Pet peeves
Sep. 12th, 2010 01:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chaniIt's beyond my control, seeing words being misused makes me cringe and makes me want to write rants and groan. Maybe it's the teacher in me or maybe it's just my love for language ––unless it's merely a character trait –– but I get bothered by things that most people would just overlook.
It isn't that I want to denounce "cuistres" and "pédants", and I know that language evolves and that the meaning of words slips over the time, but I can't help it, I just hate it when words are debased.
I try not to say it on LJ, because it often happens there and I don't want to sound too picky or hurt my flist, but the frequent (mis) use of "meta" (as "analysis" or "essay on")annoys the hell out of me.
Lately I've been irritated by the use of "science fiction" label that can be seen in many Internet polls or lists around. Everything is science fiction now!
How many times have I seen Buffy The Vampires Slayer show up in a list about sci-fi tv shows*? I'm sorry but Buffy was never a sci-fi series. BSG, Caprica, Farscape, Terminator The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Star Trek, Fringe are sci-fi, not BtVS! Twin Peaks wasn't sci-fi either.
Lost does have a few science fiction elements in it (mostly thanks to Daniel Faraday and Dharma's experiences on time travel) yet I wouldn't call the show sci-fi and its finale, although I didn't like it, pointed it out.
Bram Stocker's Dracula has nothing to do with science fiction (if anything, the character of count Dracula precisely represents a world prior to the XIXth century's science); Stevenson's short story about Dr Jekyll isn't sci-fi either even though it's chemistry (the potion) that brings Mr Hyde out. By the way of contrast, H. G. Wells' books belong to the science fiction category. Nowadays we tend to put all fictional stories that contain or are based on imaginary stuff –– either beings or technologies or alternate universes or dystopia or supernatural elements–– in the same bag.
So what's next? Will Carroll's Alice's Adeventures in Wonderland or More's Utopia or Homer's The Odyssey be labeled sci-fi some day? What about The Bible?
As you can see, I strongly disagree with Nabokov when he said that Shakespeare's The Tempest should be termed science fiction.
Voltaire's Micromégas was a philosophical tale AND science fiction but Zadig, by the same author, wasn't science fiction, and neither were Charles Perrault's fairy tales, yet they all deal with stuff that did not exist.
Finally, it seems to me that, when we decide to mix-up various genres that contain imaginary stuff, we forget, in the process, that, by definition, everything in a fictional work is the product of imagination, the characters to begin with. In every book or movie or tv show, it's a whole universe that is made up. Art is the science of fiction, but not necessarily science fiction.
But it isn't only a matter of misused words and books or tv shows. I think we live a time of "confusion des genres". It's a plague in our western societies and my biggest pet peeve.
I see it all the time in my job. People mix-up History and Remembrance (and there begins the battle between memories, and the clash of lobbies ensues) or History and Commemoration. Sometimes it's just laziness and ignorance, sometimes it's pure manipulation.
Not only it annoys me, but also I believe it can be dangerous.
*PS: Once more David Lavery's blog shows that I am not alone. That said, The X-Files was a show that did mix up genres, covering its tracks, to the point that it's very difficult to label it. Some episodes were pure sci-fi, others pure fantasy, others pure thriller. As a whole, the series navigated by the stars between sci-fi ocean and conspiracy waters (can I make up a word like conspira-sea?). But its parents, The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, started with the genre mix-up. Perhaps it's the tv version of the American Melting-Pot.
It isn't that I want to denounce "cuistres" and "pédants", and I know that language evolves and that the meaning of words slips over the time, but I can't help it, I just hate it when words are debased.
I try not to say it on LJ, because it often happens there and I don't want to sound too picky or hurt my flist, but the frequent (mis) use of "meta" (as "analysis" or "essay on")annoys the hell out of me.
Lately I've been irritated by the use of "science fiction" label that can be seen in many Internet polls or lists around. Everything is science fiction now!
How many times have I seen Buffy The Vampires Slayer show up in a list about sci-fi tv shows*? I'm sorry but Buffy was never a sci-fi series. BSG, Caprica, Farscape, Terminator The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Star Trek, Fringe are sci-fi, not BtVS! Twin Peaks wasn't sci-fi either.
Lost does have a few science fiction elements in it (mostly thanks to Daniel Faraday and Dharma's experiences on time travel) yet I wouldn't call the show sci-fi and its finale, although I didn't like it, pointed it out.
Bram Stocker's Dracula has nothing to do with science fiction (if anything, the character of count Dracula precisely represents a world prior to the XIXth century's science); Stevenson's short story about Dr Jekyll isn't sci-fi either even though it's chemistry (the potion) that brings Mr Hyde out. By the way of contrast, H. G. Wells' books belong to the science fiction category. Nowadays we tend to put all fictional stories that contain or are based on imaginary stuff –– either beings or technologies or alternate universes or dystopia or supernatural elements–– in the same bag.
So what's next? Will Carroll's Alice's Adeventures in Wonderland or More's Utopia or Homer's The Odyssey be labeled sci-fi some day? What about The Bible?
As you can see, I strongly disagree with Nabokov when he said that Shakespeare's The Tempest should be termed science fiction.
Voltaire's Micromégas was a philosophical tale AND science fiction but Zadig, by the same author, wasn't science fiction, and neither were Charles Perrault's fairy tales, yet they all deal with stuff that did not exist.
Finally, it seems to me that, when we decide to mix-up various genres that contain imaginary stuff, we forget, in the process, that, by definition, everything in a fictional work is the product of imagination, the characters to begin with. In every book or movie or tv show, it's a whole universe that is made up. Art is the science of fiction, but not necessarily science fiction.
But it isn't only a matter of misused words and books or tv shows. I think we live a time of "confusion des genres". It's a plague in our western societies and my biggest pet peeve.
I see it all the time in my job. People mix-up History and Remembrance (and there begins the battle between memories, and the clash of lobbies ensues) or History and Commemoration. Sometimes it's just laziness and ignorance, sometimes it's pure manipulation.
Not only it annoys me, but also I believe it can be dangerous.
*PS: Once more David Lavery's blog shows that I am not alone. That said, The X-Files was a show that did mix up genres, covering its tracks, to the point that it's very difficult to label it. Some episodes were pure sci-fi, others pure fantasy, others pure thriller. As a whole, the series navigated by the stars between sci-fi ocean and conspiracy waters (can I make up a word like conspira-sea?). But its parents, The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, started with the genre mix-up. Perhaps it's the tv version of the American Melting-Pot.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-09-12 12:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-12 12:54 pm (UTC)"Horror" is another difficult label to use for it can apply to various genres like thriller, fantasy (especialy fairy tales)or gore. In French we have the category that is called "film d'épouvante" which means that the film's goal is to scare the audience (sometimes without any fantasy elements or special effects)which is much more than a thriller, while the label "film d'horreur" is rather about gore.
But you are right certain episodes of The X Files kinda belong to the horror subgenre. "Home" (that David Lavery mentioned) might be one of them.
Also, "Hush" on Buffy, or the episode with The Gnarl eating Willow's flesh would be horror.
A few quibbles...
Date: 2010-09-13 01:40 am (UTC)So yes, Buffy did have sci-fi in it. In fact it did the whole human robot thing before BSG did, with both I Was Made to Love You, and Robot Buffy. Warren and Adam were both science fiction villians not gothic horror.
Whedon liked to blend genres - romance/science fiction and horror. Angel the Series also had elements of science fiction in it - with Fred and parallel string theory. I know because I was on a fanboard that had actual scientists play with the science themes in both series.
And most horror falls either within science fiction or fantasy.
I know, because I hated both as a child because I didn't like being scared, it wasn't until Star Wars popped up that I wasn't getting scared by sci-fi and fantasy shows, they always had monsters.
Even Firefly had elements of horror - the Reavers.
So, you can't neatly categorize for all shows. What distinquished Buffy from Twilight, Moonlight, Vampire Diaries, True Blood, etc - is that it contained elements of both gothic fantasy and sci-fi, reinventing the vampire genre as a result, creating a new category known as sci-fantasy with urban sci-fantasy. Granted the science isn't always accurate, but that's true of most tv shows. 90% of the science on Caprica, BSG, Star Trek and Doctor Who is far from accurate.
Re: A few quibbles...
Date: 2010-09-13 03:26 pm (UTC)It was first and foremost about monsters, magic and supernatural beings, where the fantasy structure and rules allowed to tell the tale Joss wanted, so I wouldn't call Buffy sci-fi in spite of a few elements or references Joss threw here and there.
On the other hand from what I have heard about the comics the verse in there is becoming quite sci-fi! ;- )
It's the other way with BSG or Caprica that are sci-fi but also have mythological elements in it. The "raison d'être" of the BSGverse is the fact that human beings created Artificial Intelligence and had to deal with the consequences, which allowed to question what humanity means.
And yes, as I said above in my response to kazzy_cee, horror is a subcatefory in many genres.
What distinquished Buffy from Twilight, Moonlight, Vampire Diaries, True Blood, etc - is that it contained elements of both gothic fantasy and sci-fi, reinventing the vampire genre as a result, creating a new category known as sci-fantasy with urban sci-fantasy; I think that what distinguised Buffy from such shows is good writing and depth!
no subject
Date: 2010-09-13 02:19 pm (UTC)Cuz, you're right, from a production p.o.v. and a viewer p.o.v. a specific genre will mean securing certain kind of audience. One of my problems is, I write across genres. So, to be honest to the producers, I had to say something like: 'a drama with elements of magical realism...'
I would see the brows pull together as they added that up, but it did put them in expectation of a certain kind of story and it worked. Folks that were interested leaned forward and those that were not leaned back, and I knew right away if I should save us both time and switch to a different pitch. Genre classification means a lot. Especially these days with tight production budgets.
So I understand the value of a clean definition when you can, and I think you also have a point about it becoming potentially dangerous, and I mean for children and young adults. To expect one venue and receive elements of horror intertwined...well, we all know the power of image and how it can seed and impress the mind.
But what do you do if the work honestly crosses genres?
One of the best writers quotes I like in the moment comes from Rowlings, and paraphrased, she says she writes first and foremost for herself. And of course that's why her tales work. She is satisfying her need to heal some element or 'fix' some aspect in the world that disturbs her personally. And because a lot of writers are writing in such a way, that is, from an idiosyncratic point of view, you're gonna find a plethora of mixed and crossed genres in all media.
I’m inserting laughter here, cuz I was submitting one of my books to a contest and the list of genres and sub-genres was impressive. And I’m like...'well, is it more, fantasy or sci fi or visionary fic?'
'Um...about 40% sci fi...ah 20% fantasy and leaves 40% visionary...oops I have a tie between sci fi and visionary.'
See what I mean? Just how do we class things anymore?
One thing is sure (for me) even a 10% element of Horror makes the whole thing Horror in my opinion.
Of course, in television they may be programming the 'wrong' genre to grab whatever built-in audience a certain program may have.
Very interesting. Thanks for detailing your thoughts so well. It was helpful to hear this from your perspective.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-13 03:45 pm (UTC)I wanted more intellectual rigor, not rigidity, if you see what I mean.
I hate it when works follow a formula (what many poor films do, precisely because they aim at a certain audience), so writing cross genres is fine by me. :- )
Thanks for commenting!
no subject
Date: 2010-09-13 04:19 pm (UTC)I kinda like it when people do a little rant dance. And so I wanted to stop by and say...'oh you made me think...' Yahu! Thanks again.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-13 04:49 pm (UTC)Yeah I kinda got that...my response was more of a private stream of consciousness stimulated by your passion. Two not quite related subject lines, but your intense feeling was helping me to see my own situation reguarding genre in a different light. My questions were more rhetorical.
I know the feeling, it happens to me very often. That's what I like about forums, how the others' thoughts make you think and the tangents that a post may spawn.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-14 08:19 am (UTC)Buffy in one respect is totally sci-fi, it posits an alternate magic-filled world in which demons, vampires and gods exist, and that there is but one girl in all the world to fight against them. That is sci-fi. Yes, it uses what we see of the world around us in this day and time as true, but BtVS is no less allegorical than the original Star Trek was in its day. A story does not have to project into a future time, deal with unkown/new technology or with outer space to be sci-fi.
However, BtVS deals with xenobiology in one respect, that vampires and earth-bound demons grew up alongside man (after the 'old ones' - the real demons - went away) and that interdimensional places and portals exist, such as the hellmouth. The whole Whedonverse (BtVS & Angel) for that matter is science fiction. And that is why at its heart BtVS is sci-fi. Because rather simply, if you create a new universe, that's sci-fi. Just because it uses elements and themes which are more often than not associated with horror or fantasy in the heart of other writings does not keep BtVS from being science fiction.
...
no subject
Date: 2010-09-14 06:47 pm (UTC)Frankestein is sci-fi since it's based on the idea that a scientist, Dr Frankestein, can create life using his knowledge, technology and natural forces. It isn't that different from Caprica.
In many genres the horror just goes along for the ride, as you say. I guess that it's only when a work is first and foremost meant to scare people that we can put it in the horror category stricto-sensu.
alternate magic-filled world in which demons, vampires and gods exist, and that there is but one girl in all the world to fight against them Precisely this hasn't nothing to do with science. The Buffyverse deals with Mythology (hence the onld ones and Glory)and magic not with the way mankind can change the world (or the experience of time)thanks to scientifical skills or interact with alien nations because of their scientifical knowledge. Fictional science (Ted, Maggie Walsh's experiences, the Buffybot) can happen in the Buffyverse but it isn't the stuff the verse is based on, its rules aren't of fictional science.
I'm sorry but I can't forget the word "science" in "science fiction". Words matter.
If we follow your idea of sci-fi every fictional work, all the literature is sci-fi, because they all create a new universe that exists only within a book or a film. It's more obvious when there's supernatural stuff or space organization involved but it's true for any work. Artists are demiurges.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-15 03:51 am (UTC)No, you have to create a universe that operates differently on some scientific issue. Thus xenobiology - demons, etc., a past (what you claim as mythology) which was completely different than our own but was considered real, and the use of magic.
When I first started writing a response to you I was going to agree that Buffy was not Sci-Fi. I had a couple of paragraphs in support of your position written out. But then I was watching "Helpless" as I wrote. And even in that episode I couldn't see the separation with Sci-Fi.
...
no subject
Date: 2010-09-15 10:51 am (UTC)I am not convinced. :- )
If you follow your way of think–– that is xenobiology allowing us to say it's "science", it applies to fairies, gods, sirens, centaurs, angels etc (all mythical and fantasy beings that exist in religions and foklores)so it works for all Mythology books and fairytales. It's a bit too stretching for me.
It makes sense for Doctor Who that is based on the idea of xenobiology (The Doctor himself belongs to another species) and time travel, but not for Buffy. The shadowmen weren't scientists when they made up the first slayer. Vampires aren't aliens, they aren't another "race", they are basically magically-animated corpses of former human beings that a demon got to possess. Demons and old ones like Glory, the key itself, refer to the origins of the verse, before the rule of mankind, which is exactly what Mythology means. It's very close to what Tolkien did when he created Middle Earth and told the story of the first ages in The Silmarillion.
But I concede that BtVS flirted with sci-fi a few times (Ted, the Initiative storyline, Warren's robots), and that Ats, and now the comics, seem to mix genre up more and more...
no subject
Date: 2010-09-14 06:57 pm (UTC)I suppose you do, since it's a completely invented universe.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-15 03:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-15 10:31 am (UTC)Because rather simply, if you create a new universe, that's sci-fi.
It's basically what Tolkien did.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-16 06:14 pm (UTC)I just watched an interview of Joss Whedon in which he keeps giving examples of sci-fi movies (Logan's Run, The Matrix)and keeps calling them...fantasy!
http://play.sydneyoperahouse.com/index.php/graphic/joss-whedon-interview.html
Looks like, for him, everything is fantasy. And now, as I think of the meaning of the word "fantasy", it's actually something to which I could subscribe more than to "everything is sci-fi". In a way, everything is fantasy indeed.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-14 03:01 pm (UTC)When I teach sci-fi (and I usually have a choice between Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World as the text my students have to read) the question of defining sci-fi is always the starting point. And as you can see, what I have to teach is actually the overlap between sci-fi and dystopian fiction. (A Handmaid's Tale was another of the recent set texts.)
But we always try to define the term and look at different definitions - some of which actually encompass fantasy and horror elements, but for most of my students this doesn't really fit. For them sci-fi = future.
What about Star Wars? They get confused with that, because it has got space ships and robots, but it's set in the past.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-14 06:52 pm (UTC)And this is where I point out that not all the anticipation works are necessarily sci-fi. An author can imagine a further future in wich there isn't any fictional science (usually it's even a technology-less universe).
no subject
Date: 2010-09-15 04:37 pm (UTC)I've just had a look at my hand-out with different definitions and it starts like this: