Is science fiction no longer entertaining television for mainstream viewers?

Well, that's a more complicated issue altogether, Steve. "Trekkie" is the older term, and it appears to be the one preferred by Gene Roddenberry. (I know I heard the word "Trekkie" in use at SF conventions a long time before I ever heard of "Trekkers," and then I thought it was a misprint in a newspaper article.) But when newer fans began to self-identify as "Trekkers," so began the debate as to which term was more correct and respectful. The "Trekkers" eventually won out by sheer force of numbers, but the "Trekkies" do have seniority on their side. It probably is safer to say "Trekker," since there are more of them, and any chance Star Trek fan you might meet is more likely to prefer that term and deride the other. Still there are a few old "Trekkies" still hanging around.

Meanwhile, fans on either side of this schism attempt to prove that their group is the more devoted, knowledgeable, and authentic, while simultaneously asserting that they are the ones who actually have lives outside of Star Trek.
 
I thought the division was that Trekkies were fans of the old show, and Trekkers were fans of the new? But use of Trekkers has to stay firmly within fandom; attempting to correct someone from Trekkie to Trekker will result opening yourself up to more derision than you originally were.

The problem with Sci-Fi is that it just rolls off the tongue so much easier than any other term. You can't say SF, and science fiction is just too formal. So I'll be a bit like the young physicist, waiting patiently for all the bitter, old fans (er, physicists) to die off...;)
 
You can't say SF, and science fiction is just too formal.

And yet so many of us have managed the feat over the years.

In any case, in writing SF is by far the best alternative. As an abbreviation, it's quick and easy. No one is likely to correct you. And the possibility of some old-timer coming along and (metaphorically speaking) beating you over the head with a cane or impaling you with a knitting needle is greatly reduced.
 
Thank you very much to everyone for explaining sci-fi in so much detail, now I know why. Do like to know why. :)
(Probably because I'm a scientist, or maybe I became a scientist because I like to know why....)

All the Star Trek fan discussion and nerd comment puts me in mind of an interview I saw on TV a few years ago. Terry Pratchett at a con being interviewed by Craig Charles from Red Dwarf (who should have known better, unless it was a planned feed line).

Craig Charles: "So do you think fans are the salt of the earth then?"
Terry Pratchett: "Yes, they're pale and sharp."
 
The problem with Sci-Fi is that it just rolls off the tongue so much easier than any other term. You can't say SF, and science fiction is just too formal.

I'll have to disagree there. "Sci-Fi" is, as I noted, an ugly neologism. It also does not cover a great deal of what science fiction does or is. And, considering that many pronounce the term as "skiffy", that makes the point even more strongly.

As for SF... while it's not a term that is particularly mellifluous, it is quite easy to say, and has been used by an enormous number of us for at least a good half-century or better. It is also a term that can mean "science fiction", "science fantasy", "speculative fiction", or any or all of the above, and any combination within a single piece of work; thus allowing more breadth while also (paradoxically) simultaneously being more specific....

At any rate, relating this to the point of the thread... I think that this is a part of what makes sf so difficult for the laity: they're not used to creating a new world with each story/series; they're not used to thinking in broader speculative terms; and they're not used to the idea that sf can cover an incredibly wide range of topics and story types. Ask the majority of viewers who saw it if they considered Charly science fiction or sf, and you're likely to receive a blank stare. Yet it most definitely is, and is in fact an adaptation of the Hugo-award-winning story "Flowers for Algernon" (and its novel descendant). Heck, even here we have disagreement between iansales and myself on whether or not Last Year at Marienbad is sf... yet it was nominated for a Hugo that year. SF encourages people to not only think, but to think about the "big" issues, to ask uncomfortable questions, to look for their own answers rather than having them spoon-fed to them. This isn't either what they're used to in general or when they see the term "science fiction" -- which they generally associate with extraterrestrial invasions, mutant monsters or "creature features", and simplistic, jargonistic, jingoistic tripe that does tend to spoon-feed them values... and values that are, in general, either ethically or intellectually bankrupt at that!

At the same time, we're seeing a slight maturation where visual sf is concerned -- it is no longer just stuck in the types of stories that were being done in the magazines (I'm talking about level of complexity, character development, thematic ideas and concepts, etc.) in the 1920s and early 1930s, but hitting a level one saw during the "Golden Age" of sf. That's still some 60 years behind the written form as far as development, but it is a development, and one the mass audience has simply not been prepared for. How can they be, when most sf in films these days (at least those Hollywood blockbusters) hearks back to the grand old space opera as the epitome and ne plus ultra of what science fiction is about?
 
Last edited:
I'll have to disagree there. "Sci-Fi" is, as I noted, an ugly neologism. It also does not cover a great deal of what science fiction does or is. And, considering that many pronounce the term as "skiffy", that makes the point even more strongly.

As for SF... while it's not a term that is particularly mellifluous, it is quite easy to say, and has been used by an enormous number of us for at least a good half-century or better. It is also a term that can mean "science fiction", "science fantasy", "speculative fiction", or any or all of the above, and any combination within a single piece of work; thus allowing more breadth while also (paradoxically) simultaneously being more specific....
Nope, sci-fi has a beautiful* sound to it.:D It's just your tainted experience showing through.;)

Science Fantasy is practically a contradiction in terms. Speculative Fiction really applies to ALL fiction, and so is redundant. SF looks far better in print, but as I said, it's unpronounceable. So, as a catch-all term, it's still sci-fi. For better or worse. No one's ever corrected me or looked at me funny when I've mentioned it in RL, probably because they're too excited to have met another fan. On the internet, I do watch it a bit, because it makes some bristle. However, science fiction fans already have a strong pedantic reputation, why make it worse by arguing over the terminology of the genre?



*I mean that, too. It's not a joke.
 
The thing is, Lith, I've looked back over this thread several times, and from my perspective it looks to me like you're the one who is arguing -- proving my initial point that explanations only lead to arguments -- while JD and I are just trying to answer the question that was posed.





However, before some of us old folks get really testy, I think that it's time we pulled this thread back on topic.
 
Last edited:
Teresa:

You wield a mean cane, JD.

LOL. That reminds me of something Asimov once said, about the day when someone talked to him about the "Golden Age" of 1970s sf, he would rise from his wheelchair and beat them with his cane....:D

Science Fantasy is practically a contradiction in terms. Speculative Fiction really applies to ALL fiction, and so is redundant.

On the first: hardly. It is a long-recognized subgenre, and includes works by writers as diverse as Jack Vance, Andre Norton, Lin Carter, Michael Moorcock, J. G. Ballard, Harlan Ellison, C. L. Moore, Henry Kuttner, Rod Serling, Charles Beaumont, Joanna Russ, Richard McKenna, Roger Zelazny, and James Tiptree, Jr., to name only a few.

On the second: technically, yes. However, it is also a label that Heinlein originally gave to SF back in the 1940s, and which was picked up on by Alfred Bester and other writers of that bent; championed by the writers of the "New Wave" (including those who were later adopted into the movement) as much more fitting for stories which were light on the overt scientific elements, yet in which they played an integral part (the story would not work without the influence of these scientific -- or pseudoscientific -- aspects, including their effects on the mores of the cultures presented. Again, writers who specified that they wrote "speculative fiction" included Moorcock, Ballard, Disch, Merrill, Platt, Burroughs (W. S., not E. R.), Michael Butterworth, Russ (again), Tiptree, Jr. (again), Ellison (again), Bernard Wolfe, Josephine Saxton, Pamela A. Zoline, etc. (again, to name only a handful). Nor were these simply fictional writers... they were also often acute critics of the genre(s), with both a keen understanding and incisive grasp of the literary canon and theory. Given the long history of its use by such as either a subdivision of the broader realm of SF, or as a separate but related genre, I'd say its legitimacy has been more than established.

Therefore, I maintain that SF is a better term, as it encompasses all three either separately or together.

And, to once again relate this to topic: This ties in with what I was saying earlier about the preconceptions about SF and why the average audience member (and, sadly, many younger readers in the field as well) have a sort of "tunnel-vision" approach to the genre, when -- like fantasy -- it is an enormously rich, complex, and fertile field that extends far beyond the limits all-too-often imposed upon it. Again, who among the usual audience would even think of, say, Moorcock's Cornelius stories (especially such pieces as A Cure for Cancer, or those in The Lives and Times of Jerry Cornelius, or The Adventures of Una Persson and Catherine Cornelius in the Twentieth Century) as "science fiction", let alone "sci-fi".... Yet these are very comfortably accepted into the genre in written form.

And then there's always the original broadcast version of The Lathe of Heaven....

However, science fiction fans already have a strong pedantic reputation, why make it worse by arguing over the terminology of the genre?

It isn't being pedantic. The terminology itself has a meaning, a history, and a host of associations connected to it. As long as "sci-fi" remains associated in the minds of so many with "the three B's" (see above), use of the term for all SF reduces all SF to that level of hackneyed balderdash. And, whatever fans within the genre have come to feel about the term, in the general laity, "sci-fi" is still chiefly synonymous with poorly-written, immature, utterly fantastic (in the negative sense of the term) drivel with no relevance whatsoever to either literature in general or life... and that association makes it very important to draw a distinction between the Buck Rogers/Battlestar Galactica (original series) sort of tripe and, say, The Prisoner, The Lathe of Heaven, Charly, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Gattica (with all its faults), or Solaris....
 
Speaking of The Prisoner, I heard a while ago that there was a remake in the works, but apparently that's been called off.

I'm very glad that it has, since I don't see how they could make it appealing to contemporary audiences and still keep it true to the original.
 
Speaking of The Prisoner, I heard a while ago that there was a remake in the works, but apparently that's been called off.

I'm very glad that it has, since I don't see how they could make it appealing to contemporary audiences and still keep it true to the original.

Not necessarily, Teresa. I hadn't heard anything about it for a while, so went searching. It seems that the company that was originally going to do it dropped it, but ITV has now picked it up again -- at least, as of October 2007:

Prisoner-Remake - McGoohan - Eccleston - Six of One

http://www.netreach.net/~sixofone/TheSUN.jpg

I have grave doubts about this one too, though. Reducing the story arc from 17 episodes to 6 (even though McGoohan himself originally conceived of it as 7) means some drastic changes in the complexity of the thing... and there was little actually wasted in the original (with the possible exception of "The Girl Who Was Death", which was a much-needed light episode before plunging into the extremely intense final two episodes).

However... we'll see....
 
The Prisoner, The Lathe of Heaven, Charly, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Gattica (with all its faults), or Solaris....

Can general audience understand what 2001 or Clockwork does stand for? I mean do they have wits to understand the visual symbols or hidden meanings in these visuals?
 
Can general audience understand what 2001 or Clockwork does stand for? I mean do they have wits to understand the visual symbols or hidden meanings in these visuals?

It doesn't matter. Good films can be enjoyed on a variety of levels.
 
Can general audience understand what 2001 or Clockwork does stand for? I mean do they have wits to understand the visual symbols or hidden meanings in these visuals?

People can understand a lot more than they're given credit for. A large part of it is being conditioned too much to only a literal view of what they see or read. After all, most children get the morals of fairy tales or parables, and allegory remains a rather popular form across the board.

As far as the films mentioned: they were quite successful popularly when they were released, and still have a fairly wide appeal to this day. My point was, simply, that the makers of films shoot for the "western-in-space" or "robot-run-amok" or "invaders-from-planet-X" okey-doke, rather than thoughtful SF (generally speaking), and thus reinforce the idea that SF is a lowbrow, vacuous branch of the arts. And, of course, a large part of that is because those behind the money don't "get it" (vide any number of stories writers of various films and tv shows have to tell on this aspect of things), and have the firm conviction that therefore audiences won't get it, either....
 
People can understand a lot more than they're given credit for. A large part of it is being conditioned too much to only a literal view of what they see or read. After all, most children get the morals of fairy tales or parables, and allegory remains a rather popular form across the board.

As far as the films mentioned: they were quite successful popularly when they were released, and still have a fairly wide appeal to this day. My point was, simply, that the makers of films shoot for the "western-in-space" or "robot-run-amok" or "invaders-from-planet-X" okey-doke, rather than thoughtful SF (generally speaking), and thus reinforce the idea that SF is a lowbrow, vacuous branch of the arts. And, of course, a large part of that is because those behind the money don't "get it" (vide any number of stories writers of various films and tv shows have to tell on this aspect of things), and have the firm conviction that therefore audiences won't get it, either....

Look at the 2001 extras, and they stay that when Kubrick/Asimov masterpiece rolled into the theatres, the seat stayed empty for a long time, up to the point where they were ready to pull it, but then suddenly these young people who liked to smoke some pot came in and stayed there for length of the show.

However, when I show 2001 in private screenings to my friends and their friends, people usually go to play RPGs or make so food in order to get in more ... viewer friendly stories. The biggest sighs can be heard from people when the colourful images at the end hit for nearly ten minutes ... and most of the people doesn't get the story. They don't see it as a creation story.

When it comes to the Clockwork Orange, it's bit different, as people look for the sex and violence in it, but rest ... well I think I think you know what I mean, if I say its bit too arty. Well Kubrick was after all a artistic genius like Picasso, wasn't he?

However, the general audience loves science-fiction, just look at the viewing ratings on Galactica for example. If they wouldn't, the moneymen would have closed their suitcases long time ago, and walked in another direction. And isn't it the the fact that Lucas and Spielberg are so rich, because of their love for the good old SF.
 
I had a job interview last week and suddenly we were talking about genre books we liked and i had no trouble saying Science Fiction is for me ;)


Whats funny is that over here in sweden is SF is known mostly to stand for the biggest cinema chain. Standing for Svensk Film aka Swedish Film i assume cause you only hear SF all the time :p
 
Look at the 2001 extras, and they stay that when Kubrick/Asimov masterpiece rolled into the theatres, the seat stayed empty for a long time, up to the point where they were ready to pull it, but then suddenly these young people who liked to smoke some pot came in and stayed there for length of the show.

Granted, 2001 was not an immediate success. But it did become a success, and remained in theatres for quite a respectable length of time. As for your personal experience with showing it to friends... that's an interesting bit of information; but I'm not sure how accurate that impression is generally. I tend to run into the reverse of that: people who are awed by the film, and burble enthusiastically about it. It also seems that, any time there's a revival of the film at any of the theaters around here (on campus or off), it pulls quite a crowd.

The best indicator of whether this film still has a respectable audience is the fact that it hasn't been allowed to go out of print with either VHS or DVD for any length of time, and that they are releasing new editions of it, with quite respectable sales. As for it being a creation story... I'd say that's only one interpretation of this one, and not necessarily one I agree with....

When it comes to the Clockwork Orange, it's bit different, as people look for the sex and violence in it, but rest ... well I think I think you know what I mean, if I say its bit too arty. Well Kubrick was after all a artistic genius like Picasso, wasn't he?

Again, I can't quite agree with that assessment, either. Oh, I've met quite a few people who saw it as a "weird" film, but most seem to "get it" just fine, and see the social satire as well as the very serious aspects of the film. And, again, this is a film that hasn't been allowed to go OP for any length of time since first becoming available; and that tends to indicate that it has a broader audience appeal than many of the more recent films, in the genre or out of it.

However, the general audience loves science-fiction, just look at the viewing ratings on Galactica for example. If they wouldn't, the moneymen would have closed their suitcases long time ago, and walked in another direction. And isn't it the the fact that Lucas and Spielberg are so rich, because of their love for the good old SF.

The first goes to my point that, presented with quality, audiences do often (though by no means always) respond... if the show is given a chance and not axed by "the moneymen" before it has an opportunity to get off the ground.

The second... I'm afraid I see Lucas and Spielberg as largely (albeit not solely) responsible for the degradation of SF from intelligent, thought-provoking films back into the "good ol' space opera" days of Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, only with better effects.

Don't misunderstand me: I can enjoy some of their films just fine, but they have done an awful lot to turn what is supposed to be a field full of ideas and possibilities back into a very reactionary, simplistic, jingoistic, and muddle-headed genre filled with lots of "whizz-bang" and not much else....
 
I found this on one of my favorite websites this morning:

“Sci-fi,” the widely used abbreviation for “science fiction,” is objectionable to most professional science fiction writers, scholars, and many fans. Some of them scornfully designate alien monster movies and other trivial entertainments “sci-fi” (which they pronounce “skiffy”) to distinguish them from true science fiction. The preferred abbreviation in these circles is “SF.” The problem with this abbreviation is that to the general public “SF” means “San Francisco.” “The Sci-Fi Channel” has exacerbated the conflict over this term. If you are a reporter approaching a science fiction writer or expert you immediately mark yourself as an outsider by using the term “sci-fi.”


From:

Common Errors in English

This site is awesome, it lists a ton of common errors people often use when writing English.


It's funny though, I've been reading science fiction for over 20 years, and I've never even heard of this problem until about a week ago, in this thread!
 
D... Same for me, except I've been reading (careful now) SF for more than 50 years and hadn't heard of it until this week.

By the way, I generally like the so called "Western or Robot Run Amok" story. Light escapism reading is never a bad choice in my estimation.
 

Back
Top