posted
I just finished reading an article on the SFWA site by Melisa Michaels: "Is this stuff Sci-Fi, SF, or Skiffy?" <http://www.sfwa.org/misc/skiffy.htm>
The article centered on whether sci-fi was a derogative term for the Science Fiction genre.
My preference is for Fantasy, but I'm not averse to character-centered SF (need I mention OSC?). So far I've been using the term "sci-fi" quite liberally. This supposedly marks me as not being "serious" about the genre.
Is this just useless quibbling over naming, or does the distinction have any import?
posted
I visited the link, and found my lack of interest in the matter clarified.
quote:David M. Harris: "Sci-fi" is one of those Rohrschach points, like Freud. You can judge a lot about people by how they react to the term. Someone who's offended by it is probably (in my estimation) spending way too much time thinking about and dealing with SF. Someone who uses it innocently hasn't spent much social time with the SF community.
It's just an acronym.
[This message has been edited by JeremyMc (edited March 30, 2002).]
posted
Ah, Jeremy. But to quote your quote: "Someone who uses it innocently hasn't spent much social time with the SF community."
I'm just wondering if anyone here thinks that using "sci-fi" would be enough for them to classify someone as being "outside the circle", so to speak...
posted
One thing I notice about the term "sci fi" is that it's always used in television and movies, which I think supports the idea that was mentioned that it puts someone outside the circle of those who know about the stuff -- TV and movie producers clearly don't (as a rule) have much of an "insider's" understanding of the stuff. For my money, that same sensibility often leads to sub-standard TV and movie SF, but then that presumably reflects a more mass-market approach to the stuff.
posted
When I was in college, we had a SF/F/H newsletter that we called (in greek letters) psi-phi (I don't know how to make the symbols here). This is not original or even all that cool, of course, but we thought it was nifty at the time. Erk
Posts: 35 | Registered: Oct 2001
|
posted
Many people now refer to science fiction, fantasy, etc. as "speculative fiction." (Ha. That's still S.F.) If you go to the Lost Books site, D.D.Shade has a great list of different types of "s.f." Liz
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2001
|
posted
A nice feature of the term "speculative fiction" is that it covers ground that can't be easily lumped into SF or F (or H, etc.). For instance, a story set in an alternate past but without an SF premise (although they just call that "alternate history" these days and consider it SF), or a story about someone's afterlife.
posted
I agree, Luc. I also like the list of examples D.D. Shade has for all the subcategories. I should print it for my husband, so when he teases me about reading "that dragon crap" I can say, no, that is high fantasy, but I also read this, that, and the other kinds. It makes me feel like a reader with very diverse interests. Liz
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2001
|
posted
Actually, epiquette, that's kinda funny... since in Greece, that'd be pronounced "P'See-Fee"...
I actually read something apropos in a book entitled Yours, Isaac Asimov which was a collection of letters from Isaac Asimov to various fans/editors/etc. I'll excerpt it here:
quote: As to "sci-fi." This is a Hollywood neologism invented as a "witty" analog of "hi-fi," and it grates on the ears of all science fiction writers. Hollywood illiterates may go for that abomination, but the proper abbreviation to all honest science fiction people is "s.f."
Another excerpt is from an editorial he wrote in 1978 (also in the collection of letters):
quote: "...'Sci-fi' is now widely used by people who don't read science fiction. It is used particularly by people who work in movies and television. This makes it, perhaps, a useful term. We can define 'sci-fi' as trashy material sometimes confused, by ignorant people, with s.f. Thus, Star Trek is s.f., while Godzilla Meets Mothra is sci-fi.
That certainly makes a big deal of the matter, at least to Asimov (and maybe his generation of science fiction writers). But OSC appears to prefer the term, using it quite extensively in the Introduction to his Masterpieces science fiction short story compilation. He even goes so far as to refer to the "academic-literary establishment" as being "li-fi" - a term he also used during the Writer's Workshop in Greensboro last July.
I think the term has lost whatever edge it had. It has been "accepted," or "adopted" into the science fiction community - much like "queer" was adopted by the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender community, and "pagan" was adopted by the non-major-religion community.
Whatever stigma it once carried I think has been lost through extensive use by the science fiction community - at least for a lot of people in that community. Hell, there's even a "Sci Fi Channel" - so try being a fan of film/television science fiction without using the term "sci-fi" and you'll be out of luck.
Personally, I prefer SF... mainly because I write fantasy and speculative fiction, very rarely venturing into hard science. Plus, I tend to agree with the second Asimov quote... I can easily call Godzilla, and ID4, and Planet of the Apes "sci-fi"... but calling Stranger in a Strange Land, or Brave New World, or Fahrenheit 451, by that term doesn't sit right somehow.
As to it being a sort of litmus test, sure. If you say "SF" you obviously read a fair amount of science fiction, and are at least aware of the naming issue. If you use "sci-fi" you could be a die-hard fan or could never have heard of Isaac Asimov. So, in that sense, I guess "SF" is a pseudo-elitist term, since it implies some greater knowledge on the part of the user. (If someone uses "SF" in a conversation with me, I automatically assume things about the speaker... whereas with "sci-fi" I generally do not)
[This message has been edited by FlyingCow (edited April 01, 2002).]
posted
Well, Flying Crow more or less summed up my feelings on it, in so far as if someone uses the term 'SF', you can automatically assume a certain level of understanding from the user. But I should also point out that as someone who's read sci-fi (s.f. or SF, whatever you prefer) for going on easily 22 years, I could give a rat king's ass about what to call it. When speaking, I say "sci-fi" never the letters 'SF', and when writing it I take my audience into account and write accordingly...or I simply don't care and generally write 'sci-fi'.
While seeing SF immediately identifies one as "in the know", I don't for a nano second believe sci-fi automatically denotes ignorance or out-of-the-circle status.
posted
Liz, I'd think you were cool, because I'm a telepath and I could read your thoughts and secret intentions and would have a good chuckle over it.
posted
I think that what you call it doesn't change what it is: "a rose by any other name", etc, etc. As long as we all know what we're talking about, whether we say 'sci-fi' or something else is entirely beside the point.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Dec 2001
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
