Where's all the Sci-Fi in the Sci-Fi Channel?

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by Quokka

Having only recently got pay tv does the SFC ever do movie marathons like what SJ sugested in the first post?

In the U.S. those movie marathons are almost always gore-fest marathons. Right now monsters are back in, and you can expect to see such riviting jems as Anaconda, Anaconda II, Anaconda Versus Python, Maneater, and Lake Placid, run in that order... then repeated... for 3 solid days without a break.

Joy.

Dustinzgirl, don't forget that USA Network owned and created SFC before NBC bought it. In fact, quite a bit of the early cheap-a** content on SFC was USA material the year before. So they started this travesty. NBC, never having an original thought in its miserable life, could never think of something as insipid as SFC... they could only buy it.

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Well, the reason I brought Ellison up on this is that he made the point rather well...

And I don't think we're talking adolescents here, but permanent adolescents...

...So I'll stick with using "sf" for science fiction, to stress the encouragement of critical thinking, use of science, and questioning nature of the field and differentiate between that and the often "bubble-gum" mentality that, sadly, remains not only the general public's view of the whole thing, but is all-too-often well-merited.

Some people simply never grow up. Others embrace something that's considered by others to be kids' stuff, and make it a hobby. But in so many cases, those people are being badly-judged by those interests and hobbies, and in others, the need for intervention is being ignored. Labels simply become easy ways to dismiss others, instead of engaging with them and perhaps helping them to see other ways, or perhaps learning why their ways aren't as bad as you might think. As someone whose had such labels applied to him in his youth (and a few today!), I know how hurtful and unhelpful such labels are, and actively avoid them all.

(That's why I dismiss Ellison, who delights in labeling and dismissing everything.)

Personally, I'm not nearly as concerned about what label is planted on science fiction, as much as I am interested in lifting its overall quality and competence, so there are no more "idiot brothers" out there to deride. But when it comes down to it, to follow that analogy: Family is family. Ya gotta deal with the whole family, not just the ones you like. It's ALL part of science fiction. Not a label... a name.

[Vladd67]

When it comes to labels etc it anoys me that people face insulting comments and are thought of as geeks or nerds if you show the slightest interest in any sci fi series, however it is perfectly acceptable to have a worryingly complete knowledge about the goings on in a fictitous borough of London or the lives of people in a fake street in a northern english town.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I wanted to sleep with Barbara Luna when I was a kid (you figure out which Trek episode she was in!). Did that make me a Trekkie, or just a girl-loving adolescent?)

Mirror, Mirror.. - and it makes you normal, Steve - at least as normal as me!

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

(That's why I dismiss Ellison, who delights in labeling and dismissing everything.)

Personally, I'm not nearly as concerned about what label is planted on science fiction, as much as I am interested in lifting its overall quality and competence, so there are no more "idiot brothers" out there to deride. But when it comes down to it, to follow that analogy: Family is family. Ya gotta deal with the whole family, not just the ones you like. It's ALL part of science fiction. Not a label... a name.

I agree. Semantics have never been a solid basis for enlightened discourse. When I was a young man (don't ask how long ago) I used to listen to "modern jazz" (not to be confused with "traditional jazz"). then came "jazz fusion". Later it was "smooth jazz" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). Now, if I want to talk about "modern jazz", I must refer to it as "mainstream jazz".

Excuse me. I think I have come to the conclusion that I'm not interested in the fine points of labeling. Sci-Fi works for me just as well as SF as a term of reference. Both of them beat spelling the whole thing out.

Regards,

Jim (Imaginative Fiction Fan)

[Steve Jordan]

Heh... I'm a jazz fan from way back, too, and went through pretty much the same labeling stuff you went through. Today, when the subject comes up, I just say, "Jazz. Not jazz-y. Just jazz."

I could start an entirely new thread on "What happened to the Jazz in Jazz?" But actually it's a similar issue as the SFC: Jazz for radio and SF for TV have both been reduced to lowest-common-denomenator, purely commercial products, little experimentation, few chances taken, very little of the spirit of the genre left intact. SFC's Eureka is a good example of that thinking (and as much as I enjoy watching that show, serious SF it ain't).

The rest is remakes of old themes (monsters from space, mutant animals, vampires, post-apocalypse, ghosts) with little thought to more modern ideas and concepts. The best-produced example of this is Galactica (again, I like to watch it, but let's face it: Old concept, and a pretty silly one at that), but their constant playing of cheap monster sci-fi is more typical.

Someone comes up with an original concept, like Firefly or Polaris, and everyone in charge sort of cocks their heads sideways and says, "Yeah, but where're the chicks in tight uniforms and heels?" They go on to greenlight the newest season of Ghosthunters. Then they go home to listen to jazzy radio stations, and think they're actually listening to jazz.

[j. d. worthington]

Jim, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on that. The problem isn't "just semantics"; it goes much deeper, into what lies behind the choice of phrasing. Another problem with it is one we see with so many other aspects of language today -- people simply don't know what words mean, most of the time, and therefore use them inappropriately, and therefore communication becomes increasingly garbled and choppy, with the result that there is a huge increase in misunderstandings and a resulting rise in interpersonal tensions that could easily be clarified by a clear definition of terms... which, of course, is one of the things semantics is very concerned with.

"Sci-fi" and "sf" may well be a minor point in this; but the origin of the first of these terms was geared toward a much more juvenile type of story, and those connotations have, in the main, stuck with the field because of that. Sf is much more neutral, and doesn't carry the baggage of such associations, either with long time readers/writers or the general public. The general public may not be quite sure what "sf" is, but they almost automatically identify "sci-fi" with an immature, "Buck Rogers"/"Green Slime" mentality, and therefore see it as, at best, bubble-gum literature. This does the genre a disservice and, fond as I am of Forry Ackerman in many ways, he was one of the ones who most solidified that identification in the public's mind.

And, after all, that's the point -- to me, at any rate: Why hang onto a label that gives such an impression to so many, when there's a much more neutral label not only at hand, but already having had wide use within the field itself? It seems very much a distinction of the sort that Colin Greenland once made, in The Entropy Exihbition:

Commercial genres exist by exclusion.... Some less parochial enthusiasts would be happy to open the gates and encourage visitors to enjoy the peculiar virtues of the region, its climate, geography, flora and fauna -- the critical benevolence of C. S. Lewis and Kingsley Amis, for example. Others want to keep the walls closed, prize the esoteric delights of belonging to a clique, and relish exchanging conspiratorial grins while the outsider stands baffled -- the nationalist zea of Sam Moskowitz and Donald A. Wollheim. Moorcock's programme amounted to knocking down the walls and trading local resources with countries far and wide. (pp. 21-22)

I'd say there's still no small amount of that sort of "us-vs.-them" mentality where imaginative literature -- whether it be science fiction, fantasy, or horror -- is concerned; and that seems to me very much a case of (to use a hackneyed old saying) "cutting off your nose to spite your face".....

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I'd say there's still no small amount of that sort of "us-vs.-them" mentality where imaginative literature -- whether it be science fiction, fantasy, or horror -- is concerned; and that seems to me very much a case of (to use a hackneyed old saying) "cutting off your nose to spite your face".....

True... and SF is probably more guilty of that than sci-fi is, as many of its concepts are approached in such a way as to alienate all but the most hardcore fans (who else is going to read a three-page dissertation on how a faster-than-light drive works, or an entire chapter on the dangers of terraforming to indigenous life, for example?). That kind of writing says, "We can handle this kind of stuff. You're not into serious SF... you'd never understand or appreciate this."

At least the material generally referred to as sci-fi tries to be a lot more approachable (usually by dumbing down concepts and going for cheap thrills, unfortunately). Some of the most successful SF has managed to clarify concepts and quickly move them to the background, so you could get on with the story (lord knows I've tried to do this!).

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

True... and SF is probably more guilty of that than sci-fi is, as many of its concepts are approached in such a way as to alienate all but the most hardcore fans (who else is going to read a three-page dissertation on how a faster-than-light drive works, or an entire chapter on the dangers of terraforming to indigenous life, for example?). That kind of writing says, "We can handle this kind of stuff. You're not into serious SF... you'd never understand or appreciate this."

At least the material generally referred to as sci-fi tries to be a lot more approachable (usually by dumbing down concepts and going for cheap thrills, unfortunately). Some of the most successful SF has managed to clarify concepts and quickly move them to the background, so you could get on with the story (lord knows I've tried to do this!).

Good post, Steve... very good. And I suppose you're right, to a great degree... certainly about more recent sf, which has tended to stress the "hard" in "hard sf"..... I think they, in turn, have lost sight of Campbell's idea behind the shift into the Golden Age of balancing science and storytelling, just as so much of what is known as "sci-fi" has tended to go for the 1950s "an alien monster is eating my kid brother" scenario.....

So... a compromise? What sort of label should it have, to avoid both blind alleys? I've got to admit that "sf" is one I prefer because it can be (and has been) used for the broader "speculative fiction" (Heinlein did that first, I believe, before the New Wavers picked up on it, no?) and therefore it's not entirely chained to science fiction in the hard, or physical sciences, sense....

(Incidentally... just for purposes of clarification: I have a fondness for a wide variety of the stuff, including both of the types noted above... and a lot of things in-between.....)

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

So... a compromise? What sort of label should it have, to avoid both blind alleys? I've got to admit that "sf" is one I prefer because it can be (and has been) used for the broader "speculative fiction" (Heinlein did that first, I believe, before the New Wavers picked up on it, no?) and therefore it's not entirely chained to science fiction in the hard, or physical sciences, sense....

I'll go along with whatever you guys decide as long as it doesn't involve a secret handshake. There's too much elitism in just about any recreational collective you can name. And, of course, the "naming" seems to be the sticking point. SF, to me, can also mean "Smokers Forums" (Google it. I wouldn't make something like that up). So, I probably won't be too passionate about the controversy.

As far as the evolution of SF/Sci-Fi is concerned, an intensive read of stories, novels, etc. from, say, the 1950s and 1960s yields a much "softer" brand of prose than what we're getting today. And I think the change is good. I don't want to be required to have a degree in quantum physics to be able to read a book, but I like things to be rooted in science. There is a broad spectrum of younger writers who honor the old traditions, but also make us think beyond ray guns and rocket ships. Unfortunately, as this thread originally started out to discuss, IIRC, the "Sci-Fi" channel doesn't have much of that spectrum.

Regards,

Jim

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

So... a compromise? What sort of label should it have, to avoid both blind alleys?

My only suggestion is this: If we use labels among ourselves (especially if we apply "SF" or "Sci-Fi" to specify a genre level of science fiction), it's okay as long as we understand what we are using the labels for. So I can call my book Evoguia "SF," and Sol is "Sci-fi," and everyone here will understand what I'm saying by the labels I apply.

Among others, especially those who aren't "in" science fiction circles, I'd suggest we dispense with the labels and call it what it is:

Science Fiction.

After all, it's two words, four syllables. It's not as if we're abbreviating "Heuristically-programmed Algorithmic computer" or "Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency".

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

My only suggestion is this: If we use labels among ourselves (especially if we apply "SF" or "Sci-Fi" to specify a genre level of science fiction), it's okay as long as we understand what we are using the labels for. So I can call my book Evoguia "SF," and Sol is "Sci-fi," and everyone here will understand what I'm saying by the labels I apply.

Among others, especially those who aren't "in" science fiction circles, I'd suggest we dispense with the labels and call it what it is:

Science Fiction.

After all, it's two words, four syllables. It's not as if we're abbreviating "

Heuristically-programmed Algorithmic computer" or "Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency".

Suits. And on the last... don't give 'em any ideas!

[Marcus15]

My girlfriend and I joke about the weekend programming. "Let's see, is it snake weekend, or mythical beast weekend, or crocodiles..."