Sci-fi verses Science Fiction

[marshall_payne]

This is an old argument but perhaps one that needs to be brought up again because I see the term "sci-fi" misused more and more nowadays. Harlan Ellison has ranted about this one for years. Here's a video link where he speaks his mind:

http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2008/11/science-fiction-vs-scifi/

As a copyeditor, I sometimes find myself

Comments

[jtglover]

Interesting post. Personally, I don't think there is any way to judge a given user's intent with the different terms without seeing them in person. Lord knows, I'd been under the impression that 'skiffy' was the term of preference among people who didn't want to say 'science fiction' but couldn't bear 'sci-fi.' And of course the other SF complicates the whole thing too.

[marshall_payne]

Thanks for bringing up the "speculative fiction" variant of SF, John. Personally I abbreviate it "spec. fiction" as opposed to "spec-fic" or "specfic." The latter has been known to be confused with the word "specific" at a glance.

As I said below, my concern is with those new to the field who don't make the distinction. I know you're aware of this as you have a very good knowledge of the genre from what I can tell.

Personally, I don't think there is any way to judge a given user's intent with the different terms without seeing them in person.

I have to disagree and say that I think there is a way to tell if a reviewer (or whoever) is aware of the distinction when using the word. If you read a review about a story on global warming or the posthuman singularity, and the review refers to the story (and all science fiction) as "sci-fi," there's a very good chance they don't know the history behind the word or have a good grasp of the genre. It hurts their credibility.

[jtglover]

If you read a review about a story on global warming or the posthuman singularity, and the review refers to the story (and all science fiction) as "sci-fi," there's a very good chance they don't know the history behind the word or have a good grasp of the genre. It hurts their credibility.

That's a good point. What I should have said is something about how--lacking context, or lacking obvious cues--it can be hard to tell. Yeah, it's one of those terms that just can't be used blithely in the field, and it does betray ignorance--and undermine credibility.

[marshall_payne]

Yeah, that's what I was getting at here too. It's a word that should be used sparingly, I think. When I review fiction I often find myself putting "sci-fi" in quotes so there's no doubt that I'm using it for a specific purpose. You know, like: "This story embraces the more technological aspects of true science fiction, while still being good 'sci-fi.'" Or something like that. *g*

[jjschwabach]

"Sci-Fi" does, alas, conjure up images of ray guns and space suits with no apparent life-support and smoking on rocketships. And yes, I do mean rocketships. Not to mention self-aware robots who somehow have no protection on their moving parts, despite being in places full of grit, such as the Moon or Mars.

[marshall_payne]

Actually, I rather like some of this stuff. It's good "clean" adolesent fun. I also like Dan Simmons Hyperion, and I'd never consider that "sci-fi," despite that there was some spoofing of the SF genre in places. :-)

[ex_camillea]

Living language is a lovely, evolving creature. No use being too stick-in-mudly or overly concerned about trends and changes, thinks I.

Misuse of the apostrophe, however? Outrageous and egregious and not to be tolerated.

We all have our bugbears.

[jjschwabach]

I'm forever trying to fix those. What is it with people putting apostrophes in plurals?

[marshall_payne]

What is it with people putting apostrophes in plurals?

That's why God (or some less-exalted deity) made copyeditors! ;-)

[marshall_payne]

I have had hard time knowing if you're taking me serious here, Camille. :-)

My concern here was with those new to the field who don't make the distinction out of ignorance. I don't mind the use of the term if the reviewer, writer, or editor knows the difference, but if it's apparent they do not, it hurts their credibility. At The Fix when copyediting reviews, we make the distinction and our more experienced reviewers almost always use the term correctly. Yes, the use of the term is more of a personal matter than the misuse of an apostrophe, but when you see the blanket use of "sci-fi" for science fiction from a writer...well, Harlan said it best, I think.

[mgsmurf]

Interestingly, I know the difference between science fiction (SF) what I'd read in Strange Horizons, and sci-fi, what I watch on the Sci-Fi channel (when they aren't showing bad horror trying to be Chiller).

But, I often write SF as short hand, meaning science fiction, and say sci-fi in my head. I can't use acronyms correctly, they don't roll off my tongue right and I'm always mixing up letters. I'll be saying a lot of neuromuscular junction in the next weeks, because that's easier than NMJ for me to say. And Jedi can attest that while I might know his military alphabet soup when I hear it, I can never say it myself. Guess I need to start thinking 'science fiction' in my head when I put down SF or someone will think I don't know better, when in reality I just can't say SF three times in a row without tying my tongue in a knot.

[marshall_payne]

I'd never thought about the saying in one's mind aspect. :-)

Speak of the Jedi, here's a working definition I have when taking about cinema SF:

Star Wars is sci-fi
Star Trek is SF

Why? Because most episodes of Star Trek pay attention to the realistic aspect of the science. Star Wars isn't really science fiction at all. Yeah, I know this goes back to the tired old question Is Star Wars science fiction or fantasy? To me it's neither. It's a Western set in space, with a bit of Merlin the Magician (The Force) thrown in, so that makes it fantasy, I guess. But according to Ben Bova’s definition of science fiction: "If the science or speculative element is removed from a story and the story falls apart, there's no story." If you take the rayguns and rocketships out of Star Wars you have a Western in space. Not a bad thing. I enjoyed it, mind you. *g*

[birdhousefrog]

Oh dearey me. I see your point, I don't disagree with it, but I'm afraid that I have no emotional reaction to any of the many and varied terms used and I use them all interchangeably. You know me: I'm a classicist who doesn't like classification. I'd say it's because I've been around a long time, but it spills over into other areas where I use terms interchangeably.

But don't get me started on the difference between cement and concrete! But that's because I worked for a cement company. And I think I get just as weird about accounting and tax terminology. And that's why I support your post about which to use when.

Oz

[marshall_payne]

Ah, I've never work with cement or concrete, nor have I worked for a company who deals in such, but I do know the difference. Concrete contains cement plus sand and gravel. But if I wrote a story using these I'd probably make sure I got it right. Though if a character just spits on the concrete, I don't have to do any heavy research on that one. *hee*

As to emotional reaction, Harlan has enough of that for all us "sci-fi" writer. ;-)