Mind-numbingly stupid things non-fans say...

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I came across this one today and I honestly could not cope. After trying to think of how the person could be joking and not seeing it, after hoping it was a rhetorical device of some kind and nearly giving myself an aneurysm, after offering up a bit of 'no really, that's not what that means at all' and still they persisted... I had to simply write the person of as either a troll or an utter imbecile.

The offending quote?

"Doctor Who is hard science fiction."

 

[Venusian Broon]

Yep my brain is in a kinda mental half-nelson slapping the canvas and pleading to give up with a statement like that.

However just to be clear - when you say it was a non-fan do you mean: a non-fan of SF in general, or a non-fan of hard science fiction or a non-fan of Doctor Who?

 

[Ursa major]

Perhaps they meant that the latest episode -- "Kill the Moon" -- was very hard to watch all the way to the end....


But I expect they have a distorted idea of what "Hard" science fiction means. (Or they're an idiot or a troll.)

 

[J-Sun]

The Ansible fanzine regularly features stuff like this in the "As Others See Us" (or similarly titled) department. One of my recent favorites (kind of the reverse of yours, actually):

As Others See Us. Even The New Yorker ran a piece on the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who. Their regular writer Jill Lepore quoted what one of the show's original staff called (in a memo) its 'phoney science,' which Lepore then characterized as 'the sort of gobbledy-gook you'd come across in an Arthur C. Clarke story.' (11 November) [GF] Oh dear. If only poor Sir Arthur had had some scientific training....

 

[Venusian Broon]

But I expect they have a distorted idea of what "Hard" science fiction means. (Or they're an idiot or a troll.)

I suspect people who call Doctor Who hard science fiction probably call Lord of the Rings "soft" science fiction.

Brilliant J-Sun. Definitely have a like for that nugget...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The Ansible fanzine regularly features stuff like this in the "As Others See Us" (or similarly titled) department. One of my recent favorites (kind of the reverse of yours, actually): its 'phoney science,' which Lepore then characterized as 'the sort of gobbledy-gook you'd come across in an Arthur C. Clarke story.' (11 November) [GF] Oh dear. If only poor Sir Arthur had had some scientific training....

This is hilarious. And it's what happens when people (in this case Lepore) sound off about things they know absolutely nothing about . . . but think they do.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Hey, that's great J-Sun.

My impression of the person is they're a fan of Doctor Who but not science fiction in general, and, unfortunately they're also stone-cold stupid.

 

[Venusian Broon]

From my limited experience of whovians in the wilds outside this sceptred isle of Chrons, I unfortunately don't think you'll be able to change their minds if they believe such a fallacy. So I think instead try and forget it was ever uttered.

Here's another brilliant find by Ansible to take your mind off it:

As Others Synopsize us. The Telegraph '100 Novels Everyone Should Read' list (17 January 2009 - I think) begins in 100th and lowest place with 'Tolkein' and his 'tale of fantastic creatures looking for lost jewellery'

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Ah, how well I remember the quest for the Pearl Earrings of Doom . . . or was that a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I thought Dr Who was sort of Urban fantasy horror since the reboot. The original wasn't very science fictiony, the present one isn't at all.

Oh dear.

 

[JoanDrake]

Doesn't it sort of depend on which Dr Who episode you're watching and what you mean by "hard" science fiction?

I've seen authors who switch from one to the other and back again in the same STORY, (at least IMO) and I totally enjoyed the work

Now to say Clarke wrote "gobbledygook" well yes, that IS mind-numbingly stupid, no argument there

 

[tinkerdan]

Did you address this person to find out what they believe hard science fiction is?

The only thing worse than an ignorant troll claiming Dr. Who is hard science fiction would be some people talking behind and around that person casting aspersions without first addressing the issue with them as a method of discovery.

Talking about it almost seems a pointless issue unless you're discussing it with the troll.

But that's just my thought on it all.

 

[Foxbat]

To be fair, we've probably all said mind-numbingly stupid things about subjects we don't know the first thing about. I know I have (including many times on this very forum) and I've yet to meet somebody who hasn't.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Frankly, compared to my sci fi it's hard as nails... And, I think, there's a danger of sounding elitist on this thread. We're sff nerdy-geeky-enthusiastic-pick-your-term-types. We know what hard and soft sci fi means. Most people neither know or care.

 

[Kylara]

Hah, reminded me of last friday, had my first fiction workshop of the year and the guy running it asked us all aboit half way through after all the admin stuff had been done what people had been reading over the summer. First person had "finally read hitchikers guide to see what all the fuss was about and it was terrible" cue about three people doing double takes and discovering said person doesn't read much other than romance and kafka so had missed a lot of the allusions and jokes within hitchikers a few more people reel off the stuff they had been reading. Gets to me with my reading of a bunch of the Culture novels and the guy running the seminar then asked if anyone else read science fiction. No-one did the best bit then was two later people then said they had read books which are actually SF, and then vehemently denied that they were. Because obviously "genre" fiction isn't something you fess up to reading *rolls eyes*

 

[Maximillian]

Not especially ABOUT sci-fi, but my favorite is when I post a chapter of my SCIENCE FICTION space opera book up for review on non-SFF specific review sites. About 70% of he "reviewers" start their "review" with "I don't usually read sci-fi, BUT..."
Guess what? If you don't usually read sci-fi, you are not my target audience, and so I could not give a flying spaceship WHAT your review is! =}

 

[paranoid marvin]

Personally I dislike categorising sci-fi like this. What is science fiction factual today can be anything but tomorrow. For instant it was fact and quite widely acknowledged at one time that there were canals built by Martians on our red neighbour - now this is pure fantasy. Who's to say that time travel in a coffin-sized box might be entirely plausible in a decade from now!

The important thing for me is that the science stays consistently within the boundaries of the parameters of the world in which it is set.

 

[paranoid marvin]

As Others Synopsize us. The Telegraph '100 Novels Everyone Should Read' list (17 January 2009 - I think) begins in 100th and lowest place with 'Tolkein' and his 'tale of fantastic creatures looking for lost jewellery'

I love this description; and no-one can argue that it isn't true (although not necessarily a fair reflection!). Having read the (brief) descriptions of other novels on the list, I suspect that tongue was very firmly in cheek!

I'd like to have a go at this myself - how about

'A story about a group of fantasy creatures trying to evict another fantasy creature from their home' (The Hobbit)

or

'One man's quest to stop a bypass from being built' (HHGTTG)

 

[paranoid marvin]

41 The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle

A drug addict chases a ghostly dog across the midnight moors.

Another brilliant one from the list. Again , no one can argue that it isn't acurate!

 

[alchemist]

To be fair, before I came here I would have regarded Star Wars, or what I now know as Space Opera, as hard science fiction i.e. the more fantastical side of things, stuff most "normal" people would turn their noses up at.