Is 'science fiction' a bad word now?

[tapehead]

LOL.

The nose-thumbing is nothing new. In the '50s, Robert Heinlein dismissed the term, opting for "speculative fiction." (What fiction isn't?)

An interesting point from the article AB referenced regarding the term.

[minstrel]

There's been some discussion of what qualifies as "science fiction" and what is "speculative fiction".

It seems to me that there is a lot of what WAS "science fiction" back in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, that can only be considered "speculative fiction" now. Or even "fantasy". This is because science and technology have advanced since the stories were written.

I love many of the old "science fiction" stories - stories that were based in science at the time, but now are implausible. I wish that filmmakers today would raid the vaults of Astounding Science Fiction from the golden era and make films that would have been considered science fiction then, but maybe not so much now.

One series of stories, in particular, that I would love to see movies of is George O. Smith's "Venus Equilateral" series. For those of you who don't know these stories, the series is about a group of engineers stationed on a hollowed-out asteroid in the orbit of Venus, but sixty degrees further on, so that it can provide communications to the rest of the solar system in the way that communications satellites around the Earth provide communications to us.

Some of the stories Smith wrote were purely and delightfully technical challenges. One, "Calling The Empress", was about a situation in which an interplanetary spaceship had gone missing, due to a problem in its drive system. How do rescuers find this ship? It may seem easy to many here, but Smith emphasized the size of the Solar System and how difficult it would be to even detect a ship that had gone off course. The solution to the problem was ingenious (within the context of the series of stories) and would have made a wonderful movie or TV episode. But it's hard sci fi, and maybe it wouldn't be popular today.

Does anyone else remember the "Venus Equilateral" stories? (I'm looking at you, Adam Balm! They might be right up your alley ...)

[tapehead]

Minstrel, by your own assertion, wouldn't these stories then still be science fiction, as science and technology haven't 'advanced' to that kind of space travel and exploration? (not challenging your assertion, just curious regards your point).

[Adam Balm]

Does anyone else remember the "Venus Equilateral" stories? (I'm looking at you, Adam Balm! They might be right up your alley ...)

Hah! Doesn't ring a bell, I wish it did though... Man I miss that type of fic.

Gives me a thought though. Would anybody be interested in splitting this off as a 'Pulp Memories' thread, where we can all reminisce about the days of Doc Savage, The Phantom, Weird Tales, Amazing, Astounding....about those little gems we came across..??

[Anti-Christ]

I'd love Turtledove's "WorldWar" series to go to screen. Lizards with machine guns. Come on!

[Adam Balm]

I'd love Turtledove's "WorldWar" series to go to screen. Lizards with machine guns. Come on!

Er...not that kind of thread sorry. I think this topic could do with a renaming.

ETA: Here's the thread you might be thinking of btw: http://zone.aintitcool.com/viewtopic.php?t=281

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

It would a seem a to a the Dino that a the term "speculative fiction" is more a just a the marketing tactic, no? A 'cos back inna the 50s, you hadda the whole angle of a the science being alla bad anna such a 'cos a the development of a the hydrogen bomb inna WWII, no?

It was a 'cos of a this that a the Science, she became a to be seen by a the general public not as a the boon to a the mankind, but as a the horrific force that we alla hadda to fear... a force that unna'checked was a gonna to bring about a the destruction of a the entire planet, no? Anna iffa you look atta most of a the sci-fi pictures inna the 50s, science, iffa not a the villian, is a surely the catalyst that brings about alla the bad stuff, no?

Anna so Heinlein's desire to move away from a the term "science fiction" inna favor of a the "speculative fiction" was a merely 'cos of a the term "speculative" sounds a so much a more positive anna hopeful, eh? Which was exactly what alla the peoples wanted a while they were practicing alla their "duck anna cover" drills, no?

But before a the nuclear developments, science, atta least since a prolly the Steam Age, was a seen as a the boon to a the mankind, no? Anna it brought about alla the advances inna the health, a the living standards, anna understanding of a the natural processes (similar to a the time of a the Science's rebirth inna the Renaissance), anna so's up unna'til WWII, science fiction was actually a the popular term which could a sell a the book, a the pulp, anna the films, no?

Anna now inna the United States which a largely controls a the, how you say? "zeitgeist" of a the opinion of a the science inna the popular media, you gotta the situation similar to a the science of a the Renaissance, where you gotta the peoples who challenge a the validity of a the Science inna the name of a the Faith, anna like a the persecution of a the Galileo, you gotta the modern persecution of a the Evolutionists anna the Global Warming scientists anna such, anna so's a the Science, she's a sort of "onna the outs" again inna the popular culture.

Combine a the religious attack onna science with a the socio-economic impact of a the rise of a the Computer Age where a you have a lot of a the skilled tradespeople anna artisans being replaced by a the machines anna forced a to find work inna the "New World" they donna understand, anna again, that only adds to a the scientific "back-a-lash," no?

Holy crappa... I need a the bran muffin anna the rest, eh?

[Adam Balm]

It was a 'cos of a this that a the Science, she became a to be seen by a the general public not as a the boon to a the mankind, but as a the horrific force that we alla hadda to fear... a force that unna'checked was a gonna to bring about a the destruction of a the entire planet, no?

Now are you referring to science or to your own science fiction films?

Oh, and good points all around. Although I'd disagree in that it's not that simple. The first science fiction story ever done was Frankenstein, a story of science as an arguably bad thing. And into the industrial revolution you have plenty of dystopian science fiction inspired by the terrifying mechanisation of the world, often by some of the world's best authors like Jack London. Industrialization brought improved standards of living yes, but also it brought people in from the fields and forced them into the factory. H.G. Wells' four great books (Time Machine, War of the Worlds, Invisible Man and Island of Dr. Moreau) all showed industrialization and technological progress suspiciously and not as a simple 'boon to mankind' but something with the potential to take away ones' humanity. Jules Verne's later stuff had more of this feel, which stands in stark contrast to his earlier optimistic fiction. And in the early 20th century during the surge of pulps like Amazing Stories and Astounding, you also had cautionary tales like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and films like Fritz Lang's metropolis.

Optimism and pessimism have always been the twin poles of SF. While The Bomb probably did make a big difference in how some people viewed science, I don't think it shares all the blame for people distrusting science. People have always met science with fear and hope, and there's been many times when one has dipped and the other has risen in public consciousness.. If any of that makes any sense at all.

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

It was a 'cos of a this that a the Science, she became a to be seen by a the general public not as a the boon to a the mankind, but as a the horrific force that we alla hadda to fear... a force that unna'checked was a gonna to bring about a the destruction of a the entire planet, no?

Now are you referring to science or to your own science fiction films?

Oh, and good points all around. Although I'd disagree in that it's not that simple. The first science fiction story ever done was Frankenstein, a story of science as an arguably bad thing. And into the industrial revolution you have plenty of dystopian science fiction inspired by the terrifying mechanisation of the world, often by some of the world's best authors like Jack London. Industrialization brought improved standards of living yes, but also it brought people in from the fields and forced them into the factory. H.G. Wells' four great books (Time Machine, War of the Worlds, Invisible Man and Island of Dr. Moreau) all showed industrialization and technological progress suspiciously and not as a simple 'boon to mankind' but something with the potential to take away ones' humanity. Jules Verne's later stuff had more of this feel, which stands in stark contrast to his earlier optimistic fiction. And in the early 20th century during the surge of pulps like Amazing Stories and Astounding, you also had cautionary tales like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and films like Fritz Lang's metropolis.

Optimism and pessimism have always been the twin poles of SF. While The Bomb probably did make a big difference in how some people viewed science, I don't think it shares all the blame for people distrusting science. People have always met science with fear and hope, and there's been many times when one has dipped and the other has risen in public consciousness.. If any of that makes any sense at all.

Yes, but a the Dino, he was a not referring to a the overall tone of a the science fiction per se, but more a the public appetite of a the science fiction genre inna general, eh? Inna some periods, she is a more voracious for a the genre than inna the others.

[Adam Balm]

Yeah. But ironically, counter to your point, science fiction popularity (both in box office dollars and magazine circulation) actually increased after the bomb was dropped because this gave the potential for more interesting stories like radioactively mutated monster movies and the like. So the public appetite for science fiction didn't necessarily wane in response to that.

[buster00]

Where does this sort of thing fit into the equation?

[instant_karma]

It was a 'cos of a this that a the Science, she became a to be seen by a the general public not as a the boon to a the mankind, but as a the horrific force that we alla hadda to fear... a force that unna'checked was a gonna to bring about a the destruction of a the entire planet, no?

Now are you referring to science or to your own science fiction films?

Oh, and good points all around. Although I'd disagree in that it's not that simple. The first science fiction story ever done was Frankenstein, a story of science as an arguably bad thing. And into the industrial revolution you have plenty of dystopian science fiction inspired by the terrifying mechanisation of the world, often by some of the world's best authors like Jack London. Industrialization brought improved standards of living yes, but also it brought people in from the fields and forced them into the factory. H.G. Wells' four great books (Time Machine, War of the Worlds, Invisible Man and Island of Dr. Moreau) all showed industrialization and technological progress suspiciously and not as a simple 'boon to mankind' but something with the potential to take away ones' humanity. Jules Verne's later stuff had more of this feel, which stands in stark contrast to his earlier optimistic fiction. And in the early 20th century during the surge of pulps like Amazing Stories and Astounding, you also had cautionary tales like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and films like Fritz Lang's metropolis.

Optimism and pessimism have always been the twin poles of SF. While The Bomb probably did make a big difference in how some people viewed science, I don't think it shares all the blame for people distrusting science. People have always met science with fear and hope, and there's been many times when one has dipped and the other has risen in public consciousness.. If any of that makes any sense at all.

You really shouldn't tell Dino that a story about re-animating a corpse is science fiction.

I'm sure the hope that it's possible is all that keeps him going some days...

[Adam Balm]

Where does this sort of thing fit into the equation?

And furthermore....

[minstrel]

I disagree with Dino that science became unpopular in the 50s. WWII brought about many technological innovations, and the bomb was only one of them. There was also radar, jet aircraft, computers, rockets, and so on. The space race really got going after Sputnik and WOW did that turn on a bunch of young boys like me in the 1960s. Science and technology were very popular in that time.

I think Heinlein preferred the term "speculative fiction" because, while he wrote about technology like all other sf writers, he was very interested in sociological issues. He wrote about religious intolerance, authoritarian government, and LOTS about sexual freedom. This is speculation about society, not strictly science and technology.

When are we going to finally get a good big-budget movie version of "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" anyway?

[Adam Balm]

I disagree with Dino that science became unpopular in the 50s. WWII brought about many technological innovations, and the bomb was only one of them. There was also radar, jet aircraft, computers, rockets, and so on. The space race really got going after Sputnik and WOW did that turn on a bunch of young boys like me in the 1960s. Science and technology were very popular in that time.

Another paradox (and I wrote about this in one of my reviews) is that 1958, after Sputnik was launched, saw a HUGE decline in popularity of SF. A whole bunch of the magazines folded and many people thought at the time that the space race might have killed SF. So while optimistic technological innovations seem to inspire a geeky minority to seek out SF, the public at large seems less interested. Why seek it out when it's already here?

I put forward the theory, and I don't think it's my own, that science fiction crashes and burns not when people think science is bad, but because they think science is boring. We got space travel and it wasn't like Commando Cody or Buck Rogers. It was 'as exciting as taking a trip to Pittsburgh'. We got cyberspace and it's not Neuromancer, it's filled with myspace pages and spam.

I think SF is experiencing a drop right now because science doesn't offer them an escape right now, rather the public perception is that it offers them a reminder of the boring and depressing world it brought us.

[instant_karma]

As with so many other conundrums, jetpacks are the answer...

[Adam Balm]

As with so many other conundrums, jetpacks are the answer...

Ironically enough, most of what I'm saying is actually ripped from my review of this....

[The Vicar]

No so much a "bad word" as it is an inaccurate description.
And "speculative fiction" sounds like some weird assed STD.

[instant_karma]

I think 'speculative fiction' is more appropriate for things like documents saying that Iraq has WMD's that can be deployed in 40 minutes...

[Adam Balm]

I think 'speculative fiction' is more appropriate for things like documents saying that Iraq has WMD's that can be deployed in 40 minutes...

[TheButcher]

Alex Proyas Tackles Robert Heinlein’s ‘The Unpleasant Profession Of Jonathan Hoag’