# What's the "proper" term?



## Cloud (Nov 10, 2006)

I was always under the impression that no _true_ fan of science fiction would ever use the term, "Sci-Fi," preferring "SF" instead as the informed choice. That "Sci-Fi" is for wannabes, doubters, and those who think science fiction fans are all pimply 14 year old boys who grow out of it. 

To be honest, I'm not sure where I got this idea, and science fiction has made major inroads into the popular consciousness, so maybe it's no longer valid.  But--

Do you feel that "Sci-Fi" has a negative connotation? 
Do you prefer SF over Sci-Fi? 
Do you care?


----------



## Loner (Nov 10, 2006)

I never heard of sci-fi as a negative term. I use the term all the time and don't mean it in a pejorative sense.

I don't mind which term people use, i just wish more people were into it!


----------



## Nesacat (Nov 10, 2006)

I'll second Loner. I don't mind what people choose to call it; I'd just like to see more people reading the books and watching the movies and discussing the ideas. 

I tend not to use either Sci-Fi or SFF. I think I only started using it here since it's faster to type but in normal conversation I say either Science Fiction or Fantasy. For some reason I can't speak in acronyms or SMS speak as seems to be very common now and tend to spell everything out.

I don't see Sci-Fi as being negative and I can see as it would be much more attractive to say out loud than SFF. Sci-Fi has a sort of sharp, crip rhythm to it. very cutting edge almost.


----------



## nixie (Nov 10, 2006)

I only use sci-fi when typing too.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 10, 2006)

Okay, brief history lesson: The term was actually coined by Forrest J Ackerman, back when the actual term for this was "scientifiction" (the Gernsback era). A lot of people in the field and out found it a bit objectionable, as it was the only genre to have such a designation (some of the comments were: "well, you don't see 'dic-fic' for detective fiction, or 'wes-fic' for western fiction", etc. -- though there was "horse opera" to go with "space opera"), and it sounded somewhat childish, so the term "s-f" became more acceptable. There was also, for a brief while, a variant: "sci-fic" ... it periodically makes a slight recrudescence, but never for very long. At any rate, by the 1960s, "sci-fi" was _very_ much disliked, and most of the commentators got to seriously ridiculing it -- Ellison was very vocal on the matter, for instance; and this was about the time science fiction began to gain some respectability in the mainstream (at least for a while), so they wanted to shun anything that might detract from that. It wasn't until the 1980s that the term began to be used again by people inside the field, though they were mostly newcomers to it -- with the exception of Forry, who'd used it all along. And even then, it was mostly through the _visual media_, not the books, that the term began to see new life -- via Hollywood, in other words. And, since films are seen more than books are read.... it's stuck, but with the newer generations, as noted, it doesn't have the negative connotations it does for some of us older readers.


----------



## SpaceShip (Nov 10, 2006)

Why change what we say when we write it?  Everybody knows what you are talking about when you say sci-fi.  But do they latch on to what you're talking about if you were to say ess-eff?  Keep it simple.


----------



## steve12553 (Nov 10, 2006)

I think also the fact that the *Sci-Fi *is called that has given a certain amount of respectability to it. I, personally, will spell out Science Fiction and capitalize it when I'm writing, but that's just me. I work in a technical field which has tons of abrieviations and acronyms and I get involved with production employees and quality employees who have their own sets of abrieviations and acronyms. I hate to bring any home with me. The keyboard requires very little effort on almost no resources and I'm not in a hurry.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 10, 2006)

Steve: point of clarification... Do you mean the *Sci-Fi Channel* (or *Network*, depending)? Otherwise, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to....


----------



## steve12553 (Nov 10, 2006)

Channel. Where I am that's all I'm aware of.  See, I make enough mistakes even without hurrying.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 10, 2006)

Just wanted to make sure I understood what you were referring to. Thanks.


----------



## Thadlerian (Nov 10, 2006)

I've heard about "sci-fi" being negatively charged, read about it on some Danish SF site. It seems to me that it's being used like: "Oh, that idea is just completely sci-fi!", meaning something hopelessly unrealistic, somthing only attainable in science fiction (a genre which is being treated with some sort of akward anyone-know-what-to-do-with-this? in Norwegian media whenever it arises (rarely), and for the rest of the time being just ignored).


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 10, 2006)

Yes, it's still got a lot of the "Buck Rogers" connotations to it, I'm afraid. That's still what the majority think when they hear "sci-fi" ... spaceships, bug-eyed-aliens (or little green men), and immature writing aimed at teens and pre-teens ... as if writing for teens and pre-teens couldn't also be "good writing". But, alas, it's strongly tied to sf's pulp history, which -- to be honest -- often earned all the nasty comments like that it got. I believe it was John Campbell that once said that, in order to fill up a magazine regularly, there were times that he'd have to print a story that he'd much rather see in a competitor's pages....


----------



## Gav (Nov 10, 2006)

Depends on what you mean by Sci-fi...

I forget who, but someone coined the term Skiffy to represent the pulpy rubbish that a lot of people _think of_ when they discuss SF.  Typically low-grade TV, poor effects movies, puply novels and the like.


----------



## Nesacat (Nov 10, 2006)

Is the first time I'm hearing about Skiffy so I typed it into Google and the result was quite interesting indeed. There are several debates going on about exactly what this thread is discussing and here's what Wiki has to say about Skiffy.

Skiffy is a pejorative term used by science fiction readers to refer to the sub-genre of other-media science fiction (usually film or television) that is noted for its lack of understanding of science and/or science fiction terms, poor quality, low budget and cliche-ridden writing.

ALT MEANING: In everyday colloquial use, skiffy has come to be used by fans as an ironic fan insider's way of referring to science fiction generally, just as the original term "sci fi" gained general acceptance as just another (non-pejorative) way to say "science fiction".

The word originated as a mispronunciation of the term "sci fi," which had been coined by Forrest J Ackerman in 1954. Ackerman was a film review writer who became the editor of Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine, which celebrated the schlock (some would say "campy") monster/sf movies which were frowned upon by many hardcore science fiction fans as being too poor in quality to be taken seriously and definitely not to be confused with "real" science fiction.

Eventually, skiffy became synonymous with any poorly made, low-budget science fiction film or schlocky science fiction work with a high camp humor value. For example, under such usage, Plan 9 from Outer Space is definitely considered skiffy.

Skiffy was the name of the science fiction and fantasy fan club at the University of Chicago during the 1980s through 2003, when it was disbanded. Notable U of C skiffy members include Richard Garfinkle, award-winning science fiction author, and Kenneth Hite, noted role-playing game designer.

Skiffy is also the name of the science fiction and fantasy club at the College of William and Mary, as well as an affectionate shorthand for the American cable channel, Sci Fi.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 10, 2006)

Gav said:


> Depends on what you mean by Sci-fi...
> 
> I forget who, but someone coined the term Skiffy to represent the pulpy rubbish that a lot of people _think of_ when they discuss SF. Typically low-grade TV, poor effects movies, puply novels and the like.


 
But that is for people who know enough about the genre to make the distinction. The reason that the term "sci-fi" came into disrepute in the first place was because that was the sort of thing that was the popular conception of science fiction, largely nurtured by the often garish covers of the pulp magazines. As I noted earlier, in the 1980s, that began to be somewhat different, because an entirely new generation grew up with things like the Sci-Fi channel, and films in the field that were more easily accepted, even if the majority of them really were far behind what was being done in written sf at the time -- _Star Wars_ was basically the sort of tale that had been done back in the 20s and 30s in the magazines, _Back to the Future_ was close to some of the ideas from the late 30s and 1940s (especially some of what was published in _Unknown_ and some of the less "hard" sf magazines), Alien was close to A. E. Van Vogt's *Voyage of the Space Beagle* (especially "The Black Destroyer"), etc.

But still, for the general public, "sci-fi" tends to carry that rather muddy idea of "anything can happen in it without attention to rules, or good writing, or even making sense" ... a very crude idea that is backed still by a lot of things released as "sci-fi" in films, for example. For the cognoscenti, it's somewhat different. But for the general reader, it still tends to carry that deprecatory tone.

EDIT: Good citation, Nesa. I do question, however, that bit about Ackerman coining the term in the 1950s... It may be correct, but I've run into citations that indicated it dated back to the mid-1930s. So (as most of my sf is currently in storage, including my reference works), I'll bow to the citation given....


----------



## bruno-1012 (Nov 10, 2006)

I try to use 3 references when describing SF

Fiction, Faction and Fantasy

Fiction is more the space battle type taken well forward (Van Vogt and Doc Smith are examples

Faction is more an extrapolation of current understanding taken a little into the future (Arthur C Clarke and Patrick Moore)

Fantasy is pretty obvious swords, sorcery and dragons

The fantasy area seems to be getting the most attention these days, at least in general book store displays.

A lot of people use sci-fi as a dismissive attitude to what is seen as low-brow simplistic stories.  The fact that an author of SF has to establish the geography, socio-political make up and history of a world or universe (not forgetting the rules of magic if necessary) and describe these while maintaining interest makes a SF author a better writer.

As I explain it - If you are writing a contemporary thriller you don't need to explain either the location or political structure of USA, UK France etc.  everyone has an understanding of how these places work and relate to each other.

Hope this makes sense


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 10, 2006)

It makes perfectly good sense... the only quibble I have with this (as this is a personal system) is that fantasy, until after Tolkien became so popular, has always had a much broader range of story-types, and only one relatively small branch (the _faux_-mediaeval) was of that type. Much as I love Tolkien, I feel that's the bane of his popularity... it has narrowed the variety of fantasy work to insularity, to the point of nearly stultifying something which is, inherently, perhaps the broadest genre of all. Don't get me wrong: I am a big fan of good fantasy of this type, but it is only one among a cornucopia of types of fantasy, not the entirety.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Nov 10, 2006)

People were already thinking of Fantasy in terms of swordsmen and wizards  before Tolkien became so popular -- you could as easily blame Robert Howard and all of the Sword and Sorcery writers if the masses have an unrealistically narrow view of what the field has to offer.

The problem with "sci-fi" as I always saw it (and the term still sets my teeth on edge, even though it's so widespread these days) is that it had the flavor of that childish nickname you had _never_ answered to but which your obnoxious uncle insisted on using anyway.  Or the telemarketer who calls you up during dinner pretending to be someone you know, and tips you off at once by calling you Bob, when you've always been called Robert.

For years, it was a term principally used by people who had little familiarity with the field and less regard for it, pretending (by the use of the abbreviation) that they knew all about it.  It's no longer limited to people like that, but I'm too old to completely reprogram my reaction to the term, hence the fact that it still grates a little.

But all negative connotations aside, it does announce the person using it as a relative newcomer to the field or someone who may have been reading the stuff for a couple of decades but was never a hardcore fan.  There is nothing wrong with either of those things, of course, but those who wish to sound like experts on the subject should probably avoid the term.


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Nov 10, 2006)

In writing I tend to use "SF" rather than "sci-fi," but when I speak I say "sci-fi."  A long time ago I avoided the term "sci-fi," having bought into the notion that it was somehow derogatory, but now the term doesn't bother me.  I love the genre and its fans in all manifestations, high and low, old and new, "trash" and art, clueless newcomer and longtime adherent.

(This thread reminds me of the preference for the term "Trekkers" instead of "Trekkies" among Star Trek fans.)


----------



## The Ace (Nov 10, 2006)

Sorry, am I stuck in the Dark Ages ? I always call it Science Fiction.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Nov 10, 2006)

Brown Rat said:


> but now the term doesn't bother me.



That's because you're a young whippersnapper of a mere half century and still able to train your brain to new responses.  Around about 55, all of the cells take on a rigid structure, not unlike granite.  Once that happens, there's no use talking around it -- one's reaction to the term is literally set in stone.


----------



## Paige Turner (Nov 10, 2006)

I think it's important to remember that we're all—yeah, I'm talking to you—science fiction geeks. And it's great to be a geek. We don't care if people think we're weird for indulging our obsession.

But the basic tenet for being any kind of geek is that we exclude no one. Some people need a bit of guidance in some things, maybe, but we must never build that wall and declare anybody to be "outsiders."

Nothing is more off-putting than geeks who believe themselves to be cool, hip and exclusive. I stopped patronizing a bike store here because the staff of hardcore bike geeks got all sniffy. I stood there thinking, "Hello? How can you give me attitude? You're _geeks._ To anyone other than another bike geek, your life is a tragic spiral of meaninglessness." (Fortunately, I'm also a bike geek. I like to spread my geekiness around.)

Embrace your geekdom. Just remember that means you must be prepared to embrace everybody.


----------



## BookStop (Nov 10, 2006)

Scientifiction or Scientific Romances were sometimes called 'stiff' (actually abrev. stf) up until the fifties when the term Sci-Fi was coined. I hadn't heard the term Skiffy before.

I thought people tday used Sci-Fi more when talking about film as opposed to SF or Science Fiction when talking about literature. Of course, SF can also stand for Speculative Fiction which includes not only Science Fiction, but also Fantasy and Horror. It can get confusing I guess, depending on who you are talking to. I almost always say Science Fiction to avoid confusion, but I use all terms interchangeably when writing.

As Science Fiction has gained popularity into the mainstream of today, I don't think there are any more negative connotations, but then again, I only know of my friends and family, and yo all of course. All Sci-Fi fans.


----------



## jenna (Nov 11, 2006)

Hmmm. I never even realised that Sci-Fi could be seen as negative. I call it that when I'm writing or talking. Probably because that's what my parents called it (in a positive way. Obviously, because they named my sister and I after Sci-Fi characters!). Or possibly because I'm from the Y generation - we're very very fond of acronyms...


----------



## Pyan (Nov 11, 2006)

SF/Fantasy when typing.
Science Fiction or Fantasy when talking.


But I don't think it matters a jot on these fora, for example. Does _anyone_ pass over a thread because it uses the term "Sci-Fi" in its title? I doubt it.



> recrudescence,


Great word, j.d.!


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Nov 11, 2006)

Paige Turner said:


> Embrace your geekdom. Just remember that means you must be prepared to embrace everybody.



Bravo, Paige!

Of course, it is in the nature of the geek to create distinctions that matter not to an outsider but allow much painstakingly enjoyable argument over obscurities.  This thread embraces that nature. 

(But do I have to embrace that guy in the corner who hasn't taken a shower in two months?   )


----------



## Tau Zero (Nov 12, 2006)

I grew up reading sci-fi in the 60s, always called it that and still do.  The reason was simple; it said SCI FI on the spine of a lot of paperbacks at that time.  So that what i called it too.  It was an obvious short for science fiction and it rhymed, which is always catchy.  SF never occurred to me and i never heard anyone use it.

One time (and one time only) i was talking to a guy in High School about a book i read and refered it as sci-fi.  He gave me an odd, mocking look and asked "You mean SF?" To which i answered with extreme teenage sarcasm "No, i mean sci-fi. It's a short for science fiction."  I never did understand what he was getting at with his comment.

I never heard anything negative about the term probably because i never hung around sci-fi clubs or groups (there was no Internet).  The few times i ever associated with other readers of the genre, i didn't enjoy myself.  It turned out that most people i found weren't interested in discussing books, there were interested in telling you about what they read.  

Which is what i find wonderful about this forum; people with whom i can discuss books and ideas. It's something to treasure.


----------



## Sibeling (Dec 3, 2006)

I read a book by I. Asimov written somewhere in 1950s and he referred to science fiction as s.f.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Dec 4, 2006)

I can see the point of people who don't like the term "sci-fi" because it was used in a derogatory manner by some.  On the other hand, I think the hostility toward the term has been a little overdone by some folks...and yes I'm a huge Ellison fan, but I include him in that group on this one...and is very much akin to the people who live in San Francisco who bristle when people call it "Frisco".  Yeah, it might sound dismissive or frivolous, but its just a label and not really anything to get worked up about.

Perhaps I've developed that attitude primarily because I long ago came to terms with the reality that there is a certain segment of the population who is going to see me as fatter and geekier and less intelligent than they saw me before they discovered that I read and love science fiction.  That has happened to me, by the way, from time to time.  But it is their problem, not mine, and they don't know what they are missing...both by dismissing the genre and by dismissing me because I read in the genre.  I've got better things to do with my time than worry about their perceptions.

As far as Forry and the introduction of "sci-fi": the way I understand the story, it was basically a word-play on "hi-fi", which was just coming into wide use when he popularized the term.  I have no idea whether he was the first or not.  Oh, and those of you young whippersnappers who don't know what hi-fi is...go look it up.


----------



## KZCat (Dec 4, 2006)

Thadlerian said:


> ... "Oh, that idea is just completely sci-fi!", meaning something hopelessly unrealistic, somthing only attainable in science fiction ...



They should wake up and smell the coffee, we are all living in a Sci-Fi world now. I'm seeing stuff in the news now that I was reading about in science fiction books when I was a kid.


----------



## bruno-1012 (Dec 4, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:


> It makes perfectly good sense... the only quibble I have with this (as this is a personal system) is that fantasy, until after Tolkien became so popular, has always had a much broader range of story-types, and only one relatively small branch (the _faux_-mediaeval) was of that type. Much as I love Tolkien, I feel that's the bane of his popularity... it has narrowed the variety of fantasy work to insularity, to the point of nearly stultifying something which is, inherently, perhaps the broadest genre of all. Don't get me wrong: I am a big fan of good fantasy of this type, but it is only one among a cornucopia of types of fantasy, not the entirety.




I didn't get back here for a while to respond.

The system is one I use to explain things to non-fans when asked what is sci-fi all about.

As they don't normally have time for a full discussion of authors and genres I summarise into simple groups (for their limited minds to grasp)

The system gets all pulled out of shape once I start trying to define some authors and series anyway.


----------

