sci-fi vs. SF vs. science fiction

I'm going to willfully ignore your request to avoid debate--with apologies, of course. I think it's good that you've provided this PSA. I agree that we probably should stick to sf if we want to avoid getting shredded by the crusaders.

However, I dislike how some people get their panties in a wad over this particular bit of jargon. Most speakers outside the industry use sci-fi, and they generally do not use it in a derogatory sense. Outsiders simply don't understand the controversy, and for good reason: it doesn't make sense. The New Wavers tried to end this silly debate back in the 60s, but unfortunately, that didn't work. Seems people just like to be angry.

Critics of science fiction use both sf and sci-fi in an equally derogatory sense. I don't know why science fiction insiders think sf is somehow magically free of negative connotation, because it's not.

Phew. I had to rewrite this post several times so it hopefully comes off as reasonable and level-headed as possible

Well I do think Science fiction needs some reclassification.

There is WAAAAY to much shit that is considered as science fiction, that is just plain fantasy(e.g. star wars, star trek, pretty much all space opera etc.).

Science fiction should denote stories that are grounded in scientific reality. They may speculate, but everything they do has to be plausible. In other words, they can't use some "magical" technology that allows for something like faster than light travel, UNLESS they can back it up with some sort of plausible physical phenomena.

What should be made up is Science Fantasy. Which would denote the stories that use technology as a substitute for magic, or science fiction with magic(the force) incorporated in them. Space opera should pretty much entirely fit into this category.

True Science Fiction has really been lacking, and I lament the passing of the guys like Clarke, as there just doesn't seem to be anyone to fill their shoes. Even movie wise, there hasn't been a movie about space since 2001 space odyssey that was really scientifically accurate. Don't get me wrong I love my space operas, but I can't as a member of a the scientific community(an engineer) call them science fiction, since they really aren't scientific.

To argue about whether it's sci-fi or sf is just dumb (IMHO). I use both to describe science fiction. The original word was scientification, created by the father of sf, Hugo Gernsback. When Hugo lost control of AMAZING, he also lost control of the word, scientification, so came up with science fiction. The word we still use today. I say tomato, you say tomaato, big deal. It means the same thing in my book.

"The Weed of Crime Bears Bitter Fruit!"

I just want to clarify my position above. I'm not saying everything needs to be "Hard" science fiction(as a lot of great stories have taken place in the setting), but that for something to be science fiction it needs to stay in the realm of the real.

The best sci-fi in my book has always been philosophical in nature. You look at stories like 2001 space odyssey, Heinlein's works, and what not. Science is important, but it's used as tool to explore different human situations. I think that's what's lacking in a lot of contemporary science fiction, and that's why my above post sounds the way it does.

I agree about the stupidity of arguing over SF versus Sci Fi. I think the problem as I said is more in the general classification of science fiction. They need to create Science Fantasy already, and make it an official classification, or at least just toss it in with the regular swords and sorcery fantasy.

I applaud your stance, Dommo.

However, other people also agree with you, because science fantasy as a term already exists.

On a related note, to outsiders, science fictions means "spaceships, aliens, other worlds, etc.". To us, the insiders, it means something like "the study of projected technological development on society".

Thus, you and I look at Star Wars and think fantasy, while outsiders look at it and think science fiction.

You know what's funny SPM, is that right after I made that post I hit up wiki, just to take a look and see if science fantasy existed.

SPMiller, if you want a great hard Sci-fi(well not super hard, but pretty hard), watch the anime series Planetes. I almost wept with joy at how realistic the physics are(although the overall purpose of space garbage collectors is kind of hokey), the portrayal of space in like 70 years was one of THE BEST portrayals as to how I think space will be if we approach it with a decent degree of aggression(not apollo level, but we finally grow a pair and commit to space exploration).

Neat pic, Dommo, but I'd want to see someone reaching for a Hasselblad camera - I heard one of the earlier astronauts lost his grip on one during a spacewalk (no doubt everyone at NASA now calls him butterfingers). Unfortunately, this was surely in LEO, and wouldn't have lasted long before its orbit decayed and it burned up in the atmosphere.

And to toss some kindling onto the fire, I mentioned this topic just the other day while trying to introduce some other idea, and others ran with it:
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105240

Anyone bring marshmallows?

Well, to be honest, most of the sf today should be listed as science fantasy. How can you back up your story with science when writing about teleportation, telepathy, or telekenetic powers, or even faster-than-light travel through space? Worm holes, or traveling through a Black Hole even? No matter how you try to prove your theory, it is pure fantasy. We will never achieve time travel, either. If you write a book with pure science, it will be a technical journal. When you start throwing in fiction, it will be fantasy. I'm sorry. If I read a sf story with an atomic bomb explosion, I don't want to read a chapter with the author telling me how an atomic bomb works. If I wanted to know that, I would read a journal. Now, please, don't tell me there is real science behind time travel, telepathy, teleportation, etc. It's fantasy.

"The Weed of Crime Bears Bitter Fruit!"

Agreed, Tburger, that's what sci-fi (or sf, or science fiction, or whatever) is all about. It's fiction, with a tad of science. I use faster-than-light space travel, Worm Holes, Black Holes, teleportation, all of it in my stories. It makes fun reading. That's all. I'm currently reading John C. Wright's novel, "Null-A Continuum", where the main character can not only teleport himself, he can teleport whole worlds or spaceships through time or space. Mr. Wright is a great writer, and probably has a scientific background, but the story is pure fantasy no matter how much he tries to explain the Null-A principal. But it's fun reading. Clarke's "2001 A Space Odyssey" was mentioned earlier. A good story, but I didn't care for the movie (although the special effects were nice). I do believe the universe is still creating. But not in the way it was shown in the movie. Pure fantasy, not science. IMHO, if you want to write space opera, that's fine. I prefer space opera to "so-called" science in science fiction. Don't bore me, entertain me.

"The Weed of Crime Bears Bitter Fruit!"

Dommo said:

There is WAAAAY to much shit that is considered as science fiction, that is just plain fantasy(e.g. star wars, star trek, pretty much all space opera etc.).

Click to expand...

Being a writer of space opera, I certainly hope that I'm mis-reading the above and that you don't consider space opera "shit"...to each their own, I suppose, but that's a rather strong opinion about something you could simply ignore......

Science fiction should denote stories that are grounded in scientific reality. They may speculate, but everything they do has to be plausible. In other words, they can't use some "magical" technology that allows for something like faster than light travel, UNLESS they can back it up with some sort of plausible physical phenomena.

Click to expand...

Space opera focuses on the characters rather than the science. The only reason writers of space opera have to label it as science fiction is for agents, who have to be told what section of the bookstore it'll be placed in. At least so I've been told...

It's funny, because I attempted to use "space opera" in a query I requested critiques on, and no one on that particular site even knew what it was (and mentioned the agent angle).

True Science Fiction has really been lacking, and I lament the passing of the guys like Clarke, as there just doesn't seem to be anyone to fill their shoes. Even movie wise, there hasn't been a movie about space since 2001 space odyssey that was really scientifically accurate. Don't get me wrong I love my space operas, but I can't as a member of a the scientific community(an engineer) call them science fiction, since they really aren't scientific.

Click to expand...

Being an engineer myself, I know it's not plausible for many of the activities in space opera, thus the "fiction" portion of the work. Fiction is based on the "plausible deniability" of a story.

Movies (and television) tend not to be accurate in a lot of ways because Hollywood prefers to entertain rather than go for accuracy...I don't think there's an airplane-related movie that I don't roll my eyes at.

And as far as sci-fi vs. SF vs. science fiction, I think some people just have way too much time on their hands...

Don't get the idea I was saying that space opera was shit. I was using shit as a way to lump EVERYTHING in together categorically.

I personally don't see why Hollywood can't entertain with accuracy. In fact it would make a lot of things a bit more interesting. I don't have a problem with the movies that aren't aiming at being realistic(comic book films), but I do with the ones that try to pass themselves off as realistic(day after tomorrow). But a movie like Apollo 13(I guess you can call that Science Reality), I thought was amazing because the aspects of space made space itself a character.

On the Hard SF front, there is some good news! Rendezvous with Rama is being made! I think it's slotted to come out in 2010, and I really look forward to seeing that.

My father always calls it "Silence Fiction" because of how it shut me up. I normally use SF just because two characters are easier to type than six.

Tburger said:

Ackerman coined the term sci-fi, which is all I need to know.

Click to expand...

ALL my life I have used the sci-fi and never EVER thought it was a derogatory term until someone here pointed it out, to which I said,

Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi!

Heinlein said "sci-fi."
It's good enough for me.
If anyone else objects, let 'em go back to arguing about who's the best captain of the Enterprise.

The other options are either Vladimir or Pugsley. Anything you can't agree on a name for gets one of those two names picked at random. No exceptions.

Whereas I thought it was the term "sciffy" that was the degoratory, not Sci Fi.

I'm a 2nd generation science fiction person (my father started in the Golden Age) and it was always Sci Fi when I was growing up in the '60's. When I got into fandom in the mid '70's, I was introduced to SF in writing because it was easier to type--which I agreed with. The classic B movies of the 1950's were referred to as "sciffy" and the science laughed at but everyone seemed to have a movie that was a guilty pleasure.

Sometimes I wonder if that kind of attitude (SF vs Sci Fi vs whatever) isn't a by-blow of the overly-anal argument of whether it was Trekkie or Trekker. I was a first generation Trek fan (along with my dad) and I always thought that was a stupid argument too.

My attitude towards all that is to find something I'm comfortable with and if someone else has a problem, to remember that it's THEIR problem. The more they rant and rave about it, the bigger jerks they'll make of themselves. I just have to be reasonable. *shrug*

Tburger said:

OK - so I just stumbled onto this debate after being informed by a regular at Baen's Bar there that sci-fi is a derogatory term only used to describe Star Trek and Star Wars. He/she went on to say that Heinlein et al. are SF, not Sci-Fi.

Who cares? Ackerman coined the term sci-fi, which is all I need to know. In fact, Heinlein may have used the term first in a letter to his agent describing his own work! So, again, this is silly.


I really don't want to get into a debate on this issue; I just wanted to inform others like me that the debate exists!

Click to expand...

People keep telling me about it and I keep saying "Right, I definitely write Sci-Fi."
I'm aiming at corny and maybe someday I'll get there.

In "debates" such as those, I ask myself who's so haught up, a reader or a writer, a fan or a creator?

Basically, I'm on the side of Those who are creating it can call it as they wish -- many artists of many flavours are happy to speak of their "stuff" or "the thing I'm working on next" after all.

Fans may be more into word-splitting than those who actually traffick in words, I dunno.

I'd consider those who submit screenplays "on spec" to be more insiders than those who do so "on speculation" etc but the important thing (the Thing) is to create and get it out there, it seems!

"Call me whatever ya want ... just don't call me late for dinner" as my Grandpa used to say. In other regions of the country (that being the USA) dinner is supper.

Better to eat the steak than eat the sizzle. Unless you're the cow.

The cows rise up in revolt in 2012. You can call that prediction SF or sci-fi ... but I call it a cow with a sledge hammer and a vendetta.

Wait, there's *two* networks on tv that offer science fiction shows now? SWEET.

*reads thread*

oh crap. Nevermind.

What was that number one?

Smiling Ted said:

Heinlein said "sci-fi."
It's good enough for me.
If anyone else objects, let 'em go back to arguing about who's the best captain of the Enterprise.

Click to expand...

Riker! ('cause he was gonna live forever!)

(Yes he was Captain of the Enterprise! 2366 when Jean-Luc went Borg!)

http://www.durfee.net/startrek/p_RikerW.html (search the timeline.)

I'm confused.

Can someone give me a simple summary of this debate? I don't understand what the differences are between the terms and why some are offensive.