Thoughts on Sci-Fi

David Dvorkin: I pronounce it "sigh-fye", and it's a term I use.

Isn't it the same thing as SF, really?

Kevin O'Donnell, Jr.: Most of my reading audience calls it "sci-fi," and they don't intend the term as a denigration. It's simply the term they use.

I used to get exercised about this, but (thanks in large part to Steve Perry) I came to realize that it's just not important.

Barbara Paul: Ah, but what about the pronunciation? Science feyection?

David Dvorkin: Barbara, do you say "Self-Contained Oonderwater Breathing Apparatus"?

Damon Knight: "Sci-fi" may be what great numbers of nonreaders call SF, but probably not so many SF readers, or we'd see it on the spines of paperbacks.

Mark J. McGarry: Journalists resist using "SF" in part because "SF" means "San Francisco" to the rest of the world.

Damon Knight: It's a very science-fictional place.

Eileen Gunn: I think "sci-fi" is a very useful term -- it can be used straight-forwardly with people who don't have negative associations about it, and it can be used offensively, sarcastically, or ironically with them that do. If it didn't exist, I'd need to ask Forry Ackerman to invent it.

Peter Heck: I avoid the term, as a rule, but I don't get my back up about it. A lot of publishing people -- with the notable exception of SF editors -- use it as the ordinary casual term for the field. They don't mean anything derogatory by it; a lot of them seem to think it's what the insiders call SF. Attempts to correct this impression are met with incomprehension. So when I hear somebody say "sci-fi," I know they're probably not very familiar with the literature, but I don't think there's much else I can deduce from their use of the word. When I want to be flippant, I refer to the literature as "skiffy."

David M. Harris: "Sci-fi" is one of those Rohrschach points, like Freud. You can judge a lot about people by how they react to the term. Someone who's offended by it is probably (in my estimation) spending way too much time thinking about and dealing with SF. Someone who uses it innocently hasn't spent much social time with the SF community.

It's just an acronym.

Mark J. McGarry: My experience with casual readers of SF seems to differ from others'. I've had many people tell me they read "sci-fi," and then go on to name anyone from William Gibson to Piers Anthony as their favorite sci-fi author. Non-SF readers will often tell me they've read some "sci-fi," usually in college, and while they may have a faint dislike for (or disinterest in) the genre -- otherwise they'd still be reading it -- the term itself seems not be a perjorative.

If there was a battle against "sci-fi," it was lost long ago ... even before the Sci-Fi Channel starting reaching more people than any of us could ever hope to.

S.Rosenthal: I use sci-fi, and am an avid reader. I cannot pronounce SF. I watch the Sci-Fi network also. I do not think it is denigrating to use the term sci-fi.

[Responses, regarding the pronunciation of "SF" and calling people what they want to be called, omitted because one of the participants didn't wish to be quoted.]

Mark J. McGarry: Do writers and avid fans of SF control the majority of voting stock? Apparently they get to decide what to call the genre and millions of casual sci-fi readers, movie buffs and Sci-Fi Channel watchers can't.

But people should get to be called what they want ... whether that person is a sci-fan buying a ticket to "Star Trek: First Contact" or an obscure genre writer.

I think the more interesting question is why it's so damned important to some people.

David Dvorkin: The problem in this case is that not all science-fiction readers and writers object to the term in question. So "calling people what they want you to call them" doesn't apply.

Angie Penrose: In my experience, you can (usually) tell how active or connected to other fans a person is by whether or not they use "sci-fi" with a straight face. [...] Media celebs who are trying to identify themselves as SF fans, usually for purposes of getting us to buy something from them, use "sci-fi" in an attempt to pretend to be one of us. Well, the fact is that 1) using a word doesn't make you a fan, and 2) most real fans don't use the word any more, although it was common twenty years ago.

It doesn't bother me so much when someone I know is actually a fan uses it, although I'll think they're a touch odd. Usually it's someone who's seriously into science fiction, but doesn't have contact with other fans; that's just a matter of being out of touch. It really annoys me, though, when the fake-fans use it. From them, it's not only ignorant, it's patronizing, and that really turns me off.

Kevin O'Donnell, Jr.: Angie, I don't think many people (if any at all) are using the term "sci-fi" in order to pass as fans.

I think they use the term because it's the one that comes first to their minds when they think about the genre. Just as "teevee" is what most Americans call television, and "phone" is what most call the telephone.

I have a huge extended family. Maybe two or three of my 100+ relatives use "science fiction." The rest call it sci-fi, whether they like it or hate it. For them, it is a value-neutral term. For them, all it means is what they point to when they say it.

And none of them knows anything about fandom, either.

Damon Knight: Mark, I think what we have to do is round up everybody who has ever referred to SF as "sci-fi" in an ignorant way, confine them in old army barracks, and reeducate them. I realize this is a big order, but we're compiling lists now, and by the way, you're on one.

John C. Bunnell: One noteworthy consideration is the existence of wide-band commercial enterprises (the Sci-Fi Channel, Sci-Fi Entertainment magazine) which use "sci-fi" with a straight face and a professional attitude. Granted that these are focusing on media SF rather than literary SF, but the names can't help but carry a certain degree of authority by virtue of slick presentation.

Mark J. McGarry: I'm always on someone's list, Damon.

David Harris: The very idea of trying to pass as a fan without legitimate credentials is boggling.

Angie Penrose: Kevin -- that might well be accurate these days, for a large number of people. And in my last post I never said that all folks who use "sci-fi" are trying to fake being fans. But some of them definitely are, particularly the ones who bounce around on TV trying to sell us things. Watching commercials you see people who are doing the "Hey, sci-fi doods!" thing, trying to fake being both young and fans for sales purposes. The unfortunate nomenclature of the "Sci-Fi Channel" (which I, being a crotchety old broad, call the SF Channel or the Science Fiction Channel) has ensured "sci-fi's" place in the popular vocabulary, and I acknowledge that most folks who use the term these days honestly think it's "correct," and with the democratic process being what it is in language, I suppose they'll be right soon enough, if they aren't already.

I don't have to like it, though. :)

David Harris: Is this important because SF people care more about the magic of naming?

Melisa Michaels: Damon, what a nifty way to get out of work. :)

All, would anyone here mind if I compile an article for the Web from the posts here? If it's okay, I'll gather it together and post it here for your final approval, then fasten it to the SFWA Web page with appropriate credits and copyright.

Mark J. McGarry: If you quote me, try to put an icon in there with a guy rolling his eyes.

[Chorus of permissions omitted.]

David Harris: Quote me, but use the same icon Mark gets.

Mitch Wagner: I like the term "sci-fi" myself.

The genre has something in common with jazz and rock 'n roll, in that all three started out as forms of folk art, done primarily for love, rather than money, often by people un-versed in the high arts, and they were frowned on by authority. Eschewing the term "sci-fi" in favor of "SF" seems to me to be putting on airs.

It also strikes me that, if one has the goal of getting the genre accepted and respected by the mainstream of society and the so-called Literary Establishment, then it's not very helpful to get all exercised over something that does not seem, to me, to be very important at all. It's like when Trekkies get all upset because you call them Trekkies rather than Trekkers.

Back when Genie used to have users, you'd occasionally find someone dropping in on [the SFRT], and they'd type, "Wow, I can't believe there's a whole Roundtable devoted to sci-fi! I love sci-fi! This is great! You people are wonderful!" And the newcomer would instantly be slapped on the wrist for using the dread s and f phrase. Which certainly struck me as very impolite on the part of the Big Name Fans who did the wrist-slapping.

Okay, that's my personal opinion. Now as to my professional opinion:

I recently did an interview for my publication, Computerworld, with the writer Tad Williams. Early this month, the interview hit print, and I flinched when I saw it: the headline referred to Tad as a "Sci-Fi Writer." I like the phrase, Tad likes the phrase, but I know it's offensive to some people, and I don't like to frivolously offend readers.

That having been said: the editor who wrote the headline is certainly someone who likes and respects science fiction. He's not involved in fandom, but he reads the stuff avidly. When I suggested the Tad Williams interview, he didn't have to be persuaded, he loved the idea instantly and I could see from the beginning he considered it a pet project of his. He was also the one to suggest an article on computer intelligence to commemorate HAL 9000's awakening-day (in 2001, HAL says he was activated Jan. 12 1997), and when I suggested we include SF writer James Hogan as an interview subject, he agreed to the notion. So he certainly is a friend to the genre, even if he does call it "sci-fi."

Damon Knight: I'm pretty sure the division between the sci-fi lovers and haters came about in the first place because some people were offended by the implied mispronunciation of "science fiction" and some weren't.

From a conversation originally posted on Genie, reproduced here with permission. Copyright © 1996 by the authors. Reproduction and distribution specifically prohibited. All rights reserved.