At 05:59 PM 11/21/97 -0600, you wrote:
>At 14:54 11/21/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>> SF is not popular (though it may be culture). Sci-fi might be popular, but
>>> SF isn't.
>>
>>Stupid question time. Heather (or anybody else), would you mind explaining
>>the SF/Sci-fi distinction to yes, an academic?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Honor
>>
>>
>Oh, boy, did you open a can of worms. Briefly, SF is "the good stuff"
>from Heinlein to Delany; sci-fi is "The tomato that ate Detroit" and
>other oddball but basically science-free attempts at SF. Now let's
>see what kind of response THIS definition receives!
>
>Martha Bartter
>Truman State University
>
>
What she said.
*grins*
Heather
=)
(erm, though, we can probably extend it beyond Delaney. ;) And in my
opinion, it has little or nothing to do with the presence or not of
"science." French SF, for example, often concentrates more on socioeconomic
extrapolations that are hugely literary but focus little on hard science.
To me, SF is literary -- whether it be in film, such as 2001, or in print.
I (me, my opinion) don't consider something that is quite believable from a
scientific point of view but that lacks literary shape any better or worse
sci-fi than "The Tomato That Ate Detroit" (shouldn't that be, *who* ate
Detroit? *giggles*).)
"Black Holes are where God divided by zero"
hmaclean@kent.edu
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~hmaclean
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:33 PDT