for Algernon as a piece of science fiction only limits its appeal for many readers who choose not to read that genre."

Rushdie's Grimus won an award for best science fiction book of the year--which the publisher refused because they didn't want the book to be classified as science fiction. (Info from wikipedia with a ref link to a Times article that now requires a paid account; sorry.)

Arch Oboler's play, Night of the Auk, is about the returning crew of a Moon rocket, learning enroute that nuclear war is raging on Earth. He insists that what he’s writing is not really science fiction.

Several other books that publishers believed had mainstream appeal were deliberately not marketed as science fiction.

That's all separate from the debate about this-or-that-work is "not really science fiction" because of some personal definition by the person making the claim: Star Wars, The Martian Chronicles, Stranger in a Strange Land.

---
FWIW, I'm in the camp that doesn't care about differences between "Science Fiction," "sci-fi," and "SF". I know that it matters deeply to some people, and when I'm directly conversing with them I try to remember what term they prefer, but the rest of the time it's all scifi in my head. It'd be SF, except I work in downtown SF, and that just gets confusing.