Do very many people have a problem with this? And what's your thoughts on this, or is it just a fringe thing like the "comics" vs "graphic novel" people?
Thank you so much
[update]
Okay I found this post: http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum1/HTML/000294.html
So to set it apart, I guess I want to ask: Will the publication be taken seriously by contributers if I use the term "sci-fi". I want to be able to distinguish fantasy and science fiction clearly, but "Speculative Fiction" is to broad a label.
[This message has been edited by Jonsul (edited April 11, 2010).]
Sort of simultaneously, from the forties to relatively recently, "speculative fiction" was promoted as a better term for what the writers were turning out. "Science fiction" itself comes from the late 1920s, when the field grew out of the popular scientific publications of the day. Some writers found it limiting---some speculative works don't much involve science when you get right down to it.
If you send something to the traditional SF market, you might run into someone who'll react that way---I'd say stick with calling your work SF.
(Not that names in the field are all that cutting edge. One of the leading magazines is called Analog, and has been since 1960---and what do the young and the newcomers think of when they hear that word?)
quote:
Will the publication be taken seriously by contributers if I use the term "sci-fi".
Back when Sci-Fiction was still a viable market, nobody cared that it had "Sci-Fi" in the title and was sponsored by the Sci-Fi Channel, because 25 cents per word buys a lot of respect from contributors.
If you pay the contributors seriously, they won't care if you use the term "skiffy."
On the other hand, if you're not going to be paying contributors more than token payment, "Science Fiction" sounds much more professional and respectable than "Sci-Fi".
quote:
Back when Sci-Fiction was still a viable market, nobody cared that it had "Sci-Fi" in the title and was sponsored by the Sci-Fi Channel, because 25 cents per word buys a lot of respect from contributors.
Speaking of...I am a bit annoyed by the standardization of the term Sci-Fi to SyFy...which will probably cross over to all Sci-Fi industries and we will soon be writing SyFy. Blech!
To use a television term...I think the Sci-Fi channel 'Jumped the shark.'
[This message has been edited by Dark Warrior (edited April 11, 2010).]
I can understand Harlan's POV. He probably considered himself an author of the likes of Huxley or Hemingway or Falukner - 'literary' - and I assume he looked down at those pulp science fiction writers.
But now I also hear it goes the other way too. There are science fiction writers who want to dissociate themselves from what the call "sci-fi" of the likes one can see on TV shows and movies that really have no science behind them apart from inserting science jargon willy-nilly to make the story appear as it was science-fiction. I think Neal Stephenson and Ron Moore are of that cloth.
Even Asimov said that the early pulp writer's of the 20's wrote adventure stories with random science stuck in without making any sense. He said (paraphrasing)- it was with the physics-trained editor John W. Campbell that you got the "golden age" of science fiction where "realistic," in the sense of realistic concepts as well as realistic portrayals of (non-mad) scientists, science fiction was written, nurtured and published.
Anways... When creating your magazine you probably want to ask yourself how realistic (or conversely, how speculative) you want your magazine's stories to be. Personally I vote for the more restrictive 'realistic' science fiction since there are many magazines that take the wider speculative stories. But, that might scare away some really good non-sci-fi writers. There's no reason why you couldn't have it SF but with the condition that if a writer uses science elements it better be 'realistic'-ly used it the story with well thought-out consequences of having that tech exist in that society.
I don't think respect should be a concern - just figure out what kind of writing you want your magazine to represent. Then publish really good stories.
quote:
Sort of simultaneously, from the forties to relatively recently, "speculative fiction" was promoted as a better term for what the writers were turning out. "Science fiction" itself comes from the late 1920s, when the field grew out of the popular scientific publications of the day. Some writers found it limiting---some speculative works don't much involve science when you get right down to it.
quote:
Back when Sci-Fiction was still a viable market, nobody cared that it had "Sci-Fi" in the title and was sponsored by the Sci-Fi Channel, because 25 cents per word buys a lot of respect from contributors.If you pay the contributors seriously, they won't care if you use the term "skiffy."
On the other hand, if you're not going to be paying contributors more than token payment, "Science Fiction" sounds much more professional and respectable than "Sci-Fi".
quote:
Speaking of...I am a bit annoyed by the standardization of the term Sci-Fi to SyFy...which will probably cross over to all Sci-Fi industries and we will soon be writing SyFy. Blech!
[update]
quote:
Anways... When creating your magazine you probably want to ask yourself how realistic (or conversely, how speculative) you want your magazine's stories to be. Personally I vote for the more restrictive 'realistic' science fiction since there are many magazines that take the wider speculative stories. But, that might scare away some really good non-sci-fi writers. There's no reason why you couldn't have it SF but with the condition that if a writer uses science elements it better be 'realistic'-ly used it the story with well thought-out consequences of having that tech exist in that society.I don't think respect should be a concern - just figure out what kind of writing you want your magazine to represent. Then publish really good stories.
[This message has been edited by Jonsul (edited April 11, 2010).]
Jonsul: organize? as in table of contents? I say put spec fic first and save the harder scifi stuff for later. You'll draw more readers that way.
[This message has been edited by billawaboy (edited April 12, 2010).]
Though Ellison did promote the term, it came up before he was active as a writer. Heinlein used it back in the late forties, I think---I do not know who, specifically, coined it.
The main influence on science fiction (or main problem) was that, in its formative years, it sat too close both to (1) the pulps, as well as (2) the science and technology magazines of the day (think Popular Mechanics or Popular Science). (To an extent this is a problem of American science fiction---British SF of the period was too close to the literary establishment.)
Remember, too, that the genre of "science fiction" could also be looked on as a subdivision of the genre of "fantasy," which seems to be on its way to being the dominant form in the marketplace. Bookstores may group all these books under "science fiction," but who knows how long that will continue?
quote:
Pyre: mutiny started years ago when they screwed up Earthsea - I'm up for creating another SF channel. How about SF or the 'Asimov' channel?Jonsul: organize? as in table of contents? I say put spec fic first and save the harder scifi stuff for later. You'll draw more readers that way.
[This message has been edited by Jonsul (edited April 12, 2010).]
quote:
I definitely want to be able to pay respectable rates. But will probably need to try to use some donated stories in the beginning to get things going.
I recommend you read this before going much farther with the idea of donated stories: http://www.maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/think-before-asking-writers-to-pay-for-your-hobby/ .