SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Person of Interest has been called by some the "best sci-fi on TV right now." Sure, on the surface it's about a genius and an ex-agent helping people out of jams; but it's the tools they use that make the show SF.

But maybe the reason it's keeping such a low popularity profile is that, secretly, no one believes the show IS sci-fi... more like a conspiracy theorist's wet dream.

A lot of watching this show is like watching NCIS, with Finch pulling off incredibly swift computer hacks and infodumps that, in real life, would take considerable time to accomplish... if at all. I also enjoy their in-the-field "secret weapon," the phone app that will connect to any phone in proximity and allow Finch and Reese to listen in on conversations, view through its camera, locate it via GPS, etc. Even if it's not a smartphone. Even if it's off. Whoo.

And how about the suggestion that Finch's Machine has actually achieved sentience? I realize that it's not central to the overall theme of the show, but I'd love to see that explored further... perhaps in a moment when the Machine makes a choice based on a moral quandry. (It could be argued that Reese made the Machine do that once, in order to find Finch. I'd argue that the Machine simply chose the logical action to guarantee it could still perform its programmed task, cooperating with Reese to let him find Finch and get back to work.)

Any opinions on this show, or where you'd like to see it go?

Hmmm, I had never thought of it as a sci-fi show. All of those are great points. It really does seem a little sci-fi... just not the flavor of sci-fi I usually attribute to sci-fi (most of the sci-fi I watch has been set in outer space... so it's understandable I (and others) aren't recognizing the sci-fi aspects of it. (I have only seen season 1 so far) (how many times can I use the words "sci-fi" in a single sentence? For that matter, how many parenthetical statements can I put in a single comment?)

To me it has felt like a crime show, maybe a bit of a cross between NCIS and Fringe or Alias (while I realize Fringe is sci-fi, again, it's not outer space sci-fi... and I would argue there's a difference, if only in flavor)

What it is most like, however, I think: is a Batman-type show... where Alfred is the billionaire instead of Bruce Wayne.

I love this show. I love how it feels like a crime-show but throws all the "rules" out the window (like how Reese never makes the dumb mistakes, or how he deposits people in prisons in other countries so that they can't "wriggle out" of the USA justice system, etc) I hope it stays that way, focussing on the action and doesn't stray too much into contrived drama.

I'm not sure I'd call it sci-fi, but I'm a Finch and John fan! And LT Carter...and the pudgey, funny "bad cop" guy. And the dog.

It's a good show. I can see John as "the Dark Knight" though and, in the same way the Batman is as crazy as those he's alined against, John has that same, "end justifies the means-never hurt an innocent civilian" mentality that is really like Batman.

I think Amy Acker's involved in "that" but, we'll have to see!

I adore this show! Jim Cavaziel is so utterly and completely awesome.

I don't view it as sci-fi nearly as much as conspiracy theory. My definition of sci-fi definitely involves futuristic technology that at the very least involves flying cars . . . or Aliens. From outerspace.

Conspiracy theory, however, does cover all the bases here. From the computer to the phones to the FBI and marines. I can totally believe all this stuff could (and does) happen.

Bwahahahahahha

A very good show, but I'm with the consensus here. Not SF. It does have he potential to become that, if the machine becomes a character in its own right, but at the moment I'd say a better quality techno-thriller - in much the same way as Tony Scott's movie Enemy of the State was.

Techno-thriller is a good catagor for it.

I, Curmudgeon wrote: "I'm not sure I'd call it sci-fi, but I'm a Finch and John fan! And LT Carter...and the pudgey, funny "bad cop" guy. And the dog.

It's a good show. I can see John as "the Dark Knight" though and..."

As a huge Angel fan... I was really just thrilled when I saw Amy Acker show up. My husband and I both shouted, "FRED!" at the same time... and then accused each other of being colossal nerds. LOL

I sure hope it's sci-fi. I'd rather not have the government actively working towards an "I, Robot" type computer!

Person of Interest is definitely sci-fi. I don't get the appeal as I found it to be quite dull, but it's sci-fi through and through.

Just a point of clarification: Technothrillers ARE science fiction.

They are what Isaac Asimov described as "ripped from tomorrow's headlines!" type of stories. The tech is stuff we don't have quite yet, but despite seeming almost plausible in today's world is still fictional. Just because it doesn't take place in space doesn't mean it isn't science fiction.

CSI and Bones are likewise science fiction. More than 2/3 of the gadgets on those shows don't exist. I'm a little doubtful that some of them will ever exist, but you never know.

Trike wrote: "Person of Interest is definitely sci-fi. I don't get the appeal as I found it to be quite dull, but it's sci-fi through and through.

Just a point of clarification: Technothrillers ARE science fiction.."

I completely and respectfully disagree. The focus of technothrillers is entirely different from SF; while it may use some SF furniture, it rarely shares the goals of exploration and explanation that define SF. There's a whole area of the thriller genre that have always used that - James Bond, for example - that is certainly not SF. There's a lot of cross-over, of course, but that's where I've always stood.

I think Bones is a good example; they have that ridiculous 3D imager, as if it's a real thing. Likewise, CSI is supposedly set in the real world, and the SF elements are frankly down to lazy writing, stretching the truth as far as they are able for the sake of the plot, nothing else.

Paul 'Pezski' wrote: "Trike wrote: "Person of Interest is definitely sci-fi. I don't get the appeal as I found it to be quite dull, but it's sci-fi through and through.

Just a point of clarification: Technothrillers AR..."


Trike has very narrow views on the spectrum of sci-fi... (he believes there is no spectrum - any element of sci-fi in a story makes it completely sci-fi in his opinion). :)

(At least that's what I've gleaned from reading a lot of your comments on other discussions, Trike, if I'm wrong feel free to correct me).

I'd agree with the show being a techno-thriller. But when a possibly-sentient Machine is a major plot-driving, indeed, series-driving element, I'd still have to call it sci-fi. Or sci-fi techno-thriller. I don't see how you can call the Machine anything but a sci-fi element.

Paul 'Pezski' wrote: "The focus of technothrillers is entirely different from SF; while it may use some SF furniture, it rarely shares the goals of exploration and explanation that define SF."

I don't think SF has to "explore or explain" anything in order to be a good SF story. All it has to do is present good personal conflicts, interesting action, human emotion and a twist or two... and have some significant part of the story depend on an SF element. Hence, NCIS is sci-fi because it usually depends on sci-fi elements to solve its police procedurals. Back to the Future is sci-fi because time-traveling DeLorean.

Person of Interest is sci-fi because of the Machine. And the cool phone-pairing app.

Paul 'Pezski' wrote: "I completely and respectfully disagree. The focus of technothrillers is entirely different from SF; while it may use some SF furniture, it rarely shares the goals of exploration and explanation that define SF. There's a whole area of the thriller genre that have always used that - James Bond, for example - that is certainly not SF. There's a lot of cross-over, of course, but that's where I've always stood.

I think Bones is a good example; they have that ridiculous 3D imager, as if it's a real thing. Likewise, CSI is supposedly set in the real world, and the SF elements are frankly down to lazy writing, stretching the truth as far as they are able for the sake of the plot, nothing else."

One classic definition of science fiction promotes the idea that if you take the science fictional element out of it, the story would collapse. I think that's a little harsh. However, it would be impossible for shows like Person of Interest, CSI or Bones to function without all of their sci-fi tech. If you put those shows on the Enterprise or the Galactica, the tech they employ (which is almost entirely imaginary) would feel a lot more sci-fi than it does when it's in Vegas and they're driving Fords.

Person of Interest would literally lose its raison d'etre if you removed the machine, which is completely science fictional. It will probably exist someday, perhaps soon, but it doesn't yet.

Similarly, a novel like The Hunt for Red October is science fiction, although people scream at me for saying so. But the heart of the book is the submarine, The Red October, which, like Nemo's Nautilus, did not exist when the book was written. The Japanese have since built a small version of it, but that doesn't change the fact that THFRO is SF.

Jenelle wrote: "Trike has very narrow views on the spectrum of sci-fi... (he believes there is no spectrum - any element of sci-fi in a story makes it completely sci-fi in his opinion). :)

(At least that's what I've gleaned from reading a lot of your comments on other discussions, Trike, if I'm wrong feel free to correct me)."

The only thing I'd disagree with there is the notion that my definition is "narrow." It's easily the broadest possible definition one can have of science fiction without allowing in elements of Fantasy. (Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.)

Trike wrote: "The only thing I'd disagree with there is the notion that my definition is "narrow." It's easily the broadest possible definition one can have of science fiction without allowing in elements of Fantasy. (Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.) "

You are correct. "Narrow" was a poor word choice on my part. I simply meant to highlight that you've mentioned not allowing for a sci-fi to fantasy spectrum, and that any element of sci-fi at all makes the show/book/movie/whatever ALL sci-fi in your mind.

That's all :) I did not meant to offend. I enjoy your comments on these discussions, though I do not necessarily agree with you :)

Ok. As we argue this out, I have to wonder, does it matter? I mean people say that this program or that program should be considered sci-fi because of this or that . . . does it really matter? What purpose does it serve to label it so?

I ask because networks seem to shy away from sci-fi - I mean even the SyFy channel shies away from sci-fi . . . these type shows apparently don't go over well. Except for those of us who will watch almost anything that lands in this category. So, if we force shows like PoI into the scifi category, is there a chance, then, that networks will say, "but we already have enough scifi . . ."?

I actually *know* people who will not watch anything that has the label "sci-fi" attached . . .

PoI is about The Machine, it pretty much says so in the opening credits. I watch it because I'm interested in the characters. What do Reese, Finch and the other characters do as a result of the numbers The Machine spits out?

It's not so different from The Office, perhaps. What does one do in that situation?

As for the people that Snarktastic Sonja knows who won't watch anything that's called "sci-fi," I don't watch any "reality" shows, because they aren't. I like fiction of many kinds. I take myself away from that genre entirely, pretty much, no matter what.

Julia wrote: "I don't watch any "reality" shows, because they aren't. I like fiction of many kinds. I take myself away from that genre entirely, pretty much, no matter what. "

Amen sister!

Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "Ok. As we argue this out, I have to wonder, does it matter? I mean people say that this program or that program should be considered sci-fi because of this or that . . . does it really matter? What purpose does it serve to label it so?"

I think labels are useful. Even if it's just a matter of recommending something. If people like When Harry Met Sally I always steer them toward While You Were Sleeping. Knowing what those movies ARE helps you do that, and labels get us there.

From a purely academic standpoint, I just enjoy classifying stuff. I think it's interesting to see where the boundary lines are between mammals, reptiles and marsupials, just as I like to find the dividers between Science Fiction, Techno-thrillers and Science Fantasy.

As for people saying, "I won't watch sci-fi," prejudice isn't something I can control, so I don't worry about it. I don't know how many times I've heard someone say, "I hate Westerns!" but then they love something like Support Your Local Sheriff or Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. A lot of people who watch CSI, Bones and PoI will claim they hate SF, until I point out that they're actually watching it. Or people will say they hate Fantasy but rave about Harry Potter or The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake. Um... yeah.

So I just go, "This is science fiction. Pull up your big boy android pants and deal with it."

Trike wrote: "This is science fiction. Pull up your big boy android pants and deal with it."

lol

Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "Ok. As we argue this out, I have to wonder, does it matter? "

LOL Just because it doesn't matter... doesn't mean it's not fun to discuss.

Trike wrote: "A lot of people who watch CSI, Bones and PoI will claim they hate SF, until I point out that they're actually watching it"

Yep. But, see, these people in *my* life would bite my head off. You must be luckier than I. ;)

And, I do love a good debate. Sometimes it is just helpful to know from where people are coming. =D

Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "Ok. As we argue this out, I have to wonder, does it matter?"

I think the useful thing about identifying a particular program with SF... and showing that it is successful and popular... is to show those who have negative preconceptions about SF how it can be used in popular media. That makes it easier to convince those people (some of whom may be TV executives) to consider other SF media, or at least to accept SF elements as not somehow damaging to a project.

yeah, it shouldn't matter at all. But practically speaking, it's one of the tools used by those who decide what to put out there for the rest of us. So it should be recognized and addressed.

Trike wrote: ""This is science fiction. Pull up your big boy android pants and deal with it.""

Good one... I'm totally stealing that!

I don't think persons of interest is Sci Fi just because the machine just gives out a persons ID code who may be the victim or bad guy, it's still grounded in a world of cops and various black ops stuff.

My problem with defining it as Sci fi is that I think the technology could well exist. . .

Just call me a conspiracy theorist. Bwahahahaha

Well, until someone can show the tech does exist, it has to be considered sci-fi. Think about it: The ability to tap into such a wide variety of electronic devices, identify users based on voices and connections to service records, then divine the meaning of conversations and deduce the likelihood of violence being done on a specific someone... sorry, no one in the Reagan building is managing that.

I think it has sci fi elements. But the science is not one of the primary drivers, influences of the storyline. It is a device to identify the victims and provide an escape hatch to resolve seemingly unsolvable dilemmas. James Bonds gadgets don't make Bond movies science fiction. Tell 2001 without HAL and you have no movie.

Patgolfneb wrote: "I think it has sci fi elements. But the science is not one of the primary drivers, influences of the storyline. It is a device to identify the victims and provide an escape hatch to resolve seeming unsolvable dilemmas. James Bonds gadgets don't make Bond movies science fiction."

Some of the James Bond films are Science Fiction, while some are Fantasy and others are just crime thrillers. The best Bond movie, For Your Eyes Only, not only has the gadgets, it also has as its Macguffin the science fictional device used to communicate with the British submarine fleet. Moonraker was even more science fictional, complete with a space station that's cloaked from radar. Die Another Day's plot revolves around a satellite that destroys things with "concentrated sunlight" (whatever that is).

Patgolfneb wrote: "Tell 2001 without HAL and you have no movie."

Sure you do. HAL as computer isn't the important aspect of that story, it could be anything trying to kill the crew.

There have even been Fantasy versions of that story. One is The Golden Voyage of Sinbad. Same basic plot, with the ship taking them to a far-off land to discover the secret behind a mysterious object that came from the sky, and it even sports a killer non-human entity on board. The animated ship's figurehead and the animated statue of Kali take the place of HAL on Discovery.

There's another Fantasy movie that's even more similar but I can't think of the title at the moment.

Without the computer and algorithm, PoI wouldn't work. Yes, it's the exact same basic outline as Medium, which was Fantasy, but the computer in PoI is central to the story, just as Allison's visions and ability to talk to dead people were in Medium.

Trike, but the fact that it was a computer, and the computer was an antagonist was crucial. In POI the computer is pretty passive. If the computer was more acive, if it was making decisions beyond victim identification. I will grant you POI, CSI, Bones, etc blur the lines, genre blending is hot right now. There is enough discussion of the impacts of such a system that an absolute no is weak. Given see SF as a secondary genre.

PoI could still work if the Machine was replaced with some other entity that manages to pick out people in danger--though it would probably be an empath or empaths, making the series fantasy, or some unseen but freakishly efficient organization, making it mystery.

But remember, a great many of the tricks and hacking techniques used by Harold and Mr. Reese qualify as SF, not just the Machine.

one of my favorite shows right now

The cast went to the New York Comic Con and classified their show as sci-fi.

My father abhors sci-fi. Yet he loves Person of Interest, along with NCIS, Hawaii Five-O, Law and Order, and Monk. To him, these are all crime shows.

Personally, it did not fall under my sci-fi radar. I saw the Machine as just the opening act to point the way to a good investigative story. But when I viewed the clips of the PoI cast at the NYCC, I realized that the show had a lot of sci-fi fans.