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.
They are 2 quite different things tho. Worlds apart. It’s good to acknowledge the difference.
And it’s good to acknowledge that #2 is what the populace prefers.
They’re indeed very different… yet both are science fiction.
Your point is merely semantic then.
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.
World’s apart is a bit of a stretch when there are plenty of examples that are both popular and push the boundaries. In hindsight, EVERYTHING becomes banal. I challenge you to just try to speak modern English without quoting or referencing Shakespeare.
Also, the observation that the populous likes popular lowest common denominator kitsch isn’t exactly a unique or stunningly innovative insight. It’s ironically as banal and boringly repetitive as the genre you’re gatekeeping.