I don't think we can definitely draw a line between sci-fi and SF...I
know I can't, and really wouldn't want to. My enjoyment of the Barsoom
series or _Unveiling a Parallel_ isn't diminished or hindered when I
read _Red Mars_ or _Moving Mars_; I enjoy both pieces for what they
are. Science Fiction has been different things to different people over
the past who-knows-how-many-years. Cyrano de Bergerac was definitely
not as sophisticated in his SF thought as Mary Shelley, who wasn't as
sophisticated as Jules Verne, who wasn't as sophisticated Gernsback or
Campbell...
I do think there are levels of SF, and one is rather grossly referred to
as "sci-fi." SF does not have to be about hard science - sociology,
political science, psychology, etc., are all sciences that have been
dealt with in SF novels. Because of the divisions in the scientific
community, we (academics, specifically) want to divide Greg Benford into
hard SF and Nicola Griffith into soft. However, both writers write
well, they just choose different scientific mediums to get their message
across...I'd put them on par with each other (except that Benford has
published much more than Griffith).
Does that mean _Star Wars_ is SF? No, it's fantasy as science has
nothing to do with the story whatsoever. Is _Flash Gordon_ SF? Yes, as
cheesy as that might sound, but those serials are speculating on where
we might be in various centuries...the science isn't strong, but it
isn't missing. So, I don't think there can be a true seperation between
SF and "sci-fi." They are the same.
I will now await the incoming missiles...
- Geoffrey
P.S. Postmodernism is nothing more than modernism in drag (to
paraphrase Michael Eric Dyson)...
-- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:33 PDT