Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site tekecs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!tekecs!davidl From: davidl@tekecs.UUCP (David Levine) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: SF or Sci-Fi? Message-ID: <3029@tekecs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Oct-83 14:10:13 EDT Article-I.D.: tekecs.3029 Posted: Thu Oct 6 14:10:13 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Oct-83 05:00:36 EDT Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 27 Somebody in this group asked recently "What's so bad about saying Sci-Fi?" All I can say is that it's accepted practice in the SF-reading community to reserve the term Sci-Fi for Truly Putrid movies and books, using SF (pronounced "Ess-Eff") as the generic abbreviation for Science Fiction. Sci-Fi (usually heard in the phrase "that Sci-Fi crap") has bad implications for most of the populace: it brings to mind images of Buck Rogers and Captain Video. Sci-Fi means the same things to SF fans, who use SF to refer to "the good stuff." This usage, I believe, arose because the media tend to brand everything from "Plan 9 From Outer Space" through "Star Wars" to President Reagan's space laser proposal as Sci-Fi, whereas those who read a lot of the stuff and know the good from the bad would rather use a different term for the good. Finally, my objections to the term Sci-Fi are semantic. For heaven's sake, it's not , with the FY sound from "fire," it's with the FI sound from "fish." You wouldn't refer to Mystery Fiction as "My-Fi" or Historical Fiction as "Hi-Fi," would you? -- -- David D. Levine, ECS Manuals Group (orca!davidl, x2155) -- David D. Levine (...decvax!tektronix!tekecs!davidl) [UUCP] (...tekecs!davidl.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]