"slang" and "informal" as dict labels

[James A. Landau]

In a message dated 02/17/2003 10:21:55 AM Eastern Standard Time,
JJJRLandau at AOL.COM scribbles:

> Since most Hollywood SF, until Star Wars,
>  was schlock, SF fans acquired very negative connotations for "sci-fi".
> Since the standards for plausibility and scientific literacy in written SF
>  (particularly in Astounding Science Fiction, the leading SF magazine since
>  the 1930's) are much higher than Hollywood's standards, fans of written SF
>  understandably took a poor view of the Hollywood stuff.

"Science fiction fandom" refers to the in-group of readers of magazine and
book science fiction who gather together at "cons" (conventions) and write
fanzines for each other.  This is probably a patronizing definition, but I
supply it to emphasize that classical "fandom" consists of fans of written
SF.

Now every literary form has its share of dreck (SF writer Theodore Sturgeon
coined "Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap") and SF is no
exception.  However, partially due to the influence of John W. Campbell,
long-time editor of Astounding SF (later Analog SF), certain informal
standards arose.  Quality SF had to create "a willing suspension of
disbelief".  This could occur in one of two ways:
1)  by telling such a good adventure story that the reader did not care if
the background were plausible or not (the works of E. E. Smith are a good
example.  So, I suppose, are the Fu Manchu stories)
2)  by creating a world carefully enough extrapolated from our own that the
reader would accept the plausibility of that world.

A variation on 1) would be work of such literary quality that the background
could be ignored.  For example, Ray Bradbury's knowledge of science is
abysmal, but his writing is so high quality that many SF fans accept his work
as canonical.

Campbell encouraged (although he did not always enforce) a high degree of
scientific literacy in the stuff he published in Astounding/Analog.

Now for film SF.  I have seen "Metropolis" and will not argue with those who
consider it a great work of art.  Some other early SF movies were of high
quality.  However, Hollywood also runs a sausage factory which turns out
repetitive, unimaginative moves, e.g. run-of-the-mill "oaters".  At some
point Hollywood discovered there was a market for sausage factory SF and
turned out quantities of it.  This is the stuff which makes fans of written
SF cringe.

What is wrong with it?  The contempt with which the producers regarded SF, as
a field in which to unload B movies.  The script writers took no pains with
plausibility or with scientific literacy---quite a contrast with a writer
like Heinlein, who got his orbits correctly described and made his
extrapolated science plausible.

Star Trek was somewhat of a break with this tradition of contempt----Gene
Roddenberry took some pains to keep his backgrounds plausible and, unlike the
usual Hollywood producer, treated his universe with respect.  However, Star
Trek did not, as far as I can tell, influence much else in Hollywood.

Star Wars did.  Here for the first time was a movie that was SF, that was a
blockbuster, and that was also a movie of high quality.  The producer of Star
Wars took the trouble to go to the World Science Fiction Convention in 1976
(9 months before the movie was released) and talk to the fans, which shows
that the people who created Star Wars were taking SF and its quality
standards seriously.

Star Wars had a major influence on Hollywood.  I repeat it was a blockbuster.
 It also had the qualities of a good movie---good actors (including a name
actor, Alec Guinness), a good adventure story, excellent special effects.  It
also had the literary SF fan's attitude towards quality---the extrapolation
from our world had to be plausible, the science (which of course is
fictitious) was presented with scientific literacy, etc.  Granted there were
a few glitches, e.g. "the ship which made the x run in 12 parsecs" but the
point is, the material was treated with the respect that the SF fan
appreciated.

I say that Star Wars had a major influence on Hollywood.  Consider ET,
Gremlins, etc---all movies which used the best of Hollywood rather than the
worst.

What about 2001 A Space Oddysey?  An underdeveloped story, with a
preposterous ending.  Far outclassed by Star Wars, and except for Silent
Running (which I once saw and claim had no plot) without influence on later
movies.

While still on my soapbox, I will point out that the current Lord of the
Rings and Harry Potter series, while fantasy, are in the Star Wars
tradition---the best of Hollywood used to tell a good story which was adapted
to the screen WITH RESPECT rather than mercenary contempt.

Have I answered your question?

             - Jim Landau

PS to Mark Mandel---"speculative fiction" is an excellent umbrella term for
combining SF (which theoretically consists of plausible extrapolations from
the reader's world) and fantasy (which frankly creates a fictitious world,
e.g. sorcery exists).  It is handy because most fans of written science
fiction are also fans of fantasy and vice versa.  However historically "SF"
is an abbreviation for "science fiction" and was in use before anyone coined
"speculative fiction".