The term Sci-Fi annoys me, when used to refer to authors I like, because to me sci-fi means schlock, often media schlock. So, let’s take the quiz
A) 1/2 point: Sci-Fi refers to a sub-set of SF. It’s like a rancher being annoyed at someone calling the dung “the cow”.
B) 0 points: The stuff that people are referring to ususally is science fiction, IMHO. Regardless of it’s quality level, if someone points to “V” the TV show about space lizards who wanted our water (water being so rare and all), and said that’s Science Fiction, they’d be correct. If they said “that’s Sci-Fi”, they’d equally correct, but more precise.
C) 1/2 point: I love Original Trek, hate all the regurgitated spin-offs.
D) 1/2 point: Ellison is an excellent writer who (to me) gets very repetitive after a while. And I think he’s been getting a bit shrill recently. But he wrote some masterpieces, fiction and non-fiction.
This totals to 1[sup]1/2[/sup] points. Less than half. The correlation didn’t work in my case, but I’ve always been a bit of an oddball
Any Ellison fan who defines “SF” as Science Fiction wouldn’t be doing Ellison any favors. Ellison has been…um…well…ranting for years that he doesn’t write Science Fiction, he writes Speculative Fiction. He actually makes a pretty valid point, I just don’t like way the term sounds. That’s why I stick with SF. Covers all bases.
I’d love to watch if someone tried to exclude Ellison from a Con. because his fiction wasn’t ‘real’ Science Fiction by a “Nuts-n-Bolts” or “Hard Science Fiction” definition.
Having a big book collection doesn’t mean you’re part of the fandom community. I have a huge collection, and I’m not. The fandom community goes to conventions, hangs out with authors, (may)post regularly on rec.arts.sf.written, etc.
A-ha! I’ve got an analogy!
Being a fan of Cecil Adams doesn’t make one a Doper. You can have all of Cecil’s books, read his column every day and write him mash-notes, but until you post on the SDMB, you’re not a capital D Doper. Same thing with (capital F) Fandom, in the sense that Chuck meant.
Basically, if you use the term Sci-Fi, my first assumption (assuming I didn’t know you) would be that you were less familiar with SF in all its permutations. I’d be wrong in your case, but I suspect most SF Fans would have a similar reaction. All I’m saying is that you’ll get a better response if you use “Science Fiction” or “SF” when talking with fellow SF fans (and authors. Based on what I’ve read on rec.arts.sf.written from authors (Bujold, Sterling, Watt-Evans, etc, SF writers tend to roll their eyes a bit (or in Ellison’s case, more than a bit ) at the term “sci-fi”.)
I’m not the language police, and it’s no skin off my nose regardless of what you call it, but it’ll make conversation a little harder until I determine if you’re using the term to mean the set or the subset.
Just as an aside, the Science Fiction Encyclopedia adds the following: (I’ve paraphrased, to avoid copyright issues)
Forrest Ackerman invented the term in the '50s. He was playing off the term Hi-Fi (as in Stereo). BTW Helena, as far as I know Ackerman’s still alive. Bad phrasing on my part.
The term wasn’t used much until several SF reviewers and critics (Damon Knight and Terry Carr, for example) decided “the term was…useful in distinguishing sf hackwork – particularly ill-written lurid adventure stories – from sf of a more intellectually demanding kind”
Around '78, Susan Wood (who I admit to never having heard of), a critic, began pronouncing the term as Skiffy (still spelled sci-fi). Since then, in the mid-80s to present, Skiffy has come to mean “entertaning but junk sf: STAR WARS is skiffy”
So I’ve been using the terms Sci-Fi and Skiffy exactly backwards.
Huh. Learn something new every day.
Fenris
(And, previewing, I note that once again, SPOOFE has shown himself to be brilliant, insightful and well, a helluvaguy. Why? He agrees with me! (And I agree, SPOOFE, the Borg were cool until Voyager)
Ike is kidding (I think) but beings up a point which I haven’t seen directly addressed: Many people (including many in publishing and Hollywood) see Science Fiction as just that. “bug-eyed monsters and wild-haired mad scientists and flyin’ saucers and rayguns an’ crap” and that fact pisses a lot of people off who love Science Fiction literature, thus, at least in the “popular” media, Science Fiction is relegated to a second class status.
Doesn’t it piss off you Mystery literature lovers when people equate your genre with Hart to Hart and Remington Steel?
There is nothing wrong with Fantasy, but often Fantasy feigning Science Fiction is harmful to the genre. Ever see ID4? This one movie did more to harm the genre of Science Fiction since Star Wars showed people that they can hear explosions in outer space. The more people see Science Fiction popularized as crap, the more crap is produced, and so on and so on and . . . Sci-Fi has been co-opted by crap. Distinguishing Sci-Fi from Science Fiction is a way those who care are taking a piece of the genre.
I was in a bookstore once and overheard an aspiring writer talking to his friend. “I think I’ll start by writing a Star Wars novel.” He was not talking about “fan fiction” folks. He wanted to try to be published. Originality anyone?
Bad Science Fiction should be shunned. Been in a Borders Bookstore lately? The “Science Fiction” section is about a quarter the sub-genre “t.v. and movie and roll playing game adaptations.” I’ll admit that there is a place for this type of literature. There was a time when RPG’s were driven by the genre, not the other way around.
Let me end with a quote from the newest essay from Paul T. Riddell. He is, or seems to be, a champion against Crap in Science Fiction. As evidenced by his latest essay:
That doesn’t make you a fan. Fenris is right – You may love science fiction, but you’re not a fan unless you attend conventions and meet the authors. None of that group (other than complete neos) ever use “sci-fi” – and authors don’t, either.
Heh. Thanks for the additional comments. You guys rock.
It’s early yet, but a few things in the latest comments stood out.
Sorry, all, apparently I forgot a smiley. This was meant humorously.
The statement I was responding to indicated that anyone who doesn’t agree with the differences in the terms SF/sci fi/ whatever doesn’t read the genre. I was indicating that I do read the genre. I meant it jokingly. Apparently it didn’t work without the smiley; my bad.
I find it funny that anyone would assume that such a simple thing as using the term “sci fi” instead of the approved “SF” doesn’t read books in the SF/sci fi/whatever genre. What if I only read the fiction part of science fiction? Where exactly would I have learned the differences, or even the appropriate differences? Seemed a funny assumption to me.
Sigh. I’ve stated already that I attend cons. I’ve met authors. I consider myself a fan. You know what? Not once in those ventures have I been called upon to use the term “SF” or “science fiction” or even the maligned “sci fi”. So I don’t think this point is necessarily a good one to make in this discussion. Using the, um, agreed-upon terminology is not a requisite to attend cons or talk with authors. And con attendees or those talking with authors are not commonly required to display their knowledge of the agreed-upon terminology.
And I’ll reiterate my definition of “fan”: “an enthusiastic devotee or follower”. I do not think that by definition a fan must attend cons or talk with authors. Near as I can tell, we disagree on that. So let’s keep that in mind when we’re using “fan”.
Yes, I got that. I’ve always gotten that. I still, however, do not understand what the big deal is. I probably never will. Must be a personal flaw.
Okay, so what the hell am I supposed to call myself? I’ve been voraciously reading “SF” (if you insist) for, uh, what is it now, seventeen years? I enjoy the movies one finds in the “Sci Fi” section at Blockbuster. I have played and enjoyed science-fiction themed RPGs. I have even written a few crappy short stories and one abysmally bad novel. (Fear not, Gentle Reader, for they are all completely unpublishable.)
However, I’ve only been to one very small con, and I have never met an author I’ve actually read.
If it is therefore incorrect for me to call myself a “fan” of the genre, then how the hell am I supposed to refer to myself to avoid offending the “genre-competent”?
which defines Zelazny’s work (as well as Frank Herbert’s, Gene Wolfe’s and a lot of Silverberg’s best writing). If you’ll retract that, and concede that fantasy in a futuristic (or post-futuristic) setting is a legitimate, respectable sub-genre of SF, then we’ll have something to talk about.
BTW, I don’t consider Babylon 5 a failure (unless you’re talking about Season 5). It did just what it set out to do - tell an epic, complex tale, with three-dimensional characters and a fascinating (if somewhat unlikely) invented world.
I grew up about 2000 miles away from the closest SF writer. I’ve never been to a convention because until a couple of years ago, because conventions weren’t held in my country. And frankly, I don’t have any real interest in meeting writers - as far as I’m concerned, they’re just guys; I don’t really care about them personally, so long as they keep on writing. I’m a fan of the books, not of the people. So can I be a Fan?
Put it another way - I’ve seen the works of Shakespeare performed on stage and on screen; I’ve read most of his plays and sonnets; I’ve had lectures on his works. On the other hand, I’ve never met William Shakespeare, so I guess I’m not a Shakespeare lover.
And another thing - I know the words of just about every Beatles song by heart, but on the other hand, I’ve never seen them perform live. Ah, well.
In short - as far as i’m concerned, the only thing important is the books (or plays, or albums). Anything else is just marketing and masturbation.
EosCon is hosted by Eos, the book publisher. Their blurb about EosCon is “an exciting, online event where you get to meet authors like Neil Gaiman, Terry Pratchett, Maureen McHugh and Guy Gavriel Kay.”
I particularly like EosCon because it’s online – you can attend from anywhere.
And it’s much easier to talk to the speakers/panelists because multiple people can ask questions at the same time, while multiple panelists can answer at the same time.
I realize that this is going to sound very, VERY stupid. Please hear me out first:
You two (and I) are fans, not Fans of SF.
This sounds stupid. It is, in today’s world, stupid. But there’s a bit of history here (and I’m going off memory, so I apologize for the inevitable inaccuracies.)
Set your way-back machine to the late '30s through early '50s. Science Fiction was dismissed by everyone, librarians (who weilded enormous power with publishers…remind me to tell you about Heinlein’s problems with librarians and publishers), teachers, politicians, Lit-Crit types, etc. At very best it was considered junk “rocket-ship kid-stuff”. At worst it was consdered mind destroying trash. (See Fredric Wertham’s attacks on comics and you’ll get the idea).
Early fans like Bradbury, Marion “Astra” Bradley, Fred Pohl, etc… started having get togethers, which got bigger and bigger, eventually becoming Conventions, in part out of self defense. I’ve seen a word-origins page that specifically links the term “Fan” to the word “Fantasy” and the word “Fanatic” and those early Conventions. If that page (which I can no longer find, dammit) is to be believed, the word “Fan” came directly from SF. ::shrug:: Sounds like a barely plausible urban-legend, but it’s an interesting thought. Anyway, these early SF followers who went to those early Conventions began calling themselves Fans to disinguish themselves from the casual reader or the rest of the non-SF world.
Anyway, as a result, SF has always had a bit of an inferiority complex. Despite the fact that WE know that there’s actual literary merit in the genre, even today, people who would never dismiss mysteries or gothic romances (Wuthering Heights) still dismiss SF. As such, many Fans, especially those who have hung around conventions and heard the stories of the older Fans tend to be touchy about percieved slights.
Outside of Harlan Ellison most Fans won’t make a fuss about the term “sci-fi” but after literally decades of the media reporting about how “Pow-Zap-Wham! That Buck Rodgers Sci-Fi Stuff is Big Box-Office!”, they’ll cringe a bit.
Gee. In the rock and roll world we call those people “groupies” and they’re the lowest of the low. Useful, in their way, but not someone you’d want around longer than necessary.
<end annoyed rant>
All this pretentious posturing about ‘what to call it’ strikes me as a waste of energy. Why bother? Because you feel a need to establish ‘self’ and ‘other’? That’s a hallmark of insecurity, folks. I know we (note that we stuff there, white eyes) can at times feel persecuted but that’s no reason to drop into jargon.
I’m an openly avowed fanboy at my office (I’m Director of Marketing) and no one makes any bones about it. Am I regarded as different? Sure, a bit, but why should that matter to me?
And it shouldn’t matter to you either. The fact is, whatever term anyone uses you know what they’re talking about. The need to set up ‘exclusionary’ practices doesn’t help us be accepted in the larger world.
So let’s drop the self-loathing attitudes here. We’re fans of science fiction (my term, I admit) nothing more. dlb’s constant references to ‘not having a life’ etc only serve to further differentiate dlb and a lot of other fans from their own self-esteem.
Christ, I can’t imagine that I’m writing this sort of ego-boosting stuff. But you all kinda ticked me off.
Oh.
And if I felt like excluding Harlan Ellison from a con I hosted I’m pretty certain I could. He’s about 5’ 2" and like what? 60 years old? The safe money is on me breaking him over my knee.
Fenris, it’s good of you to make the Fan-big-f vs. fan-small-f distinction that’s so glaringly absent from RealityChuck and dlb’s posts. I have always liked the term “fandom,” signifying people who identify themselves as part of a social group that does organized things relating to the subject of their enthusiasm. But I do not like the implication that enthusiasts outside “fandom” are not real fans, and that their opinions are moot.
I think it’s important to note that the fans-small-f are the silent majority, the washed masses (more washed than your average con-goer, anyway) who might not know the insiders–but they do know the literature. Most of the people I discuss science fiction with aren’t Fans by the definitions given in this thread, but they’re no slouches. Take for example my office-mate, who, I swear, has read every science fiction book ever translated into Serbo-Croatian, and is currently devouring English volumes at an astounding rate. To imply that some goon who’s been to a few cons is automatically more authoritative than my colleague, whose knowledge of science fiction is encyclopedic, is ridiculous.
If the in-crowd wants to define its own exclusive vocabulary, and declare themselves the Fans-big-f or the Only True Fans-big-or-small-f, well, whatever. Nobody can stop 'em, and they have at least some of the authors (the people who really define the genre in the first place) on their side.
But if the Fans-big-f assume that anyone who uses the term sci-fi in place of their own chosen “SF” doesn’t know the difference between a space opera and a Space Odyssey, and thinks Star Trek is cutting-edge, and doesn’t take science fiction or SF or s-fraggin’-whatever seriously, well, that’s their own damn loss.
I managed to miss this thread for its first day of existence, so most of what I might have said has already been said (by such luminaries as RealityChuck). But let me toss in my two pennies anyway.
I appreciate that some devoted science fiction readers may consider themselves “fans,” but “Fan” and “Fandom” have very specific, historically-based meanings in this field. A “fan” is someone who is part of “fandom” by participating in “fanac” (fan activity). Paradoxically, many “trufans” have little or nothing to do with actual science fiction anymore – fans who actually still care about science fiction are called “sercon” (for serious and constructive). I trust you get the picture – fandom is its own subculture, with lots of invented terms. And it’s an organized subculture, so you basically become a fan by having other fans recognize you as one. Yes, it can be cliquey, but there are enough cliques (many of whom violently hate each other) that there’s a place for anyone who wants to be there. (I was never a fan myself, but I enjoy fannish culture.)
Most of the writers, editors and fans (using the defintion above) in the field don’t like the term “sci-fi,” since it’s been most used pejoratively. This tendency is more noticeable in the older generation than the younger; people who came of age before Star Wars tend to loathe the term more than those who grew up in the sci-fi era. (Cynical comments deliberately avoided here.)
“Skiffy” is the way many people in the field (myself included) pronounce “sci-fi,” to show deliberately that we mean it as an insult. (Or maybe just in a slightly dismissive fashion, such as “ID4 was OK, for a skiffy movie.”)
“Science Fiction” is never misunderstood.
“Speculative Fiction” was championed first by Robert A. Heinlein and then by Harlan Ellison, for somewhat different reasons. It lost the battle for mindshare, even within the field, but some people still use it. It can be more useful as a wider term than Science Fiction, especially in academia.
“SF” is the abbreviation used by most professionals and fans in the field, and the one seen on books and in magazine titles. (ex.: “F&SF” for The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction)
“Scientifiction” was coined by Hugo Gernsback, first great SF magazine editor, back in the '20s. He later broke the term out to “Science Fiction.” Some of us like to use the older term, either in historical contexts, or just because it’s a fun word.
No one is forcing anyone to use any of these terms, or to use them in this way. If enough people use “sci-fi” for long enough, it will be the de facto term, whether I like it or not. But, for now, certain people use these words in different ways. If you want your favorite science fiction author to respond favorably to that request for an autograph, referring to her books as “sci-fi” might be counter-productive.
Podkayne, the problem is that, in part out of self-defense in the early years of Fandom, a “language” has evolved and there is an insider-outsider mentality and one in a sense the language is the equivelant of a “secret-handshake”. Right or wrong, that’s the way it is. But that doesn’t make the rudeness that can result from that mentality appropriate.
For me, even though I like the way “Sci-Fi” (pronounced Hi-Fi) sounds, I also think of the “Pow-Zap-Wham! Trekkies make Sci-Fi Books BIG SELLERS!” :rolleyes: type headlines I saw when McCaffery’s White Dragon was the first SF book (I believe) to break into the NY Times Bestseller lists and other equally banal news reports that equate the genre of the imagination with schlock.
I won’t call Trekkers “Trekkies” since they consider it offensive (you’ll notice that most news broadcasts have stopped using the term “Trekkies” after several large letter-writing campaigns). I wouldn’t take a chance of pissing off an author I respected by using the term Sci-Fi to describe their work. In a similar, though far more substantial vein, I wouldn’t go to a primarily black gathering and use the term Negro (I’m not equating the two!) The term may be accurate in a forensic sense, but I’d get off on the wrong foot (at best) and why offend people needlessly? Since the authors are the ones producing the work, I’d rather be safe and use a term that none of them are offended by. (I really want to meet Bujold in person someday and I’d be horrified if I slipped and called her stuff Sci-Fi, even though I’m sure she’d be gracious about it.)
I do agree with what you’re saying though: using the term “Sci-Fi” doesn’t make you any less of a fan of the genre and the boorish attitude that you (or I) are somehow less informed about the actual works in the genre, is (at best) equally offensive.
I think it’s simply a matter of clarity and communication and courtesy.
If I’m talking to someone and they ask what I’m reading, I’ll say “A Science-Fiction book by so-and-so. It’s about (whatever).”
If they respond with “I love sci-fi! Wasn’t Farrah Fawcett great in Logan’s Run?” I know…um…(gonna sound snotty, sorry) what level to tailor my conversation to.
Similarly, if someone says “Why SF is just my favorite genre! I think Kuttner’s solo work was inferior to Moore’s solo work, inasfar as we can tell who wrote what, but I think their stated collaberations as Padgett were simply divine. I adore Padgett, don’t you?” I know I’m conversing on a whole different level.
If person two said exactly the same thing, but used the term “Sci-Fi”, I’d experience at least a moment of cognitive dissonance, before settling down to one hell of a good conversation.
If I’m talking with a friend, or fellow afficiando (present company included) I’ll use the term SF. If I’m at a Con, same thing, I’ll use the local language (except Skiffy. I hate that term.)
And when my Grandma, may she rest in peace, asked me if I was reading another Sci-Fi book, I’d simply smile and tell her “yes”.
Thank you for the even-handed and calm information, G.B.H., as well as your editorial willingness to let others say it how they want. I appreciate it.
I made a relatively educated guess about how often an editor in the SF/fantasy world would be using any of these terms (that is, outside of a debate about the terms themselves). Would you be willing to share your real-world experience of how often you use these terms? And when you use them? I’m genuinely curious.
most Fans won’t make a fuss about the term “sci-fi” but after literally decades of the media reporting about how “Pow-Zap-Wham! That Buck Rodgers Sci-Fi Stuff is Big Box-Office!”, they’ll cringe a bit.