SF vs Sci-Fi

Somehow seeing "Sci-Fi" makes me cringe a bit. Some of us old-timers like to make a distinction, purely out of snobbery and a feeling of superioity no doubt, that SF doesn't need a nickname ...

SF = Clarke, Heinlein, Card, Niven, Asimov
Sci-Fi= L. Ron Hubbard, Alan Dean Foster, Jack Chalker

Anyone care to pile on?

They've always been the same for me. Seeing that I'm under the required reading quota for Heinlein, Niven and Asimov, I suppose that wouldn't surprise you.

Personally, purely out of snobbery and a feeling of superiority, I'd like to see everyone say Fantasy and Science Fiction or FSF instead of Science Fiction and Fantasy. They have to be in alphabetical order, for goodnessakes!



ds

For some reason, I've always associated SF with books and stories and Sci Fi with movies, television and magazines.

So Do I

Tom said:

For some reason, I've always associated SF with books and stories and Sci Fi with movies, television and magazines.

Click to expand...

Hi

I also think that

Heinlein snubbed the term Science Fiction calling his writing Speculative Fiction. I've always wondered why that never caught on.

I only use "Sci-fi" to cut down on typing, but I don't use it when speaking-never thought of it as a distinction between different types of science fiction stories or authors.

Its a good question. I'm going to ask some others fans what they think & I'll let you know here.

I always call it sci-fi. It looks friendlier. SF looks grumpy and aloof and altogether far too worthy for its own good. I bet, when they go to parties, SF spends the whole night in the kitchen with a sneer on his face while sci-fi is in the living room setting up the limbo bar.

I have the impression that most people who are fond of science fiction tend to dislike the sci-fi abbreviation - probably because it too easily brings peoples minds to the likes of TV and cinema entities like Star Wars, Babylon 5 and so forth.
That being said, nowadays SF tends to be taken to mean Speculative Fiction, and be an umbrella term not only for science fiction, but also for fantasy, and, for some people, certain branches of horror fiction. So I tend to just type it out as science fiction when I have a use for that term, as I too tend to feel somewhat biased towards the "Sci-fi" tag, despite the silliness of such emotions. No matter what you call it, it'll still be nerdy and uncool.

SF. Sci Fi is what people who don't read SF and look down of SF call SF. Sci Fi, however, is the perfect term for those classic Saturday afternoon Sci Fi movies.

Litany said:

I always call it sci-fi. It looks friendlier. SF looks grumpy and aloof and altogether far too worthy for its own good. I bet, when they go to parties, SF spends the whole night in the kitchen with a sneer on his face while sci-fi is in the living room setting up the limbo bar.

Click to expand...

And what's wrong with the kitchen!!

Hang around in the kitchen and get to the food before everybody else does. See? I'll hang out with SF.

Øystein said:

That being said, nowadays SF tends to be taken to mean Speculative Fiction, and be an umbrella term not only for science fiction, but also for fantasy, and, for some people, certain branches of horror fiction.

Click to expand...

Ew. I hate seeing fantasy next to what I see as science fiction in the book store. The whole basis behind fantasy is that it's usually based in a world where science (as we see it) is not the emphasis, but rather alternative forces of magic. I see sci-fi/SF/science fiction as involving new forms on technology and progress and occasionally outer space. Fantasy, on the other hand is almost a regression in technology from our time. I'm a lot happier if Asimov is far, far away from Eddings on the book shelves.

I've never heard SF refered to as 'speculative fiction', but it'll always be the science fiction to me. Isn't 'speculative fiction' somewhat tortological? Isn't all fiction a form of speculation?

sci-fi, cringy

Sci-fi,
where do I begin? Lets just say spaceships and outer-space aliens arent by thing

Kookamoor said:

Ew. I hate seeing fantasy next to what I see as science fiction in the book store. The whole basis behind fantasy is that it's usually based in a world where science (as we see it) is not the emphasis, but rather alternative forces of magic. I see sci-fi/SF/science fiction as involving new forms on technology and progress and occasionally outer space. Fantasy, on the other hand is almost a regression in technology from our time. I'm a lot happier if Asimov is far, far away from Eddings on the book shelves.

I've never heard SF refered to as 'speculative fiction', but it'll always be the science fiction to me. Isn't 'speculative fiction' somewhat tortological? Isn't all fiction a form of speculation?

Click to expand...

Very well put! I second your ew. I can't see myself ever using the term 'speculative fiction' for anything.

Science Fiction and Fantasy are usually two very different things. I can't see the point in lumping unicorns and rockets into one catagory.

Most things that go under the science fiction tag is often very fantasy-inclined though, which I suppose is why many are going with that speculative fiction tag instead.

Dune is a fine example. There's very little science involved, it's pretty much a fantasy novel but with a couple of planets instead of lands or kingdoms or what-have-yous, so it tends to be labeled as science fiction. Plenty of the classic science fiction writers balance that edge because they never really look into the real science behind what they're writing, so they come up with concepts that sound cool, but which are utter rubbish if you try to look into how they'd really work (of course, in some of the older books' cases the science has changed too, heh)

Of course, science fiction buffs tend to go with the two distinctions of soft and hard science fiction, the latter being those authors who do their hardest not to break the laws of physics with [at this point: fantasy] concepts like faster than light travel or all sorts of cosmic movements that couldn't really occur. But most readers don't care enough about physics etc to actually question what they're reading, so they accept it. I'm one of those readers, incidentally.

But, there's always that knee-jerk snobbiness as well of "but fantasy is just rubbish! Science fiction is like, uhh, almost realistic, kinda!" which tends to really just be based on emotions rather than any real logic.

Not that I've not let my foot fly for the same reason a few times, as I generally find fantasy to be repugnant. I should modify that by say that I've actually started to find some things I enjoy in the fantasy genre . Mervyn Peake, for instance. It just gets easy to equate the genre with all the "brave companions traveling the land" rubbish ala all the Tolkien-acolytes.

A wee tangent: I absolutely hate shopping in these two big stores in Oslo that sell science fiction novels, as I have to wade through ten lurid-looking fantasy books for each science fiction novel. And most of the science fiction novels are rubbish space opera crap or Star Trek/Wars fic etc. Yuck.
Not to mention that most of the books are American imports, and for some reason the SF paperbacks made over there always get the most hideous drawings in the world. Lots of banal drawings of shiny spaceships, rippling muscles and scantily clad buxom ladies.

See - we're at different poles of the spectrum, and yet we both agree that science fiction and fantasy should be seperated on the shelf. Isn't this who the book stores should be appealing to? People like us with a passion for the genre we prefer? I find it almost insulting to see unicorns mixed with rockets (nice, lorrekarloff!). It's seems that such booksellers don't appreciate their readers and differentiate between the genres. I'm sure there'd be outrage if horror and romance were mixed together...

As regards the treatment of Dune, I guess you're right Øystein. I've never read it but it does seem a little more fantasy oriented than science fiction. But then, Magician by Raymond Feist also dealt with other worlds... yet these were reached by magic. How did they reach these other planets in the Dune series?

Dune is SF not fantasy. Herbert based his world/universe building on ecological principles--there was no invention of the science (magic) underlying Dune's ecology. If some of the concepts seemed magical it's kinda like going back in time and showing primitive people television or cameras.

No distinction for me. Don't generally tend to abbreviate it (just call it all science fiction) but if I do then I guess I call it sci-fi.

Don't agree with the views expressed above differentiating between sci-fi and SF. There's good science fiction and bad science fiction (though a lot of that will come down to individual interpretation of course) just as there's good general fiction and bad general fiction.

Definitely agree that a firm line needs to be drawn between science fiction and fantasy though. Hate it when people don't, won't or can't understand the difference between the two.