Talk:Science fiction/Archive 2

Archives
October 2001 - March 2006 April 2006 - May 6 2006 May 6 2006 - Sept 18 2006 Sept 18, 2006 2006 - Dec 27, 2006 Dec 27, 2006 - Jan 22, 2007 Jan 22 - current

I changed the reference to Worldcon being the "largest" fan convention. It is not. Average attendance over the past 10,5, 2 or last year (Worldcon about 1,500 - 3,000), shows that other fan conventions are larger. Most notable: DragonCon in Atlanta with more than 20,000 on average since 2000. - Davodd 18:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the very next paragraph mentions DragonCon as the largest multi-genre convention. Worldcon was given as the original and largest fen convention. Is this distinction valid? If not, let's revise these paragraphs. KennyLucius 20:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DragonCon is primarily a comic book convention, and typically media cons, whether Star Trek or comics, are larger than the Worldcon, which at least tries to keep science fiction as its focus. Rick Norwood 22:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon*Con is not primarily a comic book convention. A look at its programming tracks [1] shows: Comics-1 track; TV/Film-9 tracks; Books/Writing-8 tracks; Art/Costuming-2 tracks; Misc SF-3 tracks; Fandom-4 tracks. - Davodd 10:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is well written: {failed} The article has some glitches which I think are left over from several rewrites. E.g. "However, different readers have different ideas about what counts as realistic" comes without any use of the word realistic and after discussing that science fiction need not be firmly rooted in scientific possibilities. Many of the sentences in the article requrie specialist knowledge. I've read a lot of sci-fi but I can make neither head nor tail of "(such as Darko Suvin's emphasis on SF's cognitive element)" and the article on Darko Suvin does not enlighten me. A lot of the explanation of the article is done by example but this is meaningless unless the reader has read that particular example. "Slipstream is a term coined for fiction that does not fit comfortably either inside or outside the science fiction genre. A good example is the Hugo-nominated novel Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson." This does little to clarify for me what "slipstream" is and I have read Cryptonomicon -- it would do even less for someone who had not. "Some science fiction portrays events that fall outside of science as currently understood, as in Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles." means nothing to someone who has not read this. Obviously sci-fi fans are anxious that their favourite novel or film be included as an example but this makes the article overloaded with "X, Y and Z are an example of this" at the expense of actually explaining.

The article concentrates heavily on defining a number of terms for science-fiction. Perhaps this is a result of it coming from a fannish bent and wanting to define things heavily?

The television section is bitty and skips from topic to topic without going into any particular thing in detail. It discusses the twilight zone then Dr. Who then Star Trek then back to Twilight zone, back to star trek and back to Dr. Who. Really the only details given are air dates and popularity.

2) It is factually accurate and verifiable: {failed} There are few references given and those which are given are done in an inconsistent way. Quotes are given unattributed. Some of these quotes are famous (Clarke's science/magic quote) and therefore it is probably forgivable others more obscure (to me at least). The quotes by Ackerman and Elison should probably be sourced at least. References are done in an inconsistent way -- I prefer tagged notes as has been done for the Nabokov reference but other references are inline. The terminology section is largely unreferenced and this is a problem with slang. For example I have only ever heard people use "skiffy" affectionately not in a derogatory manner.

The "fandom" section seems a bit random and "personal opinion". In particular polyamory is surely not a 1993 offspring of sci-fi fandom -- it is much older and the polyamory article makes no mention of science fiction (I doubt the connection at all to be honest). Similarly, anime was surely huge well before 2002? The LARP page lists its orgins as much earlier than those given here. Perhaps I am wrong in this but if you are to claim such specific dates then reference it to prove your point.

3) It is broad in its coverage: {passed} This is difficult but the article seems to cover all that I would expect. Indeed the authors are to be congratulated since this is a broad subject. Obviously people will always object to their particular pet book being missed out.

4) It is stable: {passed} the article does not seem to be undergoing major revisions right now.

5) It contains images to illustrate it, where possible: {failed} It seems to me in a rich subject like science fiction there is all manner of scope for interesting illustrations. However, the illustrations are limited to two -- a pile of books including some classics I agree and a cover of Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" which I agree is influential but if this is so then why is it not mentioned in the main article? My opinion is that this article would greatly benefit from more pictures -- perhaps some films stills would come under fair usage where the article discusses that film? More book covers for books in the article could surely be included under fair usage? Some generic "science fiction images" would be nice and perhaps even some photos from a con (I find it hard to believe they are not in plentiful supply?

--Richard Clegg 23:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the images - there are a lot of science fiction tv shows, movies etc with correctly tagged images - could thos enot be used to brighten the page and show more relevant imagery? Im still inexperience in working with images which is why im posting this. Tyhopho 23:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, as they are fair use images which Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright law seems to suggest they cannot be used as general illustrations.

I'd like to add the personal comment: no! I do not think articles need brightening up with illustrations, any more than I think the text should be a brigher color or in a jazzier font. Illustrations are great when they serve a point (e.g. diagram of a diesel engine, picture of the Taj Mahal), but this isn't a coffee table book, and doesn't need a bunch of random pictures to pad out the text. Good text is good text, and bad text is still bad if it has pictures. Notinasnaid 08:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the good article criteria currently says "contains images to illustrate it where appropriate" so you could argue your point there. At the moment this article does not meet that in my opinion. It should also be noted that nobody has suggested random pictures, people have suggested appropriate pictures which (like it or not) is one of the criteria to become a good article. I was suggesting pictures which illustrate the films or books discussed. Fair use includes critical commentary on the book/film/movie in question so is surely fine here (though IANAL) -- this is certainly common practice on wikipedia (for example the Star Wars page includes the cover of Splinter of the Mind's Eye). In any case, the book cover for stranger in a strange land is here already claimed under fair use (and as I pointed out, that book isn't discussed in the article) you can't have it both ways. --Richard Clegg 08:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - perhaps I shouldnt have used the word 'brighten'. I know full well the value of relevant images which serve to illustrate and expand on crucial themes within the text and I certainly wasnt using it in the context of 'lets just make it snazzy to make it look good'. I certainly wouldnt mind being able to find images which are relavant for the text. Tyhopho 21:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with all of the above except for the idea that this is a failed article because too many have contributed to it. It is actually the opposite. Hardly anyone has been allowed to contribute to it. Look at my last reason for quitting SF wiki at the bottom of the archive. It is not possible to deal in facts because a couple of fanboys and self-proclaimed SF wiki gurus have edited everything you have seen here to date. SF wiki has been far from a group effort for some time. I doubt it has ever been a group work. I think it is about high time that patient people who have been waiting for a valid wiki comment on the results of that couple's work (now deemed a failure) be allowed to move in and make changes to support facts and do the cleaning. Hopefully those who see this and know who they are will backoff from their failure and let groups work on it. You have had your chance. I am sure you will have a better SF article in no time. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 09:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)]

This sounds a good point, if it is correct, though I haven't looked into the history. What changes, specifically, would you suggest that would help the article improve in the ways suggested by the box at the top of this article? It would be nice to see proposed changes being turned over and reaching a consensus here, before anything is touched in this article, which has become the subject of edit wars too often. Notinasnaid

Anyone who thinks that Simonapro sounds reasonable should check the archive. KennyLucius 17:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history it does seem to have a marked tendancy to revert wars. There must surely be a more constructive way to approach things surely? Seeking to achieve consensus rather than to-and-fro reverts? --Richard Clegg 18:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Kenny the article has failed. Nothing I wrote or edited got in there so I am not responisble for it. You removed the facts remember? And as for me not sounding reasonable... well it was I who avoided your revert war by simply leaving you remove the facts. I was in 'talk' and you still edited the page along with others. So 'talk' was useless. Now I see that the article has been deemed a failure and I second the ammendment to clean up. Notinasnaid I recommend what has already been recommended. A cleanup and mass fact check. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 09:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)]

I was thinking of something much more specific. Like: I propose rewriting (this paragraph) and replacing it with (this paragraph); of adding (this) as a reference. The idea being to reach a consensus, right here, before a word is changed in the article. That is the only hope of avoiding revert wars in contentious articles. But I see I'm talking to myself. Notinasnaid 09:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can try that but usually it goes ignored. Here was my article for television.

Science fiction television franchises can develop and the popularity of a show may allow it to become a new series, but continuing with a similar theme, generally with a completely new, or substantial, cast change. Examples of Science fiction television franchises with a new, or multiple, series are Doctor Who, Star Trek and Stargate SG-1. In the United Kingdom the Doctor Who franchise produced twelve series with a total of twenty eight seasons airing between 1963 and 2005, and in the United States, the Star Trek franchise produced five series with a total of twenty eight seasons airing between 1966 and 2005. The longest running Science fiction television series are The X-Files airing for nine seasons between 1993 and 2002, and Stargate SG-1 airing for nine seasons between 1997 and 2005. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 15:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)]

You're not talking to yourself, Notinasnaid, but a rewrite will probably be less civil than you hope. SF is a large, sprawling topic, making difficult to keep it coherent. The "well written" failure is attributed to excessive rewriting, and the "factually accurate and verifiable" failure can be attributed to something similar: many people add interesting trivia without regard for the article as a whole.

To correct these failures, the purpose of the article should be clearly stated. Presently, this article seems to be a simple definition/overview of SF with references to more specific articles, and I think that is best for such a wide topic. Controversy usually concerns one of the referenced articles: speculative fiction or science fiction on television come to mind. I think these referenced articles should be very detailed and present all sides of any controversy, while the main SF article's purpose should be to provide an overview as free of contentious material as possible.

Unfortunately, the very definition of SF is a point of contention. Also, sub-topics that don't warrant a separate, more detailed article get included in their entirety, and so appear to have more than their fair share of the article while big topics just get a short mention with a reference. I think this causes some people to add details to the SF article rather than the referenced article.

This is a perfectly understandable reaction, and I can't think of a solution other than to discourage it on a daily basis. Perhaps the whole "SF Overview" idea is flawed and we should agree on an extremely lengthy, inclusive article. What do you think? KennyLucius 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "To-do list for Science fiction" is above and clear as to what caused the failure. There can be no confusion or any reason to create new criteria other than points already stated to correct the failure of previous editors which have now been put to an affirmative stop. In other words, previous editors take a very long extended break. You didn't get it right while you had the chance. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 17:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)]

I don't think Richard Clegg's comments are a condemnation of the article or its contributors. A call for cleaning up the prose and citing sources is hardly a reason to attack contributors. KennyLucius 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Kenny but you along with some others where more than happy to have full out revert wars to have things your way. You didn't see anything wrong with your way either. That has changed now. The current model you wanted was rejected. It failed. So please allow others who let you have it your way try and get it right. We now have a mandate to do so. If we get it wrong then I am sure we would gladly pass it on to the Next Generation. A humble bow out is in order and will help allow this wiki article to progress in a new direction. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 20:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)]

Post article passages here that have an impact on the To-do List. This will give us an idea of exactly what needs to be done. Let's try and not add anything until we conform the article to the standards set forth in the To-do list. Don't say too much. Just a brief reason what is wrong and how to conform it if you can.[[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 17:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)]

Ok let’s directly address the issues. I would expect enormous rewrites need to be done to the entire article, but right now that would be putting the cart before the horse. No need to rewrite what needs to be removed altogether.

Science-Fiction definition: The current definition is very poor. Here are two dictionary examples. (1)A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background. (2)Fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component. I propose: “Science-fiction is a literary or cinematic story orientated through dealing with speculative developments in science, environments, life and their impact.”

The SF-fan-related jargon should go as requested. The part that was considered problematic went like this… - ‘Definition and scope’ -> Science fiction and fantasy -> “This definition is resisted by some scholars and writers who attempt to define the genre's aspects more sharply (such as Darko Suvin's emphasis on SF's cognitive element) and advocate an aspiration to present a world without mystical or supernatural forces.”

After reading that whole section it looks like a major cleanup is required. Why do we need a ‘Definition and scope’ section? It should be eliminated completely as the definition will be stated at the start of the article. There is no need to do it twice! The scope part is full of fan-boy air. This section suggests that readers and bookstores define the category of books. This is an error. The publisher defines the book’s genre. If they say it is Science-Fiction then that is what it is. If the bookstore or reader classifies it differently then that is just an opinion. The publisher will list the genre of the book with the distribution houses. Some even print the genre on the side of the book. Instead I would also start a new section called “SF Subgenres”. We already have those listed at the side. I would list the top 10 and describe each one, giving a few examples of each.

Alien Beings Artificial Intelligence Cyberpunk Environmental Government Military Parallel Universes Robots Space Opera Time Utopian and Dystopian

That would make a much start.

The section “Science fiction and mainstream literature” is also useless. If the publisher calls a book Science fiction then that is what it is. Tom Clancy books are classed as Mystery and Thriller and sometimes the subgenre is Technothriller. Anyway this should be in the wiki Subgenres. “Science fiction and mainstream literature” should be deleted.

“Speculative fiction” section is the same deal again. This is covered by Subgenres above. Just get rid of this.

“Slipstream fiction” section is the same deal again and was also critiqued. This should go too.

“Precursors of science fiction”. This is actually a good section and should be kept but needs to be edited back. Overall we need a “History of SF” section that incorporates this. We should develop a short timeline on the developments of each subgenre here and build an edited down history here.

The “Purpose of science fiction” section is windy and not really worth a section by itself. This should be incorporated into the history, i.e. - how SF developed and its impact on society should be defined in the SF history.

The “Subject matter” section should also go. It is just another rerun of the subgenre section that doesn’t exist! Now the “Media” section is important and the categories there are all good but the above will certainly have an impact on it. It needs to be cleaned up with all the fan-boy stuff replaced by facts. Covering the history section will helped provide accuracy on this.

The “Terminology” section is good but again this should be part of a SF History section and needs editing.

The “Fandom” section will probably be moved off to a whole new wiki article in itself as it has been heavily critiqued.

Ok… looks a “History of SF” is badly needed with a working Timeline. I have created a new section for this specific topic below. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 20:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)]

Let me suggest that a clean-up rewrite might be helped by a establishing a through-line rooted in an adequate definition, and that any definition that avoids POV problems needs to acknowledge the range of agreements and disagreements among the scholars who have worked on this issue over the decades. There are a few things that can be nailed down, though:

1) SF is a narrative tradition, starting in prose fiction and spreading through various media (first film, then comics, radio, TV, eventually to minimally-narrative forms such as video games).

2) SF belongs to the large family of narratives sometimes called "the fantastic": those that employ crucial exceptions to consensus ideas of how the world does work (the short-hand term for this latter is "realism"). In this view, the fantastic and realistic are a crucial binary divide.

3) SF is generally distinguished from other subtypes of the fantastic by its reliance on rationalist-materialist means to produce its contra-realist features. Historically this meant scientific-technological wonders rather than supernatural entities and events (which are the realm of "fantasy"), and an orientation toward a future in which life would be transformed by techological advances (or disasters). But even in its early days, SF was not always "about" just the future, or science, or technology--though its conceptual space includes all these and they're probably near its center. (Heinlein's observation that SF was a branch of realistic fiction is interesting and useful--I think he's pointing to SF's rationalist-materialist philosophical orientation.) This is a second big, useful binary divide: SF and (various kinds of) fantasy. (Not very neat terminologically, but this is not a neat area of study.)

4) Most systematic attempts to define SF have tried to deal with these issues (among others)--Darko Suvin's is in fact one of the most sophisticated (and gnarly to read). There's not a lot of ground that hasn't been covered, and the literature is not hard to review. Some of the crucial authorities are already cited in the References section.

5) SF started as a narrative tradition, but it is also a body of motifs (sometimes called the "furniture") that can be worked into all kinds of cultural artifacts--the rocketship, the robot, the alien, and so on. In fact, Gary K. Wolfe sees SF as that body of motifs (see his The Known and the Unknown). This gets us away from what I suspect is the focus most participants would prefer (stories in whatever medium), but that perspective explains a lot about how SF Stuff has spread through large parts of popular culture.

6) It's going to get messy defining a narrative tradition that spans more than a century (maybe two, depending on which history you buy into) and a wide range of media, and that has been affected by marketing activities of the companies that want to sell things by using the label--this is not botany, and while a genus-and-species taxonomy would be nice, the variety of entities that sometimes wear the label make it hard to find nice sharp boundaries--at least any that a wiki community is going to agree on easily.

Any article-initiating short definition has to recognize this situation or risk devolving into a bar fight. RLetson 05:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rletson, see * Cite sources; avoid appearances of original research and also see above "...This section suggests that readers and bookstores define the category of books. This is an error. The publisher defines the book’s genre. If they say it is Science-Fiction then that is what it is. If the bookstore or reader classifies it differently then that is just an opinion...." [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 11:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)]

Not sure what you're suggesting here, Simonapro--every issue I enumerated is part of the sixty-plus-year-long discussion that addresses the problem of defining SF (in published professional scolarship, putting aside for the moment fannish writing from 1926-1947). If I were offering a draft definition for the article proper (and not just suggesting issues that need to be addressed), I would cite chapter and verse. (For the record: I'm dating pro scholarship as starting in 1947 with J.O. Bailey's Pilgrims Through Space and Time.)

The proposition that the genre is defined simply by a publisher's label begs the question. Even if that were the case, how does the publisher decide what to label SF? Is our task to derive the formula from the labelled items? What to do with similar items that lack the label--or precede its first use? RLetson 16:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The marketing section of the publishing house will define the genre and subgenre from experience but this is normally set before the marketing people get the finished product. This is because lots of publishers now specialize in genre and subgenre work. Publishers normally publish what they have experience with, so the criteria for defining genre or subgenre is whatever else is out there that is similar. A new definition usually comes about as a result of a buzzword included in the work or something similar. It is actually very rare that a publisher will take on the challange of an unestablished genre. It is usually established writers who create these new subgenres. However it is the publishers who are setting these standards not a bunch of SF fans or 'professors' sitting in a room smoking their SF pipes. All that stuff, although interesting, doesn't make any difference on what the publishers are choosing and defining. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)]

• Likewise, what marketing term a publisher is using doesn't make much difference to what SF fans or critics define as SF. I don't believe any group has a monopoly on the term. There's no reason the article can't discuss the various way the label "Science Fiction" is used, especially as it's such as famously slippery and ill-defined term. We can do that without saying one usage is absolutely correct, or the others are "just an opinion". As someone famous (Damon Knight?) said, "Science fiction is what I point to when I say, 'This is science fiction.'" --Bob Mellish 18:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well again our opinion does not have any impact on what the work is classed as by the publisher. It very much a real classification that is important for distribution and normally used by shops to file the product. Apart we are asked to avoid appearances of original research. This means we shouldn't really be trying to add or change or suggest anything new to what is already defined. In this instance it is the publisher doing the defining of the work. Otherwise we end up with 1,000,000+ opinions. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 19:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)]

Even if we consider the publisher's label as authoritative, it doesn't hurt to reveal what a publisher considers when labeling. A discussion of the essence of SF is worthwhile. KennyLucius 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• But it's not original research, given the existence of a wide range of SF critisism and scholarship that talks about the definition of SF. (Perhaps you're missunderstanding what the "original research" policy means - it doesn't discount all research). And I disagree with giving publishers' definiton primacy, especially since that may change depending on the publisher's marketing plans. Is A Canticle for Leibowitz SF or not? Again, that doesn't mean we ignore publishers' usage of "Science Fiction" in the article, but nor do we ignore critical use. --Bob Mellish 20:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated Science fiction genres and related topics to include the topic of the creation of a genre by way of publisher's definition and the theory of a genre that is discussed by academic circles and fans.[[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 11:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)]

OK -- I have added a link from this article since the article you referenced contains a useful list of genres which browsers might find interesting. I didn't think that article was yet substative enough to use the "Main article: Science fiction genres and related topics" construct. --Richard Clegg 11:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose using the Science_fiction/rewrite scratch page to implement structural and content changes so that they may be viewed as a whole and in context. Using this "offline" page will leave the main article untouched, so the messy work of rewriting will not adversely affect wikipedia consumers, and the original article will remain in tact as a reference. I have copied the entire article to get started. It's a scratch page, so there is no reason not to implement any idea you have and see how it works out. KennyLucius 19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a page will be created eventually when this closes in on something worth gelling but right now this is still all R&D with the primary goal of keeping to the qualifications for WP:GA at the top of the article. Even though other articles like History of science fiction exist along with many others we should do it ourselves and then cross-reference results for accuracy. Apart from the history there are still many more topics on the splash section above that need to be addressed with the WP:GA being the focus because if it doesnt meet WP:GA it will eventually go no matter how hard someone tries to hang on to a POV. |Right now I would recommend that those who want to treat the topic of SF genre theory head right over to Science fiction genres and related topics and talk about it because there isn't anything about the theory side of things, just a genre list. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 20:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)]

Isn't there a danger this will bog down with too much discussion? It seems that we will never find a definition of science fiction which can satisfy everyone. The current definition does not seem so bad to me -- is there anyone here who disagrees with it majorly? Perhaps we should add something along the lines of "Science fiction can range from settings on contemporary Earth or settings in times and places where society is radically different. The stories told can be extremely personal in scale affecting only the protagonist or can be universe spanning epics." --- OK, that is badly written but it encompasses the fact that a huge range of things count as sci-fi. My feeling is that any attempt to pin this down too closely will be doomed to failure and in any case any two fans will have some novels they disagree on as to whether it is sci-fi.

I suggest perhaps one way to go is to summarise the History of science fiction (which is not a perfect article but has a lot of material) with a Main Article: in front of it. The lists of novels winning various awards are also already on wikipedia under Hugo Award and Nebula Award. There is also the list SF Masterworks. I think we would just bog down in argument and discussion if we tried to create a canon of great science fiction novels. Instead why not simply say that opinions differ widely and offer links to these lists and perhaps reference also some of those "100 best science fiction novel" review books. --Richard Clegg 21:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article, due to the brevity of its title, is a starting point for anyone looking for information on a fairly vast topic. I won't suggest that it be made a portal, but if a cohesive overview the topic is possible (in broad strokes, certainly) then this article is the best place for it. KennyLucius 22:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the initial definition: Actually, there is a bit of a problem with the "science" part ("advances in science, or contact with more scientifically advanced civilizations, create situations. . . "). Does this make an imaginary-natural-disaster story not SF? What if the disaster is a collision with a wandering black hole? The role of science in SF has been giving scholars a toothache since before I was born, and it means that any definition that manages to be fairly inclusive of the texts that we point to when we say "science fiction" is going to be a little ungainly or maybe even stilted-sounding. You wind up with something like "a narrative tradition that uses real or imagined science and technology to create 'what-if' stories that are often (but not always) set in the future."

I am reluctant to seem so picky, but this is your lead (or, as my reporter friends say, "lede"), and if you get it wrong the whole enterprise goes crooked. Go find a copy of Gary K. Wolfe's Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy, where you will find a four-page entry on definitions of SF (pp. 108-111), three pages of which are devoted to 33 different definitions, from Hugo Gernsback onward. And that doesn't count the entries on "speculative fiction" and "science fantasy."

I'm coming to agree that, given that there are articles on the history of SF and various subgenres, that this entry might be most useful as a portal, especially if it serves to indicate the breadth of SF as a tradition--a set of ideas, images, and motifs that has spread from prose fiction to other media and out into popular culture in general, much as the idea of "the west" has. I do think that the strong center should remain with the major narrative forms (prose fiction, film/TV, comics), but one of the reasons the term is so hard to define dictionary-style is that the range of possible referents is large and diverse. RLetson 23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beware original research. Any definition of sf needs to be sourced -- and dictionaries are not good sources because sf is too specialized. We need something from an authority on sf criticism, such as Damon Knight or Ursula LeGuin. Rick Norwood 14:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be ideal to have something like that but surely a vague definition we more or less agree with is a good start? At the moment we have a definition people think is wrong which is unsourced. A definition which people are more happy with but is still unsourced is better. There is a danger of ending up just providing quotes from different people. It seems like most of the editing here is going on on the talk page while people are unhappy with certain things about the state of the article. Very few wikipedia pages have sources for their initial definitions -- checkout the last five featured articles. They all have opening paragraphs which sources have not been used for the definition but it has been reached by consensus amongst the editors. I think we will be paralysed in editing this if we take too lawyerly a definition of Original Research (though I do not question it as a core wikipedia principle).

Could we agree for example that "Science fiction is a genre of fiction in which at least part of the narrative depends on science (either real or imagined) to generate settings or events which have not yet occurred in reality (and may never do so). There is no easy to define boundary between science fiction and other story forms." I am sure that could be worded better so do feel free to correct or tweak -- it's the spirit I am trying to get across. It would be nice to avoid a situation where we all try to pick holes in the current definition. It is actually terribly hard to define precisely. No two fans, bookshops or cinemas will exactly agree on what is or isn't sci-fi. It would be even better if a short yet vague definition like this could be followed up by something snappier and probably more contraversion like "Science-fiction is about big rocketships shooting each other" in the words of A. Goldenagewriter. (Yes, that last example is flippant but you get the idea). --Richard Clegg 15:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of cooking up our own definition from scratch I suggest using dictionary examples and combining them to produce a unique one that is dictionary quality. If you read up I quote from two dictionary sources and combine them to produce a definition. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 15:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)]

Oy. I am not offering original research here (if Rick N's "beware" was inspired by my previous comment [and if not, just ignore that opening Oy])--just suggesting that 1) there already exist dozens of definitions of SF (many devised by writers and editors, others by scholars), 2) they do not all agree in detail but do tend to address a common set of issues or problems, 3) and they are accessible (often in short form) in standard reference works (Wolfe, Clute & Grant, Barron, etc.) as well as in their original sources. The fact that the field has kicked up such a range of definitions becomes part of the challenge of presenting an introductory definition here. Maybe what we can work out in this discussion space (or on some working page) is a sense of where most of the attempts have overlapped and perhaps also what the major bones of contention are (e.g., the precise role of "science").

Richard Clegg's draft brief definition above seems a pretty good starting place--it hits crucial categories (genre of fiction, science real or imagined, provisional status of imagined events). I'd suggest that with a decent kernel definition, a "Definition and Scope" section could go on to address the definition problem itself, perhaps mapping the major schools of thought and problem areas (roles of science, prediction, and the future; how to distinguish from fantasy; whatever). I don't think it's original research to point out what anybody with access to a decent library can observe in a half-hour of browsing: that there is a range of opinion on what the most important elements of SF are ("good" science, "sense of wonder," speculation, predictiveness, addressing change, and so on) and that all the definitions struggle with the problem of nailing down the essential nature of a cultural-commercial entity that keeps growing and morphing.

Perhaps a "Definition and Scope" section could trace the evolution of the term itself, starting with Gernsback's "scientifiction" and noting how would-be definers/explainers/defenders of the genre kept fiddling with the both the central term and the SF rubric (which has itself been re-assigned to speculative fiction and speculative fabulation). This way we honestly address the difficulties of simple genus-and-species definition while also looking at the history of the field itself. RLetson 16:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of the term Science Fiction is probably a very good idea. Go create a new discussion on this page about it. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 17:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)]

Post proposed Templates for this SF article from other Wiki articles here. Find a good one that got a WP:GA. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 18:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)]

Here we need to start developing a framework for the history of SF with a timeline. Let's stick with genre and subgenre defining works.

As a start, here are what I consider the seminal novels of sf:

1. Frankenstein, by Mary Shelly
2. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court, by Mark Twain
3. Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde, by Robert Louis Stevenson
4. Journey to the Center of the Earth, by Jules Verne
5. The Time Machine, by H. G. Wells
6. A Princess of Mars, by Edger Rice Burroughs
7. Slan, by A. E. Van Vogt
8. Foundation, by Isaac Asimov
9. Beyond this Horizon, by Robert A. Heinlein
10. Childhood's End, by Arthur C. Clarke
11. Mission of Gravity, by Hal Clement
12. The Caves of Steel, by Isaac Asimov
13. More than Human, by Theodore Sturgeon
14. The Big Time, by Fritz Leiber
15. The Martian Chronicles, by Ray Bradbury
16. Gladiator at Law, by Fred Pohl and Cyril Kornbluth
17. Starship Troopers, by Robert A. Heinlein
18. Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert A. Heinlein
19. A Canticle for Leibowitz, by Walter M. Miller, Jr.
20. 2001 -- A Space Odyssey, by Arthur C. Clarke
21. The "Amber" novels, Roger Zelazny
22. Nova, by Samuel R. Delany
23. The Left Hand of Darkness, by Ursula K. LeGuin
24. Ringworld, by Larry Niven
25. The "New Sun" novels, by Gene Wolfe
26. Cordelia's Honor, by Lois McMaster's Bujold
27. Ophiuchi Hotline, by John Varley
28. Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card
29. The "Mars" trilogy, by Kim Stanley Robinson
30. Cryptonomicon, by Neal Stephenson
31. A Darkness in the Deep, by Vernor Vinge

Rick Norwood 19:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty empty between Burroughs and van Vogt, so let me suggest, around 6.5, something by Olaf Stapledon--probably Last and First Men. And just to make sure that the highbrows don't own the 1920s and 30s, probably some Doc Smith. Skylark of Space is dreadful (if iconic) so maybe Galactic Patrol and/or Gray Lensman. There's also a gap, or at least a thin spot, between Beyond This Horizon (1942) and Childhood's End (1953) into which one might fit, say Henry Kuttner and C.L. Moore's Fury (1947/50).

Mention of these last two reminds me that between 1939 until the 1960s, many of the landmark texts are short stories, novelettes, novellas, or series of short works later collected. "Lewis Padgett" (Kuttner and Moore) produced a considerable body of very influential short work, e.g., the "Baldy" stories (collected in Mutant). Moore's solo "Vintage Season" and "No Woman Born" are also frequently cited as touchstone stories, and she produced a considerable body of influential short work. Similarly, most of Sturgeon's best work was short-form. Ditto Robert Sheckley and Harlan Ellison.

Returning to landmark books: Another quibble: The Space Merchants might be a stronger representive of the Galaxy school of social-satirical SF--and it precedes Gladiator. (Another passing thought: We might consider favoring a writer's first book or a sub-genre's earliest exemplar--thus Time Machine over War of the Worlds. But that means Skylark over a Lensman book. Oh well.)

As we approach the present it gets harder to name landmark books without seeming to defend personal tastes, but I do think that Neuromancer deserves a spot (iconic cyberpunk text, first major work by William Gibson)--and it helps explain why a cross-genre work like Cryptonomicon is on the list. (My own Stephenson choice would be the enormously popular and influential Snowcrash.)

There are other angles worth considering: making sure that significant subgenres (space opera, cyberpunk, wild talent, revolt-in-dystopia, and so on) are represented--and by reasonably representative works; matching the list against prize-winners (Hugos as a signal of what was popular Back Then); maybe noting what works have aged better than others (not even a Hugo is a guarantee of lasting importance, though--anybody read any Mark Clifton lately? [They'd Rather Be Right, with Frank Riley, 1955]). Locus Online maintains an extensive list of award winners, including a compilation of "Major Novel Winners": [[2]]

BTW, Rick N: did you mean A Fire Upon the Deep or A Deepness in the Sky? I like them both.

RLetson 05:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All these sound good to me (except for wild talent, which is simply some-thing I've never heard before and can't comment on). I'd like at least a mention of SF poetry. Kdammers 06:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions, RLetson. Yes, I've read They'd Rather Be Right, but even though it won a Hugo and is mildly entertaining, I don't think it had any influence on the field. And I somehow forgot to mention The Demolished Man and The Stars, My Destination, both hugely influential. Rick Norwood 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments and suggestions. I know this is an article that's had a lot of attention, and I'm new to the debate, so please don't hesitate to tell me if I'm rehashing old arguments here.

• I think that "History of SF" is sufficiently complex a subject that it should have its own article. In fact, one approach to improving this article might be to write sub-articles and get them right; that would at least divide up the debate.
• More specifically, I think that limiting discussion to the genre may not be the best way to go; I agree genre sf is quite distinct, and this is historically traceable, but it had roots and more recently has branches in the mainstream, and these connections need to be mentioned. Several early novels in the list above were not genre, so I'm not criticizing the list on that basis.
• A list may not be the most efficient way to organize one's thoughts about the genre: perhaps a chronological breakdown, covering pre-Victorian proto-sf, then the relevant Victorian genres such as dime novels and scientific romances, and then the period leading to the pulp explosion and the final solidification of the genre, and more recently the partial resorption of sf tropes into the mainstream, primarily via film. If you want to avoid this, I think it's necessary to have an article entitled "History of the SF genre" as well as a more general one.
• Lists of novels are likely to spark debate, so I wonder if for that reason they are not a productive organization for discussion. Also, the article has to be clear to people who do not know the genre, so any books mentioned probably ought not to be cited in a way that expects the reader to have read them. In other words, I think it's less useful to say "The Space Merchants was an early example of SF speculating about social changes" than "In the fifties, speculation about social changes became more common". Citing "The Space Merchants" won't help most readers not familiar with the genre. Of course we're going to have to name a few novels, but the article ought to read clearly and make sense without them. So perhaps it would be sensible to try to agree on the article structure and wording with no cited works, and add them at a fairly late editing stage to ensure this style is followed.

Mike Christie 16:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Mike Christie's structural point--if I were writing this sort of article by myself, I'd almost certainly take a period-breakdown approach, talk about how the various kinds of stories and motifs emerge and interact, and use key texts (appropriately thumbnailed) as illustrations. And a modular approach, with a distinct history section or sub-article, keeps things tidy.

But as a tool to get a handle on the items that constitute the entity being described, I think a list can be a useful discussion-starter--it at least suggests a kind of through-line and it also points up sub-generic boundaries and reminds us of changing tastes and fashions. And in a sense, this whole enterprise is a massively cross-indexed set of topics, subtopics, and comments--a list of lists, and so on, ad infinitum. (Turtles all the way down?)

I'd also take care to distinguish between "genre" as a taxonomic notion and "genre" as a publishing/writing/reading phenomenon. Thus Frankenstein isn't a "genre" book in the way that anything published in Analog is (since the publishing environment didn't exist), but it did help to establish the tradition that now includes all those Analog stories--as well as all the texts marketed to readers who don't think of themselves as reading SF (most of, say, Michael Crichton's audience), even when they really are. Which brings us to that issue of the migration of SF tropes into "mainstream" literature, which does need to be addressed, especially when dealing with the last 25 years or so. (This is where I usually insert a plug for Gary Wolfe's approach to the genre as a body of motifs.)

BTW, "wild talent" is one of the labels (perhaps not as familiar as I thought) for stories about telepathy, teleportation, and other psychic powers--More Than Human is a wild talent story.

RLetson 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the list is too English language-centric. I'm very surprised there is no Stanisław Lem book there, for example. I would also definitely include Jacek Dukaj there (it's an outrage that none of his books have been translated yet!) Ausir 23:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For an idea of how other articles have covered a broad topic take a look the article Turkish literature which is a Featured Article -- admittedly something I have no interest in but I surfed around wikipedia looking for something which might serve as a model for this article. It has a clear time line, descriptions of the evolution through time, a good set of references backing up points made and seems broad in its coverage. It also has sub articles for some of its main themes. Admittedly I am not so keen on the writing style and I certainly wouldn't suggest we slavishly copy that kind of format. I just thought it might give ideas how to tackle an extremely broad subject with a literary flavour. --Richard Clegg 23:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SF Masterworks contains a list of 70 SF publications. We can add or subtract from it with suggestions here. We do not want to reprint a full list. We need to establish the history of each subgenre probably by the original creation of the subgenre by a work. This will create a template timeline. If we are looking at 10 subgenres for the history article then we only need just over 10 works to start with. Alien Beings Artificial Intelligence Cyberpunk Environmental Government Military Parallel Universes Robots Space Opera Time Utopian and Dystopian. Lets figure out which came first what work started the subgenre. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 11:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)]

I would also like to remind contributors to avoid appearances of original research and also see above "...This section suggests that readers and bookstores define the category of books. This is an error. The publisher defines the book’s genre. If they say it is Science-Fiction then that is what it is. If the bookstore or reader classifies it differently then that is just an opinion...." [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 11:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)] [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 12:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)]

Much of this topic is addressed in History of science fiction. Perhaps we should consider how to summarize and hit the high points and refer to the history article for more detail. KennyLucius 19:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment these are the headings I proposed. They will probably changed. Although there are articles on wiki about these topics, this SF page should unify them somewhat by addressing them in the history.

Alien Beings

I would suggest that this starts with early mankind and is oral tradition. The Nagas And Serpents for example. In the Bible we have the Elohim and the nephilim for example. Then we have to leap forward to 1898: H. G. Wells "The War of the Worlds" ALIENS ON EARTH: they came from outer space

Artificial Intelligence

Knowledge Engine - machine-made expertise Jonathan Swift (1726) Automaton Chessplayer - the first chess-playing computer Ambrose Bierce (1910) Detectophone - machine translation of language Hugo Gernsback (1911) Robot Mother - self-reproducing automaton Maurice A. Hugi (1941) Positronic Brain Isaac Asimov (1950)

Cyberpunk

William Gibson in his novel "Neuromancer"

Environmental

Ludovico Ariosto's "Orlando Furioso" (1516 & 1532) trip to the moon.

Government

1984 by Orwell

Military

H. Beam Piper's Uller Uprising (1952)

Parallel Universes

The Time Machine is a novel by H. G. Wells, first published in 1895,

Robots

1627: Francis Bacon posthumous publication "The New Atlantis" 1890 Karel Capek [play "R.U.R." introduced word "robot" to the world] 1897 The Clown and the Automaton (Georges Melies, first robot in movie history) Metropolis - 1927 1917 Hungarian author Frigyes Karinthy's satirical novels "Capilarie" and "Faremido" appear as sequels to Jonathan Swifts's "Gulliver's Travels", and adding a society based on automation and robots June 1919 Abraham Merritt's "The Moon Pool" in "All-Story Magazine", featuring a spacewarp-to-another-world and "The Shing One" -- an alien robot constructed of pure energy

Space Opera

E. E. Smith, with his Skylark and Lensman series;

Time

Looks like this is covered by Well's Time Machine as history but might need a more modern example.

Utopian and Dystopian

There are many very early visionary works. This is a big topic.

Please go ahead and makes inserts here if you wish.[[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 12:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)]

Much of this topic is addressed in History of science fiction. Perhaps we should consider how to summarize in this article and refer to the history article for more detail. KennyLucius 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we need make suggestions for illustrations. We should try and make them relevant to the work being done above. If there are illustrations that define SF we need them here. We can also incorporate a text into the above to support them. I suggest a good start would be a picture of: (1)SPOCK I like http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/gallery/images/340/tosspock3.jpg or http://www.mythfolklore.net/mywiki/images/spock.jpg

I would like to suggest we do not have illustrations. If we do have illustrations, I would certainly vote against them being from film/TV except to illustrate a section that deals with film/TV. Notinasnaid 07:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, I'd like to help out on this article for a bit so I won't review it if it goes forward to be a Good Article again. In my opinion, it needs illustrations if we want it to reach good article status. I can quite see the "purist" argument for putting in no illustrations but it will be expected. For a start, some of those old Amazing Stories had great covers and a particular "of the time" look (and they look great) -- adding an illustration of those serves a clear purpose in the article of giving a feeling for the character of those magazines. Since the article discusses Amazing Stories then it comes under fair use. Similarly for TV shows, we can surely pick one or two non-copyrighted images as iconic. The wikipedia spirit is really to Be Bold rather than discuss heavily and vote before editing unless communications has really broken down. Can we give this approach another try? I've added a couple of images which have correct copyright tags, removed the Heinlein cover because it's a bit dull looking and the article does not discuss this book. I've also tagged some needed citations. I know that everyone knows the bit about War of the Worlds -- but that should just make it easier to find cites. Hopefully we can move the article forward without the wholescale reverts that have been happening. --Richard Clegg 09:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ellison quote, about sci-fi and crickets, can be found in responses made by Ellison to some online questions left by July 1998 Parcon participtants see Parcon Text. Not sure how to reference that in the article. Full quote: "HARLAN'S RESPONSE: First of all, the hideous neologism "sci-fi"--which sounds like crickets fucking--is at the core of this seeming malaise. What is called "sci-fi" is _not_, repeat NOT, science fiction. It is special effects movie/television produced by and for imbeciles. Giant lizards, moronic space battles with spaceships acting as if they were Spads and Fokkers dogfighting in atmosphere, recycled fairy tales, and illiterate appeals to paranoia. They bear as much relation to science fiction of quality (whether film or tv or books or magazines) as Dachau did to a health spa." MikeBriggs 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ackerman's response: I can't find anything on-line that uses that quote that doesn't use Wiki as the source. MikeBriggs 18:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- added quote from Ellison to the artice using the cite web template. --Richard Clegg 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid POVs and personal opinions about why a specific work should be considered important enough to warrent inclusion in the SF article we can use awards as a status of the work. Examples of Awards would be Hugo and Nebula. We should probably include film and television awards also such as oscars etc. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)]

This is a good suggestion, but keep in mind that the Hugos are fan-baed (popularity contest) while the Nebulas are voted on by writers. Weight given by a SF award is useful, but sometimes the most definitive works are overlooked by awards and only recognized after a new trend or subgenre has become obvious. For this reason, any work that sets a trend or begins a subgenre should be given some weight as well, even if never honored with an award. KennyLucius 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention they are both English language-centric. Stanisław Lem never got a Hugo nor a Nebula and his works definitely should be included here. Ausir 19:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted this over on the SF Masterworks talk page [[3]], but it's worth pointing out here as well: Chapter 16 of the 5th edition of Anatomy of Science Fiction is a list-of-lists of recommended texts. It's broad, inclusive, and not limited to awards or nationalities (though it is Anglophone, so non-English-language books are limited to those that have been translated). Between that (and the lists it compiles, if they seem useful) and the Locus Online pages and authoritative scholarship such as the Clute & Nichols Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and/or the bibliographic works of E.F. Bleiler, we have more lists than even a compulsive list-saver like me can handle. RLetson 21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Publishing Group created the SF Masterworks with the agreement of the writers/publishers of the books on that list. So even though this is an exclusive POV of the Orion Publishing Group, the fact that the writers/publishers agree to have their work included in the list of books to be published within that list shows that they themselves think it has merit (even though that merit just might be selling more books [and probably is]). The publishers/writers approve of it and that is no small statement. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)].

Theodore Sturgeon: "A good science fiction story is a story about human beings, with a human problem, and a human solution, that would not have happened at all without its science content." Quoted by James Blish in "More Issues at Hand".

Robert A. Heinlein: "Science fiction is speculative fiction in which the author takes as his first postulate the real world as we know it, including all established facts and natural laws." Expanded Universe page 374.

Hugo Gernsback: "By scientifiction I mean the Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, Edger Allen Poe type of story -- a charming romance intermingled with scientific fact and prophetic vision." Amazing Stories #1, March 1926.

It's a start. Rick Norwood 18:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So some suggested definitions: From Simon we have "Science-fiction is a literary or cinematic story orientated through dealing with speculative developments in science, environments, life and their impact." which is an amalgm of various dictionary definitions. I suggested "Science fiction is a genre of fiction in which at least part of the narrative depends on science (either real or imagined) to generate settings or events which have not yet occurred in reality (and may never do so). There is no easy to define boundary between science fiction and other story forms." How about we collect a few other definitions, pick our favourite by the end of next week (if not sooner) and then start the article with that definition followed by

Theodore Sturgeon wrote that "A good science fiction story is a story about human beings, with a human problem, and a human solution, that would not have happened at all without its science content." (we would need a full reference for "More issues at hand" -- publisher, year etc, if possible). I guess any of the quotes from authors can have holes picked in them but Heinlein's could be said to apply to CSI more than it would apply to Dr. Who or Star Trek and Gernsback's uses scientifiction. We could include the other author quotes in a later part -- the Gernsback quote would look great in a short "History" section for example.

Can I also mention again Be Bold -- we're having some productive discussions here but I don't think it helps much until some people are prepared to take the initiative to edit the article. Do most of us agree that a good thing would be to include a chopped version of "history of science fiction" with a link to that article as "Main article" for history? I think it's a good idea and would be prepared to do it but the rest of you seem more knowledgable than I am. --Richard Clegg 18:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice start--it establishes some of the themes that most definitions address, particularly the question of what "science" is doing in the "fiction." A simple and direct plan for an evolution-of-the-term treatment would start with Gernsback, who is labeling an what he sees as an existing category. Here's a draft lead:

The term itself goes back to Hugo Gernsback, whose Amazing Stories was the first English-language magazine devoted to the genre he called "scientifiction": his name for "the Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, Edger Allen Poe type of story--a charming romance intermingled with scientific fact and prophetic vision" (Amazing Stories #1, March 1926). Other specialized magazines followed Amazing, and in 1938 John W. Campbell, Jr. changed the name of the magazine he edited from Astounding Stories to Astounding Science-Fiction. (Malcolm J. Edwards and Peter Nicholls, "Astounding Science-Fiction," in Clute & Nicholls Encyclopedia of Science Fiction)

RLetson 18:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need an article, Definitions of science fiction. Actually, my personal definition of science fiction is "Science fiction is that branch of fiction derived from seven novels by H. G. Wells," but obviously that isn't going to fly. The definition currently in the article is not bad. But anything, no matter how clever, that is not sourced, is original research. Many knowledgable people have thought long and deeply on this subject, and all acknowledge the problem to be difficult.

The three definitions I offered were just the first three I came across. I'm sure there are dozens out there. After those are posted, we can pick the best one or two. Rick Norwood 18:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RLetson's suggestion above sounds pretty good, but it was Gernsback himself, not Campbell, who first coined the phrase "science fiction", when he was pushed out of Amazing and started Wonder Stories. Rick Norwood 18:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- it really looks like we're starting to get somewhere -- I too like RLetson's suggestion. On the "Original Research" issue, I'd just point out that almost all wikipedia articles begin with a definition arrived at by consensus of editors. This is certainly not "original research" we are just trying to get a definition which we (the people currently editing the article) think captures it. If you look at featured articles most of them will not have sources for their lead definition. We should not try to set standards higher than the current featured articles or we will never achieve anything. --Richard Clegg 19:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, Rick. That's what comes of doing research on the fly. I'll see if I can track down the details of Uncle Hugo's coining and discover whether any other magazine used it before JWC did. (The ESF article says that another magazine used the title Science Fiction by itself before JWC could appropriate it, so he had to keep Astounding in his.) I think I know where to find this info. I like the idea of tracing the most public appearances of the term, such as its use in book and mag titles. RLetson 19:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious question: isn't the "purpose" of this article to define SF? I have always assumed so. The dictionary definition seems only a lede, and the remainder provides definitive aspects of SF. If that is the case, the definition should complement the article's content--perhaps even mention the aspects discussed in the article and identify them as definitive. SF's true definition is its history, themes, and subgenres (okay, that's obvious).

I guess my hope is that the definition leverage the article's content. Not exactly a top-down approach.

I prefer the "Science fiction is a genre of fiction..." definition. Many of the definitions I hear sound like they came from a book on how to write good SF. I tend to reject a definition that contains an aspect of good fiction like "...is a story about human beings..." because they tend to exclude the most god-awful SF I've ever read. KennyLucius 21:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just list definitions from established writers and dictionary definitions and compile a new one using them as a guide.[[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 23:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)]

There is no way the Rabkin quote is from a book published in 1947 -- I believe Prof. Rabkin recently turned 60. --Sarrica 10:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right--it has to be J.O. Bailey (who wrote Pilgrims Through Space and Time)--I noticed this misattribution a while back but haven't had time to dig through my copy to find the exact passage. I wonder if the confusion is a result of quoting a quotation of Bailey in one of Rabkin's own books. RLetson 16:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- because things seemed to have stalled I went ahead and put in the new definition above. Please, feel free to edit if you disagree. I used my definition since at least one person other than me seemed to think it was good to use and nobody seemed particularly happy with the current definition. Now, there was some talk about a section on "origins of the term" and we'd made a start on that here. A few things were undecided however.

Does this seem reasonable? "The term science fiction is credited to Hugo Gernsback, whose Amazing Stories was the first English-language magazine devoted to the genre. Originally he used the term "scientifiction": his name for "the Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, Edger Allen Poe type of story--a charming romance intermingled with scientific fact and prophetic vision" (Amazing Stories #1, March 1926). Other specialized magazines followed Amazing, and in 1938 John W. Campbell, Jr. changed the name of the magazine he edited from Astounding Stories to Astounding Science-Fiction. (Malcolm J. Edwards and Peter Nicholls, "Astounding Science-Fiction," in Clute & Nicholls Encyclopedia of Science Fiction)"

This is a combination of RLetson's suggestion but with Rick Norwoods assertion that Gernsback first used the term (do we have a citation for that? I'm keen that as much as possible in the article has citations. --Richard Clegg 09:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]