Are B-4 or Data mentioned in any post-Nemesis Treklit?

[Christopher]

The fact is, "sci-fi" was long treated as a disparaging term by science fiction authors, because of the way the mass media used it disparagingly in the '60s-'80s or so. Many SF authors and fans perceived it as an insult, and many probably still do. It came to be associated with the more superficial, lowbrow stuff that generally passes for SF in the mass media. Today, it probably has less of a stigma attached than it used to, because SF has become more respectable in the mass media. But I consider it to be a useful term for the mass-media variant of science fiction/fantasy/adventure/what-have-you, the generally "soft"-science stuff that isn't as conceptually deep, tends to blur genre lines, and focuses more on visual spectacle. The simple truth is that the mass-media take on the genre is very different from the prose version, so it's useful to use "sci-fi" as a distinguishing label for the former.

However, it is grossly incorrect to say that science fiction needs to be scientifically accurate. That excludes a wealth of respected SF by authors such as Ray Bradbury, Richard Matheson, Ursula LeGuin, etc. Hard science fiction is the subset of the genre that's grounded in plausible science, but the term "science fiction" as a whole is far more encompassing than that.

To make an attempt at defining the two terms usefully: Science fiction is a genre of fiction based on postulating hypothetical new scientific discoveries, technological or sociological innovations, or other changes to the world and exploring their ramifications in a thoughtful way. Sci-fi is a genre or style of fiction that uses the trappings and syntax of science fiction, often blended indiscriminately with elements from fantasy, horror, and other genres, to tell stories that are generally more conventional action-adventure, character-drama, or humor narratives.

 

[DonIago]

Sounds like if we were attempting to put Star Trek into either of those definitions we'd have to handle it on a per episode basis.

 

[Christopher]

Sounds like if we were attempting to put Star Trek into either of those definitions we'd have to handle it on a per episode basis.

Yeah, they're not firm definitions, and some shows have elements of both. What I'm describing are more like the connotations attached to the words.

 

[Lonemagpie]

The fact is, "sci-fi" was long treated as a disparaging term by science fiction authors, because of the way the mass media used it disparagingly in the '60s-'80s or so. Many SF authors and fans perceived it as an insult, and many probably still do. .

Saying "Sci Fi" in his presence is a good way to wind up Harry Harrison... He's one of the ones that still insists it must be called SF and never sci fi...

 

[zarkon]

Does he still advocate Esperanto.

 

[Sci]

Well, you`re free to consider Star Trek whatever you like. Call it fact for all it matters. If you mthink that that is real science then you`ve got bigger problems to worry about than what you call the genre of your reading material.

I'd like to see you cite an authoritative source for your definitions.

 

[Idran]

The fact is, "sci-fi" was long treated as a disparaging term by science fiction authors, because of the way the mass media used it disparagingly in the '60s-'80s or so. Many SF authors and fans perceived it as an insult, and many probably still do. It came to be associated with the more superficial, lowbrow stuff that generally passes for SF in the mass media. Today, it probably has less of a stigma attached than it used to, because SF has become more respectable in the mass media. But I consider it to be a useful term for the mass-media variant of science fiction/fantasy/adventure/what-have-you, the generally "soft"-science stuff that isn't as conceptually deep, tends to blur genre lines, and focuses more on visual spectacle. The simple truth is that the mass-media take on the genre is very different from the prose version, so it's useful to use "sci-fi" as a distinguishing label for the former.

However, it is grossly incorrect to say that science fiction needs to be scientifically accurate. That excludes a wealth of respected SF by authors such as Ray Bradbury, Richard Matheson, Ursula LeGuin, etc. Hard science fiction is the subset of the genre that's grounded in plausible science, but the term "science fiction" as a whole is far more encompassing than that.

To make an attempt at defining the two terms usefully: Science fiction is a genre of fiction based on postulating hypothetical new scientific discoveries, technological or sociological innovations, or other changes to the world and exploring their ramifications in a thoughtful way. Sci-fi is a genre or style of fiction that uses the trappings and syntax of science fiction, often blended indiscriminately with elements from fantasy, horror, and other genres, to tell stories that are generally more conventional action-adventure, character-drama, or humor narratives.

Where does "speculative fiction" fit into this? I've heard people use that term as an alternative to "science fiction", but I've never had a good handle on what the difference is supposed to be.

 

[DrBashir]

Well, you`re free to consider Star Trek whatever you like. Call it fact for all it matters. If you mthink that that is real science then you`ve got bigger problems to worry about than what you call the genre of your reading material.

I'd like to see you cite an authoritative source for your definitions.

An authoratative source? What department of the government is in charge of labelling genre? Is there an international standard that's been established? Something though the U.N. perhaps?

Or is it carved into some stone tablets somewhere or should I find the original S.F. equivalent of the burning bush?

I could put together 100 authors, editors, publishers, readers and scholoars and get 100 different lists of what is and isn't Science Fiction.

Call it what you like. Call it a cookbook for all the difference it makes. If you want to call Lord of the Rings Science Fiction instead of Fantasy, who's to stop you? They're just labels. No need to get worked up if someone calls it sci-fi or fantasy or whatever.

That being said, the science of Trek is based more on what makes the story work rather than being a reasonable approximation of reality.

One Little Ship anyone?

 

[DrBashir]

Where does "speculative fiction" fit into this? I've heard people use that term as an alternative to "science fiction", but I've never had a good handle on what the difference is supposed to be.

Margaret Atwood uses Speculative Fiction for her works than many others refer to as Science Fiction. She says:

"For me, the science fiction label belongs on books with things in them that we can't yet do.... speculative fiction means a work that employs the means already to hand and that takes place on Planet Earth", and said that science fictional narratives give a writer the ability to explore themes in ways that realistic fiction cannot."

That's her definition. Other authors have their own as well. Using her definition, Lucifer's Hammer would be Speculative Fiction and not Science Fiction.

 

[Idran]

Well, you`re free to consider Star Trek whatever you like. Call it fact for all it matters. If you mthink that that is real science then you`ve got bigger problems to worry about than what you call the genre of your reading material.

I'd like to see you cite an authoritative source for your definitions.

An authoratative source? What department of the government is in charge of labelling genre? Is there an international standard that's been established? Something though the U.N. perhaps?

Or is it carved into some stone tablets somewhere or should I find the original S.F. equivalent of the burning bush?

I could put together 100 authors, editors, publishers, readers and scholoars and get 100 different lists of what is and isn't Science Fiction.

Call it what you like. Call it a cookbook for all the difference it makes. If you want to call Lord of the Rings Science Fiction instead of Fantasy, who's to stop you? They're just labels. No need to get worked up if someone calls it sci-fi or fantasy or whatever.

That being said, the science of Trek is based more on what makes the story work rather than being a reasonable approximation of reality.

One Little Ship anyone?

The point is that when you're in a discussion with someone, it's easiest to use definitions of terms that both sides agree with and understand. Otherwise it just leads to confusion because one side assumes one thing is meant, and the other side means the other.

But a reasonable alternative is to define your terms, and you've already done that, obviously. So, to everyone else: you guys know what he means by sci-fi, who cares if it isn't what you mean by it? He's already communicated his definition of the term, he uses it among his own circle of friends, and from what Christopher says that sense of "sci-fi" isn't unheard of either. So what's the big deal, really? Even if you guys don't use it that way, you know what he means now, so what's it matter?

 

[Christopher]

Where does "speculative fiction" fit into this? I've heard people use that term as an alternative to "science fiction", but I've never had a good handle on what the difference is supposed to be.

I think it refers to a broader category of which science fiction is a subset. It encompasses things like fantasy, horror, magic realism, and stuff that blurs the lines. I guess the idea is to avoid the implication that the focus must be on speculative science/technology rather than other types of "what if" concept.

That being said, the science of Trek is based more on what makes the story work rather than being a reasonable approximation of reality.

One Little Ship anyone?

That's a poor example, because they did their science homework on that one (and were surely familiar with Asimov's novelization of Fantastic Voyage). Like Asimov, they handled the implausible premise of miniaturization as plausibly as they could have, taking into account things like the altered size of air molecules and explaining the shrinking in terms of a subspace effect, which is the only remotely reasonable thing that could explain it (as a dimensional/topological transformation).

 

[Sci]

Well, you`re free to consider Star Trek whatever you like. Call it fact for all it matters. If you mthink that that is real science then you`ve got bigger problems to worry about than what you call the genre of your reading material.

I'd like to see you cite an authoritative source for your definitions.

An authoratative source?

Yes. A dictionary, perhaps, or a literature textbook, or a literary journal, or a widely-cited work of literary criticism, or a publication of an association of authors, or a definition established by a respected university's literature department. Anything along those lines.

 

[DrBashir]

That being said, the science of Trek is based more on what makes the story work rather than being a reasonable approximation of reality.

One Little Ship anyone?

That's a poor example, because they did their science homework on that one (and were surely familiar with Asimov's novelization of Fantastic Voyage). Like Asimov, they handled the implausible premise of miniaturization as plausibly as they could have, taking into account things like the altered size of air molecules and explaining the shrinking in terms of a subspace effect, which is the only remotely reasonable thing that could explain it (as a dimensional/topological transformation).

Which might as well be "A wizard waved a wand and cast a spell on us" for all the science that subspace is. Was their mass reduced somehow or did the bones in ther legs become superstrong? Touching on the idea of the air molecules is good but it still doesn't explain how such a thing could happen. It might as well be magic, not science.

It makes the same amount of sense as Superman being able to fly because he's energized by our brighter sun. Our sun is brighter per unit area than a red giant but that still doesn't explain why that allows him to fly and makes him strong and bullet proof.

 

[DrBashir]

I'd like to see you cite an authoritative source for your definitions.

An authoratative source?

Yes. A dictionary, perhaps, or a literature textbook, or a literary journal, or a widely-cited work of literary criticism, or a publication of an association of authors, or a definition established by a respected university's literature department. Anything along those lines.

As I said, I could give you any number of sources and no two of them would be alike. It's not quantifiable. It's not, "one more fact and this is Science Fiction". It's a personal observation based on your own experiences and choices. Call it what you like.

 

[Sci]

An authoratative source?

Yes. A dictionary, perhaps, or a literature textbook, or a literary journal, or a widely-cited work of literary criticism, or a publication of an association of authors, or a definition established by a respected university's literature department. Anything along those lines.

As I said, I could give you any number of sources and no two of them would be alike. It's not quantifiable. It's not, "one more fact and this is Science Fiction". It's a personal observation based on your own experiences and choices. Call it what you like.

In other words, you have no authoritative sources for your assertions.

 

[DrBashir]

No, I have lots of them. None of which would prove anything one way or the other. We're not talking about something that is solid and immutable. It's an opinion.

Margaret Atwood won the Arthur C. Clarke award for Best Science Fiction novel in 1987. Margaret Atwood doesn't consider the beook to be Science Fiction. Who's right? The author or the people deciding that, not only is it Science Fiction but that it's the BEST Science Fiction novel of the year.

Maybe she accidentally wrote a Science Fiction novel and didn't know it....

There's no hard and fast rules as to what fts into what genre. You don't need someone to tell you what it is. It's OK to make up your own mind. Really it is.

 

[captcalhoun]

speculative fiction is just a snobby label invented by snooty people who think they're going to be looked down on for writing science fiction, as if all SF is ray-guns, bug-eyed monsters from mars and rocket packs.

 

[DrBashir]

speculative fiction is just a snobby label invented by snooty people who think they're going to be looked down on for writing science fiction, as if all SF is ray-guns, bug-eyed monsters from mars and rocket packs.

If that works for you then go with that.

The authors can say what genre they consider their works but there's nothing that says you have to agree with them. It's not like you're going to be arrested for calling it Science Fiction or sci-fi or SF.

 

[zarkon]

I like Robert Rankin's "Far Fetched Fiction".

 

[Sci]

No, I have lots of them.

Then cite one and stop making definitions up.