Is Sci-Fi A Derogatory Term?

 

I just finished watching this rather interesting debate on whether the term "sci-fi" is a derogatory term that debases and bastardizes actual science fiction, and now I'm trying to make heads or tails of it. 

 

The debate itself is from a show (ironically enough on the sci-fi channel) called the SF Vortex.  It took place back in 1997 and features some amazing talent on the panel discussing the topic.  Featured in the Debate are writers J. Michael Straczynski, Harlan Ellison, Yvonne Fern and Herbert Solow.  If you're unfamiliar with any of those names, let me break them down for you

 

• J. Michael Straczynski - Creator of Babylon 5, writer of shows like He-Man, She-Ra and The Real Ghostbusters.  He has also writes comics like Rising Stars and is the man responsible for raping Spider-man's greatest story of all time (sorry, that last bit is a personal problem I have with the man)


• Harlan Ellison - Writer for TV and film for over 40 years.  His works include such things as the original Star Trek episode "City on the edge of forever".


• Yvonne Fern - Biographer and author of books such as The Star Trek Sketchbook and Gene Rodenberry: The Last Conversation


• Herbert Solow - The man who helped Gene Rodenberry develop Star Trek into a TV series.

 

The argument starts off with a reference to an article for Newsweek that Harlan Ellison had written called Strangers in a Strange Land.  The article argues that science fiction and sci-fi are two different things.  Science fiction is literary and deals with the nature of man and how people interact, while sci-fi is monsters and space aliens and big hollywood movies with lots of explosions.  He argues the point more eloquently than that, but that's the basic idea.

 

Now I've had this argument before with friends of mine (my friend Michael mainly), but the terms we used were different.  I've always seen sci-fi as just a shortening of the term science fiction.  I've never really thought of it as a separate term.  However, I do classify two different types of science fiction.  There is proper science fiction, which is what Ellison describes in his article, and which the panel debates about above.  Proper science fiction is works like Isaac Asimov's novel "I, Robot".  It's books about what science can teach us about the nature of being human, and what science's impact is on that nature. 

 

Then there is fantasy science fiction.  Under this classification I would include things like Star Wars, Independence Day, Terminator and a ton of other movies and TV shows.  They're there for entertainment value.  They use space or aliens or robots as a setting to tell adventure stories.  They don't really question the nature of man.  So while I've used the term science fiction and fantasy in this argument, they're using the terms science fiction and sci-fi.

 

For the most part I agree with a number of their statements about the differences between the two types of science fiction, but I think they're missing some big stuff in the middle.  There's a large gray line between science fiction and sci-fi.  There are plenty of stories that blur the lines of the sub-genres and take a little from both sides.  I think the perfect example of this is Star Trek.  Star Trek is definitely a fantasy setting.  A bunch of people in a big spaceship wandering the galaxy, meeting aliens, getting into large laser battles and generally blowing a lot of stuff up.  But at the same time, a lot (and I mean A LOT) of Trek stories are science fiction at their core.  The stories are about the crew of the ship, they challenge the characters and make them question themselves and humanity as a whole.  Moral dilemmas are ripe in Star Trek plots.  So what is it then, science fiction or sci-fi?

 

Here's another example.  Let's look at my earlier science fiction example of I, Robot by Isaac Asimov.  A more solid science fiction novel you will not find.  The book involves two roboticists as they go from one situation to another where the AI in robots have broken and they have to delve into the philosophical basis of the robots' programming to see what is causing the logic breakdowns in the androids.  The entire book is about philosophy and programming and how the two interact and what that says about how the human mind works.

 

Then there's I, Robot: The Movie.  A big budget action film starring Will Smith.  The same Will Smith from Independence Day.  If that doesn't have the making of a sci-fi film by their definition, I don't know what does.  But take a closer look at the plot of the film.  While departing vastly from the source material (the film is about a police officer who is investigating the first case of a robot killing a person), the film does a solid job of bringing up some of the same questions the book did.  In the film, it is discovered that the robot suspected of murder is built differently from other robots in their world.  He was made with a second brain that can ignore the moral codes built into all other robots.  This extra hardware allows him to think and feel differently than other androids.  He even has dreams, like peole.  Underneath the big hollywood chase scenes and the pretty explosions is a solid science fiction plot.  What does it mean to be human?  Where is the line drawn between artificial intelligence and human intelligence?  At what point do robots become sentient beings with thought and feelings and dreams?  What does this tell us about humanity?

 

I'm sure that, if given time, I could think of a number of other examples of films that bridge this gap between science fiction and sci-fi.  I just can't see the two terms as mutually exclusive.  I can agree with a part of the argument expressed by Straczynski and Ellison that to most people, mistaking sci-fi for science fiction can be a detriment to science fiction as an art form and a forum for intellectual thought (let's be honest, most people would classify something like the Chronicles of Riddick as science fiction).  But I whole heartedly disagree with the concept that ALL sci-fi is detrimental to science fiction.

 

Early in the debate, Yvonne Fern argues that to her, the difference is you can make a film or a TV show about a sci-fi topic easily, but you can't film science fiction stories.  I think that's so horribly wrong and is an insult to a number of great science fiction shows.  What about the Twilight Zone?  What about the new Battlestar Galactica?  I'm sorry, but you cannot tell me that shows like that are not bringing up important arguments about humanity and philosophies about human nature.  Has she never seen these shows?  Well, of course she hadn't seen Battlestar yet because it hadn't come out yet when this was recorded, but what about the Twilight Zone?  Or Quantum Leap?  Or Star Trek?  Or even Doctor Who?

 

What do you think?  Is sci-fi better or worse than science fiction?  Is sci-fi a detriment to science fiction?  Are the two even different?  What's your opinion?

 

One last question:  Why the hell does the Sci-Fi network never have anything near this cool on its programming anymore?  Seriously, I'd love a deeply philosophical debate show like this to be on the air today.  Instead, all we get are horrible made for TV movies like Aztec Rex.  Shame on you Sci-Fi Network.  You could be so much better than you are.

 

(Via IO9)