Thanks to everyone for the explanations about the SF/sci-fi difference. My
two cents, as someone who is very interested in working with science
fiction (in the creatively critical, rather than creatively productive
sense (wincing grin)): I've always wondered if it weren't the academy
itself that perpetuated, or at least pushed, the distinction between good,
literary science fiction and the arguably more pulpy brand. My
university's library, which is decidedly *not* geared toward the study of
genre fiction, stocks a significant number of Delaney works (fictional and
non) but has only one Nebula Awards collection (and that from '86, I
believe). I don't at all mean to imply that the Nebula awards are not
literary. It's just that, if I were forced to rely solely on the
resources of my own library, I would find a canonized groups of folks but
have _very_ little idea of what fans are discovering. In other words, I'm
"allowed" to write on a certain number of authors who have made it into
the repected journals.
Moreover, I suspect that the reason a number of "literary" (gosh, I'm
using a lot of quotes) authors--Delaney, Russ, Piercy, LeGuin, Wittig--are
attractive to the academy not because of any literary talents they
demonstrate within or without the science fiction tradition, but because
they so readily yield to the most trendy of critical inquiries.
Delaney's Lacan-fest in the Neveryon series is I think the most deliberate
example of this, but there are others. None of this I consider a bad
thing--I've enjoyed reading all of these authors--but I sometimes
experience mild paranoia that the academy is attempting to co-opt genre
fiction, without conceding it its own set of strengths.
Whew. Sorry so long. Any takers?
Honor
----------
> 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