# Sci fi vs. SF vs. science fiction: What's the big deal? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 3, 2001, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605 "2001-04-03T06:58:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![barton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@barton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barton)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2001, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/21 "2001-04-03T19:44:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alessan \* > \*\*According to your definition, Roger Zelazny’s _Lord of Light_ is “lazy” crap. Well, bollocks to that. I’d read crap like that over “hard” SF any day, because unlike brilliant scientists Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clark, Zelazny could fucking _write_. > > Plot. Chracters. Style. Heard of 'em? Because they’re what’s important in SF, just like they are in every other literary genre. Sure, if the physics offends me with its stupidity, then I won’t read the book; but i’d rather have bad science than bad writing. > > Just tell a good tale, spin a good yarn. You do that, I’ll let you get away with anything. \*\* Kudos, better said than I could have, though I would defend Clarke a bit here - he could spin a yarn or two, even given his dry style, though he relied a bit much on ‘mysteries of the universe’ and all-knowing aliens to carry his drama. ---
**Author:** ![Scarred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/54ee81/32.png) [@Scarred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarred)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2001, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/22 "2001-04-03T20:25:41Z")
My library categorizes books as F, NF, and SF. Should I give you guys their address so you can tell them they’ve got it all wrong? Next topic: “theater” vs. “theatre” ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2001, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/23 "2001-04-03T22:47:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Depends on whether you want people who read the stuff to take you seriously. I am so worried about people like _The Simpsons_’ “Comic Book Guy” not taking me seriously. > [@](#): > > If you are going to try and construct a really lame analogy, you might at least try to get it right. All right… do you insist on calling a “car” a “horseless carriage”? :rolleyes: Starships and lasers… doesn’t matter if an author bothered to double-check his High School Physics book. If I want an accurate portrayal of science, I’ll grab _Scientific American_. If I want a good story, I’m not going to dilate my sphincter worrying about what the hell the story’s “real genre” is. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/24 "2001-04-04T02:08:38Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* \*\* > [@](#): > > Starships and lasers… doesn’t matter if an author bothered to double-check his High School Physics book. If I want an accurate portrayal of science, I’ll grab Scientific AmericanIf I want a good story, I’m not going to dilate my sphincter worrying about what the hell the story’s “real genre” is. \*\* It depends what you’re in the mood for. There’ve been times I _want_ to read a fictionalized version of Scientific American, in which case I’ll turn to Hogan (before he became a Velikofskian :rolleyes: ), Forward, Egan, or Baxter. The term “hard SF” is useful for that. I feel that if you’re in the mood for a particular type of story, knowing the sub-genre names helps. If you want beautiful space princessess being rescued from villainous space-pirates by square-jawed heroes who use swords instead of lasers, you’re not going to be satisfied with Hard SF. If you want a book about the rigorous applications of scientific princples to magic in the real world, Space-Opera won’t cut it. Turning the subject to mysteries, if you want to read about sweet little old ladies who charmingly solve mysteries whilest knitting antimassacars, Hard-Boiled mysteries won’t scratch that itch. That said, I think Hometownboy summed up my attitude perfectly: With fellow fans, I’ll use narrow, specific definitions, knowing they share my language. With anyone else, I’ll cringe a bit at the term Sci-Fi (usually pronounced as in Hi-Fi), but I’ll let it go unless I know them well enough to mention what the word connotes to fans. Otherwise I go on the assumption that they mean SF. Non-Fans shouldn’t be expected to learn the minute of my hobby. Fenris ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/25 "2001-04-04T03:10:24Z")
“Sci-fi” is used for media science fiction; it’s not used at all by those in the field, or by the more literate of fandom (i.e., those who read the books). The use of the term is a sure sign you’re not a science fiction “Fan” (i.e., you’re not part of the fandom community). Most people who write SF call it “SF” or “Science Fiction.” BTW, it doesn’t have to have any real science or scientists at all to be science fiction (a fact the hard SF snobs don’t understand). Defining “science fiction” by trying to explain how “science” and “fiction” relate is pointless. (See Chip Delany’s “red screamer” example in “Triton.”) Even the most “hard SF” writers fudge the science when it gets in the way of the story. It’s certainly OK to prefer hard SF to other forms, but to pretend it’s superior is ridiculous – something even the hardest of SF writers would agree upon. I use “science fiction.” It defines the genre (no one objects to the fact that some forms of “mystery fiction” don’t have any mystery involved, for example). SF is an abbreviation if I’m pressed for time. As far as defining science fiction, it’s what I’m pointing to when I say “that’s science fiction.” 🙂 As Delany points out, it is impossible to come up with a definition that includes everything you consider SF and excluded everything you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/26 "2001-04-04T03:12:30Z")
If you think writing fantasy is “lazy,” you don’t know what you’re talking about. Fantasy writers usually put as much research into their subject as the most stringent of hard SF writers. ---
**Author:** ![jeyen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a4c791/32.png) [@jeyen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeyen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/27 "2001-04-04T04:41:09Z")
Wow, so many strong opinions! Just what I expected. Thanks for the input, all. I suppose I should have stated more clearly in the OP that I’ve heard many of the explanations listed here and elsewhere about the so-called differences between the terms. I wasn’t looking for histories. But then, I bet somebody somewhere reading this thread didn’t already know that stuff, so I’m sure the info has been helpful. I’m going to address some specific comments in the next post or two. Hope that doesn’t spark too vitriolic a debate! Thanks again for all of the comments. Jeyen ---
**Author:** ![jeyen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a4c791/32.png) [@jeyen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeyen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/28 "2001-04-04T05:27:01Z")
My first set of comments/rebuttals to **dlb** : First, let me state that I am thoroughly unamused by your, umm, brusque response. I don’t think there was anything in my OP that warranted it. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dlb \* > The problem is that some people want to use precise English when discussing a subject important to them. ::Insert raised-eyebrow smiley here:: Ummm, “precise”? The 15 or so posters just in this thread cannot agree what these terms mean. I fail to see how any terms that are contested that strongly can be described as “precise”. If “precise” means “ **dlb** ’s definitions”, well, then, please provide me with a **dlb** dictionary and thesaurus. Oh, wait, you wouldn’t like thesauruses, probably: too imprecise. And why do you assume that the subject is not important to anyone who doesn’t use your terminology? That’s a big jump. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Please note that I will continue to use the term “sci fi” at my whim. 😉 > > And you will thus continue to expose — pardon me, but there is no other term — genre incompetence. And you an editor. Missed that little winky yellow thing, huh? Um, no, not incompetence, I think. I will continue to exhibit a different opinion of terminology. To me, “incompetence” implies that something will break if I do it that way. Ain’t nothing going to break, though. And the most important part is that **my audience will know what I’m talking about**. How do I know this? Because I know my audience, and it is not and never has been people who get their panties in a wad over stuff like this. Now, putting commas inside or outside the quotation marks… **That** discussion could lead to a holy war. > [@](#): > > I could write all this myself, but I would prefer to simply point to a post made to the [rec.arts.sf.tv](http://rec.arts.sf.tv) Usenet group by the redoubtable Gharlane of Eddore. > [http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Gharlane+Eddore+Campbell+science+fiction+degree&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=2&seld=928168679&ic=1](http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Gharlane+Eddore+Campbell+science+fiction+degree&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=2&seld=928168679&ic=1) ::Insert higher-raised-eyebrow smiley here:: Um, yeah. No, wait, make that, um, no. There is no need whatsoever for me to use that variety of terminology. And I don’t even agree with all of them. Please also note that this terminology does not agree with what several of the posters in this thread have said. Thus we run into the problem mentioned above: If there’s no agreement on the terminology, there’s no agreement on when exactly to use it. > [@](#): > > Skiffy is a derogatory… term Yeah, I gathered that. This is taking terminology wars to the level of absurdity. “Skiffy” means “like a skiff”. Yeah, that’s helpful and easy to understand. Oh, wait, that’s not the goal. I know you didn’t come up with it yourself, **dlb** , so I’m not blaming you for it. I’m disgusted that a bunch of people as literate (and sometimes literal) as SF/sci fi/science fiction fans would come up with something that silly and deliberately exclusive. I’m not using this term under any circumstances except to point out how absurd and nonintuitive it is. > [@](#): > > All these terms … were coined and set in stone by the great pulp publisher John Campbell. Um, do you see the irony in saying that anything, anything at all, is “set in stone” in a genre that purports to set us free from restrictions? Do you see the irony in calling terminology that’s at most 60 years old “set in stone”? That’s some quick-set concrete right there. > [@](#): > > With the continued degredation of language… What in the world are you talking about? All languages grow and change. That does **not** mean they degrade. And I don’t know how much reading you’ve done from the “golden years”, but I’m willing to bet their language wasn’t any more perfect than today’s language. > [@](#): > > …those of us who … love precision of language… I defy you to point out where **any person on this board or in this thread** has indicated that they have no love for the precision of language. I already indicated that your use of “precise” was, at best, imprecise. That doesn’t reflect well on your argument. And your assumption that anybody who doesn’t use your terminology the way you like it doesn’t love precision of language is absurd. In closing, I say succinctly that I disagree with a lot of what you said, **dlb**. ---
**Author:** ![jeyen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a4c791/32.png) [@jeyen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeyen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/29 "2001-04-04T05:32:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fenris \* > Excellent post, dlb: I’d missed Gharlane’s post first time around. Gee, Fenris, I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with you before. Aw, well, always a first time. 😃 > [@](#): > > I don’t think it reasonable for the non-fan to know all that stuff. I’d simply ask them to use the term “SF” for most Science Fiction, “Sci-Fi” for bad, schlocky stuff, and Fantasy for elves, etc. Expecting the non-fan to distinguish between Sci-Fi and Skiffy is unreasonable. I don’t think it is reasonable to expect anyone, fan or not, to know all of that stuff. Also, I think you and I might be using different meanings for “fan”, which could explain why we’re interpreting things differently. My definition of “fan” is “somebody who likes the stuff”. My dictionary says “an enthusiastic devotee or follower”. Pretty simple. You don’t have to know the history and specific terminology to qualify for either of those definitions. I am **not** giving you a hard time, **Fenris**. I love ya, man! Just adding more opinions. Jeyen ---
**Author:** ![jeyen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a4c791/32.png) [@jeyen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeyen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/30 "2001-04-04T05:40:04Z")
Wait, one more bit: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fenris \* > Mystery fans have dozens of sub-genres (Hard boiled, Cozies, etc). Um, yeah, but they’re all still “mysteries”. I use the blanket **abbreviation** “sci fi” to refer to all of those critters. Why do I abbreviate? Because I can. 2 syllables instead of 4: faster to say. 6 keystrokes instead of 15: faster to type. Why “sci fi” and not “SF”? It flows off the tongue more easily for me. It flows more easily in the brain: My brain can process “sci” as “sai” faster than it can proces “S” as “ess” instead of “sssss”. If I need to clarify about whether I’m talking about a subgenre, I do. > [@](#): > > What’s the big deal? Gee, **Fenris** , that’s just what I asked. 😃 I think you’re asking what’s the big deal about using 3 separate terms. I’m asking what’s the big deal about using 1 term and defining subgenres, as well as what’s the big deal about which term one uses. That sounded redundant. Time to get outta this post. Jeyen ---
**Author:** ![jeyen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a4c791/32.png) [@jeyen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeyen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/31 "2001-04-04T05:41:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rue DeDay \* > Someone’s gonna roll their eyes at you no matter what you say. Yeah, I figured. Good thing I’ve got other skills! Jeyen ---
**Author:** ![jeyen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a4c791/32.png) [@jeyen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeyen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/32 "2001-04-04T05:58:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hometownboy \* > Look, it’s a small but vital distinction to those who are interested in the field. I disagree. This distinction is not “vital” in any sense. Anal, yes, and **perhaps** useful to some, but not in any sense of the word vital. And “interested in the field”? Define “interested”. I declare myself interested, and I also declare that I disagree with the alleged differences between the terms SF, sci fi, and science fiction. > [@](#): > > …if you **know** that many of the people who are serious fans prefer the SF term, and that your continued use of sci-fi to paint the whole genre can be as grating as purposely using “Frisco” to San Franciscans, then you shouldn’t be piqued if they choose to bristle. I imagine that you and I are using different definitions for “serious fan”. Please see my note to Fenris earlier. I have never once heard a San Franciscan mention that “Frisco” is grating. News to me. To me, the usual abbreviation is… drum roll, please… **SF**. [sub]Hmm, could there be a correlation here? People who say “SF” refers to “speculative fiction” must always say the full “San Francisco” or the mangled “Frisco”? Or do they use “SF” interchangeably? What about the San Francisco cons? That could get messy! Today’s speakers: “The Straight Dope on SF in SF”. Aaaaagggh! Run away, run away.[/sub] I have yet to have anyone anywhere (except perhaps in this thread 😉 ) “bristle” at the term “sci fi”. It’s not like I walk up to strangers at cons and ask them what their favorite sci-fi author is. And who said I was piqued? My curiosity, certainly. But if you mean I’m disgruntled, not hardly. I get a good laugh out of word debates like this. > [@](#): > > They may view it not as a “politically correct” choice, but one of conscious respect. I’m not sure what you mean by “politically correct”, so I’ll pass on that for now. But I strongly object to the idea that using “SF” instead of “sci fi” has anything to do with respect. Humoring the anal, perhaps, or expressing courtesy that the listener is not extending in return. But hardly respectful. > [@](#): > > The choice is yours, as always. I think it’s also the choice of the audience how to react to what is really a minor matter. Jeyen ---
**Author:** ![jeyen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a4c791/32.png) [@jeyen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeyen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/33 "2001-04-04T06:19:13Z")
Second comment/rebuttal to **dlb** : > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dlb \* > There are those who dip into the books, and those who take the genre seriously. The latter use terms they understand, and look askance at newbies (and editors) who don’t understand the basic language of the field, as do most idiotic people who don’t have lives (anyone who doesn’t think the latter description applies to serious science fiction fans has never attended a science fiction convention). Editors who want to communicate with genre obsessed fan-boys should understand that. Reading the OP before flaming might help. I disagree that there are only two ways (“dipping in” and “seriously”) of reading sci fi. I disagree that every last person who takes any genre seriously uses the same terminology. This analogy comes to mind: HTML terminology. There are novices and there are experts. Some use the term “bookmarks” and some use the term “anchors”. Some novices know either or both terms; some experts just code the darn stuff. These terms refer to the exact same functionality. Which is correct? It depends wholely on who you’re talking to. There are doubtless some SF/sci fi/whatever fans who choose not to make the distinction you’re making, but they can still interpret the books and decide which kinds they like. And there are some people who know the terms who will never, ever get it. Knowing and using terms does **not** make one either serious or competent. It can, however, make one **look** competent to an audience that doesn’t dig deeper. As far as understanding the “basic language of the field”, see my previous notes about HTML terms. The terminology is not requisite. As far as an editor not understanding the basic language of the field, um, well, it depends on what exactly you’re expecting of your editor. Are you expecting the editor to not have an opinion? Ain’t going to happen. Nearly all of what any editor does relies on that editor’s opinion. Here’s something key to remember about both writing and editing: You don’t have to agree with a rule or guideline to follow it. Here’s something to remember about this particular terminology problem in regard to editing: 99% of the time, this terminology **is not used**. It’s not generally used in fiction, long or short; book covers; reviews; book blurbs; TV movies; commmercials; or anywhere else. When is it used? In nonfiction articles about the sorry state of newbie behavior, I suppose, and in heated discussions among fanatics about terminology. This terminology is, in my opinion, barely worthy of brain space that could be better used for more important editorial endeavors, like making sure a story is organized and interesting. > [@](#): > > As far as “understanding what is meant when [someone] says ‘sci-fi’”, I generally take into account the context in which it is said… If someone asks for clarification, particularly if it is an editor who will be dealing with people in the genre (and who therefore should already know), as in the OP, I provide it if I can, being a helpful sort of fellow (if a bit testy at times). See my above notes about editing. An editor does **not** need to know about this particular bit of terminology **unless that editor is working on documents explaining the terminology**. Since, as I said, most editing does not involve discussion of these terms, I think that an editor cannot reasonably be expected to know every last nuance of these terms. Jeyen ---
**Author:** ![jeyen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a4c791/32.png) [@jeyen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeyen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/34 "2001-04-04T06:20:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scarred \* > Next topic: “theater” vs. “theatre” I’m very American. I’d have to vote for “theater” in most cases. Jeyen ---
**Author:** ![jeyen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a4c791/32.png) [@jeyen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeyen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/35 "2001-04-04T06:22:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RealityChuck \* > “Sci-fi” is used for media science fiction; it’s not used at all by those in the field, or by the more literate of fandom (i.e., those who read the books). The use of the term is a sure sign you’re not a science fiction “Fan” (i.e., you’re not part of the fandom community). I disagree. And so does my book collection. Jeyen ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/36 "2001-04-04T06:29:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Helena \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Fenris \* > > \*\* > > Forrest Ackerman, who was literally the world’s biggest SF fan ever (he had a 17 room house that was filled top to bottom with SF books/magazines/memoribilia, in th '50’s came up with the term. He meant it affectionatly. > > \*\* > > I’ve met Forrest Ackerman. Is he no longer with us? \*\* He was in Chicago attending WorldCon last August. Still has the house, too, AFAIK. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/37 "2001-04-04T06:40:41Z")
Is it my imagination, or is there a correlation between: a) being annoyed by using “sci-fi” to refer to science fiction, b) being annoyed by people using “science fiction” to describe things that aren’t “really” science fiction, c) hating Star Trek, and d) being a big fan of Harlan Ellison? Anyway, given the definition of “science fiction” as being a story that cannot be told except through science-fictional elements, I have to disagree with the idea that Star Trek isn’t scie-fict. How is “The World Is Hollow, and I have Touched the Sky” just a Western or adventure story with rayguns used as props? Meanwhile, one could argue that at least some of Ellison’s work isn’t SF, by the overly strict standards that some of his fans seem to apply. (Certainly if Star Trek isn’t SF, then a lot of Ellison’s work doesn’t make the “true SF” cut. What about “I have no mouth, but I must scream”?) Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to run to my Ellison-proof shelter, and huddle miserably inside it hoping that he doesn’t pop out of nowhere and mail me a dead gopher… -Ben ---
**Author:** ![dlb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@dlb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dlb)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/38 "2001-04-04T07:20:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alessan \* > **According to your definition, Roger Zelazny’s _Lord of Light_ is “lazy” crap. Well, bollocks to that. I’d read crap like that over “hard” SF any day, because unlike brilliant scientists Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clark, Zelazny could fucking _write_.** No, according to my definition, it’s fantasy. Period. Zelazny called it fantasy; get a Ouija board and argue with him if you want to. Frankly, I like Zelazny better than Clarke, but that’s a personal preference. (Actually, I consider Zelazny one of the seminal writers of the century, who transcends the genre; he played with the art form, bent the rules, and did things no one else did. He should be taught in English classes for what he could do with language.) But **all** that is beside the point. We are talking about defining terms, not who is the better writer. Why that should get your nose out of joint is a mystery to me. Fan boys without lives are protective of their terms, as are all specialists. Live with it. ---
**Author:** ![dlb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@dlb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dlb)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/39 "2001-04-04T07:42:55Z")
I’ll skip past a lot of this. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jeyen \* > \*\*My first set of comments/rebuttals to **dlb** : > > First, let me state that I am thoroughly unamused by your, umm, brusque response. I don’t think there was anything in my OP that warranted it. \*\* So be unamused. > [@](#): > > **::Insert raised-eyebrow smiley here:: Ummm, “precise”? The 15 or so posters just in this thread cannot agree what these terms mean. I fail to see how any terms that are contested that strongly can be described as “precise”. If “precise” means “dlb’s definitions”, well, then, please provide me with a dlb dictionary and thesaurus. Oh, wait, you wouldn’t like thesauruses, probably: too imprecise.** Have all the fun flailing away at strawmen you want to, if it expends your energy and gives you pleasure. It’s not as though there is not a fairly large published literature on the field. I mean, for Heaven’s sake, there are libraries, and books on the subject. People publish compendiums and commentaries on science fiction, fantasy, and the authors that write for it. Fanzines are put out on the subject. There is a whole subculture here. People who don’t have lives concentrate on this. I didn’t make this up; I gave a reference that I did not write, to someone else who gave references as well. Of course, citations do not manage to sink through your mind; the fact that I disagree with you means that I just made it up on my own. You asked. I answered. I did more than that; I gave a cite on the web, written by a knowledgeable person. If you had answers prepared, and wished to reject any other answers that did not match yours, then why on earth did you ask? I’ll snip a lot of this; it is content free (except to call me a fool, a true assertion, or why would I be engaged in this?) > [@](#): > > **Um, do you see the irony in saying that anything, anything at all, is “set in stone” in a genre that purports to set us free from restrictions? Do you see the irony in calling terminology that’s at most 60 years old “set in stone”? That’s some quick-set concrete right there.** In any specialist field, whether a real live one (such as a science) or one made up by a bunch of fan boys exercising their putative brains (such as science fiction fandom), the one besetting sin is ignorance of the literature. Terminology changes when it needs to, not for the sake of change, and when it does there is discussion around the change. No one has changed the basic units of energy and power in a century or two; no need. Similarly, these definitions have continued to meet the needs of obsessed fans for the sixty years that organized fandom has existed, and show no real need of shaking now. But you can always issue your fiats, and see what happens. > [@](#): > > \*\*In closing, I say succinctly that I disagree with a lot of what you said, **dlb**. \*\* OK, let’s say you win. I give up. Any points to be won in whatever game we are playing, you have won. However, in your professional capacity as editor, I suggest you make sure that you are being understood correctly by professional science fiction authors (probably not a problem; they are used to dealing with mundanes) and sellers that frequent science fiction conventions. And good luck to you. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605/40 "2001-04-04T08:16:26Z")
Lemme guess, DLB… you read your science fiction while sipping tea, smoking a pipe, and sitting in a large easy chair in the corner of your trophy room, right? :rolleyes: I fail to see how you can possibly justify your rude behavior (since your very first post in this thread!) over the difference between “science fiction” and “sci-fi”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-vs-sf-vs-science-fiction-whats-the-big-deal/60605.md?page=3)