Sci Fi vs. "Speculative"

[greyman24]

I hear this now and again. "I prefer 'Speculative Fiction'. Science Fiction is just TV novelizations and stories about half-naked alien girls."

I remember reading something from Harlan Ellison that said there was science fiction and then there were stories about cute and furry aliens.

To be honest, I hate this. I hate it in the same way I hate it when people say, "Well, there are movies, and then there's film." What this does is ghettoize content into those "upper class", intelligent stories that only smart/rich/good looking people understand, and then there's everything else for the proles: the mindless scraps tossed to the dunderheaded masses.

But, as much as I hate it, I kind of understand the intent.

There are times when, sure, I love a great, mindless action-oriented space opera book, with meaningless jargon and plenty of laser fights. But there are other times when I actually would like an Ellison story. I'd like something deep and meaningful, with analogs to the human situation and characters that reflect the human condition.

Do you guys use those hated separations of "speculative" vs. "scifi"? Or do you care? Or do you just see it all as a spectrum on the same continuum?

[Navarre]

I am mostly anti-labeling because I think the label creates certain predisposed perceptions of something.

When one hears words like "sci-fi", "country", "black", "conservative", etc, one has certain connotations that come to mind. They are not the same for everyone but each has some sort of perspective on it.

Humans use those things to categorize and communicate about our world so it's normal and often useful. But I think one needs to take care to not prejudge anything on the label before learning the facts about that specific entity.

[Gaumer]

Its the problem with all 'reviews': they are done by someone with one perspective: their own.

The term 'speculative fiction' could mean many things to many people but, if I am remembering this correctly, the actual term was coined by Heinlein and he meant it as nothing more than a synonym for sci-fi.

But I doubt I would pigeonhole, say, the Halo novels as speculative fiction but the Mars series (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars) is definitive speculative fiction.

I'm not sure where the ones privy to assign such names or genres get their 'scale' or if they have a checklist that genre-tizes books.

Someone has to decide where the book fits. So how do those hoity toity or persnickety may be a better word, people decide what is the high and mighty 'speculative fiction' and what is the popcorn?

I don't think its as extreme as your example. I think the people who deem themselves educated enough to separate a movie from a film aren't going to not see Transformers because Schindler's List was so much more poignant and meaningful.

But there is a distinct and noticeable difference between the 2 films.


I will take ANY opinion on a book to heart but also with a grain of salt. The proof is in the pudding. Read it you will know.

I see the use of the term as another way to separate the genre into a more specific grouping. Nothing more.

[litanyofthieves]

There's a term for that: Welcome to The Sci-Fi Ghetto. I think it's funny too, because a lot of science ficition books that are considered "Classics" now were considered juvenile pulp when they first came out - pretty much everything that Alan Moore used as a source for The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen qualifies.

[greyman24]

I don't think its as extreme as your example. I think the people who deem themselves educated enough to separate a movie from a film aren't going to not see Transformers because Schindler's List was so much more poignant and meaningful.

Not to get off track, but I've known many (those who refer to the "period" or "style" of "film") who WOULDN'T see Transformers because it didn't have the same characteristics that Schindler's List did. I've even known several that'd think Schindler's List was far too "commercial", and that they FAR prefer Fellini or Murnau...or whoever is the belle du jour of the Angelika crowd.

[Gaumer]

People like that do themselves a great injustice.

[Beta Ray Bill Cosby]

I hear this now and again. "I prefer 'Speculative Fiction'. Science Fiction is just TV novelizations and stories about half-naked alien girls."

I remember reading something from Harlan Ellison that said there was science fiction and then there were stories about cute and furry aliens.

To be honest, I hate this. I hate it in the same way I hate it when people say, "Well, there are movies, and then there's film." What this does is ghettoize content into those "upper class", intelligent stories that only smart/rich/good looking people understand, and then there's everything else for the proles: the mindless scraps tossed to the dunderheaded masses.

But, as much as I hate it, I kind of understand the intent.

There are times when, sure, I love a great, mindless action-oriented space opera book, with meaningless jargon and plenty of laser fights. But there are other times when I actually would like an Ellison story. I'd like something deep and meaningful, with analogs to the human situation and characters that reflect the human condition.

Do you guys use those hated separations of "speculative" vs. "scifi"? Or do you care? Or do you just see it all as a spectrum on the same continuum?

The problem here is that genres are generally not all inclusive.

For exaple Blade Runner is both Sci-Fi and Detective Fiction, right? Transformers is also, Sci-fi because of Robots, but is not meant to make people question the nature of humanity in the same way that Asimov's robot books did. And yet, they're still science fiction about robots.

So I'm ok when people refer to 'speculative' fiction as long as they're aware that it fits under the umbrella of science fiction. Because Sci-Fi is a setting and 'speculative' is shorthand for the themes you are likely to encounter within the book.

Also, I'm sure from your own response to Gaumer's comment that you don't feel that people who talk about a film's "style" and "period" are universally dicks. But a little clarification wouldn't hurt.

[greyman24]

The problem here is that genres are generally not all inclusive.

For exaple Blade Runner is both Sci-Fi and Detective Fiction, right? Transformers is also, Sci-fi because of Robots, but is not meant to make people question the nature of humanity in the same way that Asimov's robot books did. And yet, they're still science fiction about robots.

So I'm ok when people refer to 'speculative' fiction as long as they're aware that it fits under the umbrella of science fiction. Because Sci-Fi is a setting and 'speculative' is shorthand for the themes you are likely to encounter within the book.

But, as much as I agree with you, I think you're potentially baking in definitions that may not be generally accepted. What I've read agrees with what Gaumer said: the term coined by Heinlein was originally designed to be nothing more than a synonym for SciFi.

Only within the last 5 or 10 years have I heard it used to differentiate between types of science fiction. While I like your definition far better than the way I generally hear it being used (as a reference to theme instead of genre), that doesn't remove the pejorative connotation from it.

I can say up and down that the terms "idiot" or "moron" are actually scientific designations for people who fall into brackets of standardized testing. That doesn't remove what they've come to represent to the public.

Also, I'm sure from your own response to Gaumer's comment that you don't feel that people who talk about a film's "style" and "period" are universally dicks. But a little clarification wouldn't hurt.

Hey, at least I didn't talk about people who use the word, "tropes"! Now those guys...

No, you are correct. Style and period are not exclusive concepts for those who are...likable challenged? I only meant to highlight those who have elitist tendencies and throw around terminology to reinforce their sagging egos.

[greyman24]

People like that do themselves a great injustice.

Agreed.