Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x05 - "Saints of Imperfection"

Gesundheit!

 

ON OUR FEET!

(And IDK if 'Rocky Horror™' midnight shows are still a thing these days anywhere in the U.S. - or Canada...)

 

It's just a personal thing with how I use the terms. A few years ago I read an article where some writer made the distinction between the two and it stuck with me.

Having said that, what I call "sci-fi" is just as good and entertaining as the stuff I would call "science fiction", but with differences (difference that I don't need to get into here).

EDIT TO ADD:
Here's a cool panel discussion on this subject with Harlan Ellison, J. Michael Straczynski, Herb Solow, and Yvonne Solow:

 

Danke

 

Is "real science fiction" like "real Star Trek"?

asking4friend

 

Way, way more elitist.

 

Here's the article written by Harlan Ellison on what he sees as differences between "sci-fi" and "science fiction" that was mentioned in the YouTube I posted above:
https://www.newsweek.com/strangers-strange-land-171678

 

When worlds collide, said George Pal to his bride, I’m going to give you some terrible thrills.

 

Then at a deadly pace it came from....outer space
And this is how the message ran

I now have the strange urge to yell "Lips!" at my TV screen.

 

Good for Harlan Ellison. However, the dictionary is pretty definitive on the matter.

 

So. Valentine’s Day. Are we finally going to see the canonical presentation of 23rd century love instructors?

Asking for a friend.

 

There is only one true definition of science fiction, and it is mine.

 

Pedantic semantics aside, I understand what he is saying.

Maybe the distinction isn't necessarily between the terms "sci-fi" and "science fiction"-- but it could be, if we ignore the dictionary and just go with those terms as he defines them in making his argument. There are in fact distinctions among all the science-based fiction being created that might deserve different terms (like some colloquially use "sci-fi" and "science fiction"). Maybe the dictionary doesn't provide terms that fit the distinction, but the distinction still exists.

That's not to say that one of those terms is any "lesser" than the other. I thoroughly enjoy much of what Harlan called "sci-fi" as much as I enjoy what he called "science fiction.

By the way, Harlan Ellison (RIP) was still a pompous ass and it shows -- even though he wrote some really great stories.

 

In 40 years Landry will be incased in a low-ankle length battleskirt with sensible shoes and kevlar sweater as she successfully admonishes the tardigrade about its various shortcomings while a reflective James Taylor inspired soundtrack plays.

 

Historically, a lot of literary science fiction fans pronounced sci-fi as "skiffy" to reinforce how little the two had to do with one another.

 

Yay, elitism. Not.

 

Science Fiction > science-fiction > sci-fi > SyFy > sfee > skiffy tiffy < historical French retrofiction of the 1880s

 

Pulp Ace Double Science Fiction novels from the 60s and 70s. Now that's true literature.

 

I call all science fiction 'skiffy' because it's two syllables instead of four.

Skiffy is snappy. And I'm lazy.

 

Lord of the Trees/The Mad Goblin. Made me go "squee" when I discovered it as a lad.