Proper sf explores the edges of reality and then goes beyond.
Popular “sf” is old tropes and popular ideas rendered in terms of spaceships and robots.
The first is a real live alien. The second is cosplay.
There was when the magazines were struggling to survive. They found they could publish stories for hardcore fans AND for the general public. The success of that tactic meant that a lot of great writers could pay their bills and keep writing … instead of a few.
Same story with films and TV series.
So we’re gatekeeping science fiction now? Nah, I’m good. Doesn’t seem like a worthwhile use of energy.
lol right?
I mean, I do correct people who refer to Star Wars as sci-fi because legit that’s proper fantasy.
I think when science or related concepts being the focus itself then it can be called proper sci-fi, but there’s all manner of peripheral subject matter.
This is a debate as old as science fiction itself, back when, in an effort to legitimize the genre to the wider public, some sf magazines like Galaxy distanced themselves from they’re contemporaries (the pulps) by only publishing hard sf ‘big think’ stories, and actively deriding space opera, with slogans like "You won’t find any cowboys in our spaceships!’
I think at this point it’s kinda silly to pick up that worn torch of ‘pulp sf isn’t sf’ again. They’re two different subgenres, and they both are excellent in their own way.
I for one like cowboys in my spaceships, ala Firefly, as well as the biggest think. And if they can combine them, all the better.
I raise the torch because I was just over at a Star Trek community where the subject of politics in Star Trek was brought up.
I offered that politics is a popular substitute for proper sf. Which got me immediately banned of course.
But yes, what we’re seeing here is a manifestation of an age old phenomenon : Diamond is generated by a few lone weirdos. Popularized. Then the populace proceeds to sell its tired shit branded as diamond. Until the next diamond appears. (And the populace will be damned before they relinquish their grasp on that brand)
Call me whiny.
(and yes, we disagree about firefly)
There’s a problem with social media. There are a thousand communities selling themselves as niche when they are anything but. Everywhere you go it’s mere cosplay and drag.
You don’t think politics should be part of sf, then? Ursula LeGuin would like a word.
Yes, politics is shit, comparatively.
What scifi movies/books do you like, then? Because I would say most great scifi is political.
Books : I like the works of Greg Egan (early stuff), Sam Hughes (pretty much everything), Iain Banks
Movies : Primer, Immortal (2004), 5 Million Years to Earth
Because I would say most great scifi is political.
Then your experience is narrow.
“I got banned from a Star Trek discussion forum” is a bumper sticker I want to print and slap onto the bumpers of badly parked cars.
The driver might not realize the implication, but the rest of the world will know…
What’s the implication?
Sometimes you want to read something that blows your mind and innovates at the edge of philosophy.
Sometimes you want to turn your mind off and be entertained with interesting but predictable stories in interesting futuristic settings.
Both are equally valid experiences, both have merit, and both can equally be science fiction. You don’t get to gatekeep and entire genre based on what portion of the experience appeals to you.
They are 2 quite different things tho. Worlds apart. It’s good to acknowledge the difference.
And it’s good to acknowledge that #2 is what the populace prefers.
They’re indeed very different… yet both are science fiction.
Your point is merely semantic then.
Username appropriate.
That fruit hangs so low that it’s practically dragging on the ground. That fruit is so obvious that it may as well be glowing in neon. Are you a half-blind caterpillar?
I’m not the one who decided to create a post in a science fiction community claiming a huge portion of science fiction isn’t “true science fiction” based on my own tastes.
Of course the point is semantic, do you want me to base it on what? Your favorite novels?
We already agreed that it’s a big difference.
2 completely different things that have the same name. Superficially similar but actually not.
What’s the issue?
2 completely different things that have the same name.
That’s how grouping works, yes. You and I are clearly different, yet we are both called “human”. In fact, you and a giant panda are both “mammals” despite being radically different.
(Semantics really is the smallest possible point.)
I think that the real point here is legitimacy. Scifi has a big reputation. Popular scifi borrows legitimacy from that reputation.
Separate popular scifi from that reputation and it loses legitimacy.
Margaret Atwood uses the term “speculative fiction”, I think partly to get at the difference you are describing. But also partly because she doesn’t think it needs to be “science-y”.
Username checks out.
Good one. You should write.
They did! They wrote “username checks out”
Proper U explores the edges of reality and then goes beyond.
Popular “u” is old tropes and popular ideas rendered in terms of wordships and lowercase.
The first is a real live letter. The second is cosplay.
the great thing about fiction (and any art form) is that anyone who wants to can define what makes one thing more “proper” than another.
and i can take anyone’s idea of “proper” and piss on it, because i couldn’t care less about anyone who thinks they’re going to gatekeep creativity. which seems to be more common amongst sci fi nerds
One must be realistic about these things, surely you agree.
We have a genre of fiction invented by thinkers of strange thoughts, specifically to convey their strange thoughts. Because no other tool will do
The genre becomes famous. We dress up our cowboys in spacesuits and call it sf.
It’s a big difference.
