The Sci Fi Channel has been getting a lot of flack for daring to change its name to the Syfy Channel, effective this July 7. I thought I'd be pop in to say, I have no problem with the name change at all. Here are five reasons why:
1. Words don't mean anything intrinsically - one of their great benefits is that, with the tiny exception of onomatopoeia (as indicated in the word "buzz"), words have no necessary connection to what they describe. This allows us to talk and write about vast and complex things very economically - indeed, to communicate about things that don't exist at all (can anyone take a photograph of "concept"?).
2. As philosopher Karl Popper pointed out, it's not usually worth the time arguing over definitions - or, what words attach to what meanings. What counts are what the labels are describing. Of course, if someone is deliberately using a word incorrectly - calling Barack Obama a Muslim, for example - then that should be pointed out. I often also point out that Obama's policies are in no sense "socialist". But, in the end, all that really counts is what Obama's policies are, and whether we agree with them or not. Applying this to the Sci Fi -> SyFy Channel, all that really counts is what it broadcasts.
3. Sci Fi itself is a name not very beloved by science fiction fans. The last time I referred to my writing as "sci fi," to another author, I was politely advised not to use that term, and instead speak of "sf". That was about 25 years ago.
4. Science fiction is itself not such a great term, even though every time I hear it my ears still perk up. Hugo Gernsback created the name in the 1920s, but it was something of a misnomer even then. H. G. Well's The Time Machine
5. When I was President of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, 1998-2001, I noticed that one of the least productive debates among writers was whether a work was science fiction or fantasy. Again, all that really counted was whether the work was good, and/or, for the less idealistic among us, whether it sold and made money. (Of course, if a work has nothing to do with either science fiction or fantasy, then giving it either label would be misleading.)
Which brings us back to the Sci Fi Channel. Call yourself whatever you like. I'll keep watching you, as long as you keep putting on series like Battlestar Galactica, which I'm looking forward to seeing the two-hour finale of this Friday.
Added 3/21/09: And here's my OS review of the superb finale - Not Goodbye But See You Around
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
bill benzon
Poppi Iceland
PattyJane
N. Jordan
Dr. Vanessa Neumann
CPH/NYC
Salon.com
Comments
I didn't know you were the President of SciFi etc Writers association. This prompted me to actually read your whole bio. A couple of your books look interesting.
That McLuhan book sure is high priced for a paperback at 240 pages...a dime a page even with the Amazon discount. I guess I may have to check the used book market on that one. The Socrates book looks priced more normally. Maybe you will get some royalties from me after all.
Actually, I don't mind used book sales all that much - the more the used book market is drained, the more would-be customers have no choice but to buy the book new.
As to the cycles - no, I think it's more a perception cycle on your part. You switch for some reason having nothing to do with my posts from finding them reasonable to finding them knee-jerk reactive - when in actual fact, they're all the utmost of reasonable...
SyFy more appropriate IMHO, since the channel shows those execrable ghost etc shows. No science in any of that.
Beyond the fact that it's silly it does nothing for the brand.
1) The dorky marketing speak being pitched about the new name.
2) The vibe from press releases that a name change oriented at "l33tspeak" kiddies is somehow going to make the channel instantly cooler
3) The decreasing quality of the programming in general, and the decidedly un-hip content they insist on pushing. I understand wanting to grow the demographic, but wrestling? Really?
Frankly, I don't care what the channel's name is. This is just the proverbial straw that broke this sci-fi camel's back. Like I said over in my post, if you want to be hip, then program hip shows and movies. Mansquito will never, EVER be cool. Nor will 90% of the programming they're pushing. The only reason to watch Sci Fi these days is for Battlestar Galactica, and after tonight, that will be a moot point.
Also, the logo is ugly.
Still, as a declared science fiction & fantasy fan, the name change bugs me because it feels like the network is 'ashamed of its roots', for lack of a better way to put it. The network seems to do everything it can to prove it's hip, it's cool, it's not just for nerds, etc. Which means I am a nerd, and they would rather not have my attention.
And yet, I think I'm their target audience, with all the Next Generation reruns and anime shows (not a fan of BG, personally). It's just very confusing.
What the heck is syfy, anyway? On top of the confusion above, the word was clearly made up to attract viewers under the age of 12, instead of adults who have developed a taste for the stuff that they air on their network. Feels like George Lucas all over again!
There's your main error - philosophy has to do with everything.
Personally, I think the Saturday all monsters all the time format is not strictly speaking "Science Fiction". Perhaps the Syfy moniker, which says nothing at all about content, will at least be a little more accurate.
On the name change: the name Syfy is a bad idea. "Syfy's brain trust said the rebranding campaign "seeks to distinguish the channel and its programming from cable competitors."" How did the name Sci-Fi fail at those tasks? The real fault is programming. The quality is inconsistent. They don't know who their audience is and they don't know how to create one. The name will, in a audible medium, sound the same, but look as if they want desperately to be special, like those girls in high school who change their name from Lisa to Lysa, Leesa, Lesa, Lisah, Leesah, Lesah, Llisa, llysa, lleessaa...
I agree with madtypist that the name change is a reflection of the inability of the executives in charge to fully realize what it is they should be selling. First, it's the ridiculous notion that only 16 year old boys like 'real' science fiction. Then, it's the "we're gonna open this puppy up!" comment that comes after that.
What the channel really needs is better programming, not rebranding of its logo.
Plus, the "Y"ing of everything has reached a proportion of complete idiocy. Megyn? Mygyn? Alyn? Mylyssa? What is all this? The Gaelic response to naming things?
This is more of that.
A name means nothing. But the philosophy behind the name ... that reveals a lot. Thinking that "syfy" is cool and thinking "cool" with a 'y' is necessary reveals how very lost about their audience they really are.
The name change and their expressed reasons for doing so is annoying - I'm a 48 year old female and I love the genre. I don't need a network name that sounds like a hollywood starlet wannabe trying to change the spelling of her name to make her stand out in a crowd of Valley Girls - when all it really does is make the name look idiotic.
This isn't a lecture hall filled with freshman, so this sort of vapid nugget of wisdom falls pretty flat. Spend ten minutes in a marketing meeting, any marketing meeting, and try to say the above again with a straight face.
But since you're insistent, even your quoted pearl of philosophy is irrelevant. You make the point that the word doesn't matter, only what's broadcast, in which case why rebrand at all? Pirahnas III: The Gnashing is still Pirahnas III: The Gnashing whether it's SciFi or SyFy. Explain again how your assertion supports the rebranding?
But you can come up with at least 5 reasons why it doesn’t bother you at all?
Give me a fracken break...
To quote myself,
"Change is inevitable...but not always necessary...and for that reason thank God change is inevitable"
I loved the series, the characters rock and the social commentary was well done.
The final episode through out a combo of deus ex machina and Luddite BS. I have no problem with god or spirituality but to use a higher power to make your plot lines resolve is lame.
They condemned their decedents to a hundred and fifty thousand years of war, famine, depravity and hardship. The idea that tech "our souls don't grow as fast as our technology can reach" is awful. Technology has given more happiness to more people for longer than anytime in history. We shouldn't be living in city but the claim that hunter gatherer is the best is infantile.
PS they missed an opportunity to portray Kara Thrace as a hybrid like Hera and the daughter of the missing cylon killed by Cavil.