Where Has All the Sci-Fi Gone?
Submitted by mwilliams on Mon, 2008-02-25 23:42.This is as much about human progress as about the sci-fi genre. Ray Kurzweil and other futurists are saying that writers can’t imagine what life will be like beyond thirty years from now because of the law of accelerating returns. Before you laugh at these prognosticators of technology, remember H.G. Wells and Jules Verne. This is pretty intriguing stuff even if you’re not a sci-fi fan.
If you had a Wordsy account you could comment on this story. Get an account now!
I know, I know, sorry Jakob. Technically this is science fiction, not sci-fi—spatial considerations and all. :)
There is no thief like a bad book
--Italian Proverb
Heh. At some point i need to write a rant about the "Sci-Fi" vs. "S.F." debate. Be forewarned Jakob, I'm going to make fun of your position!
Rat's Reading - http://reading.kingrat.biz/
So you think it's all just elitist snobbery you can mock in your blog? ;)
Let me explain how I think then.
I do think there's the need for a term that distinguishes "hard SF" from the kind of SF you meet in mainstream media simply because they aren't the same thing. I'm getting tired of hearing people confusing shit like Stargate SG-1 and Farscape with real, hard SF such as in books like Solaris, Tau Zero and Neuromancer. I do think there's a difference and it concerns whether the science fiction element is critical to the plot. Here's an excellent lecture on the topic: http://podcasts.odysseyworkshop.org/odysseypodcasts_09_robertjsawyer_isyourSFelementextraneous.mp3
SciFi uses the science fiction element as a cliché, as a label and a marketing ploy and the story could work just as well without all the technical gadgets. Star Wars isn't science fiction because at the core, it's a medieval romance kind of tale, Jedis could be real knights in armor and on horse back instead of futuristic laser-wielding guardians of justice. SciFi can be boiled down to something much simpler and with much simpler props.
SF on the other hand, could not work without employing science fiction elements, it cannot be reduced any further, it's science fiction at its core and at its very best.
Not so much elitist as pointless. It's like telling folks the millennium ended December 31st, 2000. Still arbitrary and futile.
Rat's Reading - http://reading.kingrat.biz/
Sure, that's your opinion. I just think it's easy to mix apples with pears, regardless what we call them. What's important is to recognize that there are degrees to SF-ness, and that mainstream SF is often very light. The expression "sci-fi" has somehow become associated with light SF, why I'm hesitant to use it about SF in general, which as we all know covers a wide range, going from the cliché-like to the progressive.
> Still arbitrary and futile.
Why did you start making of *my* like on this thread?
Oh ... wait ... nevermind.
I don't believe in genres, but if they have to exist I think it's only fair that the fans get to define them. If the Science Fiction fans want to have a complex hierarchy that no one else can understand, I'm good with that.