Proper sf explores the edges of reality and then goes beyond.
Popular “sf” is old tropes and popular ideas rendered in terms of spaceships and robots.
The first is a real live alien. The second is cosplay.
Proper sf explores the edges of reality and then goes beyond.
Popular “sf” is old tropes and popular ideas rendered in terms of spaceships and robots.
The first is a real live alien. The second is cosplay.
I’m not the one who decided to create a post in a science fiction community claiming a huge portion of science fiction isn’t “true science fiction” based on my own tastes.
Of course the point is semantic, do you want me to base it on what? Your favorite novels?
We already agreed that it’s a big difference.
2 completely different things that have the same name. Superficially similar but actually not.
What’s the issue?
That’s how grouping works, yes. You and I are clearly different, yet we are both called “human”. In fact, you and a giant panda are both “mammals” despite being radically different.
(Semantics really is the smallest possible point.)
I think that the real point here is legitimacy. Scifi has a big reputation. Popular scifi borrows legitimacy from that reputation.
Separate popular scifi from that reputation and it loses legitimacy.
What makes one thing legitimate and the other thing not? What is it borrowing exactly? You’ve very poorly argued this point in every section of this thread.
You appear to have a (subjective) idea of what science fiction is, and you’re trying to force it on the rest of us to prove a point to a group of people who banned you probably not because you were annoying but more because you said something fairly inflammatory on purpose and they assumed you were trolling.
Is there a reason philosophical and cerebral science fiction is more legitimate to you than the alternative? Also, do you not see how the first time a trope is used for the purposes of telling a science fiction story, it usually does push the bounds of understanding and is therefore likely to be repeated, yes even in what you’ve deemed less legitimate “cowboy” science fiction?
One of these is a thing that deliberately makes a person think about the possibilities of the bounds of our world and that’s good. But the other often uses the dynamic between the people involved in the story to make us think about things like our humanity, or lack thereof, and what makes us human.
Each of these is valid storytelling and valid Sci-fi, but you seem to only think one of them is legitimate and that suggests to me that you don’t value what you don’t know about yourself or your fellow human beings which sounds to me like a failing on your part. Just because it doesn’t make you think doesn’t mean it isn’t thought provoking. It just means it’s of little to no interest or value to you. We have already stated that this is subjective.
Fortunately for the genre, you’re not the one who gets to define “legitimate”
Margaret Atwood uses the term “speculative fiction”, I think partly to get at the difference you are describing. But also partly because she doesn’t think it needs to be “science-y”.