Conference noted::sf

I do not think it is proper to remove an element (such as the force-field)
and say it can be replaced with something else.  For example, in _Outworld_,
one could change Io to a Western mining town and say it is not science
fiction.


				-- edp

Without going over the SF/Fantasy controversy either (there are 139, roughly,
writings on *that*), I have  to take some issue with your guidelines:

A situation "so unlikely as to be, for all practical purposes, inpossible,"
is in the eyes of the beholder.  You cite "consipracies to take over the 
world."  These exist today, either blatantly (the Third Reich was one example
of it; others existing today are outlined in a number od political journals)
or covertly.  So one has to take care with one's suppositions.

Definitionally, you've made "SF" *very, very* broad:  the television shows
_The Man From UNCLE_ (and its spinoff), _Get Smart_, _Bat Man_, _Mission,
Imposible_, and imitators, would thus be "SF," even though this probably
wasn't the intent of the producers.  (Could UNCLE ever have worked without
such gadgets as transistorized fountain pens tuned to "Channel D," or 
radio-controlled plastic explosives to open locks?  Could _Bat Man_ have 
worked without the nuclear-powered Batmobile?)  This makes 75% of *everything*
on the Tube as SF.  In the movies, this clearly puts _Raiders of the Lost Ark_
in the SF category, from the opening scenes (a Central or South American temple
of antiquity with *light-actuated* traps?) as well as the body of the film 
(Germans with bazookas?), forgetting the mystical elements.  Also, do anachron-
isms count (15th Century armor on knoights at the time of King Arthur, for
instance)?

I'd like to narrow it a bit, just to keep things managable.  Without going
too deeply into this, I'd suggest that science fction should be limited to
the impact of thecnology upon humans (or equivalent) where that technology
will create a significant, if not profound, change by its presence, and where
lack of that technology will render the story meaningless.  Thus, Post-atomic-
war stories would fit, but stories where a simple extension of a technological
approack (a simple method of raising a sunken vessel -- Donald Duck and his
nephews diid so once by buying an incredible number of ping-pong balls to
put in the hull, for instance) wouldn't really count.

The lines are a bit fuzzy, but with too broad a definition, the whole world
quickly becomes SF, and if everything is, then nothing is.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

re .-1 

Well, they were really panzerfaust, I believe.  Still an anachronism, but at
least the weapons were from the same country.

re .0

Here we go again!  You may not have wanted to reopen this can of worms, but 
I'll bet you have.  

       SCIENCE FICTION IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER!

Finis.

Re: the boycotted Olympics--no, certainly not, the books you mentioned are
    non-SF.  But comparing Ronnie with God; that qualifies!

Not having read the R DOCUMENT, I'm sticking my neck out, but...
Your argument is that the idea of an amendment which allows the pres. to 
repeal the Bill of Rights in an emergency qualifies the book as SF.  If 
Wallace has the amendment legalized AND has the pres. invoke it (with
Alarums and Excursions without) then I agree.  If the Bill was defeated
then I must equate it with your weapon at the blueprint stage;  if it
doesn't become "reality" nobody gets zapped and its not SF.  (What did
happen to the Bill?)

BTW, I did like your definitions in the beginning of the reply.  When I
read 'em, I thought: "Wish I'D said that!"  I define SF by Gut-Feel.

     						Don

	Like I said in the Pitt note, I didn't consider "Raise the Titanic"
	or any of the other Cussler novels SF because I've read all of them
	and only RtT comes close to having a SF element in it... I look
	at them as "Technology-fiction".. Something that uses technology
	that is very imaginable.. MY (and I stress MY) idea of SF is the
	laser death beams and spaceships and Tom Swift....  Maybe I'm just
	a product of "Lost in Space" and "Star Trek".. :-)

	Too each his own I guess.. :-)

						mike

Re .4:

There is a difference between building a weapon and enacting a bill.  Building
a weapon might violate natural theories, while enacting a bill is unlikely to
do so.


				-- edp

[Warning: long response ahead]

re:.1

> I do not think it is proper to remove an element (such as the force-field)
> and say it can be replaced with something else.  For example, in _Outworld_,
> one could change Io to a Western mining town and say it is not science
> fiction.

It depends on what the something is, and how well it ties into the story. In
the example I gave, the force-field projector only provided a motivation for
the raising of the ship. A more mundane motivation would have served as well.
	I consider a setting to be a major part of a story. Some people do
exactly what you say in your example --- they look at OUTLAND and say, "Set it
in the Old West, and you have HIGH NOON. It's not sf, it's a western, regardless
of what the setting is." I disagree. When someone says that, I counter with,
"And if you take THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN and set it in medieval Japan, it becomes
a samurai movie. Does that mean it's not a western?"

re:.2

> A situation "so unlikely as to be, for all practical purposes, inpossible,"
> is in the eyes of the beholder.  You cite "consipracies to take over the
> world."  These exist today, either blatantly (the Third Reich was one example
> of it; others existing today are outlined in a number od political journals)
> or covertly.  So one has to take care with one's suppositions.

Perhaps I should have said "secret conspiracies". I'm not talking about the
Third Reich, but something more in the line of Talbot Mundy's THE NINE UNKNOWN
or the ILLUMINATUS! novels (even though the Illuminati have had various real
incarnations over the centuries). I'm not the only one who thinks of these as
sf. Both Everett Bleiler in A CHECKLIST OF FANTASTIC LITERATURE and A GUIDE TO
SUPERNATURAL LITERATURE and Robert Reginald in SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY
LITERATURE consider these type of books to be sf.

> Definitionally, you've made "SF" *very, very* broad:  the television shows
> _The Man From UNCLE_ (and its spinoff), _Get Smart_, _Bat Man_, _Mission,
> Imposible_, and imitators, would thus be "SF," even though this probably
> wasn't the intent of the producers.  (Could UNCLE ever have worked without
> such gadgets as transistorized fountain pens tuned to "Channel D," or
> radio-controlled plastic explosives to open locks?  Could _Bat Man_ have
> worked without the nuclear-powered Batmobile?)  This makes 75% of *everything*
> on the Tube as SF.

Actually, I *do* consider THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. and BATMAN, at least, to be
sf, regardless of what the intent of the producers was. The fact that, in the
case of U.N.C.L.E., the intent was to do a spy show, is irrelevant. A tv show
or a movie or a book doesn't have to be just one thing or another. Is Asimov's
THE CAVES OF STEEL an sf novel or a detective novel? It's both.
	Granted, *some* discretion needs to be used. Radio-controlled plastic
explosives I can ignore, and likewise some of the gimmicks of various adventure
shows or book series. Because even if they don't actually exist, the bulk of
such gadgets are in the *realm of possibility*. In something like KNIGHTRIDER,
which is intended to be an adventure/espionage show, we have something much
more elaborate than even a ballpoint pen radio. KNIGHTRIDER is sf, no matter
what the producers' intentions.
	Intent on the creator's part is irrelevant. I'm sure that Nevil Shute
didn't write ON THE BEACH intending it to be an sf novel. Kurt Vonnegut claims
that he doesn't write science fiction. Harlan Ellison says the same thing.
	And remember, what I'm talking about here is guidelines, not hard and
fast rules.

>   In the movies, this clearly puts _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ in
> the SF category, from the opening scenes (a Central or South American temple
> of antiquity with *light-actuated* traps?) as well as the body of the film
> (Germans with bazookas?), forgetting the mystical elements.

As I said, when I refer to "sf", I *am* including fantasy and the supernatural.
To me, it doesn't matter whether it's actually sf because of the temple traps
or supernatural because of the ark. It in the realm of Fantastic Fiction, as
some are wont to call it. That's enough for me.

>  Also, do anachron-
> isms count (15th Century armor on knoights at the time of King Arthur, for
> instance)?

It depends. The armor in EXCALIBUR (which is what you're thinking of, I'll
warrant) doesn't count because it was done out of ignorance on the producers'
part, or because it looked spiffy, or because they wanted to give the feel of
the time being more advanced than it actually was (this is true of *most*
examples of Arthurian legend).

> I'd like to narrow it a bit, just to keep things managable.  Without going
> too deeply into this, I'd suggest that science fction should be limited to
> the impact of thecnology upon humans (or equivalent) where that technology
> will create a significant, if not profound, change by its presence, and where
> lack of that technology will render the story meaningless.  Thus, Post-atomic-
> war stories would fit, but stories where a simple extension of a technological
> approack (a simple method of raising a sunken vessel -- Donald Duck and his
> nephews diid so once by buying an incredible number of ping-pong balls to
> put in the hull, for instance) wouldn't really count.

What's Donald Duck got to do with it? Donald Duck could hardly be considered
mainstream. And the method of raising the Titanic *wasn't* the sf element in
Cussler's novel anyway. If Cussler did not specify that the novel took place
in the future, and there was no mention of the force-field projector, I would
not consider the book to be sf.
	Any story set in the Old West is a western, regardless of whether the
setting has any bearing on the plot elements? Any story set in the relatively
distant past is an historical, regardless of whether the author set out to
write an historical. A love story set during the Occupation of Paris is still
thought of as a war story. Why should sf have rigorous definitions when other
genres don't?

> The lines are a bit fuzzy, but with too broad a definition, the whole world
> quickly becomes SF, and if everything is, then nothing is.

Funny you should say that. Some guidelines change with time. Michener's SPACE,
for instance, would be sf if it were published 20 years ago. But today? No,
it's no more sf than THE RIGHT STUFF, because it describes events that have
happened (or could have happened). Novels using lasers were sf 20 years ago,
now they aren't. That's why I specify that the how science fictional the tech-
nology is depends on when the book was written.

re:.3

>       SCIENCE FICTION IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER!

My point exactly! I wasn't attempting to define sf in my note, but to list
what guidelines *I* use in determining what's sf and what isn't. Defining sf
is a purely subjective enterprise, even though there are certain "objective"
guidelines (objective meaning that they are universally agreed on)


re:.4

> Not having read the R DOCUMENT, I'm sticking my neck out, but...
> Your argument is that the idea of an amendment which allows the pres. to
> repeal the Bill of Rights in an emergency qualifies the book as SF.  If
> Wallace has the amendment legalized AND has the pres. invoke it (with
> Alarums and Excursions without) then I agree.  If the Bill was defeated
> then I must equate it with your weapon at the blueprint stage;  if it
> doesn't become "reality" nobody gets zapped and its not SF.  (What did
> happen to the Bill?)

Actually, let me back off a bit here. You're right, the amendment doesn't get
passed in the novel, but only because someone proved that the head of the
Justice Dept., who was behind the amendment, staged a plot to take over the
country once the amendment was passed. This novel was a poor example of this
guideline, but it doesn't matter. The novel is clearly set in the relatively
distant future --- no year is specified, but the proposed amendment was the
35th. We ain't nowhere near that (we've got what, 27 now?). The conspiratorial
nature of the plot helps too.  Many bibliographers and filmographers in the
field consider SEVEN DAYS IN MAY to be sf even though the conspiracy doesn't
succeed. As I said, these are *my* guidelines.

> BTW, I did like your definitions in the beginning of the reply.  When I
> read 'em, I thought: "Wish I'D said that!"  I define SF by Gut-Feel.

Yes! My only "definition" of sf is the old saw "SF is what I point to and say,
`That's sf'."

re:.5

>	Like I said in the Pitt note, I didn't consider "Raise the Titanic"
>	or any of the other Cussler novels SF because I've read all of them
>	and only RtT comes close to having a SF element in it... I look
>	at them as "Technology-fiction".. Something that uses technology
>	that is very imaginable.. MY (and I stress MY) idea of SF is the
>	laser death beams and spaceships and Tom Swift....  Maybe I'm just
>	a product of "Lost in Space" and "Star Trek".. :-)

In principle, I agree. I don't worry about technology that is "very imaginable"
which is why I don't worry about a lot of super-spy gadgetry making something
sf. The force-field projector in RTT!, however, is *not* what I'd consider in
the realm of possibility. Setting the novels very definitely in the future,
however, does help me consider them sf.

>	Too each his own I guess.. :-)

I couldn't agree more.

re .7:

>...Donald Duck ...?

I mentioned a Donald Duck story (Barks comic book) only because the story was
a thoroughly ingenious one where Donald & kids were trying to raise a sunken
ship without having to rent/buy tools from companies owned by their ultra-
rich Uncle Scrooge.  The solution was neat, technologically interesting, and
fun (spoiled only by the faxfact that Uncle Scrooge also owned the ping-pong-
ball manufacturing company).  "Hardly mainstream" indeed, but just an example
as how anything can be SF if viewed from the proper perspective (Tom Lehrer
once said the same thing about pornography in his song "Smut").

>>	Too each his own I guess.. :-)

>I couldn't agree more.

I don't exactly disagree, but if those are your sentiments, why bring up 
the matter at all?

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Why did I bring it up? Because in the note about Clive Cussler's Dirk
Pitt novels, Mike Foley didn't understand at first why I thought RAISE
THE TITANIC! was sf, so I thought I'd detail how I determine what is sf
and what isn't, and perhaps see what other folks thought. I had no
intention of speaking from On High, if that's the feeling that you got.

And I still fail to see what the Donald Duck example proves. Sure it's
ingenious, and sure it wouldn't work as a real solution, but that says
nothing about how one could interpret *anything* as science fiction.
As broad as you think my definitions are, I hardly think that even a
minute percentage of what is produced in the arts is science fiction.
Now, if you can take my guidelines and prove with them that VALLEY OF
THE DOLLS is sf, I'll be admonished.


--- jerry

Re .7:

> It depends on what the something is, and how well it ties into the story. In
> the example I gave, the force-field projector only provided a motivation for
> the raising of the ship. A more mundane motivation would have served as well.

I'm not so sure it depends on what is being changed.  If you change any part
of the story, you have changed the story.  Perhaps when one change is lesser
than another, we could say the first story is closer to be not science fiction
than the other, but I still must put it in the science fiction category.
What argument can be given for saying it is acceptable to change the story and
then classify it?  To paraphrase your words, in _Outland_, a more mundane
setting would have served as well.

> It depends. The armor in EXCALIBUR (which is what you're thinking of, I'll
> warrant) doesn't count because it was done out of ignorance on the producers'
> part, or because it looked spiffy, or because they wanted to give the feel of
> the time being more advanced than it actually was (this is true of *most*
> examples of Arthurian legend).

I agree; mistakes do not count.  If it is not the author's intent to include
an anachronism, we should consider the story to be what it would be if the
author had been aware of the error.

Perhaps we should separate classification of science fiction as a genre and
classification of science fiction as a flavor.  Many of the stories being
discussed must be put in the genre of science fiction although they do not
have a science fiction flavor (involving space, science, time, and so on).

The flavor of a story would tell us something about the characters, setting,
and/or plot.  The genre of a story would tell us something about the manner
of writing -- involving different scientific theories, time travel, new
inventions, and similar things means the story must be written in a slightly
different way from "normal" stories, even though they may have a normal flavor.

Hasn't Isaac Asimov expressed a belief (perhaps originating with someone other
than himself -- Campbell perhaps?) that _every_ story is science fiction?


				-- edp

re .9:

I haven't read VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, so I can only make an educated guess about
some of the pills the "dolls" were taking.... :-)

re .10:

Separating "science-fiction as a genre and science fiction as a flavor" is
breathtaking.  Part of me likes it, but another part of me sees this as the
beginning of a Howard Johnson's movement ("28 Flavors").

Maybe better:  "science fixtion" of "SF" is the genre; "sci-fi" is the flavor.
Operationally, that's how it's coming about in the media; such as OUTLAND.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

To paraphrase the best description I've heard yet: SF is a matter of symbols
and intent.

In my humble opinion, the more a story diverges from other recognized forms
adds to the story's SFishness.  To illustrate, some of the elements of a story
include: 

    Setting
    Characters
    Conflict and resolution
    Props

(The list is limitless, but this is enough to make a point...)

The critics say that _Outland_ is merely a western set on IO with SF props.  OK,
it is still SF, but _Outland_ scores low on the SFishness scale because of how
little the characters, the conflict and resolution differs from another form.
I'd still rather watch _Outland_ than _High Noon_. 

What about stories center around something that is distictly SFish?  The stories
that fall apart without that element, I rate higher on the SFishness scale.
Without being too ribald, I recall an Analog story of a couple on their
honeymoon at a zero-gee resort and all the problems that zero-gee caused on
their wedding night.  Take out the zero-gee and what have you got?  (Well, a
waterbed might come close, but not very.)  

Intent plays a tremendous role.  I don't think one can point at a gadget and
say "That makes it SF."  SF is what SF writers write, SF publishers publish, and
SF readers read.  That is why _Raise the Titanic_ isn't on the SF bookshelf; it
is under fiction or some other non-descript category.  Its more than a pity that
the bookstores line up (bury) books such as _Raise the Titanic_ and _Fail Safe_
and _Andromeda Strain_ with the latest romance novels, but I'm getting off the
topic... 

Some guidelines I'd like to see:

    Alien or future setting - the more effects that simply don't occur here
    and now, the better.  

    Characters from other cultures - I do not expect to see a 1980's suburbian 
    character on the surface of Mars.  Times change, people change.

    Plots that have SFishness at their core - just as I'd rather see _Outland_
    than _High Noon_, I'd rather see _2010_ than _Outland_.  The SF setting
    and the SF characters should produce an SF conflict with an SF resolution.
    Otherwise "it's just a western..."

    Props doth not make good SF - oooh, I love gadgets, but don't surround a 
    story with props and call it SF.


John B.

re .12:

The idea of "SFishness" isn't bad, but ...

Taking _Outland_ as a prime example: Why was it _High Noon_ in space?  Be-
cause there was little, if any, discernable difference between the shootout
on the street and the shootout at the space settlement.  There were Gadgets,
but to quote a recent reply,
>	Props doth not make good SF - oooh, I love gadgets, but don't surround a
>	story with props and call it SF.

"Symbolism and intent" is a good metric.  Now if there were also some *tech-
nological* problem involved in _Outland_ rather than just a gunfight....

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .13:

There are at least two things in _Outland_ that distinguish it from a Western.
First, there was the primary problem the Sheriff (Is that the correct job
title?) was working on; it turned out that the company was supplying drugs
to the workers to get them to be more productive.  That certainly would be
unusual in a Western.  Second, part of the gunfight involved tricking one
of the hired guns into shooting out a window -- which is a lot more dangerous
on Io than in Dodge City.


				-- edp

Or, the Indian Agent (the Company) was supplying liquor (drugs) to the 
natives for certain concessions....

Or, the lawman tricked the gunman into firing into the dynamite shed,
blowing him up (explosion instead of implosion).

Wasn't that Walter Brennan settin' in the back during the cafeteria scene,
chawin' a bar o' food concentrate?

Now, I liked the film.  No raves, just a "like".  Enough technology was
put into it so it would hold up fairly well.  The point I'm shooting for 
is the makers could have done more instead of making it a space western.
I equate it (hesitantly) to "Battlestar Galactica": great sets, special
effects, costumes, Preview clips, etc.; but poor scripts.  With all the 
struggling (an assumption here) SF writers, how did the producers blow
that one?  They chose, instead, like OUTLAND, to use established (and 
successful) themes.

While OUTLAND didn't set SF-film-making back, it really didn't make a big
jump forward, either.


     						Don

re .15:  The "With all the struggling ..." line prompts me to ask the
question "What great science fiction story/novel would make an great movie,
and hasn't been done yet?".  This could include suggested directors, actors,
etc..  Does this warrant a new note?

I'd like to see the following made into movies:

	Ringworld/Ringworld Engineers
	Any one of the Doc Smith stories
	The City and the Stars
	Rendezvous with Rama

I'm sure I'll think of more.

len.

re .15:

Now if the sherrif had whipped up a gadget rather than whipping out a
gun...

I agree.  I rather enjoyed the film, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a
space western.  _Galaxy_ in the 50s used to poke fun at such transplants,
and I can't help but agree.  _Gone With the Wind_ in an interstellar set-
ting *might* be an interesting and entertaining a film (although I person-
ally didn't particularly like it), but it still would be a transplant.

Re .16:  See note 261.  

I can see *maybe* the _Skylark_ sagas and _Spacehounds of IPC_ as
films, but I doubt seriously that any film could do justice to the
Lensman Series.

Steve Kallis, Jr.