SciFi history?

[HamsterRage]

The original Star Trek series was definitely social commentary about the 60s.

[Roger Parkinson]

Long ago a teacher told me science fiction was always a story of the future and that was all there was to it. When I read more of it I found stories where aliens landed in the distant past, and then there are time travel stories that start in the future and go to the past and sometimes come back etc.

Assuming, for a moment, that the movie Apollo 13 was not about a real mission but a fictitious one would it have been science fiction and why (not)? Clearly it took place in the past and with now outdated technology but it was about space travel so surely it counts. What about a similar story but set in Antarctica? Just about all the space travel motifs get replicated in that environment (isolation, hostile atmosphere etc).

So when I search for a better term to describe 'hard science fiction' I prefer 'technology fiction', where the story is made possibly by technology that we are unfamiliar with. But I'm assuming the technology is credible. The other end of the genre, the space opera, makes little attempt to make the technology credible and is more interesting it creating an exciting yarn (a worthy aim, but a different one).

While I completely agree about the social commentary I don't know where to put it in my scheme of things.

[DixieGal]

I always liked older scifi where the computer is integrated into people's brains. Then they can access anything at any time.

BTW, at least half of the books I have purchased since going ebbok have been collected short stories from the early days. And the 70's. In the former, they drink martinis at lunch and smoke cigarettes, and in the latter, they smoke weed and eat processed futuristic pellet space food.

I blame Mrs. Eddings for my shameful scifi addiction. It was the 1st grade in 1970, and we watched a film of the moon landing. I've been hooked on hard scifi ever since.

[Worldwalker]

Your English teacher told you that SF was social commentary because English teachers, at least the kind with degrees in literature, think everything is social commentary.

I'm reminded of the story about the man who went to see a psychiatrist. The shrink showed him various inkblots, and in every one, the man found some sort of sexual image. "Well, Mr. Smith, you seem to be obsessed with sex." The patient looked at him in disbelief. "Me obsessed? Doc, you're the one showing me all the dirty pictures!"

It's hard to define science fiction because it is such a broad field. A rough definition would be stories in which speculative or predicted science or technology forms a significant element of the story. That misses a lot, though. For example, it excludes post-apocalyptic future stories. It misses classics like "Shambleau" in which the science and technology are just tools for getting the main character to where he has to be. It doesn't cover steampunk very well. In a burst of weirdness, I'm writing what you might call a "retro Tom Swift" story -- an "Edisonade" in which the main character is an inventor and adventurer much like Tom and his ilk, with the requisite super-scientific inventions, but all of the inventions are scientifically possible ... with the science of our era, not his. I consider it science fiction, but I can't jam it into that definition. Then we get the alternate-history subgenre, which is its own whole can of worms.

That's one of the reasons people came up with the term "speculative fiction" -- it better describes stories about things that aren't consistent with what we know of reality. But that has its own scope issues. Do we include fantasy? There is fantasy which is more rigorous (and, I dare say, more plausible) in the "technology" of its magic than some science fiction is in its science. Where do we put that? How about supernatural and horror stories. "Frankenstein" is SF; is "Dracula"?

It's hard to discuss a field when just defining it is like nailing jelly to a tree!

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

I always liked older scifi where the computer is integrated into people's brains. Then they can access anything at any time.

BTW, at least half of the books I have purchased since going ebbok have been collected short stories from the early days. And the 70's. In the former, they drink martinis at lunch and smoke cigarettes, and in the latter, they smoke weed and eat processed futuristic pellet space food.

I blame Mrs. Eddings for my shameful scifi addiction. It was the 1st grade in 1970, and we watched a film of the moon landing. I've been hooked on hard scifi ever since.

This brings to mind the DC Comics event "DC One Million" which was set in the 853rd Century (1,000,000 months from the first DC published comic book). At that time everyone is mentally connected to all available information via a central data system. One of the worst punishments available is to be disconnected from that system, and be limited to the small amount of data contained in a conventional library (with actual books).

[mknopp]

I have been told by older science fiction fans that scifi is a derogatory term, but I have never ran into it used as such in over three decades. I just use it because it flows better. SF is hard to say, and just sounds unnatural. Science fiction is just too long. Scifi is short and rolls off of the tongue. It is just the term that me and my friends have always used.

As for social commentary. Many of Robert A. Heinlein's books are chock full of social commentary. Friday is perhaps one of my favorites in this regard. I still wonder how long it is going to be before a government enacts his California law, where it was determined that people with college degrees receive preferential treatment in the job market so the government decide to just give everyone a degree to make it fair.

[Metal Mick]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Your English teacher told you that SF was social commentary because English teachers, at least the kind with degrees in literature, think everything is social commentary.

Hi Worldwalker, et al,

hmmnnn... I don't know enough people with degrees in English lit to argue this point, though it does seem rather a broad statement.

Your later comment re defining the term triggered a Google search:

http://www.google.com.au/search?num=...E&ved=0CCEQkAE

- some of the "definitions" are quite interesting. They tend to encompass just about everything that has been said in this thread.

So yes, nailing jelly to a tree might well be an easier task. <smile>

Cheers,

Michael P

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

I'm pretty much in the same boat. Although I've never felt the urge to go hang out at conventions, SF has been the mainstay of my reading for the past 30 years or so and I would consider myself an avid fan. On top of my cabinets in my office here at work I've got a Dalek and a Darth Vader bobblehead proudly displayed for anyone to see (I've also got a stuffed Y2K Bug, and one of those Intel Pentium "Bunny" men up there). So I'm certainly not in the closet.

During all that time I've never even once experienced any condescension from anyone about my choice of reading material. I've never had anyone sneer, "SciFi" at me. As a matter of fact, I doubt anyone that I've ever met in person would even know to use "SciFi" as an insult.

my mother thought I was a complete and total freak for reading scifi. I think she thought there was something rather scurilous about it as well. I kind of had the geek label in high school. I would have been thrown into the lockers if I hadn't have been a jock as well. weird times those

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

I enjoy the old Science Fiction, even with its errors in prediction. Isaac Asimov mentioned how quickly one of his early stories, written when the scientists thought Mercury was tidally locked to the Sun, was overcome by the discovery of Mercury's rotation. Science is built on errors, and so is SF.

But there are a ton of spot on predictions, too. Some actually defining the future themselves. Two Robert Heinlein examples: Waldoes from "Waldo, Inc." and the waterbed from "Stranger in a Strange Land."

I remember the pre-SciFi days, too. I grew up on Heinlein, Asimov, Del Rey, etc. There was a lot of scorn for those who read SF. Pseudo-intellectuals, who never read SF, looked down on anyone who did. I heard the snearing in grade school! It was funny when schools started including Ray Bradbury in their literature books.

I've learned not to cringe (physically) when someone innocently says, "The SciFi books are over here."

Dean

it was my understanding that Heinlein invented the water bed, both figuratively and literally for his wife who was very ill for a time. he (I think) came up with the "vid phone". what would skype be?

I always rely on the classic Heinlein description of "what is science fiction" according to him the following conditions apply; "if you conceive of an egg beater and one does not exist, that is science fiction."

Originally Posted by kacir

*snip
I have read lots of the ... Aehm ... stuff, from Hard SF (is that correct?), even hard military "Baen-style", through milder stuff to space opera. From Verne, Wells, Heinlein, Asimov to the contemporary authors, including obscure (and wonderful) books by Russian and eastern European authors written in 1960s.

*snip* I was VERY snottily informed by someone here that Baen is soft scifi.

[Vintage Season]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I always rely on the classic Heinlein description of "what is science fiction" according to him the following conditions apply; "if you conceive of an egg beater and one does not exist, that is science fiction."

Good definition.

As for the term "sci-fi" being derogatory, I write the stuff, and I've occasionally used the term as a description for my own work, without intending any negative connotation. Does my using it from the inside ameliorate the supposed stigma?

- M.

[Worldwalker]

Here's a question: What if you're writing a story right now which is set at a time in which eggbeaters didn't exist and your character invents an eggbeater -- is that science fiction?

[Jadon]

If your character invents the world's first eggbeater, it could well be science fiction. (Hell, the hero in Pohl and Kornbluth's "Mute, Inglorious Tam" invents nothing, and doesn't even have to words to describe the wonders he daydreams of, and that story's pretty generally seen as SF.) Much depends on how you view the character and the invention, and the tone you use. The story could be straight biography, slapstick comedy, tragic quest, whatever.

[Penforhire]

I think Sci Fi, as a definition, is based on the technology of the readers at the time of the writing. Since we have eggbeaters now, I wouldn't call that Sci Fi (or even SF, lol). Probably fantasy or alternate history.

[mike_bike_kite]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Here's a question: What if you're writing a story right now which is set at a time in which eggbeaters didn't exist and your character invents an eggbeater -- is that science fiction?

As I now understand the terms:

• If you invent the egg beater in your story then it's SciFi.
• If you manage to explain how it works using todays science then it's hard SF.
• If you also invent eggs and chickens in your story then it's SciFi opera.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

As I now understand the terms:

• If you invent the egg beater in your story then it's SciFi.
• If you manage to explain how it works using todays science then it's hard SF.
• If you also invent eggs and chickens in your story then it's SciFi opera.

• If you manage to make eggbeaters an integral part of a retelling of classic military fiction, Baen will publish it

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Here's a question: What if you're writing a story right now which is set at a time in which eggbeaters didn't exist and your character invents an eggbeater -- is that science fiction?

I think that is magic!

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I think Sci Fi, as a definition, is based on the technology of the readers at the time of the writing. Since we have eggbeaters now, I wouldn't call that Sci Fi (or even SF, lol). Probably fantasy or alternate history.

just remember, the egg beater was a for instance. substitute widget if it helps.

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

As I now understand the terms:

• If you invent the egg beater in your story then it's SciFi.
• If you manage to explain how it works using todays science then it's hard SF.
• If you also invent eggs and chickens in your story then it's SciFi opera.

no, I think it is more if you have a different way of chickens and eggs interatcting with humanity (David Brin anyone?), it is scifi opera