sf definition
dkn...@efn.org
Browsing upstream with DejaNews, I found a couple of references to my
definition of science fiction, mentioned as if it were well known to
everybody: "Science fiction is whatever I point to when I say science
fiction."
And indeed it is well known to everybody, but I never said it. What I
wrote, on page 1 of In Search of Wonder, was:
1. That the term "science fiction" is a misnomer, that trying to get two
enthusiasts to agree on a definition of it leads only to bloody
knuckles; that better labels have been devised (Heinlein's suggestion,
"speculative fiction," is the best, I think), but that we're stuck with
this one; and that it will do us no particular harm if we remember that,
like "The Saturday Evening Post," it means what we point to when we say
it.
It's on p. 11 now, because a chapter has been added before it in the new
expanded third edition, $20 at your local huckster's or from Advent:
Publishers, Box A3228, Chicago, IL 60690. Tell your friends. :)
Damon
Julie Pascal
dkn...@efn.org wrote:
>
> Browsing upstream with DejaNews, I found a couple of references to my
> definition of science fiction, mentioned as if it were well known to
> everybody: "Science fiction is whatever I point to when I say science
> fiction."
>
> And indeed it is well known to everybody, but I never said it.
You may find this humerous (or not), but when I read this I thought,
"That sounds familiar, but I know I've never read any non-fiction by this
guy. In fact, I think it was Orson Scott Card." So I got out my
copy of "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy" by Card and
paged through it. Turns out I have a great memory. He was
quoting you! "Damon Knight said, "Science fiction is what I point
at when I say science fiction." "
I can see how it might be frustrating to be so widely misquoted so
often.
But it's a darn good quote.
j.pascal
Gary Farber
Julie Pascal (ju...@pascal.org) wrote:
[. . .]
: I can see how it might be frustrating to be so widely misquoted so
: often.
:
: But it's a darn good quote.
and
afn3...@afn.org (Jeremy P Lakatos) wrote:
: In the end, I think the misquoted quote works best.
rather giving this reader the impression they had both missed Damon's
point on the critical distinction between "what I say" and "what we say."
One is a dictum; the other is an agreement.
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1996 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Sysop, Reinventing America II
Visit http://www.pathfinder.com/reinventing and play along.
Julie Pascal
Gary Farber wrote:
>
> Julie Pascal (ju...@pascal.org) wrote:
> [. . .]
> : I can see how it might be frustrating to be so widely misquoted so
> : often.
> :
> : But it's a darn good quote.
>
> and
>
> afn3...@afn.org (Jeremy P Lakatos) wrote:
>
> : In the end, I think the misquoted quote works best.
>
> rather giving this reader the impression they had both missed Damon's
> point on the critical distinction between "what I say" and "what we say."
>
> One is a dictum; the other is an agreement.
I _did_ miss it entirely. In fact "what we say" undoes Card's use of
the (mis)quote entirely.
j.pascal
Loki
In ashen ink, dkn...@efn.org inscribed:
: 1. That the term "science fiction" is a misnomer, that trying to get two
: enthusiasts to agree on a definition of it leads only to bloody
: knuckles; that better labels have been devised (Heinlein's suggestion,
: "speculative fiction," is the best, I think), but that we're stuck with
: this one; and that it will do us no particular harm if we remember that,
: like "The Saturday Evening Post," it means what we point to when we say
: it.
I entirely agree with the above. It is largely the basis for my use of
the term Speculative Fiction, after much experience with this topic on
r.a.sf.w.
I am somewhat in awe of responding to a post by Damon Knight. Someone
pinch me. :) Hi.
- Loki
--
+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Geoffrey Wiseman | http://tdg.uoguelph.ca/~ontarion/users/geoff |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
"Victims ... Aren't we all."
Loki
In ashen ink, Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) inscribed:
: rather giving this reader the impression they had both missed Damon's
: point on the critical distinction between "what I say" and "what we say."
Yes. That distinction was discussed on r.a.sf.w and at the time, no-one
was sure what the original Damon Knight quote had been, but we agreed
that 'we' was what we agreed with. It was nice to see that it was also
what was said/quoted/written.
- Loki
--
+------+------------+------------------------------------------+
| Loki | Geoffrey Wiseman | http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/5042 |
+------+------------+------------------------------------------+
i wish I could just stop / i know another moment will break my heart /
too many tears / too many times / too many years i've cried for you
it's always the same / wake up in the rain / head in pain / hung in shame
Jeremy P Lakatos
Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) wrote:
> rather giving this reader the impression they had both missed Damon's
> point on the critical distinction between "what I say" and "what we say."
No, no, no. "What *I* say." You're not going to have agreement.
In fact, that's how all terms are, though we may try for otherwise. When
I say something, all you know is what *I* say. And I am always right (by
definition of "right," an opinion).
--
Sinister Minister <*> Church of Perelandra: http://www.afn.org/~afn39111
DREAMS OF TAKING THE VEIL--a rollercoaster reality ride
Loki
In ashen ink, Jeremy P Lakatos (afn3...@afn.org) inscribed:
: No, no, no. "What *I* say." You're not going to have agreement.
[strong disagreement]. What -you- say is of little interest to me. I
don't want to know what -you- call SF, I want to know what we,
collectively, call SF, and that's what WE say.
I agree that there will be no strict interpretation, but that's why we're
resorting to this sort of a device in the first place rather than just
saying what defines science fiction.
But to define it as what each pe3rson says makes it a term of very little
use.
: In fact, that's how all terms are, though we may try for otherwise. When
: I say something, all you know is what *I* say. And I am always right (by
: definition of "right," an opinion).
Naah. One's opinions do differ from strict definitions, but there
exists, in conceptspace, a region that we vaguely delineate with our
collective descriptions. Some terms are purely subjective, but most have
some collective elements. There may even be a few completedly objective
labels, but nothing leaps to mind immediately. "Owned" terms are
probably the only real example of this.
That is, if I am the end-all and be-all of the definition of a particular
term, then it may have a purely objective value simply because my
subjective value is extended to everyone else.
Of course, this is getting somewhat silly and unimportant, so I'm going
to stop posting this now.
- Loki
--
+------+------------+------------------------------------------+
| Loki | Geoffrey Wiseman | http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/5042 |
+------+------------+------------------------------------------+
"After decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of heaven."
Jeremy P Lakatos
Loki (gwis...@uoguelph.ca) wrote:
> In ashen ink, Jeremy P Lakatos (afn3...@afn.org) inscribed:
> : No, no, no. "What *I* say." You're not going to have agreement.
> [strong disagreement]. What -you- say is of little interest to me. I
As well it should be.
> don't want to know what -you- call SF, I want to know what we,
> collectively, call SF, and that's what WE say.
The answer to this question is "nothing." For instance, a lot of people
say Harlan Ellison is a SF (if not science fiction) author. I don't. Based
on "WE," he's not SF. I guess I'm right on that.
Neither is _1984_ scifi, though I think it is. But some literary types say
it's literature, instead.
_Slaughterhouse Five_ isn't sf. _The Lord of the Rings_ isn't sf. _The Eye
of the World_ isn't sf. _Snow Crash_ isn't sf, at least not to my library,
and it only takes one person to break up a "WE."
Should it be based on a vote? Majority or just one more vote? Runoffs?
Electoral college?
And once you've had the vote, how do you enforce it?
Ray Radlein
Jeremy P Lakatos wrote:
>
> Loki (gwis...@uoguelph.ca) wrote:
> > In ashen ink, Jeremy P Lakatos (afn3...@afn.org) inscribed:
> > : No, no, no. "What *I* say." You're not going to have agreement.
>
> > [strong disagreement]. What -you- say is of little interest to me. I
>
> As well it should be.
>
> > don't want to know what -you- call SF, I want to know what we,
> > collectively, call SF, and that's what WE say.
> Should it be based on a vote? Majority or just one more vote? Runoffs?
> Electoral college?
It is based on the collective wisdom of the Spiritus Mundi of SF fans
and readers.
> And once you've had the vote, how do you enforce it?
They send a rough beast slouching towards your house if you make
trouble.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to RULE THE SEVAGRAM!"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************