Damon Knight's quotes at the end of EP116: Ej-Es

[Dex]

I posted this in the EP116: Ej-Es episode comments section first. I thought I would post it here.  I can not be the only person who is curious about it.

I get conflicting ideas from the quotes.  The first one is ambigous (I don't understand it.); while Mike Resnick's comments appear that Damon Knight had some specific ideas about SF.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I was researching the Damon Knight definition used at the end of the story because I want to understand the quote: "Science Fiction is what I point to to when I say it."
I found: "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction

I also found a Mike Resnick article that discusses the issue.
http://www.baens-universe.com/articles/Straitjackets
I found this quote interesting:
"The first major critic to come along was Damon Knight. Damon knew that science fiction was the pure quill. It annoyed him when science fiction writers didn’t know the craft of writing, and it annoyed him even more when they got their science wrong.

But what really drove him right up a tree was when they didn’t even try to make the science accurate. "
------------------------------------
This was also interesting:
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~talfred/sf-def.htm
"Unfortunately, the clearest (or most aggressive) definitions are often the least definitive, although many sceptics have been attracted to Damon Knight's "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it" or Norman SPINRAD's "Science fiction is anything published as science fiction". Both these "definitions" have a serious point, of course: that, whatever else sf may be, it is certainly a publishing category, and in the real world this is of more pragmatic importance than anything the theorists may have to say about it. On the other hand, the label "sf" on a book is wholly subject to the whims of publishers and editors, and the label has certainly appeared on some very unlikely books. An additional complication arises because some writers fight hard to avoid the label, perhaps feeling that it might deleteriously affect their sales and/or reputations (e.g., Kurt VONNEGUT Jr, John WYNDHAM). Publishers apply similar cautionary measures to potential bestsellers, which are seldom labelled as sf even when that is exactly what they are (although this has been less true in the post-STAR WARS period than in, say, the 1970s), on the grounds that genre sf when so labelled, while normally selling steadily, rarely enters the bestseller class."

Is there anyplace I can find out more information about the Damon Knight quote about SF

[ClintMemo]

I believe the idea was along the lines of "we know science fiction when we see it."

There are lots of definitions floating around, but none that satisfies everyone.
The question on "What is SF?" has been intelligently discussed to death in the forum. It's like a variation on Godwin's law (as a discussion thread gets longer, the probability that someone mentions Hitler approaches 1), the longer a discussion of an EP story continues in a forum, the more likely someone will say that a story is not really SF.  Maybe we should refer to that as "Eley's Law" 

I used to be a big proponent of the "Hard SF" definition,
until six months ago when I started listening to EP,
and talking about what is or is not SF,
and then realizing that the discussion and definitions were pointless.

[slic]

...and then realizing that the discussion and definitions were pointless.

I disagree that they are pointless, but I will agree that it doesn't matter what they are.  Meaning that as long as I understand what the "presenter" considers sci-fi, I have an idea what to expect.

When I first listened to Escape Pod I was annoyed with the very large range of stories. Mainly because it was one of my podcast companions during my twice weekly long drive btwn Springfield, IL and Indianapolis, IN, so if the story was something I wasn't interested I had that much more time driving in silence. 

I've since stopped those drive, and I've also come to respect the ecletic choices, helping expand my own likes and dislikes.

But I've definitely learned that what Steve Eley thinks of as sci-fi is much larger than my own definition, so when I recommend this site (and I do, often) to people, I set their expectations accordingly.

[ClintMemo]

...and then realizing that the discussion and definitions were pointless.

I disagree that they are pointless, but I will agree that it doesn't matter what they are. 

So wouldn't that make them pointless? 

[Dex]

Thanks for the comments.  And I will respect others opinion that the defining SF discussion has run its course. 

However, there is an interesting question as to why people do not want to define SF.

Human beings define many things to facilitate communication, expand understanding and develop. One way we learn is by other discipline's example and precedent. Examples:
1. Dictionaries - we define words for clarity
2. Legal Contracts - define terms for agreement on obligations, consequences of actions
3. Philosophy defines ways of living to improve our existence.

So, in the face of the overwhelming precedents in various disciplines; those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea.  The concept of extraordinary proof is borrowed from science.  It is the concept that the more radical the theory the more proof is required to support it.

My theory of why people do not what to define SF is
1. Objective standards are difficult,  they have to be identified, disseminated administered and held to. It may be more difficult to find stories. - Subjective relativism is easy http://www.rit.edu/~692awww/resources/manuals/dgae1p4.html
See how Mike Resnick uses the "straw man" technique to argue against an objective standard.
2. It is difficult for authors - they would need to understand a scientific discipline (s), stay current with it; include it in a story and communicate it in an interesting and entertaining way to the reader. 

I'm sure you get the idea.

Finally, I can not avoid the irony in the quote "Science Fiction is what I point to to when I say it."  First, because the original quote appears to be: "Science Fiction is what we point to to when we say it."  The "we" is important because it implies that a group of people got together and agreed upon what is SF, so that they can point to it.  And, second the Orwellian implications of using the word "I".  "I" can point to what "I" want and call it SF - it could be one thing today and another thing tomorrow just as in the book. 

[ClintMemo]

You cannot objectively and precisely measure something that is subjective. 

[slic]

...and then realizing that the discussion and definitions were pointless.

I disagree that they are pointless, but I will agree that it doesn't matter what they are. 

So wouldn't that make them pointless? 

For exactly what I said they are not pointless, smarty pants.  I really like what Dex said "Human beings define many things to facilitate communication, expand understanding and develop."  Which is why I like to know what you (meaning the general population you) consider sci-fi.

[Russell Nash]

I don't like to define SF or any genre of writing/music/movie/art/etc..  When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here."  That's fine for things like chairs and screws, but it doesn't work for artistic creations. 

Art doesn't have quantitative goals.  "Entertain a reader" cannot be measured the same way the shearing strength of a screw can be.  Art gives us some of the worst shit every created by man, but it also gives us some of the most amazing.  If it had to stay in the box, it would only give us the most boring.

[Dex]

I don't like to define SF or any genre of writing/music/movie/art/etc..  When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here."  That's fine for things like chairs and screws, but it doesn't work for artistic creations. 

Art doesn't have quantitative goals.  "Entertain a reader" cannot be measured the same way the shearing strength of a screw can be.  Art gives us some of the worst shit every created by man, but it also gives us some of the most amazing.  If it had to stay in the box, it would only give us the most boring.

To each his sufferings: all are men,     
Condemned alike to groan;       
The tender for another's pain,        
The unfeeling for his own.         
Yet ah! why should they know their fate?            
Since sorrow never comes too late,           
And happiness too swiftly flies.   
          
Thought would destroy their paradise.   
               
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
   
'Tis folly to be wise. 
"Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College"   

The in light of what I said in my post the question we are discussing is:
"So, in the face of the overwhelming precedents in various disciplines; those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea.  The concept of extraordinary proof is borrowed from science.  It is the concept that the more radical the theory the more proof is required to support it."

I didn't say in my post "When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here.""  That is your assumption and in my opinion an erroneous one that I won't address.

The premise in my post is: "Human beings define many things to facilitate communication, expand understanding and develop." 

[slic]

I didn't say in my post "When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here.""  That is your assumption and in my opinion an erroneous one that I won't address.

But I will, a little.

Defining art does nothing to put it in a box.  It means that people with have a notion of what to expect - not really bad thing in my mind.  People like Picasso or Monet certainly pushed the boundries of what people expected but even their art was "classified".

[wakela]

I believe the idea was along the lines of "we know science fiction when we see it."

There are lots of definitions floating around, but none that satisfies everyone.
The question on "What is SF?" has been intelligently discussed to death in the forum. It's like a variation on Godwin's law (as a discussion thread gets longer, the probability that someone mentions Hitler approaches 1), the longer a discussion of an EP story continues in a forum, the more likely someone will say that a story is not really SF.  Maybe we should refer to that as "Eley's Law" 

I used to be a big proponent of the "Hard SF" definition,
until six months ago when I started listening to EP,
and talking about what is or is not SF,
and then realizing that the discussion and definitions were pointless.

I'm flabbergasted because this is almost exactly what I thought after listening to the Ej-Es outro,  down referring to this form of Godwin's law as Eley's law.   And I too am a fan of hard SF, and was surprised when I discovered Escape Pod and found out how many SF fans are ambivalent to hard SF.  In one of my first posts I criticized a story because it didn't have any new ideas.  Steve responded saying something like  "So for you a story must have new ideas to be enjoyable?"  I was shocked because I thought that was the whole point of science fiction.  I still think so, but I've learned from the Escape Pod forum that not everyone agrees with me on this. 

I've been struggling with how to define SF in this forum.  I used to be happy saying that a story was not SF if the themes and plot could survive a change in genre.  I still think this is correct, but it tends to stifle meaningful discussion instead of encourage it.  It may be more productive to consider a story's SFness as one of degree rather than as a yes/no value.   All of us can probably agree that "The 43 Antarean Dynasties" and "Ishmael in Love" are less SF than "How Lonesome a Life Without Nerve Gas" and "The Giving Plague" (can't we?).  But it doesn't make sense to say they are not SF at all, because what else are they? 

[Mr. Tweedy]

The greatest distinction between SF and fantasy is how the author wants their work to be percieved.  For instance: Star Trek is, for the most part, not based on any real science.  There is no real science of warp drive, of teleportation, of time travel, etc.  Almost all of the "sci-fi" elements are, in a practical sense, magic.  Niether the audience nor the writers has any idea how the things depicted in the show might work or if they are really possible.

What makes Star Trek SF is not any pragmatic quality of its stories; it's the fact that Star Trek is intended as an extrapolation of future history.  The writers and audience accept the idea that something very like this could happen in the future.

Contrast this with something like Harry Potter.  The "magic" in Harry Potter and the "science" of Star Trek are pragmatically very similar.  The difference is that Harry is not intended to be percieved as a genuine possibility.  Reader and writer accept that they are reading about an imaginary world that will not and cannot exist.

It would be entirely possible to swap explanations and make up techno-babble that explains Harry's world and say that the Enterprise is magic.  The essential plotlines of each could be maintained.  But the tone, the mood, the feel of each would be different.

The reader and author together decide and agree about the nature of the story.  If they agree that it a story about what could possibly, really happen, given the right circumstances, then it's sci-fi.  If they agree that the story takes place in its own, self-contained reality, then it is fantasy.  All other considererations are almost irrelevant.

For example, Anne McCaffrey wrote about telepathic dragons, but her writing is sci-fi: She specifies that her characters are descended from Earthlings and that the "dragons" are intelligent aliens.  There is nothing about Pern that wouldn't fit nicely into a fantasy story, but she decided that her writing was SF.  It's SF because she decided she wanted it to be, and the audience agrees.

It's a matter of how the author intends for their story to be recieved.  Usually, this intent is evident in the writing, but occassionally it isn't.

[Russell Nash]

I didn't say in my post "When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here.""  That is your assumption and in my opinion an erroneous one that I won't address.

But I will, a little.

Defining art does nothing to put it in a box.  It means that people with have a notion of what to expect - not really bad thing in my mind.  People like Picasso or Monet certainly pushed the boundries of what people expected but even their art was "classified".

It was classified after the fact.  At the time the established community was screaming, "that's not art!!"  Afterwards people started saying, "Oh, the way this does this is…"  To which Picasso said, "are you buying the wine? yes? Then you can say whatever you want and I'll paint however I want.

[Russell Nash]

For instance: Star Trek is, for the most part, not based on any real science.  There is no real science of warp drive, of teleportation, of time travel, etc.  Almost all of the "sci-fi" elements are, in a practical sense, magic.

It's got more of a science grounding than you would think.

The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence M. Krauss (Author), Stephen W. Hawking (Foreword)

From Publishers Weekly
Even those who have never watched an episode of Star Trek will be entertained and enlightened by theoretical physicist Krauss's adventurous investigation of interstellar flight, time travel, teleportation of objects and the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Case Western Reserve professor Krauss maintains that Star Trek's writers were sometimes far ahead of scientists?and famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking's foreword, endorsing the possibilities of faster-than-light travel and journeying back in time, supports that notion. On the other hand, Krauss also argues that the show is riddled with bloopers and huge improbabilities, as when the Voyager's crew escapes from a black hole's interior. This informal manual for Trekkers offers a porthole on the wonders of the universe as it ponders the potential existence of aliens, "wormholes" that allow astronauts to tunnel through space, other dimensions and myriad baby universes.

[Dex]

Human beings define many things to facilitate communication, expand understanding and develop.

So, in the face of the overwhelming precedents in various disciplines; those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea.  The concept of extraordinary proof is borrowed from science.  It is the concept that the more radical the theory the more proof is required to support it.

Some interesting comments but some are trying to define SF. I think my premise above is a valid one and most telling. 


Also, I found the site below helpful in facilitating my discussions. For example, I don't use analogies any more.  Why? Most people understand that an analogy is used to emphasize a specific point.  But some people believe that if they can find an error in an unrelated part of the analogy then they have refuted your argument.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

A couple of points:
Mr. Tweedy:
"The reader and author together decide and agree about the nature of the story."  To get to this agreement the reader would have to read buy the material and read it.  Shouldn't the reader know what they are buying?  Isn't it the publisher and author that makes this decision? In Mike Resnick's article he mentions this and has a telling point about it.

ClintMemo
"And I too am a fan of hard SF, and was surprised when I discovered Escape Pod and found out how many SF fans are ambivalent to hard SF. "  Me too.

ClintMemo
"I've been struggling with how to define SF in this forum.  I used to be happy saying that a story was not SF if the themes and plot could survive a change in genre. #1
I still think this is correct, but it tends to stifle meaningful discussion instead of encourage it.  It may be more productive to consider a story's SFness as one of degree rather than as a yes/no value. #2
All of us can probably agree that "The 43 Antarean Dynasties" and "Ishmael in Love" are less SF than "How Lonesome a Life Without Nerve Gas" and "The Giving Plague" (can't we?).  But it doesn't make sense to say they are not SF at all, because what else are they? " #3

#1 - I tend to agree with you.
#2 - It could also tend to enlighten people to what is good SF, improve story selection and the genre.  Generally, if people buy a particular type of book then publishers and authors produce more books of that type - post only the things you liked about a particular story and you will get more of those stories.
#3 - You could say that they were not good enough stories to fit into other genres so the author added some SF window dressing to fit them into the SF genre.   Which leads back to my question/premise - If you don't define what it is you get stories like them.

I was hoping that the D. Knight quote background would help me understand his thoughts.

I'm questioning if I should post what I think my definition of SF is.

[ClintMemo]

ClintMemo
"And I too am a fan of hard SF, and was surprised when I discovered Escape Pod and found out how many SF fans are ambivalent to hard SF. "  Me too.

That actually wasn't me, but it jives with what I did say.

ClintMemo
"I've been struggling with how to define SF in this forum.  I used to be happy saying that a story was not SF if the themes and plot could survive a change in genre. #1
I still think this is correct, but it tends to stifle meaningful discussion instead of encourage it.  It may be more productive to consider a story's SFness as one of degree rather than as a yes/no value. #2
All of us can probably agree that "The 43 Antarean Dynasties" and "Ishmael in Love" are less SF than "How Lonesome a Life Without Nerve Gas" and "The Giving Plague" (can't we?).  But it doesn't make sense to say they are not SF at all, because what else are they? " #3

also not me.

no worries.

#1 - I tend to agree with you.
#2 - It could also tend to enlighten people to what is good SF, improve story selection and the genre.  Generally, if people buy a particular type of book then publishers and authors produce more books of that type - post only the things you liked about a particular story and you will get more of those stories.
#3 - You could say that they were not good enough stories to fit into other genres so the author added some SF window dressing to fit them into the SF genre.   Which leads back to my question/premise - If you don't define what it is you get stories like them.

I was hoping that the D. Knight quote background would help me understand his thoughts.

I'm questioning if I should post what I think my definition of SF is.

Go for it.

[Mr. Tweedy]

How's this:

If the author believes that the things he/she depicts are genuinely possible (given the right circumstances) then the story is SF.  If the author believes that their story could not really happen, then it is fantasy.

The writers of Star Trek think it could happen: The future could really be like this.  SF.  In contrast, J. K. Rowling knows that Harry's world could not really exist.  Fantasy.

[DKT]

That definition won't work for me -- I just can't get behind it.  How does this impact Ray Bradbury's the Martian Chronicles or William Gibson's Neuromancer?  Pretty much any SF I read I don't really think can happen, no matter how realistic it is.  I don't imagine that Frank Herbert believed that it was possible for there to be giant sandworms on another planet anymore than JK Rowling thinks Hogwarts exists in the UK. 

The other problem is that a given author's idea of what's possible is fluid -- it will change.  I doubt Bradbury believes there's a chance the Mars colonization will look anything like it does in his book, though maybe he did when he wrote it. (Then again, he says Fahrenheit 451 isn't about censorship, so who knows?)

Personally, I can't explain how I define SF, especially in relationship to fantasy.  Most of the time I have an idea of which is which, but not always.  It gets even murkier with steampunk and alternate history/realities.

[Chodon]

I think we're all misinterpreting Steve's comment at the end of Ej-Es.  I think what he was saying (in a nicer way than this) was "I'm sick of people saying 'that is/is not sci-fi.'  It's my podcast, and if it's on here I'm calling it sci-fi."  And I think he's right. 

Overall I've enjoyed listening to his podcast, and I would consider most of the stuff on here sci-fi.  I know what I'm going to get when I listen to Escape Pod.  That's all the definition I need.  I think the SF/non SF debate in the story discussions took away a lot from the stories, and this is a better place for it. 

As far as my definition of sci-fi, if it has lasers, space ships, or science it's sci-fi.  If it has dragons, magic, or wizards it's fantasy.  If it has something from both categories I flip a coin.

[slic]

.

I didn't say in my post "When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here.""  That is your assumption and in my opinion an erroneous one that I won't address.

But I will, a little.

Defining art does nothing to put it in a box.  It means that people with have a notion of what to expect - not really bad thing in my mind.  People like Picasso or Monet certainly pushed the boundries of what people expected but even their art was "classified".

It was classified after the fact.  At the time the established community was screaming, "that's not art!!"  Afterwards people started saying, "Oh, the way this does this is…"  To which Picasso said, "are you buying the wine? yes? Then you can say whatever you want and I'll paint however I want.

But you've just proved my point.  Picasso didn't fit the mould and therefore they changed it - the box got bigger - if art was truly restricted then it would have been thrown out and ignored.

It's got more of a science grounding than you would think.

That is now - 30 years later.  When they wrote it, it was pretty much fantasy.  The whole idea behind the transporter was to save TV time around getting on and off planet.


The problem with your definition, Mr. Tweedy, is that it relies too much on the author and doesn't really help in the grey areas.  For example, Barnaby in Exile.

=fixed html=

[wakela]

You could say that they were not good enough stories to fit into other genres so the author added some SF window dressing to fit them into the SF genre.   Which leads back to my question/premise - If you don't define what it is you get stories like them.

Yeah, but the problem is that people liked those stories (more so "Dynasties" than "Ishmael").  I would have preferred they not been on Escape Pod, but there were others to whom they gave pleasure.  So who am I to say that they are simply not good enough.

I don't know how useful a definition of Sci-fi is.  I'm approaching a point where I would rather agree with Chodon...

As far as my definition of sci-fi, if it has lasers, space ships, or science it's sci-fi.  If it has dragons, magic, or wizards it's fantasy.  If it has something from both categories I flip a coin.

...than continue trying to persuade people that Star Wars isn't science fiction.  I do know that I have an itch in my mind that is satisfied when I think about some new, interesting idea, and its ramifications for human society.  Reading science fiction stories usually scratches this itch, so that's why I like them.  But a lot of science fiction stories are just tricking me into thinking about real world problems of the present ("Dynasties"), or age-old aspects of the human condition like love ("Impossible Dreams").  I feel ripped off when I hear these stories, because I invested my time with them, and I still itch.   Like ordering a beer and getting a non-alcoholic beer.  They may be great in every other way, but I find them unsatisfying and sometimes they actually piss me off.   In the end I don't actually care if they are science fiction or not, I just know that I don't like them. 

To be honest I find this kind of depressing.  I used to think that expressing novel-ness was the point of science fiction.  But after participating on the EP forum, reading the Nebula nominees and the Hugo nominees, I guess I'm wrong.  Now I don't know what the point is. 

[Dex]

I do know that I have an itch in my mind that is satisfied when I think about some new, interesting idea, and its ramifications for human society.  Reading science fiction stories usually scratches this itch, so that's why I like them.  But a lot of science fiction stories are just tricking me into thinking about real world problems of the present ("Dynasties"), or age-old aspects of the human condition like love ("Impossible Dreams").  I feel ripped off when I hear these stories, because I invested my time with them, and I still itch.   Like ordering a beer and getting a non-alcoholic beer.  They may be great in every other way, but I find them unsatisfying and sometimes they actually piss me off.   In the end I don't actually care if they are science fiction or not, I just know that I don't like them. 

To be honest I find this kind of depressing.  I used to think that expressing novel-ness was the point of science fiction.  But after participating on the EP forum, reading the Nebula nominees and the Hugo nominees, I guess I'm wrong.  Now I don't know what the point is. 

Explore that feeling - I think it will lead you to what is good SF and when you are being ripped off.

[wakela]

Explore that feeling - I think it will lead you to what is good SF and when you are being ripped off.

I'm trying to get away from saying that the stories I like are good and the stories I don't like are bad.  I haven't liked the Mike Resnick stories, but a lot of other listeners do and the science fiction community has given his stories awards.   In addition when you say something is bad, then the people who think it was good get upset and then the forum discussion becomes less interesting.  Forum discussion like those about "Mayfly", "The Giving Plague", and "Ej-es" I think were quite interesting because people were talking about the characters and extrapolating on the ideas of the stories. 

Maybe the best move for the next "Dynasties" type story is to post on the forum that I didn't like it because as a science fiction story it is weak, and then back out of the discussion.   It's set on another planet, so it doesn't make sense to say that it is not science fiction.   Steve and a lot of listeners liked it, so it doesn't make sense to say that it doesn't belong on Escape Pod. 

[Russell Nash]

.

I didn't say in my post "When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here.""  That is your assumption and in my opinion an erroneous one that I won't address.

But I will, a little.

Defining art does nothing to put it in a box.  It means that people with have a notion of what to expect - not really bad thing in my mind.  People like Picasso or Monet certainly pushed the boundries of what people expected but even their art was "classified".

It was classified after the fact.  At the time the established community was screaming, "that's not art!!"  Afterwards people started saying, "Oh, the way this does this is…"  To which Picasso said, "are you buying the wine? yes? Then you can say whatever you want and I'll paint however I want.

But you've just proved my point.  Picasso didn't fit the mould and therefore they changed it - the box got bigger - if art was truly restricted then it would have been thrown out and ignored.

But my point was not everybody had Picasso's balls.  There were generations of artists who never experimented, because of the hard definition of art before Picasso.


Looking up the definition of Science Fiction on Dictionary.com I see that the definitions say SF is Fiction that incorporates real or imagined scientific elements.

The thing is no matter what definition you look up, no matter where you look, one word never changes.  And that is "fiction".  These are products of the imagination.  The first goal of fiction is story, then come the other elements.  Without the story you just have a guy saying, "scientists can and should make this."  That's why I listen to science podcasts. 

Your definition of SF is HARD SF.  Not all SF is hard.  I have a friend who thinks BMWs are the only cars, but my Volvo (pre-Ford) does everything I ask of it very well.  I don't care how long my friend rants.  He's not going to convince me that I don't have a very good car.  You're trying to do the same thing with SF.

If someone comes up with a good HARD SF story and submits it to Steve, he'll produce it.  The problem is, as Steve has said many times in the forums and on EP, no one is submitting good Hard SF stories.  Go find a writer who is writing what you want and tell him about EP.  Tell him EP isn't getting good hard stories.  Tell him the fans of the cast buy a shitload of books.  If it's a good story, that would work in audio, you'll hear it.

[Simon]

...than continue trying to persuade people that Star Wars isn't science fiction.  I do know that I have an itch in my mind that is satisfied when I think about some new, interesting idea, and its ramifications for human society.  Reading science fiction stories usually scratches this itch, so that's why I like them.  But a lot of science fiction stories are just tricking me into thinking about real world problems of the present ("Dynasties"), or age-old aspects of the human condition like love ("Impossible Dreams").  I feel ripped off when I hear these stories, because I invested my time with them, and I still itch.   Like ordering a beer and getting a non-alcoholic beer.  They may be great in every other way, but I find them unsatisfying and sometimes they actually piss me off.   In the end I don't actually care if they are science fiction or not, I just know that I don't like them. 

To be honest I find this kind of depressing.  I used to think that expressing novel-ness was the point of science fiction.  But after participating on the EP forum, reading the Nebula nominees and the Hugo nominees, I guess I'm wrong.  Now I don't know what the point is. 

Can I stand up and say YES, completely?

I think the big problem we're having here is that a lot of people are piping up after a story they find unsatisfying to say "This piece is conceptually weak, and not imaginatively rigorous enough" but the way they are choosing to say that is "This isn't Science Fiction".  Its a fair position to go for, because for roughly the first 30 years of the modern-genre, one of SF's main trappings was that the idea had to be primary.  And further, this idea game role became so pivotal to the genre (which had everything from the political tracts of Le Guin and Rand to the religious space-battles of Zelazny, but all still playing a game of "how do I make this idea consistent") that it was regarded by many as what held it together. 

I get quite angry with "forget genre" people (a group who I seem to encounter in every creative-writing setting, whatever I am trying to write), because a genre is not a straight jacket - its a shared language.  If you take away all your limitations: of style, setting, concept, language... You don't get the pure quill of new invention, you get a blank page with nothing on it.  The great leaps forward in creativity occur when someone shows a new framework to work in, not breaks down restrictive barriers of the old.  A genre is a shared set of tools that allow you to build within it, an accepted relationship between the author and their ideal reader.  Early SF was written with "How do I get this past John Campbell and Horace Gold" in mind for almost every word, so I suppose you could define SF as "The genre of people writing to please Gold and Campbell".  In any venue where you see creativity taking place, you see people using a shared language in order to speak.  Some of the most creative fiction (and I am thinking of House Of Leaves by Mark Danielewski here for horror, or Paul Auster's New York Trilogy for Noire) not only embraces it's genre, but the genre rules become so primary to it that it couldn't possibly be original the way it is, without it.

The problem is that such a large proportion of SF is now written around a different set of rules, this old fashioned fundamental is not only rejected, but irritating to others.  To a vast amount of the readership, SF is a fantastic genre with a futuristic setting and action.  The escapist side to the genre has become the primary trapping, and what a lot of the readership are looking for when they buy an SF book/ watch an SF film/ listen to an SF podcast.  If people didn't care about genre, we wouldn't be investing this amount of emotional effort into having this argument time and time again,  the problem is that Escapism/imaginative whimsy and Concept are two different underlying priorities, and shouldn't really be trying to co-exist in one genre.  I don't think we're going to solve this argument just by saying "SF is whatever I say it is" and wielding a big stick. 

I, personally, am never going to embrace SF stories that revolve primarily around Escapism. Not what I want with my meat and potatoes. That's fair enough, I don't run this podcast, but I think that those of us commenting from this position need to come to an agreement about how we say this "this is insufficiently developed imaginatively to be good imaginative fiction" argument, without being bashed on the head for arguing about genre again. I don't think that is the argument we are trying to have. 

I passionately wish there was a genre of fiction based on Idea development as a vehicle to tell a story, but unfortunately we lost this battle about 30 years ago, due to a man named Lucas...  According to the Damon Knight rule, SF is whatever the SF community as a median thinks it is.  They disagree with us.

"EP is a genre ‘zine. We’re looking for science fiction and fantasy. Please don’t send us anything that doesn’t fit those descriptions. And by the way, we mean SF/F on a level that matters to the plot. Your story about a little boy receiving a balloon before his heart transplant may be touching literature, but it probably isn’t something we’re interested in, even if you edit it so that the balloon’s an alien and the heart came from Satan." - From the EP submissions guideline, because SF is what we all want, if only we could agree on what it is.

[Dex]

I've given my definition of SF in a new thread.
http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=991.0
    
Sex, Damon Knight and the meaning of SF


Moderator:  Let's just keep it to one thread per topic.

[Dex]

Simon,
I feel your pain.

I think at it's hart good SF is about truth and it can be powerful.

The movie "Soylent Green" for example, while maybe not great cinema was good SF for it's time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green


The book was published in 1966 so it was written in about 1965.  The movie was issued in 1973 so it was filmed and edited in apx 1971/2.  The science it talked about was not well known to the general public at the time.

Just imagine if the issue of Global Warming was begun to be addressed 35 years ago!

[Chodon]

I do know that I have an itch in my mind that is satisfied when I think about some new, interesting idea, and its ramifications for human society.  Reading science fiction stories usually scratches this itch, so that's why I like them.  But a lot of science fiction stories are just tricking me into thinking about real world problems of the present ("Dynasties"), or age-old aspects of the human condition like love ("Impossible Dreams").  I feel ripped off when I hear these stories, because I invested my time with them, and I still itch.   Like ordering a beer and getting a non-alcoholic beer.  They may be great in every other way, but I find them unsatisfying and sometimes they actually piss me off.   In the end I don't actually care if they are science fiction or not, I just know that I don't like them. 

I empathize with you, wakela, but just because something doesn't satisfy your itch doesn't mean it's not sci-fi.  It might just mean it sucked.  Just like any other genre, there's good and bad.  For example, I consider "The Core" sci-fi, and I think it fits most people's definition of sci-fi (uses technology that could be possible at some point in the future).  However, it was so horrible I wanted to tear my own skin off.  Or Star Trek: Nemesis.  Ghastly, but I don't think anyone would doubt it was sci-fi.  Maybe you still had an itch not because the author didn't have a back-scratcher, but because he didn't know how to use it.

[Dex]

Please feel free to comment …
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Preface

Section I & II below is my attempt to objectively define Science Fiction (SF).

Below are my comments from a previous post regarding the basic question of defining SF.

If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.

Human beings define many things to facilitate communication, expand understanding and develop. One way we learn is by other discipline's example and precedent. Examples:
1. Dictionaries - we define words for clarity
2. Legal Contracts - define terms for agreement on obligations, consequences of actions
3. Philosophy defines ways of living to improve our existence.

So, in the face of the overwhelming precedents in various disciplines; those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea.  The concept of extraordinary proof is borrowed from science.  It is the concept that the more radical the theory the more proof is required to support it.

My theory of why people do not what to define SF is
1. Objective standards are difficult,  they have to be identified, disseminated administered and held to. It may be more difficult to find stories. - Subjective relativism is easy http://www.rit.edu/~692awww/resources/manuals/dgae1p4.html

2. It is difficult for authors - they would need to understand a scientific discipline (s), stay current with it; include it in a story and communicate it in an interesting and entertaining way to the reader. 

********************************************************************

Section I
General Definitions:  (Note – Unless noted; the definitions below my edited version of wikipedia entries.)

Science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method as well as the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

Science includes:
Natural – a rational approach is applied to the study of the universe, which is understood as obeying rules or laws of natural origin. E.g. Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Physics

Social – the scientific method is applied to both the qualitative and quantitative study of humanity or an individual – e.g. Anthropology, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, History

Formal Science – the academic study that is predominantly concerned with the abstract formal system – e.g. logic mathematics, computer science

Fiction is the genre of imaginative narrative.  Fiction need not be entirely imaginary, and may include real people, places, and events.

Plot or storyline – is the rendering and ordering of events and actions of a story particularly towards the achievement of some particular artistic or emotional effect.

Theme -  The theme is the story's central concept, or the controlling idea. Many times the theme will make a statement about life, or the human character-or it will make some other statement based on the views of the author. Not all stories have a theme, however- for example, mysteries usually don't make a statement, they just give you a good puzzle to figure out.
http://library.thinkquest.org/27864/data/cyoc/parts.html

Objectivity - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Subjectivity - peculiar to a particular individual; arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Section II
Science Fiction Defined:

Science fiction is that form of fiction in which the science included in the fiction is:
1.   based upon (or projected from) the Natural, Social and/or Formal Sciences
2.   and is (are) essential to the theme, plot development and/or plot resolution.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Section III
I believe with the above definition (and the general definitions) you can objectively determine what SF is and what is a story that put in some SF “window dressing”.  It does not address the quality issue.  Brining the question of “quality” into the discussion can open the door to subjective opinions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Explanation –
Positive – The simplest definition/explanation is usually the best.  The above definition attempts that. The science in good SF is based upon “the organized body of knowledge” and is instrumental to the story.
If you CAN NOT take out scientific elements of the story and still maintain the author’s theme, plot development and/or plot resolution - then you just might have a SF story!

Negative – Incorporating SF “window dressing” into a story that is not instrumental to a story is not SF.  A space ship, interstellar local, ray gun, and/or a universal translator that is not instrumental to the theme, plot development and/or plot resolution does not make it SF.
If you CAN take out the scientific elements of the story and still maintain the author’s theme, plot development and/or plot resolution – it is most likely not SF.

Section IV
Why is any of this important?  If we continue to watch, listen and pay for stories dressed up as SF that is what we will continue to get.

“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be.”--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Just imagine if the issue of Global Warming was begun to be addressed 35 years ago!

*Snork!*

35 years ago the "scientists" were concerned about global cooling.  Quote from a 1975 Newsweek article: "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article)  I expect they'll be saying the same thing again in 2025.


It does raise and interesting question, though: Does our categorization of SF change with time?  I.e. if I write about AI in 2007, that's science fiction.  If an actual AI reads my story in 2107, should the AI consider my story to be science fiction?

That's one reason I think the author's intention is of vital importance to a definition: Otherwise SF would expire as the time period it depicts rolls through into the present.

[Chodon]

It does raise and interesting question, though: Does our categorization of SF change with time?  I.e. if I write about AI in 2007, that's science fiction.  If an actual AI reads my story in 2107, should the AI consider my story to be science fiction?

I suppose we could look at history to answer this question.  Is Jules Verne science fiction?  I think so, even though most of the stuff he wrote is no longer fiction.  I don't think anyone would call it "science nonfiction". 

[Mr. Tweedy]

It does raise and interesting question, though: Does our categorization of SF change with time?  I.e. if I write about AI in 2007, that's science fiction.  If an actual AI reads my story in 2107, should the AI consider my story to be science fiction?

I suppose we could look at history to answer this question.  Is Jules Verne science fiction?  I think so, even though most of the stuff he wrote is no longer fiction.  I don't think anyone would call it "science nonfiction". 

And what if the writer gets it wrong?  In the Star Trek Episode "Space Seed" it is stated that the 1990s were torn by the Eugenics Wars.  This was certainly SF in 1967, but when the 90s rolled around, there was no Eugenics War.  So is it still SF?  Or did it suddenly become fantasy or alternate history when a certain date had passed.

What about stories written in the 20s that had Mars with an oxygen atmosphere?  They really didn't know any better back then.

I think these cases demonstrate that–although we can use the criteria to help judge whether a given piece is good SF or bad SF–the scientific accuracy of a depth of a story cannot be grounds for classifying it as SF or not.  I still think the deciding factor is the type of speculation in which the author intends to engage.

[Chodon]

In the Star Trek Episode "Space Seed" it is stated that the 1990s were torn by the Eugenics Wars.  This was certainly SF in 1967, but when the 90s rolled around, there was no Eugenics War. 

Good God, man.  Where were you during the 90's?  How could you forget the Eugenics Wars?!

I think it's still sci-fi.  Spaceships, remember?

Most people can understand a story in the context of when it was written.  I think most people would agree the original Star Trek was sci-fi....with sexy green alien women.

[Dex]

35 years ago the "scientists" were concerned about global cooling.  Quote from a 1975 Newsweek article: "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article)  I expect they'll be saying the same thing again in 2025.

There can be apparently conflicting theories in vogue at different time.  There is a Berkley Podcast - rather thick - titled LS 70B Physical Science - Spring 2007 that states that the Global Warming theory was put forth in the 1920s.  It was a Scandivan scientist and at the time in that part of the world a warmer world was not looked upon as a bad thing.

It does raise and interesting question, though: Does our categorization of SF change with time?  I.e. if I write about AI in 2007, that's science fiction.  If an actual AI reads my story in 2107, should the AI consider my story to be science fiction?

That's one reason I think the author's intention is of vital importance to a definition: Otherwise SF would expire as the time period it depicts rolls through into the present.

Your example is applying a subjective perspective with the body of knowledge available at that time 2107.  An objective perspective is that he book was written in 2007 with the body of knowledge available at that time; so we have to use that as the point for evaluation.

I'm curious; how would you determine the author's intentions?

I can only think of reading what he/she wrote and evaluate it against the objective definition of SF.

[Dex]

In the Star Trek Episode "Space Seed" it is stated that the 1990s were torn by the Eugenics Wars.  This was certainly SF in 1967, but when the 90s rolled around, there was no Eugenics War. 

Good God, man.  Where were you during the 90's?  How could you forget the Eugenics Wars?!

I think it's still sci-fi.  Spaceships, remember?

Most people can understand a story in the context of when it was written.  I think most people would agree the original Star Trek was sci-fi....with sexy green alien women.

If you want to start another thread we can discuss Start Trek there.
Thanks

[ClintMemo]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Section II
Science Fiction Defined:

Science fiction is that form of fiction in which the science included in the fiction is:
1.   based upon (or projected from) the Natural, Social and/or Formal Sciences
2.   and is (are) essential to the theme, plot development and/or plot resolution.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

you left out the all-important "but does not currently exist" portion of your definition. 

[Dex]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Section II
Science Fiction Defined:

Science fiction is that form of fiction in which the science included in the fiction is:
1.   based upon (or projected from) the Natural, Social and/or Formal Sciences
2.   and is (are) essential to the theme, plot development and/or plot resolution.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

you left out the all-important "but does not currently exist" portion of your definition. 

I was thinking  "(or projected from)" took care of that - meaning the basis is from the "Natural, Social and/or Formal Sciences" and you can expand it from there.

Let me know if that is meets what you were saying.

[Chodon]

In the Star Trek Episode "Space Seed" it is stated that the 1990s were torn by the Eugenics Wars.  This was certainly SF in 1967, but when the 90s rolled around, there was no Eugenics War. 

Good God, man.  Where were you during the 90's?  How could you forget the Eugenics Wars?!

I think it's still sci-fi.  Spaceships, remember?

Most people can understand a story in the context of when it was written.  I think most people would agree the original Star Trek was sci-fi....with sexy green alien women.

If you want to start another thread we can discuss Start Trek there.
Thanks

When I think of what defines sci-fi I think Star Trek, that's why I brought it up.  I figure if we can get to the essence of Star Trek we can get to the essence of Science Fiction.  That's why I have to pull out the sexy green alien women.  They don't make it Sci-fi.

Overall, I think your sci-fi manifesto is WAY to broad to define a genre.  Under your definition ANY story is considered science fiction.  People need a basic understanding of the world to understand any story.  Gravity is required to keep people on the ground, social science is required to understand how people interact.  This defines every story ever written.

It seems like (and correct me if I'm wrong) you want to define sci-fi to limit your exposue to your definition of sci-fi only (or what you would call "good sci-fi").  The compelling reason I present for not drawing a box around certain stories and saying "this is sci-fi" is because I don't like to exclude stories I may enjoy.  I listen to escape pod and, for the most part, I like what I hear.  There is no correlation between what I like and what fits your definition of sci-fi.  The correlation is between what I like and what is on escape pod.  And sexy green alien women.  Yum...

[Simon]

Just imagine if the issue of Global Warming was begun to be addressed 35 years ago!

*Snork!*

35 years ago the "scientists" were concerned about global cooling.  Quote from a 1975 Newsweek article: "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article)  I expect they'll be saying the same thing again in 2025.


It does raise and interesting question, though: Does our categorization of SF change with time?  I.e. if I write about AI in 2007, that's science fiction.  If an actual AI reads my story in 2107, should the AI consider my story to be science fiction?

That's one reason I think the author's intention is of vital importance to a definition: Otherwise SF would expire as the time period it depicts rolls through into the present.

Its always nice to bring up quite how long the history of SF predictions can be, and I'll take any opportunity to pimp the works of Stanley Weinbaum (the most important SF writer you've never heard of).  Back in 1934 he wrote the story Shifting Seas (available as Public Domain on Project Gutenberg here: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0607511h.html, because he died in 1934) about what would happen to Global Climate if something were to interrupt The Gulf Stream...  Exactly what is discussed as the prime priority for us Northern Europeans in respect of global warming.  His vision of apocalyptic war triggered by climate problems is pretty fantastic, and I personally love the intricacies of dated science you see there (It was common at the time to regard The Pacific Ocean as the crater left by the birth of the moon).  The thing about Weinbaum is that its pure science fiction, but the stories are so old that none of the science gels any longer...

There is nothing new about climate worries...  And everyone should read Weinbaum.

[SFEley]

I'm pretty much staying out of this thread for various reasons.  However, there is one thing that caught my eye in this, and I want to comment on the metaissues it raises:

If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.

Leaving aside the (accidental?) double negative near the end:  I disagree.  No one has any responsibility to answer this question.

Some people find it valuable and rewarding to analyze their entertainment to this depth.  I think that's great; more power to you.  Some people do not.  They would rather simply be entertained, or provoked, or inspired without this level of reflection upon the medium.  The point I want to make here, and this is very important, is that the choice not to reflect is equally valid.

You may not agree.  That's fine.  You don't have to.  The only thing you can't do is give people a hard time about it.  At least not here.  All opinions on a work are welcome and valued equally, whether it's "This was fun, whoo, dolphins having sex!" or a fifteen-page deconstructionist thesis proving the fundamental thematic emptiness of the work.  The deconstructionist and Dolphin Boy may not like each other, but the position of this community is that neither can challenge the other's right to express their opinion as they see fit.

I'm also aware that I can be perceived, in some of my recent statements, to be giving a hard time to you and other "Does this fit under the definition of SF?" people.  So I want to make my own position clear: I'm not against the discussion itself.  I think it's a good discussion.  I'm glad it's happening in this thread.  I won't lie and say I dig it personally; after a certain threshold, much shallower than yours, this form of rhetoric is really not my cup of tea.  But as long as nobody's under compulsion to read it or participate, I don't have to dig it personally.  The community doesn't run on my personal tastes alone.  The reason I've gotten tetchy on it in recent weeks is that the question, once it surfaces, seems to break out into argument and take over any thread (particularly story feedback threads) it manifests in, suppressing feedback from people who'd rather not address it.  That concerns me.  That's what I want to keep an eye on.

And that's why language like "you must answer the question" makes me wary, Dex.  I really hope this discussion keeps going as long as people want to continue with it.  But understand that yours is one of many equal opinions -- and that, from the perspective of the community, opinions that you don't perceive to be nearly as thought-out as yours, or even opinions that are nothing but the lack of an opinion, are also equal in value. 

If this offends you, alas.  But it's the way it has to work.

[Dex]

I'm pretty much staying out of this thread for various reasons.  However, there is one thing that caught my eye in this, and I want to comment on the metaissues it raises:

If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.

Leaving aside the (accidental?) double negative near the end:  I disagree. No one has any responsibility to answer this question.

The double negative was accidental.

Some people find it valuable and rewarding to analyze their entertainment to this depth.  I think that's great; more power to you.  Some people do not.  They would rather simply be entertained, or provoked, or inspired without this level of reflection upon the medium.  The point I want to make here, and this is very important, is that the choice not to reflect is equally valid.

Agree - True

You may not agree.  That's fine.  You don't have to.  The only thing you can't do is give people a hard time about it.  At least not here.  All opinions on a work are welcome and valued equally, whether it's "This was fun, whoo, dolphins having sex!" or a fifteen-page deconstructionist thesis proving the fundamental thematic emptiness of the work.  The deconstructionist and Dolphin Boy may not like each other, but the position of this community is that neither can challenge the other's right to express their opinion as they see fit.

Agree. - I’m assuming the “you” in the third sentence is the plural.  If it refers to me personally send me a PM about it.

I'm also aware that I can be perceived, in some of my recent statements, to be giving a hard time to you and other "Does this fit under the definition of SF?" people.  So I want to make my own position clear: I'm not against the discussion itself.  I think it's a good discussion.  I'm glad it's happening in this thread.  I won't lie and say I dig it personally; after a certain threshold, much shallower than yours, this form of rhetoric is really not my cup of tea.  But as long as nobody's under compulsion to read it or participate, I don't have to dig it personally.  The community doesn't run on my personal tastes alone.  The reason I've gotten tetchy on it in recent weeks is that the question, once it surfaces, seems to break out into argument and take over any thread (particularly story feedback threads) it manifests in, suppressing feedback from people who'd rather not address it.  That concerns me.  That's what I want to keep an eye on.

OK

And that's why language like "you must answer the question" makes me wary, Dex.  I really hope this discussion keeps going as long as people want to continue with it.  But understand that yours is one of many equal opinions -- and that, from the perspective of the community, opinions that you don't perceive to be nearly as thought-out as yours, or even opinions that are nothing but the lack of an opinion, are also equal in value.

I agree with your comments about opinions.

One point - the first sentence quote is taken out of context.  (The relevant section is below.)
The statement “If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.”, is a rhetorical one that leads into the premise “Human beings…” and the thought exercise “So, in the face…

I do not believe you took it out of context intentionally.  I understand how it could happen considering the objectives and context of your post.

No one “must” do anything, nor can they be forced to on a discussion board.

This is a discussion board about SF.  SF at its hart is freedom, ideas, understanding and truth.

Please feel free to comment …
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Preface
Section I & II below is my attempt to objectively define Science Fiction (SF).
Below are my comments from a previous post regarding the basic question of defining SF.

If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.

Human beings define many things to facilitate communication, expand understanding and develop. One way we learn is by other discipline's example and precedent. Examples:
1. Dictionaries - we define words for clarity
2. Legal Contracts - define terms for agreement on obligations, consequences of actions
3. Philosophy defines ways of living to improve our existence.

So, in the face of the overwhelming precedents in various disciplines; those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea.  The concept of extraordinary proof is borrowed from science.  It is the concept that the more radical the theory the more proof is required to support it.

If this offends you, alas.  But it's the way it has to work.

I am never offended by respectful discourse.

[SFEley]

One point - the first sentence quote is taken out of context.  (The relevant section is below.)
The statement “If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.”, is a rhetorical one that leads into the premise “Human beings…” and the thought exercise “So, in the face…

I do not believe you took it out of context intentionally.  I understand how it could happen considering the objectives and context of your post.

I was aware of your context, Dex.  I think you were pretty consistent in adhering to that context, and I disagree with your conclusion, "Those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea," just as strongly for the exact same reason.

There is no such burden of proof.  I am not inclined to reward rhetorical strategies that presuppose such a burden with my engagement.  If you'd phrased things a little more gently, without phrasing it as some sort of requirement that they work harder than you have to validate their opinion, you might have gotten more people with other perspectives to weigh in.

[Dex]

One point - the first sentence quote is taken out of context.  (The relevant section is below.)
The statement “If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.”, is a rhetorical one that leads into the premise “Human beings…” and the thought exercise “So, in the face…

I do not believe you took it out of context intentionally.  I understand how it could happen considering the objectives and context of your post.

I was aware of your context, Dex.  I think you were pretty consistent in adhering to that context, and I disagree with your conclusion, "Those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea," just as strongly for the exact same reason.

There is no such burden of proof.  I am not inclined to reward rhetorical strategies that presuppose such a burden with my engagement.  If you'd phrased things a little more gently, without phrasing it as some sort of requirement that they work harder than you have to validate their opinion, you might have gotten more people with other perspectives to weigh in.

You know the readers of these post better than I do and I think I understand what you are saying about my phrasing in the post. It does raise interesting questions.

There are posters from around the world and from different parts of the USA.  With some people English might be a second or third language.  Writing styles are different and influenced by regional dialects.  We are all of different ages, education levels and life experiences.  And yet the reader of the posts does not know any of this about any poster or me in particular.  I could be a janitor in Israel with English as a second language and it is difficult for me to compose these posts.  Or I could be a computer programmer in India.  Is there no accepting of these differences by the reader?

In out multicultural world of the internet what does it say about a reader who rejects or is put off by a post (or part of it) because it is not phrased in the locally accepted style of that reader?

Must the poster know how each of the readers like posts composed and try to please them all?

My basic assumptions are that people are basically good and want to do good.  I keep this assumption until they show otherwise.  I look at the totality of their post to evaluate the person’s intentions; just as I would try to evaluate a person by their character and not by their style sense.

“Be gentle to all and stern with yourself.”--St. Teresa of Avila

[wherethewild]

At the risk of moving this thread into language/communication (which has been covered a lot in Gallimaufry).

In a forum which is English then it should be assumed a reasonable level of competence in the language. If the poster hasn´t, then they usually preface with "not my native language" or "I may not be clear here" etc etc. It is not reasonable to assume that everyone here speaks poor or unclear English and that we should be reading all posts assuming that what they say is not necessarily what they mean.

Dex, you wrote a post with "must" in it. Steve´s response was clearly about the "must" aspect of your post. If you did not mean to imply that other commenters "must" prove something, then you could have addressed that three posts ago with a "Excuse me, I didn´t mean to imply XYZ but was trying to say ABC" instead of still arguing that your use of "must" was appropriate.

We´ve had many discussions which have branched off/turned into arguments because of alternate definitions or poor choice of vocabulary. Most posters (now at least) seem to keep that in mind and pay attention that their points are correctly understood. It isn´t my responsibility to try and wrestle the implied meaning out of a comment, rather the authors responsibility to ensure his implied meaning is understood.

Now, back to SF.

[SFEley]

There are posters from around the world and from different parts of the USA.  With some people English might be a second or third language.  Writing styles are different and influenced by regional dialects.  We are all of different ages, education levels and life experiences.  And yet the reader of the posts does not know any of this about any poster or me in particular.  I could be a janitor in Israel with English as a second language and it is difficult for me to compose these posts.  Or I could be a computer programmer in India.  Is there no accepting of these differences by the reader?

I have no idea where you're going with this, Dex, or how it relates to the discussion.  I know you're not posting this from a foreign country.  I thought what you said was pretty clear.  I thought I was pretty clear in expressing my objections.

In any case, I'm done here.  I've said what I intended to say, and it was as much for everyone else's benefit as yours.  I wish you the best with this discussion, and I hope that everyone who wishes to learn from it learns plenty.

[Rachel Swirsky]

The problem with defining SF seems, to me, to be rooted in the fact that people are trying to do it from an exclusionary perspective.

If we're going to look at this linguistically,  you can't have a good and absolute definition for SF. You can have a working definition for SF, which is going to have weird boundary states. SF is an invented human concept. It is not reifiable.

Which takes me back to point one, about exclusion. If you're trying to write a defintion that will include A) work I like, but not B) work I don't like, then you're going to piss off fans of B, pretty much inherently.

I don't really understand this urge. As Simon says, argue against the stuff you don't like. Don't try to kick it out of the genre. I pretty much dislike all of the kind of hard SF y'all are rallying in favor of, but I wouldn't try to argue that it isn't SF. The mainstream lit people have been trying to argue idea-driven SF out of fiction altogether, and I don't much appreciate it when they do it. I don't know why I'd appreciate pressure from the other end of the spectrum either.

Defining SF as an exercise in investigating the genre, or one's own interaction with the genre, makes sense to me. I think that can be interesting. However, I still think it's problematic to reify it by implying that humans communicate by means of strict definitions (we don't) and that strict definitions therefore winz0r. There will always be weird exceptions that inhabit an indistinct space in regard to genre.

Interestingly, the people* who are guarding the borders of SF seem much more interested in their patrol than the working out of "what is fantasy?" I expect this has something to do with the varying amounts of prestige assigned to the genres, and especially to purity within the genres. Hard SF used to make the claim (and sometimes still does make the claim) of objectivity. Therefore, it's necessary to police who gets to make that claim. Fantasy, on the other hand, makes no equivalent prestige claim. This allows the genre to escape more of the definitional battles (although fantasy gets its share of negative definitions: "I don't like Star Wars, so it's fantasy"; "Fantasy is that fiction which upholds stasis"; etc.), but it also puts fantasy in the position of being dismissed as fluffy or easy or whatever, on account of its lack of claim to prestige.

*This is a general people, referring to what appears to be a cultural thing, not a reference to anyone in this thread. I see lots of discussions of "what is science fiction?" but very few "what is fantasy?" -- except when the latter is brought up by the former.

[eytanz]

palimpsest - I agree with what you are saying, but being exclusionary doesn't necessarily mean excluding what you don't like. I'm not particularly interested in defining SF, but if I were to give a working definition, I'd probably find it easiest to give one designed on excluding stuff based on subjective criteria (such as an impressionistic feeling of "this goes together with this"), but I'm pretty sure it would exclude a lot of literature I like and include a lot of literature I dislike.

[Dex]

[quote author=SFEley link=topic=978.msg14250#msg14250
In any case, I'm done here.  I've said what I intended to say, and it was as much for everyone else's benefit as yours.  I wish you the best with this discussion, and I hope that everyone who wishes to learn from it learns plenty.
[/quote]

I agree, it is time for me to go also.
Please delete my account.
+++

Dragons will wander about
the waste places,
and the phoenix will soar
from her nest of fire
into the air.
We shall lay our hands
upon the Basilisk,
and see the jewel
in the toad's head.
Champing his gilded oats,
the hippogriff will stand
in our stalls,
and over our heads
will float the bluebird,
singing of beautiful and
impossible things,
of things that are lovely
and that never happened,
of things that are not
and that should be.--Oscar Wilde

[Mr. Tweedy]

...That was weird.

[Russell Nash]

umm, OK.

Funny how the guy that needed SF to be so hard and have nothing to do with fantasy.  Left with a quote about mythological creatures.

[SFEley]

Let's not gang up here, folks.

Dex, we don't delete accounts.  Not on request, anyway.  I hope you'll participate whenever you see fit, and that whether you hang around the forums or not, you continue to enjoy our podcasts.  Best wishes to you and all your work.

[eytanz]

It's possible for a person to delete their own account by going to profile and clicking the link on the left that says "delete this account". At least, I think it is - I obviously have no interest in actually testing this.

[Russell Nash]

It's possible for a person to delete their own account by going to profile and clicking the link on the left that says "delete this account". At least, I think it is - I obviously have no interest in actually testing this.

Try it out and get back to us. 

[Rachel Swirsky]

" I'm not particularly interested in defining SF, but if I were to give a working definition, I'd probably find it easiest to give one designed on excluding stuff based on subjective criteria (such as an impressionistic feeling of "this goes together with this")"

Me too, Eyetanz. I was reacting to what I felt was the thrust from some people in the discussion, but I didn't want to get too personal about that. Instead, I was vague and said something incorrect. Sorry. :-D

[Charlot.L]

I'm pretty much staying out of this thread for various reasons.  However, there is one thing that caught my eye in this, and I want to comment on the metaissues it raises:

If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.

Leaving aside the (accidental?) double negative near the end:  I disagree.  No one has any responsibility to answer this question.

Some people find it valuable and rewarding to analyze their entertainment to this depth.  I think that's great; more power to you.  Some people do not.  They would rather simply be entertained, or provoked, or inspired without this level of reflection upon the medium.  The point I want to make here, and this is very important, is that the choice not to reflect is equally valid.

You may not agree.  That's fine.  You don't have to.  The only thing you can't do is give people a hard time about it.  At least not here.  All opinions on a work are welcome and valued equally, whether it's "This was fun, whoo, dolphins having sex!" or a fifteen-page deconstructionist thesis proving the fundamental thematic emptiness of the work.  The deconstructionist and Dolphin Boy may not like each other, but the position of this community is that neither can challenge the other's right to express their opinion as they see fit.

I'm also aware that I can be perceived, in some of my recent statements, to be giving a hard time to you and other "Does this fit under the definition of SF?" people.  So I want to make my own position clear: I'm not against the discussion itself.  I think it's a good discussion.  I'm glad it's happening in this thread.  I won't lie and say I dig it personally; after a certain threshold, much shallower than yours, this form of rhetoric is really not my cup of tea.  But as long as nobody's under compulsion to read it or participate, I don't have to dig it personally.  The community doesn't run on my personal tastes alone.  The reason I've gotten tetchy on it in recent weeks is that the question, once it surfaces, seems to break out into argument and take over any thread (particularly story feedback threads) it manifests in, suppressing feedback from people who'd rather not address it.  That concerns me.  That's what I want to keep an eye on.

And that's why language like "you must answer the question" makes me wary, Dex.  I really hope this discussion keeps going as long as people want to continue with it.  But understand that yours is one of many equal opinions -- and that, from the perspective of the community, opinions that you don't perceive to be nearly as thought-out as yours, or even opinions that are nothing but the lack of an opinion, are also equal in value. 

If this offends you, alas.  But it's the way it has to work.

You are so wrong by trying to say that their is only one way to say something.  You really had to try hard to find something wrong with what was said and when you did you only could find one word "must".  When you were you shown that you were wrong about it you picked on another thing.  If that was wrong I'm sure you would look for something else to pick on.  You didn't answer the post because it was not said gentle enough for you? Yea, right.  I'm mad. Be upfront you don't like what the guy is saying.  Don't hide behind something else. I listen to Escapepod and then read the reviews. I don't write because I see the same thing there.  People jump all over someone over one word. But I joined today because your post upset me.  My parents came to New York from Haiti.  When we were young we lived outside of New York City but the yahoos didn't like us so we moved into the city.Now I'm in Georgia going to school and I see the same thing.  If you don't talk or dress or look like me you are the wrong one.

[SFEley]

FORUM ADMIN ANNOUNCEMENT

Hi, "Charlot."  Couldn't help noticing that you've made this post from the same IP address that Dex used to make his last post. 

I'm not an idiot.  And I will not tolerate this sort of half-assed deception and trolling on these boards.

That IP address has been banned.  If you try this again from a different address, you'll be caught and you'll be banned again.  You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

I'm keeping this public because I believe Dex should be embarrassed by what he's just attempted, and also a notice to everyone else.  Anyone here is welcome to express any opinion, so long as it's not a direct personal attack on others; but if you try to jerk around the community and play childish head games, you don't get two strikes.  I will not have this place fall to the lowest common denominator.

[SFEley]

Oh, and this thread is locked.  Have a nice day.