Speculation or Science Fiction Friction? (or when labels meet)
02/04/2006 . Source: Geoff Willmetts 

There's been some recent talk about the labelling of Science Fiction, says Uncle Geoff. Old topic. Nothing learnt. Static subject. My turn to have a say on the matter. Oddly enough, this has little to do with the overall meaning of our genre. I think my definition that Science Fiction covers stories where one or more changes to reality has to be upheld throughout the story still stands.

Hello everyone

Should SF stand for Science Fiction or Speculative Fiction? The former term is the oldest, coined by Hugo Gernsback in 1923 as 'Scientific Fiction' or 'Scientifiction' before it was polished into 'Science Fiction'. Any speculation was up to what the writers did with their changes but there was always a dependency on science changing as being crucial to the stories. Considering how a large percentage of SF addresses space travel in some form, new planets, aliens, time travel, etc then a strong science element being the most likely difference should hardly be surprising. It helped enormously that if you were a scientist who could tell a story or did adequate research because the consequences were covered better. From the 50s onwards, SF was seen as the fiction of the future and science was something that changed the most. Something our currently reality has actually lived up to.

'Course, it made some writers, not to mention some publishers, prejudice against this, seeing it as a limitation when they had lack of hard science knowledge and didn't want to use the term literally and so the soft sciences and areas which hadn't necessarily been explored were used instead. To some extent, this was also a good move because it widened what was permissible. It also caused a rather odd sub-division to develop in terms of what makes Science Fiction in their eyes giving divisions or hard and soft SF. Just because the dependency isn't focused directly on hard science doesn't mean other aspects of the reality wasn't affected by it.

Oddly enough, Science Fiction isn't really about advanced theoretical science but practical application. You aren't, for instance, going to talk about anti-gravity or teleportation but show them in use. Few readers want to be baffled with technobabble but instinctively know when something is wrong or illogical. Science application isn't always the issue within the story, mostly cos most of the Golden Age SF writers have covered most of the options here. I mean, who can forget Algis Budrys' 'Rogue Planet', any of Larry Niven's teleportation short stories let alone James Blish's 'Spindizzy' novels? Well, unless you're young and still working your way through early SF.

Such equipment, even starships and how they cross the stars, is more functionary these days to what is going on when they get there. Is it any wonder that multi-book doorstop space operas have become so popular? You understand the principles of the futuristic science being applied so the authors can concentrate in other areas. Less to do with hard or soft sciences but more to do with social order and wars in ways that other genres can't tackle as well. If anything, you'd have to create a whole new genre if you wanted to re-categorise but the trappings would still be SF.

Our current reality's science deals with things that were discussed in SF years ago. Clones. Local space travel, even if we're nowhere ready to go. ESP taken to extreme levels. Time travel even if it's still up in the air whether it' possible or not. Society suppression and control right through to empire-building let alone first contact with aliens. All right, the latter might not have happened yet but it is now something that scientists seriously discuss outside the realms of fiction. The only area that was caught hopping was with computer science but who thought sixty years ago that we'd need more than one computer? Intelligence belligerent computers taking over the Earth were considered but never any thought to everyone owning a computer let alone creating an artificial intelligence.

SF authors have been there first mostly examining the possibilities and even its ethics for all of them. Considering how far technology has come in the past fifty years and even quicker in the past decade, especially with computer science, practical application is catching up with Science Fiction that it can't even be called speculative. If anything, SF hasn't kept ahead of theoretical science's practical application because most of it still has nowhere to go. Even green issues have really been explored let alone relevant solutions to the Earth's current problems. Something is going to happen but people are less sure on the date not to call it the far-future cos it isn't so distant any more. The term 'speculative' is a bit redundant when science application is coming to life in front of our eyes. 'Speculative' is only guesswork. 'Science' makes it practically an art of the future.

What is there left of today's theoretical science that can be made practical? I doubt if string theory itself is going to introduce anything radical to our future although the quantum mechanics involved might make teleportation possible. It might even draw out solutions for faster than light travel between the stars. Its still the means not the application. SF's been there already. If anything, SF examines the moral issue of such issues as much as its use. Even our developing familiarity with the human genome is old material to us SF readers. Ethics, let alone the possibility of generating super-humans or a master race, has made even non-SF fans more aware of walking before speed running with SF terminology being used to define its worse extremes than the benefits. At least Mary Shelley never looked this far into our present and she wasn't a futurist. The only odd thing is that Science Fiction itself might become archaic by not breaking new ground but that's a topic for another time.

To change a label is still a difficult thing to do as everyone is certainly not going to agree with it. The initials 'SF' are still popular and the only 'S' runners are really 'Science' or 'Speculative' and I doubt if it could be called both together unless you want to lisp SSF. Phonetically, it also sounds like a well-known kitchen cleaner. Both words have their merit. 'Speculative' because it questions what is going to or could happen. 'Science' because anything radical going to happen depends on either a new discovery or a radical change caused by science or technology which would make a change in our reality. This sets it apart from mainstream, no matter how such publishers want to ignore the term completely. It becomes unstuck when we look at the sub-genre of alternative realities because often as not, these deal with changes in the past. Mind you, there is also a grey area because any futuristic story is also an alternative reality. To sub-genre every type of SF story will also create confusion when writers cross across several types together proving that nothing is that orderly. It throws confusion to any classification which tends to make it impractical so we have to use the collective whole.

Which also means it still doesn't bring us any closer as to whether the label should be Science Fiction or Speculative Fiction. After all, it's only a label, isn't it? Labels, unfortunately, do stick and to the public eye SF is the abbreviation Sci-Fi, something most of us in the know clearly don't like and rue the day Forrest Ackerman on a whim punned it from Hi-Fi. Mind you, of all the genres, only SF has a sub-genre Sci-Fi where all its poor and junk fiction can be chucked in. Those who should know better using the term have always been on a floating melting iceberg but it is still only an abbreviation not the extended label. Would it become 'Spi-Fi' if it was speculative? Then again, with other genres it's a lot more subjective as whether a story is good or bad. Good science used in stories and consistency goes hand in hand with strong plot and characters. It still has to be remembered that the best Science Fiction contains plots that are not readily re-written into other genres. Speculative Fiction is a wide enough term to contain anything because stories from any genre can be regarded as well, speculative. After all, we can all wonder where a plot is leading to and its up to the writer to ensure it isn't predictable. There has to be strong elements of speculation in any plot without isolating it purely to Science Fiction.

As a term, 'Science Fiction' can cover anything that is not tied down to regular reality. It can readily embrace hard and soft science alterations as much as the super-hero genre which takes it to another extreme. The only barrier that divides it from fantasy is where the latter can do what it likes with no thought to the consequences or where it came from with no infra-structure supporting it. Even a lot of the horror genre is fundamentally Science Fiction in many cases with a heightened fright factor.

'Science Fiction' is a defining term. It might frighten off some potential readers who think they won't understand it yet in this world being turned over by computers, the new generations are less likely to see it that way. They might well believe some stories are templates to how to react or not react in certain situations. If SF should ever turn that academic then it needs to maintain the title that it is known by. Do we want to be proud to be Science Fiction fans or is that purely speculative? More importantly, it is the only genre where it is acceptable to be called by capital initials and that always needs re-enforcing. If we, the SF readers, can't make up our minds about what to call it then its no wonder the general populace are confused.

Thank you, take care, good night and be safe and support Science Fiction.

Geoff Willmetts
editor: SFCrowsnest.co.uk

(Less Serious) Thought For The Month # 1: Let's hope that new Bond actor Daniel Craig is not too much of a method actor or the producers want too faithful a rendition of 'Casino Royale'. It won't be a dentist he'll need after the torture scene although he will be shaken and more than a little stirred.

(Less Serious) Thought For The Month # 2: Product placement. If you're below a certain age or not wanting to look this up, you probably won't get this: Back in the 60s, it was popular to have a tiger in your petrol tank to get your car to go. Frosties with milk wasn't GR-E-E-E-AT for getting your car to go!!!

(Less Serious) Thought For The Month # 3: Is it time to become a Goth? Something I came across recently is that new legislation is coming up that you will be licensed based on what you wear. Always remember it will be cheaper and to have a licence to wear black and white rather than colour.

Role-playing: If ever there's thoughts or resurrecting 'Knight Rider', the ideal candidate with attitude out there to play Michael Knight is 'Supernatural' star Jensen Eccles. Won't even need a bubble cut.

A real Zen thought for everyone: Space might be the final frontier but it needs something in it to give it substance.

PS If you've survived this far in the editorial, let me reiterate something from the website newsletter and the above editorial. As you can see from the main page, we have one of the biggest SF/fantasy/horror monthly reviews columns on the Net. Our success has increased the number of books that comes in and our policy is to read everything before giving a review. You want the bottom line about what you're going to choose to read. We roadtest books so you have some idea of what you're letting yourself in for. That means actually reading the product and telling others what you think. For that, we're always on the outlook for more reviewers. Do you think you have what it takes to review a book? It's a skill that can be easily mastered and we need a few more.

Apart from the ability to put words into sentences, you also need to know how to précis, do a little research on associated subjects and can express opinions constructively about the good and bad points about the books you read. We even let you choose from our pile of received books rather than foster something on you that you wouldn't read normally. You'll even get a little editorial help in how to write good copy and that can always lead to other things. I did say you have to love books and willing to read beyond your favourite authors, didn't I? If you like reading books in the genre, can really think and show you can write a decent review and, most importantly, live in the British Isles (sorry, expense, time and distance travelled mostly prohibits elsewhere), then use the link below and see our requirements. We can't pay you but a review for the price and regular supply of books, this has to be a good incentive. We have one of the most popular and biggest SF review columns on the Net. Do you think you're up to writing a review? If you think you can, then you're really going to think you've landed your hands in the biscuit tin. It won't hurt to try and see if you have the right stuff. Look up the Review Guidelines:

PPS: For those keeping track, I'm still about 24 months (mid-April 2004) behind. With going through the ebook samples, I have removed some who've gotten published elsewhere. Thank you for your patience but let me know if you've sold elsewhere so I can reduce my pile or if you've changed address, especially e-mail address. I can't give you my comments unless either is up to date. Currently, doing spot-checks to see if you're still there when I reach your sample in the pile is making it easier on my time and catching up on the slush pile.