This is absolutely true, and succinctly put.
I've always liked Vonnegut's essay on the subject, though his specific remarks about sf magazines (and brown suits) are quite dated now:
Link
How to define Science Fiction
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
This is absolutely true, and succinctly put.
I've always liked Vonnegut's essay on the subject, though his specific remarks about sf magazines (and brown suits) are quite dated now:
Link
Yes, it does. Simple denial of reality does not constitute an argument. Then again, it's all you have to go on, since you're trying to blame TPM for something established in a prior film.
TPM is the dork in the room. We get it.
That doesn't mean it's responsible for anything that has ever annoyed you.
Why am I arguing with some dude who thinks Star Wars is "reality"?
And again, (read this slowly for full effect) I LIKE TPM! Get it?
I even like Jar Jar.
I hate midichlorians. Didn't need it, didn't add anything, was stupid, IMO.
Who fucking cares about the midichlorians? The prequels are just mediocre films of no interest.
Yet people still talk about them. Even you, when you insist on little outbursts like the above, perpetuate the conversation, Dennis. Congratulations.
Some people might call that "lapping up Lucas misfire bullshit unquestioningly".
Not me, you understand. But some people.
It is intellectual snobbery precisely that drives such urges to be persnickety about the definition of science fiction.
To find out what is good and proper "science fiction", and sneer at the rest.
I think our beloved genre probably has more than the average number of afficianados who want to indulge in such exercises.
And you know what? That's totally cool if they do. They are entitled to their opinion. And I even understand it. Not every Jar Jar moment is golden.
Because, in the real world, communication means talking to "the common people" and not just a small minority of purists with their own specialized definitions and agendas?
And the problem, of course, is that too often these definitions are used to bash space operas or whatever in order to enforce some meaningless standard of genre purity.
("Damnit, that's not real science fiction!")
Last edited:
Not all words have the simple meanings you would like - given the number of science fiction writers who disagree with and contradict that pat definition that you're so fond of, we'll just have to mark this down as an other-than-authoritative opinion.
No, I think it's probably more about insecurity and conformity. It's the purists in their field, whether they are geologists or programmres or the literati or whatever, who (should) know the proper terminology. The lowest common denominator doesn't decide. If the "common people" think that Creationism is a science, the 21st century started in the year 2000 or that Alanis Morrisette knows what irony is, they are still wrong whether you decide to go along with them or not.
Probably, but who cares? The thing itself doesn't change if you describe it accurately. And many people use the term Science Fiction as a denigrating label as it is-- if we're going to worry about that, we might as well get rid of it altogether.
Argument from authority means nothing to me. I care about substance. But if you need authority figures, then Stanley Schmidt, Isaac Asimov, Theodore Sturgeon, William Campbell, Hugo Gernsback et al are pretty authoritative.
Not all words have the simple meanings you would like - given the number of science fiction writers who disagree with and contradict that pat definition that you're so fond of, we'll just have to mark this down as an other-than-authoritative opinion.
Yeah.
Ask the author what genre they're writing in. Accept that. Seems like the easiest approach, right?
Except in the case of chickenshit TV writers who deny that they're writing sci fi, when clearly they are. But even that, I'll chalk up to unavoidable PR bullshit.
But this is precisely where the Creationism analogy doesn't quite work. Professionals in the field of science have a pretty clear opinion on what creation science is, but your position claimed that hard science fiction alone is science fiction does not seem to be the kind of rigorous definition science fiction writers would agree with.
That one could get them to agree to a definition is another question, I'm sure.
I mostly stick to a post hoc rationalization, as given above. The question for me is not 'what should the word be used for' but 'what is it used for', and by this I do mean by the Hugo/Nebula awards, science fiction writers, fandom, publishers, et cetera et cetera. If it qualifies for the Gollancz Science Fiction Masterworks imprint? It's science fiction. So what can I deduce 'science fiction' means? Stated rather baldly above.
That's certainly not a tradition restricted to television writers. See, for example, Margaret Atwood's response to critics who have labeled her work as science fiction.
No, I think it's probably more about insecurity and conformity. It's the purists in their field, whether they are geologists or programmres or the literati or whatever, who (should) know the proper terminology. The lowest common denominator doesn't decide. If the "common people" think that Creationism is a science, the 21st century started in the year 2000 or that Alanis Morrisette knows what irony is, they are still wrong whether you decide to go along with them or not.
Probably, but who cares? The thing itself doesn't change if you describe it accurately. And many people use the term Science Fiction as a denigrating label as it is-- if we're going to worry about that, we might as well get rid of it altogether.
Argument from authority means nothing to me. I care about substance. But if you need authority figures, then Stanley Schmidt, Isaac Asimov, Theodore Sturgeon, William Campbell, Hugo Gernsback et al are pretty authoritative.
Not all words have the simple meanings you would like - given the number of science fiction writers who disagree with and contradict that pat definition that you're so fond of, we'll just have to mark this down as an other-than-authoritative opinion.
Your analogies are all wrong. Science Fiction does not exist in the real universe as a natural phenomenon the way biological evolution does. The "purists", as you say, may be the best ones to ask an objective, scientific question, sure. But science fiction is a genre invented by writers, critics, readers, and fans. There is no objective truth about the definition. People invented the term, and so it can be whatever people want it to be. Of course, people do not all agree, and there's the rub. The best writers and critics in the field have been unable to decide on a definition that pleases everyone for decades and decades. Surely you're not going to claim that you've solved a problem that no other critic has been able to solve - ie, come up with a definition that accurately describes the work in the genre. Any definition that does not take into account the evolution of the genre, the changes, the dissimilarities between items in the genre, the subgenres, as well as the occasional revolutionary envelope-breaking exceptions which must be taken into account, is a bad definition. It is bad because it does not accurately reflect a reality in the world. It does not help describe.
The term "science" in "science fiction" has been a point of contention ever since the beginning. Heinlein hated it, for example, and he basically invented much of the science fiction tropes of the twentieth century. He preferred, as many writers and critics currently do, the term "speculative fiction," because they have realized that most of the best science fiction is not and never has been remotely interested in scientific or technological advancements. H. G. Wells was, sure. Arthur C. Clarke was. A lot of the so-called Golden Age guys were, the guys you mention, quite rightly, as good authorities on the genre.
But most of the writers in the 60's and 70's, including some of the best writers the field has ever seen, don't fit into your limiting and unhelpful definition. Ursula K. Leguin, Roger Zelazny, Robert Silverberg, and Harlan Ellison rarely write science fiction that has any inkling of science. For you to blankly state that, therefore, they do not write science fiction is to beg the question (to use one of your logical fallacies.)
Oh, writers are the last people qualified to classify their own work. I once did a panel on horror with Theodore Sturgeon, who expressed confusion as to why he was on the panel at all. "I don't write horror," he insisted.
Said the author of "It!", "Bianca's Hands," SOME OF YOUR BLOOD, etcetera . . . .
Said the author of "It!", "Bianca's Hands," SOME OF YOUR BLOOD, etcetera . . . .
Last edited:
^^ Heh. Well, a lot of work (and writers) fall into multiple categories, which helps to muddy the waters.
This discussion is sort of the reverse of what happened with the definition of planet, but it's the same in that it's politically motivated rather than logical. They came up with a stupid definition of planet not to be descriptive in any way, but just to keep the numbers down. Similarly, the open-ended definition of Science Fiction is not used to be descriptive but to cover just about everything. I prefer terms that actually describe the thing itself; Science Fiction, Speculative Fiction, Space Opera, Cyberpunk, and so on.
It's still a matter of the bulk of people not understanding the concept. The word irony is a human concept, too. Many, if not most, people use the word incorrectly; should we change the definition to suit them?
But my point is that the term Science Fiction doesn't help to describe if it includes everything from Rendezvous With Rama to Buffy to The Three Stooges (clearly an AU on that last one). If it's that vague and generic, we might as well say "stuff."
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Speculative Fiction is a great term. If something is Science Fiction, it should be called Science Fiction; if something is Speculative Fiction, it should be called Speculative Fiction.
This discussion is sort of the reverse of what happened with the definition of planet, but it's the same in that it's politically motivated rather than logical. They came up with a stupid definition of planet not to be descriptive in any way, but just to keep the numbers down. Similarly, the open-ended definition of Science Fiction is not used to be descriptive but to cover just about everything. I prefer terms that actually describe the thing itself; Science Fiction, Speculative Fiction, Space Opera, Cyberpunk, and so on.
This sentence has zero relevance to what I said.
I pointed out the definition should reflect the word as used by people who use it professionally - in the sense of, well, actual science fiction writers. A definition of a term springs from the use of the term, not the other way around.*
For example, my copy of The Windup Girl, a 2009 biopunk novel that won a Hugo and a Nebula, has the author Paolo Bacigalupi saying the following in an interview:
Paolo Bacigalupi said:
As one can see he's clearly identifying a preference as a writer for hard science fiction, but he's not framing it in a way that the Foundation books don't count as part of the genre.
Exactly. There are many recognized (and often somewhat overlapping) subgenres of science fiction.
*The important thing, of course, is the use of a word. Definitions given - even by professionals - that don't match how the word is used by those same professionals are just not terribly useful, however preferable they may be.
Last edited:
Oh, don't you know - word definitions are handed down by either God or some similarly, reassuringly remote and uncontested authority.
He may perceive different authors as representing different "strains"-- which is fine, no one ever said there can't be multiple flavors of ice cream-- but Foundation, Brave New World and 1984 all fit the definition of Science Fiction. If this quote doesn't support what I said, it certainly doesn't contradict it. He certainly doesn't give any arguments in favor of a more generic definition.