There's a piece up in Wired about the fear of being labeled as Science Fiction (link via Finding Wonderland):

Even when clearly appropriate, film studios and publishers avoid the phrase "science fiction." So do the novelists, film directors and editors in their employ. McCarthy's book, which is about to become a blockbuster -- Oprah Winfrey will tout it on an upcoming TV show as part of her book club -- is just another example of how the powers that be dodge the term, especially when it applies to "serious" fiction or cinema.

Even Battlestar Galactica, the flagship show of (hello!) the Sci Fi Channel, keeps a distance. "It's fleshed-out reality," explains executive producer Ronald D. Moore in the sci-fi mag SFX. "It's not in the science-fiction genre."

Okay I don't know what universe you could be living in where a show that takes place in outer space with aliens and space ships is "not in the science fiction genre". Believe it or not though, this isn't even the part of the article that really annoyed me. Here we go:

Chris Barsanti, a critic who dared to reference The Road in terms of sci-fi literature, said the phrase "science fiction" summons images of "space battles, aliens, mad scientists, time travel and the like ... fantasy with testosterone." So publishers, wary of putting their book into an "artistic ghetto," twist themselves into knots to avoid using the label.

"Fantasy with testosterone?" What does that mean? Does anyone know what that means? When did going into outer space mean testosterone? Hell - anyone who has ever watched Star Trek knows it was much more about relationships than battles (even with all the battles) and I guess Barsanti must not think that Ray Bradbury wrote Sci Fi because he clearly hasn't read The Martian Chronicles if he thinks it is all about space battles.

And an "artistic ghetto"? When did Sci Fi become the place where you didn't want to be? Wasn't it supposed to be about the future? About seeing the future, imagining the future, dreaming about the future??????

Oh sweet Mary, I might completely lose my mind over this.

(Barsanti apparently writes for Wired - not sure how more qualified he is to define Sci Fi than anyone else though.)

The article mentions speculative fiction, ("The nose-thumbing is nothing new. In the '50s, Robert Heinlein dismissed the term, opting for 'speculative fiction'."), but clearly no one knows for sure what Sci Fi is, what Fantasy is or what Speculative Fiction is. And I'm not even going to suggest that I do either. (So please don't comment at me that I don't know what I'm talking about because I am admitting right now that I don't know for sure what the definitions are.)

Here's what John Campbell Jr defined Sci Fi as in Astounding Stories:

A new manifesto was drawn up by John W. CAMPBELL Jr for Astounding Stories, which, as ASTOUNDING SCIENCE-FICTION, would dominate the field in the 1940s. He proposed that sf should be regarded as a literary medium akin to science itself: "Scientific methodology involves the proposition that a well-constructed theory will not only explain away known phenomena, but will also predict new and still undiscovered phenomena. Science fiction tries to do much the same -- and write up, in story form, what the results look like when applied not only to machines, but to human society as well."

I get that Science Fiction is supposed to be fiction based in science - meaning scientifically possible. That's why the magic stuff is all fantasy (along with elves, faeries, horses with wings, etc.) And space travel, time travel, mental telepathy and stories set on other planets and in the future all seem for sure to be Sci Fi. I've never understood why alternate history stories end up in Sci Fi though - that seems to make no sense to me. If you wanted to call something Spec Fic, then I would point to those books and stories for starters. I also think that haunted house stories are good Spec Fic - ghosts do not equate horror, but they end up that way a lot for lack of a better place to put them.

But what Sci Fi is or isn't doesn't seem to be the issue here - it's what people think being labeled as Sci Fi might mean to them or the sale of the book, tv show, movie, etc. that needs to be fought against. You should be just as proud to be considered a Sci Fi writer as you would be a Mystery or Horror writer. (Or flipping Literary Fiction writer as far as I'm concerned.) Sci Fi should not be considered a bad thing; to me, it is the words of the future and that should make it something we all aspire to.

Maybe as we write about certain books, review them, recommend them, share information about them, etc., we should make a point of referringto a book that is clearly Sci Fi as Sci Fi. The case could made that if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. The same thing goes with Sci Fi - whether written for adults, teens or children. If the publishers want to drag their heels on the labeling then fine - whatever. But all of us who are handling the books, well we can just call them what they are.

If it's Sci Fi then tell the world so. Perhaps that is how you change things around here.