The space opera equals science fiction mistake doesn't bother me so much; it's the ghosts and vampires equal science fiction mistake that's more troublesome.
Same here. I love mixed genres. But chocolate is still chocolate and peanut butter is still peanut butter. Words should have meanings that actually mean something, otherwise we might as well just say "stuff" and "thing" all the time.The space opera equals science fiction mistake doesn't bother me so much; it's the ghosts and vampires equal science fiction mistake that's more troublesome.
On the other hand, I admit I've grown a bit weary of the constant protests that such-and-such "isn't really science fiction!"
Can we just stipulate that most articles or threads that talk about "The Best New Science Fiction Movies" or whatever actually mean sf, space opera, superheroes, fantasy, and horror? There's enough overlap that I don't really see the point in trying to keep the genres pure and separate.
Personally, I don't mind getting chocolate in my peanut butter. It's tastier that way . . . .
Same here. I love mixed genres. But chocolate is still chocolate and peanut butter is still peanut butter. Words should have meanings that actually mean something, otherwise we might as well just say "stuff" and "thing" all the time.
) And so forth.
I like how they're assuming anything but the straight-up soaps are "male." They've got some fantasy/soaps on the genre side that also skew female. Do they really think Beauty & the Beast is for guys?
Everything ABC does skews female - Last Resort is the only exception on this list, being (arguably) sci fi as well action/military.Rats, Beautiful People is one of the more interesting premises this year. (However, in the past I've seen shows do a 180 from cold to hot right before upfronts.) Frontier would be a huge risk, but would be very different from the normal broadcast routine, and I'd love to see it.
Because everything on the CW that doesn't include the ever-smouldering Damon Salvatore is doing crappy, all the pilots have a good shot at being picked up. I wanna see Alaric vs. T-Bag (aka Cult) as well as the Hunger Games ripoff.
You've just explained why people like Stanley Schmidt are right and people like Damon Knight are wrong-- there's a difference between the evolution of terms and mere low standards. It's one thing for something that used to be considered wrong to become accepted because it fills a linguistic need (e.g. "they" as the third person singular of undetermined gender) or because there is no good reason for it to be considered wrong (e.g. splitting infinitives), and it's another thing to just give in to ignorance. Language is about communication, and if a term can mean anything then it means nothing. And it doesn't matter how many people don't understand the definition of irony, Alanis Morrisette is still wrong.Same here. I love mixed genres. But chocolate is still chocolate and peanut butter is still peanut butter. Words should have meanings that actually mean something, otherwise we might as well just say "stuff" and "thing" all the time.
But what words mean should be a factor of how they're used. If the majority of the population has used a word in a certain way for a generation or more, it doesn't make sense to cling to some old, hyperliteral, prescriptivist definition for it, because most people don't use it that way. Words aren't antiques to be kept up on a shelf gathering dust, they're living entities, everyday tools for communication. So the "correct" use of a word is the one that is most clearly understood by the most people, even if that usage has changed from its origins or literal definition. Countless words we use today have changed in meaning from how they were originally used, and trying to cling to their original definitions would obscure communication, not promote it.
Of course one shouldn't use nonstandard definitions recklessly, since communication requires clarity. But if a "misuse" has gone on long enough and become widely enough accepted to be the default standard usage, then resisting that change works against clarity, not for it.
This is exactly it. Mundanes see anything beyond their football games as "weird shit" and science fiction has become the catch-all term for that weird shit. And, as insecurity has grown in genre fandom, the trend has been to go along with those low standards in desperate hope of acceptance. It's like the nerdy kid in junior high school who laughs too loud at the jock's stupid jokes-- it's awkward and embarrassing.So, the consensus is that we should just say and write "weird shit." This is good marketing practice, because some readers and viewers are temperamentally unsuited to that kind of willing suspension of disbelief, while others are. Sounds like a good idea, we're all creatures of mass commerce.
And, to uphold mass commerce against the vile prescriptivists, we should insist scientists stop obscuring communication by misusing the word "theory," which has long meant "personal opinion." And "materialism" would just mean "greed" (but not "avarice."
Obviously science fiction criticism isn't of great importance (as opposed to possible interest) but also obviously the refusal to even engage the subject is, well, "obscurantist" is the word that comes to mind. But pardon me for lapsing into the old prescriptivist language. I think the official phrase is "blowing smoke."
The people who like to cite Damon Knight's definition (and those who like Norman Spinrad's, too) are rarely, if ever intested in troubling to point, much less discuss what they point at, or in discussing marketing (advances, maybe) either. The tacit assumption skiffy stuff's in nothing but stupid stuff fit for the slumming mind only has its complacency to recommend it. No, if you intend to criticize, excuse me, "chew over" SF, taxonomy is essential. It's essential to biology, how is literary criticism superior?
It boggles my mind that culture is still this chauvinistic. Every day I wake up thinking it's the 21st century, and every day I'm reminded that it's still 1950.
I like how they're assuming anything but the straight-up soaps are "male." They've got some fantasy/soaps on the genre side that also skew female. Do they really think Beauty & the Beast is for guys?
And it doesn't matter how many people don't understand the definition of irony, Alanis Morrisette is still wrong.
True enough, but there's still the difference between need and ignorance.
"Poetic justice?" Anyway, however that particular circumstance works out, surely you agree that all words can't become so homogenized that none of them mean anything.
I never said that the problem wasn't there from the beginning-- just that it hasn't been fixed yet. Like I said, every day I wake up in the 21st century....
Flash Gordon is Space Opera and Twilight Zone depends on the episode. Also, there's no reason why one particular concept or story can't fall into multiple categories.
I never said otherwise. When I talk about high standards, I'm talking about language not the superiority of one genre over another.
Actually, even in practical terms, I think the longer version would be more eye-catching and welcoming.
That may be, although I've never seen it. It's certainly not what I'm saying, since I love all that weird shit. To me it's just the equivalent of people calling a dolphin a fish.
Me neither. If there are such people, I would argue as strenuously with them.
Well, they might.
It's misleading to consider the Mundanes or the masses or the common people the enemy-- that makes it too personal. But low standards are definitely the enemy. Let's be honest here, there's something wrong with a culture that favors wrestling over literature. Or do you think that things are perfect now? Do you not wish that the common people were more educated and literate?Again, I think that high standards are better than low standards.
The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction solved that problem. They call it fantasy and science fiction. You could also call it creative writing. Or, I suppose, weird shit, but somebody's mother would probably complain.
