Talk:Science fiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Science fiction as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia.

Science fiction is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

To-do list for Science fiction:

edit · history · watch · refresh

[edit] TO DO TO QUALIFY FOR WP:GA Well Written General cleanup of choppy prose from excessive re-writes Too much SF-fan-related jargon and unexplained or baffling references - "(such as Darko Suvin's emphasis on SF's cognitive element)" Better define terms (i.e. "slipstream") to allow the uninitiated to better follow points being made. Fandom section prose and tone needs to better fit in with the rest of the article. Accuracy Cite sources; avoid appearances of original research. Check cites to be sure they are being done consistently in the same way as not to confuse the reader. Images Needs more illustrations where appropriate.

Archives
October 2001 – March 2006

Contents 1 TO DO TO QUALIFY FOR WP:GA 2 Gaming 3 Structure 4 not mention of Cyberpunk genre 5 Worldcon size 6 Good article failed 7 Splash Section for Suggestions that meet the To-do List 8 * 9 Propose Template from another Wiki Article 10 History of SF 11 SF Subgenre History 12 Illustrations 13 Harlan Ellison Quote 14 SF Awards 15 Definitions of science fiction 16 Origins of the term science fiction 17 Purpose of Science Fiction 18 Terrible introduction 19 Still stuff on the Splash Section above. 20 What the Heck? 21 External links 22 Another stab at the definition. 23 Hard sf edits 24 Russian fan site 25 Failed science fiction 26 Use of OED SF citation project links 27 Science fiction 28 Time for scholarship again 29 Time Travel 30 Links 31 Speculative Fiction genesis 32 Changed image... 33 Images 34 Dispute over text 35 Game over SF 36 Terminology 37 Human Issues? 38 Lead 39 some problems with the new introduction 40 problems with expanded introduction 41 This is rather disappointing 42 Perils in Nerd-dom 43 Contrived leader 44 Searching for a decent definition... 45 Removed "Scope and Purpose" section to Talk Page 46 Commercial purposes? 47 Links 48 SFF Portals 49 "Science Fiction" and "SF" not synonymous? 50 extradimensional redirects 51 Compound modifiers -- science-fiction writers write science fiction 52 Science fiction and Failed history 53 English-language bias 54 Hypehantion 55 Technology not yet invented 56 The first science fiction - 180 AD!? 57 External links redux 58 Definitions 59 Science fiction template 60 Wikiproject? and table of contents 61 Alternate future

[edit] Gaming

There should definately be a paragraph on scifi gaming: video, board, card, etc. I would suggests that apart from novels, science fiction is being propelled furthest through computer games. Homeworld, Fallout, Freespace, you know what I'm talking about. -Tubby

[edit] Structure

The first section -- prominent authors speaking on SF -- seems strange, uninformative, and bald to come so early in the article without a better context being given. Either incorporate these quotes into useful prose about the definitions and guidelines of SF or move them to the end of the article. As it stands, a History of SF section would be a MUCH better opening.Amber388 14:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not mention of Cyberpunk genre

Not a lynk or list of sub-genres of Science fiction such as Cyberpunk

[edit] Worldcon size

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Good article failed

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)]

[edit] Splash Section for Suggestions that meet the To-do List

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)]

[edit] *

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)]

[edit] Propose Template from another Wiki Article

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)]

[edit] History of SF

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] SF Subgenre History

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)

[edit] Illustrations

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)

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)

[edit] Harlan Ellison Quote

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)

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)

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

[edit] SF Awards

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)

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)

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)

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)].

[edit] Definitions of science fiction

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Origins of the term science fiction

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)

[edit] Purpose of Science Fiction

At the moment we have a section "Purpose of Science Fiction" which seems odd to me since, for example, we wouldn't have a section "Purpose of Mexican Literature" if we were writing about that. The main point about the section is about predicting the future and that this is not the main point of science fiction -- a point I agree with. Perhaps a better name for the section would be Predictions of Science Fiction or. That way we could add all that nice stuff about various authors predicting inventions ahead of their time (Verne -- Submarine, Clarke -- Comms Satelite, who was the first person to write about moon landings? Probably not Wells but perhaps it could be mentioned with "other authors had written about this). Any comments? --Richard Clegg 09:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. How about "Science fiction predictions" as a section heading. I know V. T. Hamlin, in the Alley Oop comic strip, was the only author to predict that the moon landing would be televised, with commercials.

By the way, my reference for Hugo Gernsback coining "science fiction" is The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Rick Norwood 15:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

At first I liked your new definition, but then I realized, all fiction is about settings and events different from reality. That's what makes it fiction! Heinlein had a very good definition of sf. I'm going to see if I can find it. Rick Norwood 15:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Rick -- read what the definition says. "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)." This is not just about events different from reality -- any fiction is about this -- but about science as a motivator for this. Of course it is difficult to distinguish from (say) a contemporary science based medical drama. Do you really think the previous definition better? If you like the previous definition better then keep it -- I thought the consensus was that the previous definition was poor. I don't think this article will get very far if there are continual reverts. There's a lot of progress on the talk page but we're making little headway with the article. I don't think we will ever find a definition everyone is 100% happy with. The question to ask is "Is the version we had better or worse?" I think the new version is an improvement and hence have reverted back to that. If you disagree I will not be upset if you re-revert. Whether or not we agree with Sturgeon's definition, it is the opinion of a respected science-fiction writer. Can I suggest that we keep the new version UNTIL we replace the definition with an even better one and the quote with an even more aposite one? That is we should judge any change by whether it is better not by whether it is perfect? --Richard Clegg 17:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that Sturgeon's definition is actually rather poor. Like I said before, he is defining "good" SF. "A good science fiction story is a story about human beings, with a human problem, and a human solution." That is a definition of good fiction. SF may not have any humans in it at all.

I don't disagree with Sturgeon's statement, but it doesn't help differentiate SF from any other kind of fiction. The part before Sturgeon's quote was okay, but I would prefer a definition that does not raise issues with itself. The current definition makes a solid statement that is usable as a kernel, and issues are raised later in the article. This seems appropriate. I wonder if there isn't some solid statement we can all consent to for the first paragraph. KennyLucius 17:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, it seems that consensus might be difficult to reach here. How about the approach of adding (say) two or three more quotes from other authors. I feel almost certain we would all agree on what books and films are and are not science fiction and therefore would not easily be able to come up with a 100% perfect definition. I also feel we will never find a quote from an author we all agree is good. However, if we can come up with a definition which is not too contentious and with a few quotes which we may or may not agree with then this is a good start. --Richard Clegg 17:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to soften my previous statement about Sturgeon's quote. His meaning is quite definitive, I think, and works well with the the previous sentence. My objection was to the implication that SF is always about humans, when really only "good" SF is about humans. Even so, it works pretty well, and the appeal to authority strengthens the definition.

I removed the second sentence to strengthen it further--any objection? I like this definition it marginally better than the previous because it is shorter and sharper. Perhaps the best we can hope for in an opening paragraph is to pinpoint the "center" of SF rather than define the hazy boundary. KennyLucius 19:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced Sturgeon's definition of sf with Heinlein's. What do you think? Rick Norwood 20:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like Heinlein's definition as an introduction. First, starting the article with the statement that a definition is difficult is a cop out. Second, Heinlein seems to be defining what a SF writer is, rather than what SF is. While this may go a long way into refining a definition, I don't think it's a good way to begin.

Second, it just isn't true as stated. Do you really believe that only SF writers believe in facts and in change, while all other types of writers believe in astrology?

Not a good way to start the article. KennyLucius 23:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The definition problem with SF really is complicated enough to warrant its own related article or subsection--the term has a kind of core (from its origin in Gernsbackian paleo-techno-nerd culture), but there are all kinds of accretions and extensions and associations that give it a very large and fuzzy periphery. While it's possible to do a reasonably restrictive formal definition that applies to most of the narratives that carry the label, there is so much popular-culture stuff grafted onto the historical core that the definition would come across as very stuffy and complicated--take a look at Darko Suvin's definition in Metamorphoses of Science Fiction. It's very well-thought-out and quite precise, but it reads like a legal brief.

Myself, I look to Heinlein for a tight and tidy expression of what a smart working genre writer thought he was doing 50-some years ago. While many people see "science" as the crucial term, RAH recognized that it's the speculative nature of the science that makes SF what it is. He also recognized, I think, that speculation by itself is necessary but not sufficient--speculation has to be tied to a rationalist-materialist worldview (thus science fiction). This means SF acts like "realistic" or representational fiction, with speculations about or drawn from science and technology (this last is sometimes short-changed in discussions of SF) providing the crucial difference between the worlds created by SF and "straight" realistic fiction. (This, by the way, is one reason I would also start with the binary divide between fantastic and non-fantastic narratives--once that is established, SF becomes another binary divide: its imagined world is rational-materialist rather than supernaturalist. This ignores some other fantastic genres, like expressionism, but it addresses some of the big taxonomic problems.)

So I would use the Heinlein definition as an armature and add to it whatever refinements are needed to account for more recent developments. I would also include in an introductory section some indication that there is a restricted, literary-critical understanding of what the genre is and a looser, popular notion that responds to a wide range of pop-culture items--that SF is not only a narrative genre but a label for whole families of images, motifs, memes, and products. (For example, a toy rocket is a "science fiction toy," but it's not a narrative or even necessarily based on any single narrative. It's part of the iconography of SF that now exists independent of any particular story.) RLetson 21:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

(one hour later) The trouble with looking up what Heinlein has to say about sf: when you start reading Heinlein, it's so hard to stop! Rick Norwood 21:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

RN to KL: I think you will find that almost everyone who tries to define sf begins by mentioning that sf is hard to define. And I think Heinlein is correct in saying that "real" sf writers take facts seriously, while it seems obvious to me that the vast majority of writers do not, and that "real" sf writers understand change, while the vast majority of writers do not. You mock this by saying "other types of writers believe in astrology", which just shows that you are not one of those writers who takes facts seriously, since that is not what I said and certainly is not what Heinlein said.

RN to RL: I agree with most of what you say, and, yes, we need to get into the introduction somehow that science fiction isn't just fiction any more. It is also plastic models, action-figures, and computer games. Rick Norwood 23:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

RN: Don't take it so personally--I certainly don't intend it that way. I'm a HUGE Heinlein fan, but we're trying to define what SF is, not what "good" SF is. I completely agree with Heinlein's (and your) assessment of a real SF writer's priorities, but where does that leave us? Would someone who isn't a fan get a clear handle of SF from that paragraph? I think the indignation you heard (mistakenly) in my response might be a common response.

All I'm saying is: maybe we should call the other writers mush-heads in the SECOND paragraph. And we shouldn't start with a copout. I know it is actually difficult to define, but is that really the best first sentence we can come up with? Is the difficulty the most definitive aspect of SF?

I propose some version of Wolleheim's definition from [this page] for the first paragraph: "Science fiction is that branch of fantasy, which, while not true to present-day knowledge, is rendered plausible by the reader's recognition of the scientific possibilities of it being possible at some future date or at some uncertain point in the past."

It's very non-threatening and centrist. I don't think anyone would say it's untrue. I believe it identifies the center of SF, well-within the fuzzy boundaries that the article needs to address. In other words, a good starting point. KennyLucius 23:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying out some possibilities here--I'm afraid my academic side takes over when I start defining. Still, maybe there's something useful in these paragraphs.

Science fiction is a branch of fantastic/contra-realist narrative where the fictional world departs from the world-as-it-is is thanks to one or more proposed scientific or technological development; or where the ordinary world is re-imagined in the light of some scientific idea. The most familiar kind of SF is set in a future that has evolved from its audience's present thanks to continuing developments in science and technology; or one that has encountered some disaster (for example, nuclear war or an asteroid striking the Earth) that is understood and portrayed with the help of the sciences.

While "science" is clearly important to SF, Robert Heinlein (among others) recognized that SF is not necessarily fiction about science, but fiction that uses speculation and extrapolation rooted in a scientific understanding of the world. And while much SF is set in the future, much re-imagines the past or imagines alternate histories or even alternate universes. The crucial feature of a science-fictional imaginary world is that its fantastic elements are the result not of supernatural or arbitrary forces but of natural law (or some extension or alteration of our current understanding of natural law)--or if there are supernatural phenomena (ghosts, gods, miracles), they are treated to the same rational analysis that is brought to bear on gravity or evolution.

--RLetson 00:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. I have two points to make about the current intro. Firstly, it is terribly unclear what Heinlein actually said -- which bits are a quote -- the bits that are a quote should be in quote marks and the bit where he is quoting George Bernard Shaw should be in quote marks within quote marks. Secondly, it's a very Heinlein definition, it rules out the more "mush-headed" science fiction which might include miracles, astrology and ghosts. Some rather good sci-fi contains ghosts (Fritz Leiber, Douglas Adams etc). Could the writer at least add quote marks so we know which bits are said by Heinlein? --Richard Clegg 09:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Two reasons I didn't at any point quote Heinlein directly. First, I was a little worried about copyright and fair use. More important, Heinlein makes his points discursively, over several pages, with lots of examples. I am still looking for a good, short definition.

Part of the problem, which I think the introduction needs to address, is that we are really talking about two different things. On the one hand, we have the written sf of Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, LeGuin, Niven, and Wolfe, which focuses on original ideas and realistic settings and characters. On the other hand, we have Flash Gordon, Star Wars, and other fantasy with spaceships. I like them both, but they are really two different categories, as different as H. G. Wells and Edgar Rice Burroughs. And they are both called science fiction. Rick Norwood 14:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly "fair use" to quote a few sentences by an author and cite the reference. If your "quote" isn't a direct quote then why is it here? I thought the reason for using a quote was to stop the problem of having to come up with a definition ourselves. If it's taken from different parts of a book use elipsis e.g. Science fiction author Robert Heinlein said "Science fiction is... that school of writing which..." and so on. I would do it myself but I don't have that reference. --Richard Clegg 14:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the problem is that Heinlein is discursive. Here, for example, is how he begins, (Guest of Honor Speech at the Third World Science Fiction Convention, Denver, 1941) "Here in my hand is the manuscript of a speech. If it works out anything like the synopses I have used, this speech will still be left when I get through." Later "That is what science fiction consists of -- trying to figure out from the past and from the present what the future may be. In that we are behaving like human beings. Now, all human beings time-bind to some extent when they try to discover the future. But most human beings -- those who laugh at us for reading science fiction -- time-bind, make their plans, make their predictions, only within the limits of their personal affairs..." And so on for fifteen pages!

I added Heinlein's view (necessarily in paraphrase) because it contains ideas that we had not touched on yet, such as the relationship between science fiction and realism. I've recently joined a book discussion group, and so I've read some contemporary fiction I would not otherwise have read, New York Times bestsellers and the like. What struck me most strongly is the total lack of realism. True love lasts forever. Faith and trust are more important than knowledge and reason. In fact, reason, or even just knowing how to do something -- how to do anything -- never comes up. A person is born with a destiny. The characters are either totally good or totally evil. Girls who have sex die. All Negroes, Native Americans, and Orientals are saintly and possess hidden wisdom lacking in Whites. And everyone in the group except me knows -- knows -- that this twaddle is more "realistic" than that silly science fiction stuff I read. Rick Norwood 14:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oy, Rick, you need to find a different reading group. But seriously, about the Heinlein material: he worked over that line of thought for nearly 20 years--the 1941 speech is just the first recorded version of it. The most fully-developed expression of it I'm aware of is in "Science Fiction: Its Nature, Faults and Virtues," in The Science Fiction Novel: Imagination and Social Criticism (Advent: Publishers, 1959; this is a collection of four lectures [Heinlein, Kornbluth, Bester, Bloch] given at the U of Chicago in 1957). It's a carefully-reasoned 34-page treatment of what SF is, how it is related to realism and fantasy, which motifs are closest to its center, and so on. The money quotation (on p. 22) is probably this:

A handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method.

He immediately adds that if you "strike out the word 'future'" it can apply to all and not just almost all SF. Earlier in the piece, RAH also writes that "personally I prefer the term 'speculative fiction' as being more descriptive" (p. 15).

As rigorous as RAH is in this essay (and he identifies just about all the issues that a non-lit-crit person would encounter), it does represent a particular POV (that of a hard SF writer) and has a prescriptive edge to it--though I think that when you look at the whole essay, there's a pretty sophisticated understanding of the interpenetrating genres that are being mapped, along with lots of exceptions and qualifications. RAH wasn't a literary scholar, but he was intelligent, well-read, and very, very logical--a born taxonomist, I'd say.

Anyhow, this isn't really a pitch for a Heinleinian definition so much as an informed opinion (more than four decades of studying the field) about what the issues are and how some people have addressed them--and therefore where to look for answers. And I really strongly recommend Gary Wolfe's Critical Terms book (which I've mentioned on several SF-related talk discussion pages) the best single starting point for surveying the sources of various terms and concepts. The Clute & Nicholls Encyclopedia is more accessible and almost as useful, but not quite as comprehensive. RLetson 17:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

RN to RL: I like your Heinlein quote better than my paraphrase. I think we could go with that, provided we add something to the effect that today "science fiction" means, to most people, anything with spaceships, robots, or aliens. The trouble with Clute & Nicholls is that they say, "There is really no good reason to expect that a workable definition of sf will ever be established." Rick Norwood 20:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

RL to RN--Yah, I'd present the RAH passage as an expression of the American print-tradition (and maybe hard-SF-biased) view, with the qualification you mention, with the additional notice to the effect that this article is about the narrative genre rather than SF-motifs-at-large-in-popular-culture. (Passing thought: Is there an article that takes that approach already? A quick look/search does not find one.) We might also think about adding another definition (or maybe two) with a slightly different emphasis, to indicate that there's a range of opinion even among writers, editors, and scholars. Then it's possible to suggest that the center is somewhere in the area implied by the definitions. That's certainly less stressful than trying to cook up our own synthesis.

I also think that it's useful to point to the "History of SF" article (which is still evolving) for details of the genre's complexity as it has developed and spread. That way all we have to do is stipulate that "SF" indicates both a definable set of narrative traditions and a body of images, motifs, memes, etc. that are loose in our culture. --Russell (RLetson 21:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Terrible introduction

I'm taking issue with the introduction... it's quite partisan, not encyclopedia-like, miles away from the wikipedia neutrality policy. I'm also afraid the pseudo "definition" cuts off a good portion of the best works, like Dune. Something from the "Definitions" discussion above would make a much better introduction. Yeah Heinlein is fine when writing sci-fi itself, although he comes much lower on my list than a few people who don't even make his definition, such as Herbert and Marion Zimmer Bradley; but when writing about sci-fi, he's poor at best. LaloMartins 03:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still stuff on the Splash Section above.

There are still points to tackle on "Splash Section for Suggestions that meet the To-do List". [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 22:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] What the Heck?

I know this is a paraphrase of Heinlein, but that introductory material seems confrontational, and almost POV: "Most people believe in miracles or astrology or ghosts or whatever mush-headed nonsense helps them get through the day. Science fiction writers are more hard-headed than that" This should be a direct quote, as it is full of loaded terms. It should also be later in the article; positioned where it is, it seems like Heinlein's words are somehow canonical. Mateo LeFou 20:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's currently heavily under discussion. See above. --Richard Clegg 23:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I propose that all of the links that are on the page as of today be deleted. Most are not especially notable (not bad, just not notable) example of pages about or containing or listing or reviewing science fiction, quite possibly added by their owners (pages like this are a magnet for people seeking to promote their own site). The Worldcon site is unnecesary duplication, since the page already contains a link to Worldcon in its body. The Science Fiction Foundation is an important organisation but a link to it doesn't obviously enhance the article. Comments? Please refer to Wikipedia:External links if you aren't familiar with its recommendations. Notinasnaid 11:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I realize that it is a little more work, but why not delete the links that you consider unimportant, instead of deleting all of them? Just off the top of my head, I think there should be links to Locus, the Worldcon, Ellen Datlow's blog on amazon, and sfwa. (I haven't looked to see how many of those are there now.) If you delected, say 2/3 s of the current links, I doubt there would be much objection. Most Wiki articles have some links. Rick Norwood 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you justify a link to the Worldcon when the article links to Worldcon (which, properly, contains that external link)? SFWA sounds a good idea, ditto Locus as the leading news source (still?). Notinasnaid 13:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean you have given up on the article itself? If the only improvement you can make is to remove links that are not especially notable, it's a sad day.

There is no doubt about your assessment: most of the external links are advertising a site. However, even those links should not be deleted if they are on topic and acceptable. "Not especially notable" is the kind of standard that will cause a lot of trouble. I might delete half the article using that standard. KennyLucius 14:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is giving up on an article to remove links and there are a lot of extraneous links which should certainly be pruned. At the moment it is full of fancruft. The objection here isn't to links per se but to the sheer amount of them. It is a shame there was a full scale revert rather than just adding back the few that are most valuable. --Richard Clegg 19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment, I don't want to jump in with a debate yet until more time for people to post opinions. Following the acceptable link posted I see five points under Occasionally acceptable links. Point 1 is for a different kind of article, and points 4-5 are qualifiers. That leaves only point 2 ("one web directory listing) and point 3 ("one major fansite"). I point this out to add to consideration of whether the little collection of links we have is acceptable under policies. Notinasnaid 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is much easier to delete objectionable links than it is to add back important links. Rick Norwood 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Notinasnaid that nothing in the links collection needs to be there. The only criterion in Wikipedia:External links that seems likely to apply to this article is the last one: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews." Even there I think more than one (representative) site is unnecessary. This article is not an entire encyclopedia of sf in itself; it's just the main article from which many others will be linked. The Worldcon link belongs in the Worldcon article; most of the others have nothing to add beyond what should be in the article itself. They're not objectionable sites, but they don't fit the Wikipedia definition of links that should be included. Mike Christie 20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that all of the "links" that I think are essential are included under "sf portals", so I now have changed my mind, and agree with Mike Christie and Notinasnaid. Rick Norwood 20:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have consensus here so I deleted them. --Richard Clegg 21:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another stab at the definition.

I'm going to make another attempt at the definition, based on RLetson's version above. Much as I love Theodore Sturgeon, I don't think anyone was really satisfied by his definition. Rick Norwood 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the Sturgeon "definition" is best seen in the context of a long-running discussion/debate about SF and that it was a reply to the "SF is fiction about science" or "SF teaches us about science" schools of thought. It's obviously inadequate as a full definition, but in the context of that virtual debate, it made a point that is still worth making. I think we're working our way toward a reasonable opening section here. RLetson 19:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I started to delete the Sturgeon definition, and then decided that it does reflect modern sf, especially the sf published in Gardner Dozois's Asimov's SF magazine. Rick Norwood 20:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hard sf edits

Just a clarification on the revert I did on the "hard sci-fi" note in the lead-in. It's not clear to me that Sturgeon and Heinlein are talking about hard sf in particular, and that's the main reason I reverted. (I also think that the use of "sci-fi" this early in the article should probably be avoided, since it's contentious, but that's a separate issue, not reintroduced with the latest edit. I think this new edit is NPOV about hard sf, but I'm not sure it's correct about the intention of the definitions. Is there supporting evidence, e.g. from the context of the articles where they wrote those definitions? "Hard sf" is often used in contrast with "soft sf", which tends to mean sf where the sciences are the soft sciences (psychology, sociology, economics, etc.); that seems consistent with these definitions too. Can you comment? Mike Christie 12:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me they are talking about hard sf. However, it is perhaps the case that we don't want to get too bogged down into so early. To me both quotes are pushing the idea that "good" is a particular form of SF I happen not to particularly care for. Certainly we want to be clear that this is just the opinion of those two authors what good sf is. Perhaps we could not refer to hard SF but still make it clear that those quotes represent only two voices from a spectrum of opinion. --Richard Clegg 12:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but I'm not sure enough to edit what you've done, so I'll leave it to you. Mike Christie 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Either way, I didn't like the implication in the earlier part that Jules Verne and H. G. Wells had "little or no scientific context" -- I think that is a failure to contextualise them in their time. They were speculating based on knowledge of science in their day. --Richard Clegg 14:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is doubtful (given his own work) that Sturgeon was writing about what we would call "hard SF"--though Heinlein just about certainly was. The essay the RAH definition is drawn from is much concerned with the rigor of the scientific underpinnings of the fiction--that's one of the hallmarks of what we now would call the hard-SF attitude. The Sturgeon quotation, as I pointed out earlier, pretty clearly addresses the "SF is about science" idea by reaffirming the centrality of human concerns--that is, he's not limiting SF to illustrating scientific ideas.

I agree that the lead section is a bit early to introduce the hard SF issue--it is a useful topic for early in the article (say, a section on the subdivisions and subgenres), but not right at the top. RLetson 15:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First, and most important, there is no implication that Verne and Wells are the ones that have little or no scientific content. What the sentence says is that movies, games, and toys based on Martian invasions or trips to the Center of the Earth often have little or no scientific content.

Second, on the question of "hard" sf. Heinlein wanted hard sf with human characters, Sturgeon wanted human characters with science that wasn't totally silly. And if Richard Clegg doesn't like either Heinlein's or Sturgeon's kind of sf, I have to wonder what kind of sf he does like. Rick Norwood 23:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, to me, it's not important if the science is good. I get enough science in my daily life. What is important to me is the writing, characterisation and plot I am happy to read things like Stanislav Lem where the science is often deliberately absurd and he knows it. The point is, we should be NPOV. We certainly should not say "science-fiction is only good if the science is good" -- you many think that but it is not an NPOV presentation of what is science fiction. Much science-fiction has poor science either deliberately -- the purpose of this article is to describe science fiction not to judge it. --Richard Clegg 14:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but you keep misreading what the quotes in question actually say. Heinlein says that good science fiction should be 'realistic' as opposed to mystical, that the solution to the problems in the story should come from the real world, not from angels or magic, as in fantasy. Heinlein often stretched science, as for example when he wrote about ftl travel, and he often wrote fantasy, as in Glory Road, but he knew the difference. Sturgeon, on the other hand, isn't saying anything about science except that it needs to be in the story somewhere. He always stressed characterization, and few of his stories have any real science in them. In any case, the introduction is not saying that these two authors are correct, only that this is a couple of well-informed opinions by well-known and respected practitioners of the craft. Rick Norwood 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That is Heinlein's point of view (and clearly yours) and you are entitled to it. I happen to disagree that good science fiction should be realistic. Whether you agree with Heinlein or not, it is not the article's job to say what *is* good. --Richard Clegg 09:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The article does not say what is good, it only says what Heinlein and Sturgeon said was good. However, I think we are still having trouble over different understanding of the word "realistic". If a man is trapped aboard a crashing spaceship, and escapes by building a teleporter out of a broken toaster and some bailing wire, that would be science fiction. On the other hand, if a man is trapped aboard a crashing spaceship, and is rescued by the blue fairy, that's not science fiction, that's fantasy. Rick Norwood 13:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And if they are rescued by a robot which can only perform tasks beginning with R? By an ape-like ancestor caught in a time-warp? By injecting themselves with a virus which makes them incredibly lucky? None of these things are realistic or even slightly scientifically plausible but all of them have been used as plot devices in sci-fi novels, usually for comic effect. I'm afraid I'm finding any edits to this article non-productive. It's impossible to make much progress here so I'm going to move on and look at other things. I wish you luck with continuing on this article. --Richard Clegg 15:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian fan site

I think the link to this site shoold either be moved or erased. It is very slow, and in the time I looked through it, I didn't see a real bibliography. Kdammers 10:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - I also think all the non english sites should be removed unless they actually contribute something to the article its self - Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the bibs should stay, since this is important and hard-to-track down stuff. And they're generally easy to "read" even for English-only readers. Kdammers 10:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed science fiction

Much science fiction that is not alternative history is based on the science and assumptions of the time in which it was written - eg that Venus is habitable. Could a list be made of the more notable of such failed futures (I have started something off on Failed history. Jackiespeel 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of OED SF citation project links

Just an FYI regarding the OED sf citation project, which has just been linked to for "speculative fiction". I'm one of the editors on that page, along with Malcolm Farmer, Jeff Prucher and Jesse Sheidlower. Jesse works for the OED, and the project is hosted on OED servers, but the material on those pages is part of a volunteer project to gather information for use by the OED. The detailed list of citations is in fact drawn from (one of) the OED's internal database of citations, so this is certainly "official" in that sense; however, the definitions as written on those pages were written by the volunteers -- Jeff, Malcolm and me. As I recall we often referred to the OED to see if they had entries, but otherwise we just did our best to define the terms. We probably did OK, since we've been working with the OED for years and are getting familiar with the definitions, but Malcolm and I are not lexicographers. (Jeff is about to become one; he's publishing a book called "Brave New Words" based on this (and other) material.)

So these are not official OED definitions. I flatter myself that the OED lexicographers will take our draft definitions seriously when they draft entries for the real thing, but some of these words will never make it into the OED. The bottom line is that reference to these pages is fine so long as you understand what you're getting. Mike Christie 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science fiction

Please do not compromise the integrity of pages! Stop changing evertything to SF, The title of the articl is Science fiction, SF could mean anything. Stop this vandalism. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 15:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You like using the word "vandalism", don't you? Not everyone who disagree's with you is a vandal.

The abbreviation "SF" is discussed in the article and used extensively. You have changed a few instances of it. Why don't explain what you have in mind? KennyLucius 16:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Its a pre built in message, and the article is entitled science fiction not SF which could mean anything. Dont turn this into an edit war. Shields to maximum, Red Alert! Matthew Fenton [t/c] 17:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like MF doesn't like the abbreviation to be used in the Television section, and he's got a bot to protect his turf. Since no one else seems to object to this behavior, I'll leave it alone. KennyLucius 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to the use of bots in edit wars, even though I agree that sf may not be as clear to mundane readers as it is to fans. I think the bot should be reported to an administrator. Rick Norwood 22:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that's true. I thought the discussion in "Terminology" was closer to the top. I have inserted (SF) in the first paragraph to clarify things a bit. It is used in the Heinlein quote, though I am unsure if Heinlein actually used "SF" or if it was the editor's preference. Frankly, I don't have the aversion to "sci-fi" that some people do, but I like consistency.

Do you really think I should report MF? His revert edit summaries are bottish (identical and not apropos), but perhaps he's just obnoxious and unobservant. Not so bad, really--he stopped using "sci-fi" without too much argument. KennyLucius 23:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't be sure it's a bot. I agree that SF is preferable. (I'm British, though I've been in the US for years, and Matthew may be right that SF is now a rare abbreviation over there, but it was certainly not rare when I lived there.) I think given that Matthew responded reasonably to the argument about "sci-fi", it would be better to ask him to join the discussion on the talk page. Given Kenny's introduction of the abbreviation at the top of the article, I think it's better to use "SF" or "sf". Perhaps if Matthew sees that other contributors are all very familiar with the term and believe it to be widespread he'll agree to quit changing it. That would be the ideal outcome. Mike Christie 00:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with SF - and this is something the article does not pick up - is that it doesn't only stand for science fiction. Some people use it to mean "speculative fiction", a broader genre, specifically to overcome genre limitations without too much explanation. I think it would be better if this article, being about science fiction, remained unambiguous. It could occasionally vary it with "the genre", but as we aren't paper based we don't have to economise on space. I observe that the definitive Nicolls 1981 Encyclopedia uses "sf" ("Sf" at the start of a sentence), but of course it is space limited. It also starts by specifically defining the meaning, in context, of that abbreviation, noting that "it may not be self-evident". Summary: I vote for science fiction. Notinasnaid

I do not use a bot, I am just a very fast person who uses addons to his monobook.js, and User:Notinasnaid has clareified what i meant. SF could mean anything, I dont not object to it being used, but the correct title of the article is science fiction, If you intend to use it then use both ie (science fiction (sf)). Matthew Fenton [t/c] 09:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear the bot threat was a baseless rumour. The real problem with SF is that to most Americans it means San Francisco, though I suppose in the context of this article that isn't too big a problem. Rick Norwood 13:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Notinasnaid: How can you be sure that "a conscious attempt was being made to widen the definition"? I assume you are talking about the abbreviation for Speculative Fiction, though you didn't elaborate in the article. SF is a proper abbreviation for any term with the initials S and F, so that particular sentence in your edit needs support. It sounds like the old argument over "Speculative Fiction" rather than a clarification of the abbreviation.

Some writers treat "speculative fiction" as a simple alternative to "science fiction", in which case the abbreviations would have the same underlying meaning. (Nicholls, 1981, page 160 seems to support this view). However, that is far from the only definition of speculative fiction which as that article says "is a term which has been used in multiple related but distinct ways". In at least some cases speculative fiction "generally includes science fiction, fantasy, horror fiction, supernatural fiction, alternate history, and magic realism" so could not be used as a synonym. So, clearly, the unqualified abbreviation could mean science fiction or a much larger group of stuff. Anyway what do I mean by "a conscious attempt was being made to widen the definition"? I thought I had read, but cannot now cite, the idea that at least some popularisers of the term "speculative fiction" were attracted to it because it still had the initials "SF", and could therefore define it more broadly by changing what it stood for. Notinasnaid 17:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Abbreviations are always ambiguous unless defined. Every literate person knows this, so I really don't think the clarification is necessary. It seems as if the article has begun to teach remedial English. Why not just avoid using the abbreviation except where needed in a quote? KennyLucius 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Shields at full. Ready main rail guns. Ready all missile batteries. I think his clarification should be kept. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 15:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So, now you like the abbreviation? I think your bot is nots. KennyLucius 17:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said i liked it, I just think it should be kept as its different from using the abbreivation through out the article. It actually has something that someone may want to read. PS: If i'm a bot, i must be the smartest one in the world? Matthew Fenton [t/c] 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Fenton: Okay, that sounds reasonable. (I was just kidding about the bot.) To bring you up to speed on things: some people hate "speculative fiction" as much as they hate "sci-fi". They see it as a conspiracy to destroy the integrity of science fiction proper. Notinasnaid's comment is referring to that, though I doubt he is a conspiracy theorist.

I don't remember why the science fiction vs. speculative fiction argument was rooted out of this article a while ago--probably because a consensus was impossible. Currently, the article just defines speculative fiction rather objectively and ignores the conspiracy.

Notinasnaid: I object to injecting that argument into the article as if it clarifies the abbreviation. The topic is obviously Science Fiction, and that teaser in the middle of the article isn't going to de-confuse the confused. I propose that every subsection that needs to use the abbreviation use "science fiction (SF)" at first instance. This is a well-established practice.

Let me make it clear that I am only objecting to the sentence referring to the conspiracy, not to the clarification of the abbreviation. If a discussion of the speculative fiction controversy is desired, it should be in the appropriate section, not slipped in as a teaser. KennyLucius 19:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't propose adding that to the article...unless, that is, I can find a source. I think the editors of this article perhaps spend a little too long looking for the right answer rather than reporting the range of opinions. One day I will expand on this view. Notinasnaid 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you know, I did add it to the article. I should pay more attention. Removed. Notinasnaid 20:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I doubt there will be any more objections to "SF" now that the TV section has none. KennyLucius 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Should 'sci-fi' not be mentioned as an alternative? Skinnyweed 20:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The problematic term 'sci-fi' is discussed in Science fiction#Terminology. Using it without qualifying it in an article about serious science fiction is to invite edit wars. Notinasnaid 21:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time for scholarship again

The insertion of a rather POV mention of Voltaire's Micromégas in the Precursors section reminds me that there's no need to reinvent any scholarship here--the ancestors of modern SF have been extensively mapped, starting with Marjorie Hope Nicholson's Voyages to the Moon and J.O. Bailey's Pilgrims Through Space and Time, so all that's really needed is a brief recap of that scholarship (which mentions Voltaire but keeps him in the context of other 17th and 18th century proto-SF cosmic voyages). My own immediate contribution will be to fix the erroneous attribution (in the Purpose section) of a Bailey quotation to Eric Rabkin. (FWIW, it's on p. 11 of Pilgrims.)RLetson 20:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit later: Come to think of it, I wonder whether that whole "Purpose of Science Fiction" section is really needed--SF has the same kinds of purposes and functions as any other literary tradition, with the understanding that its subject matter distinguishes it from, say, the mystery or romance or sea story or whatever. The "Purpose" section as it stands is a bit of a grab-bag with no real center, and it seems to me to have its roots in the sort of defensive talk that comes from having to answer skeptical or semi-hostile "Why do you read that stuff?" queries. A consideration of SF's relationship to real science or whether it attempts to predict the future might be useful, since there are common assumptions about those matters, but I wonder whether those topics might be better addressed elsewhere--or in a section on "common assumptions about SF" that would deal with the whole range of attitudes toward the tradition, especially insider and outsider attitudes--but without the POVish defensiveness that such a treatment might fall into. RLetson 20:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it´s funny that a genre so troubled with attacks of lack of literary quality would bother to call the insertion of Voltaire as a clear precursor to be POV. I remember reading Micromégas for the first time. I felt a very strange feeling because I thought such a big name in literature would never write a sci fi short story (well that was POV on my part, I wasn´t used to read Heinlein back when I was 14 years old). He wrote it to criticize the astronomers of his time, because he was enlighted and hist thoughts permeated with science from Newton and others. If that´s not Sci Fi, I don´t know what Sci Fi is... The Micromégas entry states it was a precursor of Sci-Fi. The Voltaire article does it too. Why the Sci Fi article would deny it? I can´t see the logic or intelligence behind this behaviour. See [[4]] and [[5]] for the online texts in the english language (I can tell you that the translation is not on par with the original in French). The Editor´s Note seems to agree with Voltaire pioneering as do I. Loudenvier 20:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, I agree boldly with you about the Purpose section. It is, humm..., rather "speculative". Seems like editorialization, reads like original research. Loudenvier 20:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's time to wade into this debate (then lurch away before having to do any work). There are some serious issues with this article.

• This article tries to do too much. You only have to heft a single volume about science fiction to realise the scope of the project. The article rightly has some short sections which refer to main articles. "Definitions of science fiction" and "History of science fiction" are both areas which demand articles by themselves. Once that is done, the only debate in this article would be how to summarise: there should be no new material unique to this article. Of course, that would be a lively debate, but there can be no new material to introduce, simplifying it (here).
• I see plenty of enthusiastic debate about the right definitions of science fiction. What is it really? No! This is not the right approach for Wikipedia. It is easy to fall into the trap, as editors, of trying to find the right answer and debate about that. But what we should be doing as editors is presenting the range of views, carefully sourced. There is ample scholarship already without us doing any research, which is any case forbidden here. There will of course be debate about how to summarise, what is really relevant and what duplicates other arguments.
• Similarly, it's not up to us to pick significant works. Researchers have done that!

There is a simple choice. Editors can carry on as they are, but one day the Wikipedia focus will come this way, with its demands for sources and no original research (a reminder: WP:NOR, WP:SOURCE, WP:NPOV), and wipe out the work currently being done. Or, editors can start now to (appropriately enough) build for the future. Over to you! Notinasnaid 20:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You are COMPLETELY ... right. It´s time to stop to write what you feel is right, but rather find reliable sources that tells what other "scholars" have said. I will find some sources to cite to back up my claims (or I myself will be removing them). Regards. Loudenvier 20:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My issue with the Voltaire reference is not that Voltaire isn't one of SF's great-grandpas but that just one of his works was being singled out--and in the lead paragraph of a section at that--which gave disproportionate weight to that work, which actually belongs to a tradition that had already been going for more than a century (thus my pointing to Nicholson and Bailey, who offer extensive accounts of this material). If I were drafting that section, I'd put Voltaire into a context that includes Kepler, Godwin, Cyrano, and I would also point back to marvelous voyages from the classical period. This is absolutely canonical scholarship, and can be summarized in a couple hundred words or less. With luck, some eager grad student will step up--I have paying copy to write and deadlines to meet. RLetson 21:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Voltaire again: I removed the Micromégas reference from the lead section--it overplays Voltaire's part in the pre-history of SF, both by its placement in paragraph 2, its implication that V. was some sort of single progenitor, and in its POV language. I would urge a similar edit to the "Precursors" section--Voltaire has a significant role, but it ought to be kept in context and in proportion. "Precursors" ought to consist of a brief acknowledgement of the classical, late Renaissance, and Englightenment texts that lead to the stronger 19th-century examples of proto-SF (Mary Shelley, Poe, Stevenson, Twain, et al.) that precede the unambiguously SFnal Verne, Wells, and Doyle. The genealogy of SF has been traced repeatedly and in great detail in the scholarship--there is no need to reinvent it or to propose new theories. This field has been exceedingly well plowed. RLetson 18:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire Precursors section seems to have been written in a hurry! It´s a confused mess of citations of some authors and works, and displays a comparison with Bran Stroker that really seems out of place and is unecessary (after all, this is not an disambiguation section). As you´ve said the precursors of SF have already been researched by scholars, so why not cite those works and bring this section to life? I think it´s a really important section: Cyrano de Bergerac is not even mentioned!!! (as you´ve pointed out). My emphasis on Voltaire is because Voltaire is considered one of the most influential figures of his time, I think that it would be very interesting (to say the least) to show that Sci-Fi can be traced back to him (but not solely to him, that´s the fault of my wording). I really think that the introduction should mention those notorious ancient authors that wrote Sci-fi one way or another, withouth entering in much detail. The precursors section, which could become an article itself (the sci-fi article is too big by wikipedia standards), should be rewritten, with more emphasis on each authors contribution to the genre. We need to avoid the temptation to censor what is being contributed by others, and start to try to incorporate the ideas for the better of the article, rephrasing or moving content. I have no problem seeing my edits polymorphed beyond recognition, but I dislike too much to see my ideas fading...  :-) Loudenvier 14:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it will be very easy to revamp this section because History of science fiction have it already laid out for us! Loudenvier 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Travel

I think it´s wrong to state that Well's pioneered Time Travel, because Mark Twain had done it before. I´ve tried to fix this issue two times, but my edits are being reverted. I don´t want to start a revert war because I´m a very civilized wikipedian. So I think it´s best to discuss it here on the talk page. Why A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is not even mentioned as the de facto precursor of the time travel theme? Why my edits were reverted? If they lack quality (which is a common issue in my edits due to the fact that I´m not a native english speaker), they should have been copy-edit not thrown away. Regards Loudenvier 20:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh! The term "my edits" is meaningless in wikipedia, but you know what I meant. :-) Loudenvier 20:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If you examine the history log, you will see that the Twain references were removed from a section dealing with motifs developed by Verne and Wells. I would think that the place for a treatment who-invented-time-travel would be in a section on time travel or one on the roots/evolution of various SF motifs. RLetson 20:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the section says that Wells pioneered the Time Travel theme. It´s a wrong statement because a known, accurately dated work exists. Why incurr in a wronging when doing the right thing would be easy? I know The Time Machine was incredibly more influential for the genre but that´s not the case here, or is that? If it is the case then the term pioneered could be changed to something like was very influential. Loudenvier 20:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nicholls, 1979, p605, gives 1771 as the earliest date of a Time Travel piece (forwards, by sleeping). "The Importance of [The Time Machine] is that it gave the time traveller mobility and control over his movements" (ibid, p606). Notinasnaid 20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There's also the question (one sure to lead to bitter wrangling) of whether Connecticut Yankee is SF or fantasy--it's a notoriously tricky book to categorize, since the means of time travel (lightning strike) is arbitrary and near-magical, while the Yankee's behavior in the past (introduction of anachronistic ideas and technologies) is a clear precursor of dozens of later, by-convention-genuine SF, including Sprague de Camp's Lest Darkness Fall which deliberately parallels Twain but is considered SF. (See, I said it was tricky.) RLetson 21:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Time Travel was central to Wells story and, at first sight, "collateral" to Twain´s. Twain´s dealed with future technology affecting the past in strange ways. It can be said that the Time Travelling wasn´t mechanical but by other means (since it happened in an unconcious state). Time Travel mechanics/physics was not the subject of Twain´s story, but the effects of time travelling was. That´s why it seems to me that Twain´s work is genuine sci-fi. I don´t know if Nicholls' reference can be considered sci fi since I did not read the story he refers to. The fact that Wells time traveller have mobility and that Twains traveller was anchored to a time age is the subject of time travelling mechanics/physics which was only dealed with by Wells work. I did never diminished Wells importance, that´s why I´d never removed Time Travel altogheter from the section. Loudenvier 21:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps then Nicholls reference deserves to be cited on the section, and also Twain work, but keeping clear that Time Travel as a SF theme was more influenced by Wells works above any others, clarifying the meaning of pioneering. Loudenvier 21:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Coudl you provide evidence that Mark Twain was the first to write of time travel stories? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I will have to dig deeper in this, but is seems to be so. Anyway the discussion here was if Wells did indeed pioneered Time Travel, but since Twain´s story dates back then he is to be credited. It seems tha Nicholls refered to an earlier Time Travel story, but we do not know (yet) if that was a sci fi story. I´m more inclined now to cite them all on this section for clarificatin purposes. Loudenvier 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

These links need to be cut down, there are way to many. Only the needed links should be kept ie: some for books, some for tv and only those that provide the best content related to the article.

Also i think foreign links should be removed as if you want links in those languages then use that versions wikipedia for those links. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculative Fiction genesis

Sfacets is using this sentence from a reference source to justify his statement that Speculative Fiction is derived from the initials SF:

"The term 'speculative fiction' has been used somewhat confusedly, both as an alternative and more dignified interpretation of the initials SF"

To interpret the initials "SF" as "Speculative Fiction" is not the same as deriving the term "speculative fiction" from the initials SF. It simply means that some people see "SF" and think "Speculative Fiction" rather than "Science Fiction". DK's article says nothing about the genesis of the term.

The Speculative Fiction article, however, does say something about the genesis of the term. It is not derived from the initials "SF".

Sfacets, if you want to insert some theory involving terms that share the initials "SF", then let's hear the whole theory here in the talk section. Better yet, flesh it out in the Speculative Fiction article. KennyLucius 06:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

He has cited his sources, so his text should stay until you can proove otherwise. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I give up. KennyLucius 14:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed image...

So utterly disgust I was to find the image of collection of classic science-fiction replaced by the likes Star Trek: Voyager TV tie-in PocketBooks, that I just had to find where the root of the change developed and revert it immediately.... I'm not saying that I'm not a Trekkie, it's just that this image fulfills the definition much better than simply a collection of PocketBooks that limits itself to just one show. Please see Image_talk:Scifibooks.jpg if you disagee, which I hope you won't since I feel very strongly on my side of all this. DrWho42 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your actions. Notinasnaid 07:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Previous image has no source info/author or fair use rationale, thus reverted. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Then surely we can do better than this one. Any suggestions for what to include in the stack?Notinasnaid 08:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No sooner said than done. This new picture can certainly be improved, but it includes some of the definitive science fiction novels, anthologies, magazines (this includes Asimov's Nightfall but sadly that is too small to see), TV (Star Trek), film (The First Men in The Moon), fandom (1979 Worldcon program) and even an SF-related computer game. Also, the fair use rationale is stronger since the only covers shown are of books discussed by name. I don't much care for fair use, but I think that will do. If we eliminate fair use, the stack is left only with the early Verne edition. Notinasnaid 09:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh that is a much better picture i like this one much more over the other two, definitley keep this one it has a bit of everything. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the composition is terrible, but the nice version of the picture (on a background, with shadow) made the titles all too small to read... Notinasnaid 09:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not Star Trek.. We need a stack of classic science-fiction, not something based on a TV show spin-off.. Like something including Heinlein, Clarke, Bester, Asimov, all those famous literary sci-fi guys. Frankly, this garners more ground in the field whereas Star Trek: Voyager mere encompasses the 1990s Star Trek fandom, which seems to be much fragmented since Enterprise. DrWho42 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Modern scifi relates to modern people as well. An image shouldnt just encompass the past etc. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I'm not so sure about using the 2004 series of the Hitchhiker's Guide CD release (the Tertiary Phase cover currently included) - wouldn't it make more sense to use either the collector's box set image of the first two series (1978/1980) or the collector's tin from 2005 with all FIVE series included? --JohnDBuell 20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is a more serious problem. The fair use rationale for this image states "This image is only being used in the article about the 2004-2005 radio series". Clearly, adding it to this article as well breaks the rationale. If this isn't resolved, the image should be removed from this article, as fair use must be justified article by article (it isn't a magic label). Notinasnaid 08:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the rationale can be changed, as long as there is still a minimum of articles that such an image is used in. What's really bothersome are users that link to such fair use images in their userspace pages, which DOES violate fair use. Anyway, I would still recommend that someone get a copy of the 2005 collector's tin, photograph that, and use it. None of the Hitchhiker's Guide related articles are using it (and no, I don't have a copy of the tin, so I can't offer a photograph). --JohnDBuell 18:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over text

Please stop the mini-war that is going on at the moment; Okay, first thing: Leave the current revision as it was before disputed edits where made.

Two: Compromise; This can be done in discussing changes here and coming up with something to add a concensous agrees on. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I seem to have got a little overexcited. I don't have any objection to the definition per se, but the following points. (1) The editor used sci-fi as a synonym for science fiction. This is a loaded term as per Science fiction#terminolgy. There have already been huge debates over using SF as a synonym; this is simply unnnecessary and avoidable. (2) The previous definitions were carefully sourced. We should ask no less for this new definition. If the editor has created it, and not published it in a journal, then I don't think it belongs in the article because a sourced alternative is available. Notinasnaid 15:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, we have had the acronym discussion before and the correct term to use in this article is science fiction, and i agree with you that sci-fi or sf shouldnt be used whole-heartedly in the article when the title is science fiction. Secondly: They where sourced; Yes, should the new definition follow priot criteria? Yes. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game over SF

There should be a paragraph in the article about the decline of SF: when, how and why. It is a matter of fact that SF is now essentially dead but fantasy reigns everywhere. This has something to do with the relative failure of post-WWII science (no new amazing generic theories like relativity and QM was). 195.70.32.136 18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinions differ, since more is published in the publishing category than ever before. (I'm not saying the view doesn't exist; both could usefully be represented.) Above all: find a reputable source which said it. Notinasnaid 18:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

John Clute has been arguing for quite a while that science fiction is exhausted, running on old ideas and models, on nostalgia, and maybe a bit of self-parody. (See various places in his review collections Strokes, Look at the Evidence, and Scores.) It's a rather abstract argument rooted in a notion of genre and of the function of SF that I only partly buy into. But I don't think that this is the kind of observation the anonymous User is making. Fantasy "reigning everywhere"? If there are more fantasy titles on the shelves (the figures are probably in the Locus annual roundup issue), that does not mean that SF is "essentially dead"--just that there's a category that outsells it. As far as raw numbers go, I can't keep up with all the good, new, honest-to-goodness SF that comes out every month. As for the notion that a failure of real science might be a reason for a decline in SF, I invite the User to look back a decade or so at the work of Greg Bear, Greg Benford, Paul McAuley, Ken MacLeod, Charles Sheffield, Vernor Vinge, Nancy Kress, Paul Preuss, Bruce Sterling, Wil McCarthy, William Gibson, Frederik Pohl, Kim Stanley Robinson. . . . Well, the list goes on. All these writers have exploited ideas and findings from real experimental or speculative science. (Benford, McAuley, Sheffield, and McCarthy are/were working scientists; Vinge is a mathematician.) RLetson 04:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

"Another source of dislike for the term sci-fi term is the tendency for the mainstream to use it as a collective term that lumps together not only true science fiction but fantasy, horror, comic books, cult films, special effects action films, only marginally related genres such as anime and gaming, and completely unrelated fields such as UFOlogy." Comic books, cult films, anime, and gaming are all mediums of entertainment that can fit in the "true" science fiction genre.

Yes, it is rather a POV (rather a snobbish, really) statement. It might be best to generate the entire sci-fi discussion from sourced quotes as it is inherently POV. Notinasnaid 07:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Issues?

"The science fiction genre is essentially a literary device for creating a type of "alternate reality," wherein writers can explore human issues by way of metaphor, exaggeration, and abstraction —thus maintaining both a removed distance and a broader perspective toward current human life and events[citation needed]."

This statement is blatantly POV. While Science-Fiction can refer to human issues, in in no way is forced to, much less be defined by them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jhazared (talk • contribs) 16:37, August 1, 2006 (UTC)

I restored this comment to encourage Jhazared/Logoboros to engage in discussion and reach towards consensus rather than edit warring. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The continued vandalism by moderators (yes, it is possible) does not correct the faults in the article. Also, the accusation that Logoboros is my sockpuppet is incorrect; Logoboros is my brother. -Jhazared 5:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So he is a meat-puppet? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For Fenton: Adding dissenting viewpoints is not vandalism, so stop threatening me. For Rowe: I never altered any of the page past the second paragraph; I don't know why you said I removed the words like "a". -Jhazared 5:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been reported now, i will not revert you as i wont violate 3rr. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As it turns out, the removal of several words as stated by Rowe was the result of a bug in my browser. Sorry for the problem. -Jhazared 5:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What about your "brother"? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, what about him?-Jhazared 6:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the third time, now you have to leave it. Why couldn't you leave it alone in the first place? I did not alter the original text, it is clearly not vandalism, and you just repeatedly delete it without refuting my statements.-Logoboros 6:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You vandalised parts of the text. See diffs. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, see [6] and [7], and similar diffs each time you edit. If you are brothers, you must be using the same computer or computers sharing the same bug — an odd one, if it's removing the word "fantasy" and the letter "a" each time you edit. Please ensure that the "bug" is resolved before editing again; whether it's intentional or not, the result is damaging to the article and will be treated as vandalism. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So that was your problem. You wanted to stop my changes, because apparently, admin changes are superior, despite being no different from mine. I got banned twice trying to fix something, and now, after all that work, you guys suddenly switch it to essentially what I wanted (though my version added more information) and act like nothing happened. What is with you people and giving credit where credit is due?-Logoboros 4:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You where banned for the vandalism, sock puppeting/meat + 3rr. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right. It's not about who made the change, but the content of the change — which included the removal of text, every time. We tried to tell you that, but you were more interested in engaging in an edit war, as well as violating policies about sockpuppetry and the three-revert rule — as I explained at User talk:Jhazared.

Incidentally, the "bug" is still present: see this diff from when you edited this page. I've never heard of a bug like this before, but please take care of it, as it seems to damage any page you edit containing the word "fantasy". If you continue to damage pages every time you edit, you may be blocked again for a longer period. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I've taken the liberty of rewriting and expanding the lead. Much of what was there was rather cryptic and did not much reflect what we will find in most of the sources as we try to get better referencing for the article. However, I've retained as much of it as I could, while expanding and clarifying. I believe that what is there now is more accurate, closer to the accounts that we will find in the scholarly literature (which we'll ultimately have to source), and easier to understand. Some of what I've retained is still a bit OR-ish, but it makes sense so I kept it for now. Also, we will need to develop a lead of about this kind of length as we try to get the article to FA status over time. I don't mind if some of the material is worked on and even shifted to other parts of the article. Conversely I don't mind other material being shifted into the lead as we get a better idea of the final structure of the article. The material is all up for grabs, but I would appreciate it being given careful consideration. Although I haven't provided sources at this stage, that also applied to the lead as I found it (and I have to say modestly that I do have a good knowledge of the field of sf scholarship). I'm pretty sure that most sf scholars would consider what I've written to be passably accurate, so it's not terribly controversial - we could probably find quotes from Robert Scholes, Darko Suvin, etc., to back it up. I think the article as a whole probably needs some restructuring, and for some of its material to be farmed out elsewhere, but I don't want to go too far today, or even this week, without giving other contributors a chance to absorb what I'm doing. Metamagician3000 10:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some problems with the new introduction

The new introduction is too long and, in trying to say everything, says a number of things that just aren't true. (Also, I've never been fond of the current illustration -- like the introduction it seems crowded and confused.)

Anyone working on this article needs to be aware that the article has been rewritten many times, so many times that rather than improving it has been demoted from the "good article" status it once enjoyed.

A few specific comments: "(often abbreviated as SF, S.F., sf, or sci-fi)". We don't need this long list of abbreviations in the first sentence.

"is a genre of fiction that typically depicts the effects of technological innovations, or imagines entire future societies that differ from the present as a result of ongoing technological change." This suggests that these two alternatives are typical of most sf. They certainly do not describe the sf of Hugo winning author Connie Willis, to name just one example.

"In some cases, the narrative is set in the author's own society, or another contemporaneous one. In other cases, the work may be set in the relatively near or far future." This suggests that these are the only alternatives. Much sf is set in the present day, but in a society other than the author's own. Examples include Zena Henderson's stories of the People and many Kim Stanley Robinson stories. Also, much sf is set in the past, or in alternate worlds.

"Sometimes the locale for the action is so distant in space or time from that of the author and original readership, and so comprehensively different from any historical human society, as to suggest creation of an artificial world or universe." This is a very special case that hardly needs to be mentioned in the introduction.

"Irrespective of the distance between the narrative's setting and the author's own world and society, the key literary device of science fiction is what Darko Suvin calls the novum, i.e. some novelty of technology, science, or history." This is more to the point, though the introductory clause seems superfluous. On the other hand, this definition does not apply to most sf in film or television.

"One persistent feature of science fiction is that whatever novelties it introduces should be well-defined or well-behaved according to the natural laws that operate within the imagined world where the action takes place." How about A. E. van Vogt and Ray Bradbury, who often ignore both internal logic and scientific laws?

"This is frequently contrasted to the device of magic employed in fantasy literature, which is considered an allied genre." How about "The Imcomplete Enchanter" or "The Magic Goes Away", where the magic is rational and internally consistant?

"The rationalization of technological novelties in science fiction does not necessarily conform to the limitations implied by any scientific theory current at the time of publication. Indeed, there is sometimes little more than a pretence of deference to science of any kind, and the technologies of science fiction's alien or future societies may appear little different from magic." If so (and this seems too complicated a topic for the introduction) where does that leave us?

I could go on, but you get the idea. I think any attempt at an essay on this subject, by anyone, no matter how knowledgable, is not going to work as an introduction to this article. I think we must stick to referenced material. Rick Norwood 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] problems with expanded introduction

I also agree. Many of the minor points made in the expanded lead destroy what the previous tighter lead accomplished. Many of these minor points belong in the sections below the lead. I am in favor of reverting to the previous single paragraph lead, and moving any new material to bottom sections. NoraBG 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead an do that, before Metamagician300 puts too much more work into his introduction. I do think the intro needs a rewrite, but this is an article that has been rewritten so many times that changes need to be slow and carefully referenced, not free lance opinion pieces. Rick Norwood 18:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is rather disappointing

It would have been much better if you could have edited my material, even by scattering it through the article, rather than reverting it out.

Some points that should be made:

• Yes, my material makes statements that have exceptions or qualifications to be made. It may need more hedging and some references somewhere to the exceptions. That is a reason for others to work on it. It would have been better to do so than reverting out the material. E.g., I am very well aware of the point made about The Magic Goes Away and was wondering how best to handle it. However, the lead that was there (which you've reverted to) already had/has that problem. It's not a problem I introduced.
• I'm puzzled at a question such as "Where does that leave us?" Um, if I make a point that seems correct (and would probably be seen as correct by most scholars), isn't it up to all of us to do something with the point rather than deleting it because it is not clear where it leads?
• I put in all those abbreviations because they are all used later in the article. If we are going to use them all, then they should be introduced up front rather than ad hoc through the article. If you don't want to use them all, change it through the whole article but don't use it as a reason to revert out material that is consistent with the article as it currently stands, which the existing lead is not.
• The uncritical use of "sci-fi" in the existing lead is the worst possible choice for reasons you should all be well aware of. "Sci-fi" is a very controversial term - often considered downright offensive - among sf professionals and in sf fandom. The article itself acknowledges this. (Edit: I see that a newer edit has dealt with this, which is a good thing.)
• The existing lead contains,I believe, three sentences. The third is not very helpful and makes a contrast that is difficult to sustain. The first two long sentences have far worse problems than anything I wrote. As those sentences stand, they are not merely useful generalisations with exceptions; they are totally incorrect, as well as being worded in a way that is original research (not to mention very difficult to follow). I realise that the material I wrote was not sourced, but some of would be better sourced at a later point in the article (the lead is intended to be mainly a summary). In any event, what I wrote reflects fairly mainstream scholarly views such as those of Scholes and Suvin, so it would not be that difficult to find sources. The existing lead does not resemble the view of any sf scholar that I've ever seen.

Metamagician3000 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer a shorter introduction. I think you should improve the current one by using more precise terms. Try to avoid the temptation to explain things on the intro and let if for the article. The intro should read as something obvious: The Collaborative International Dictionary of English states:

A genre of fiction in which scientific and technological issues feature prominently, especially including scenarios in which speculative but unproven scientific advances are accepted as fact, and usually set at some time in the future, or in some distant region of the universe..

Which I think would be a great intro, because it is short and to the point (it may not be too accurate, but that could be handled by knowledgeable people like yourself and Rick Norwood and others... The WordNet 2.0 is even shorter and to the point:

literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society.

You may argue it lacks a definition for social utopias, distopias and the like, but we could think that this could be due to the application of a social science, so it would still be the impact of science on society. Loudenvier 14:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perils in Nerd-dom

Let's just say sci-fi is an area where a plethora of sweaty nerds will want to put their two cents. We all acknowledge that there are many niche areas in sci-fi that stretch the definition. An elaborate leader is asking for trouble because it becames too nuanced and cannot possibly address all of nerdoms' pet views while remaining concise and useful. The one paragraph leader is much tighter and sticks to the main facts, while being generic enough to act as an umbrella. Metamagician's previous details can be incorporated in the lower sections. NoraBG 13:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contrived leader

That's a pretty contrived, precious leader, in which there's so much qualification, plus use of the word "contrived" twice, that I think it is inaccessible for the average reader, Joe-Sixpack, who's just looking up to see what "science fiction" means. This leader is better suited for an academic journal. I've been reading S.F. for 50 years now, and writing it off and on for 30, and studying the criticism of S.F., and I've never before run across the use of the word "contrivance" as a part of an explanation of what it is. James Blish must be gnashing his metaphysical teeth somewhere.... Hayford Peirce 16:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, i do not like the oddurance of the word "Contrived" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I still do think that the leader should be as short as possible. It doesn't need to try to explain SF. It only needs to tell the user what are the most common aspects of SF. The definitions I've posted before from the dictionaries are good examples of what I'm trying to say. I'm a very well versed portuguese writer, but my english is very poor so I will not step in and write it myself... On the other hand I'm a good judge of the quality of a text being it in english or portuguese :-). The current intro is a poor one, but it's still better than the too long proposed by Metamagician (by the way, nice nickname!). I think that we could do the same that was done to the Heavy Metal article: propose a few leading passages here in the talk page and build up some consensus... The final product will probably be a lot better than the current one and hopefully avoid controversity. Regards Loudenvier 17:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Searching for a decent definition...

The problem of course is that SF is a very broad church, and that is is almost impossible to find a common defining thread. In biological terms, this is known as "family resemblance". All works of the SF genre bare some resemblance to other works within the genre, but that does not imply a single point of commonality. Anyway, I have scowered tbooks and the web, and ths is the simplest definition that I can find that seems to cover the huge spread of SF: "A work belongs in the genre of science fiction if its narrative world is at least somewhat different from our own, and if that difference is apparent against the background of an organized body of knowledge.", from Eric Rabkin in The Fantastic In Literature (Princeton University Press, 1976). I don;t like the exact wording much, but I do like the basic simple point, ie "Science Fiction is fiction set in a narrative world at least somewhat different from our own." Using that as a starting point, I propose something like Science Fiction is fiction set in a narrative world significantly different from our own present or historical reality. I really don't believe that you can find a more detailed definition without excluding great slabs of what we would all agree to be SF. Follow up a simple, general definition like this with examples of sub-genre or common plot device, and maybe you begin to get something useful, ie something that gives an outsider some idea of what SF actually is. What do you think? Leeborkman 06:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

How does it account for fantasy and horror, then? Under this definition, The Wizard of Oz is science fiction. Hayford Peirce 17:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true, HP. Trying to keep it simple, maybe something about the nature of the "difference". As far as I can tell, if the difference is magical, we have Fantasy, and any other kind of difference is called Science Fiction. Horror is best left as a description of whether the story is scarey or not, whether it is fantasy, SF, or any genre. Or maybe Horror is a separate genre, but we have hybrid, like Fantasy/Horror, SF/Horror, Noir/Horror. See, this is the problem... SF is a catch-all label, and in this case my definition catches just a little to much. But this does suggest just what it is about SF and Fantasy that makes then such close cousins. Any suggestions as to how this definition could be improved, or is it completely rubbush? ;-) Leeborkman 22:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

S.F. critics, writers, and fans have been trying for 60 years or so to come up with a definition of "science fiction" that is sufficiently broad to encompass what "everyone knows is science fiction when they see it" and yet narrow enough to keep out obvious fantasy and even non-obvious fantasy. As I recall, members of SFWA argue about it learnedly in their journals from time to time, not to mention on panels at S.F. conventions. I'll check with the SFWA Web pages and see if they've come up with a usable definition. A couple of years ago, however, they threw up their collective hands and renamed the organization the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, while retaining the SFWA abbreviation.... Hayford Peirce 23:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about this obvious change to my proposal: Science Fiction is fiction set in a narrative world significantly different, in a non-magical way, from our own present or historical reality. I have looked through a few hundred definitions suggested at these various conferences, and in general, they all appear to be pushing the individual's idea about what SF should be, so they all fail to cover the scope of the genre. They talk about the future, they taslk about science, they talk about whatever, but the truth, of course, is that SF includes many other kids of strangeness. I reckon that it is the strangeness that makes SF and Fantasy different from all other genres, and magic that separates SF from Fantasy. If I had to write a 2 question test to determine if any given work of fiction were SF or perhaps Fantasy, it would be easy. 1) Is the world significantly different from our own present or historical reality? No=non-SF/F. 2) Is the significant difference magical? No=SF. Yes=Fantasy. Would that be a reasonable test? Thanks for your thoughts. Leeborkman 23:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable to me, but I have at least one objection -- how does it deal with books that are clearly alternative universe stories but that are NOT INTENDED by their author to be science fiction? My own Napoleon Disentimed is clearly science fiction, and is intended to be. Phillip Roth's last book, however, in which the 1930s or 40s U.S. is fascist is clearly supposed to be a parable, or a warning, or some other lit'ry form. I doubt if Roth would appreciate it being labeled S.F. Yet by your proposed definition is definitely is. Lotsa other people over the years (Sinclair Lewis, Upton Sinclair, I always get them confused) have written similar books. No one calls *them* S.F., even though, on the surface, they're not much different from "The Man in the High Castle." In any case, I've posted a query on a couple of SFWA usenet sites -- maybe someone will reply with something useful. Hayford Peirce 23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of writers who wouldn't like to say they are writing SF, but that doesn't mean their books aren;t SF. Alternative universe stories are SF, as any SF reader will tell you. There are, as you say, a number of respected non-SF writers who move into SF territory from time to time, often in the alternative history realm, whether they like the label or not. The only way we could exlude these from the SF definition would be by stipulating that SF must, of course, be low-brow drivel. It just sounds like prejudice to me. Perhaps a note in the leader, following the definition: "Science Fiction" is sometimes considered to a "pulp" genre, so that some writers do not willingly accept the label, even though their works fit squarely within the Science Fiction tradition. Leeborkman 23:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would take care of my objection. Vonnegut, of course, is the most ridiculous of the bunch. Hayford Peirce 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, how about this for an approach to a definition/leader: A simple, plain English definition like the one I proposed above (maybe replacing "magical" with "supernatural"?). Then a small set of sample sub-genres or plot devices to illustrate the definition. Possibly point out the close relationship between SF and Fantasy, as suggested by this definition. Then a note about the "pulp" reputation of SF within the wider artistic world. I think that that might actually give a newcomer a real idea of what SF is and what it isn't. Thanks for your help again. Leeborkman 00:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. I just looked up an old book by Ben Bova about writing S.F. -- he says people argue about the definition but by his standards it's a story of "ideas" and the "urge to know", as well as primarily being a story about "change" -- the old "what if".... Hayford Peirce 00:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought about the old "what if" question, but that only covers a certain chunk of SF. The are whole sub-genres of SF where the "what if" question is not important, eg where the change or difference is not crucial to the story, but is really just used as exotic setting, eg military SF (Hornblower in space stuff). Star Wars would be a case in point. There is no "what if" question in Star Wars, just an exotic other-world background for a standard hero story (with an obvious Fantasy element too). These sub-genres appear to be held in some scorn by serious SF people, but as far as I can make out, they account for a large part of the SF market. So the "change" can be the point of the story, or the "change" can be mere background colour. It doesn't matter which, but the "change" is what makes it SF - I think that Bova has it right there. Thanks once again. Well, the two of us are having a nice two-man conversation here. I'd love to re-write the leader (did you guess?), but I'd like to hear any more comment. Anyone? Leeborkman 00:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Ben's words on the subject is that they are diffuse and spread out over several paragraphs -- there's no tidy sound bite there. About rewriting the leader: go ahead and do it any way you want. You don't have to wait for anyone else to join this particular discussion. If another editor comes along and wants to make changes, he can do so. And we can discuss it (or revert) it some more.... Hayford Peirce 00:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

For now, I have atempted a mere simplificaton of the existing lead paragraph. It retains its basic meaning, excpet that I removed the phrase which says the the SF authors purpose is to explore the consequences of the hypothetical supposition. That would explude much common SF from the definition (as we have discussed before). Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 06:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Leeborkman 02:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)== Vera Historia ==

Vera Historia was originally written in Greek.--Nixer 09:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Leeborkman 02:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)== What if...? ==

Hi Hayford! "What if" we also mention the SF stories that do NOT follow the "What if?" pattern? And then we need some references for both cases ;-) Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 01:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that the argument can go both ways. Big Planet by Jack Vance is plainly just an adventure tale in an exotic setting. On the other hand, we can easily say: "Jack Vance must have speculated What if -- a ship crashed on an exotic planet that was umpty-times bigger than Earth...?" Which, I suppose, is probably just exactly what his thought processes were.... Hayford Peirce 02:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but you can rephrase the plot of ANY work of fiction by asking "What if?". "What if an ambitious southern lady fell in love with a rougish-but-good-hearted pragmatist in the middle of the Civil War?" In essence, that's what FICTION is. My point is that the "What if?" question is not *central* to much modern SF. Star Wars is the obvious example. Or take "Outland", which is just the classic western "High Noon", but set in space. Unless you think that the point of Outland is "What if I set High Noon in space?", then Outland does not satisfy the "What if?" criterion. It's a standard non-SF tale in a standard SF setting. Perhaps the simple way to test my idea is to ask what would happen to the story if you moved the action to a non-SF setting. Would there stil be a story? According to the traditional What-If view of SF, without the SF setting, there is no story, but there are actually many great SF stories that could easily be retold as non-SF. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Leeborkman 02:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you're right. I've just been brainwashed for decades by SF people talking about "What if...." Obviously they're talking about "What if Grandmas developed wings and could fly on a low-gravity planet?" rather than "What if my girlfriend decided to leave me?", which is the basis for a gazillion non-SF stories. I think that this whole discussion between us illustrates perfectly why it's so hard to reach a consensus on what SF is.... Hayford Peirce 04:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, HP. This is fun anyway. Beats working. I'm going to have to get hold of those books(!!!) of yours... Hey, I'm surprised that nobody else has jumped into this little discussion. I would have thought that the SF page of Wikipedia would be home to lots of opinionated people. Maybe this topic has just been discussed too much here in the past. btw, I'm just looking out for Le Guin's essay "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" which I believe discusses the way some stories use a fantasy setting for a non-fantasy story. Love a good essay. Thanks again. Leeborkman 04:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Scope and Purpose" section to Talk Page

Hi, I have removed the Scope and Purpose section to the Talk Page, as it now seems redundant, given the current lead paragraph, and also lacks significant references for the opinions given. I can see a lot of criticism of this section here on the talk page, but nobody seems to be defending it very much. Any thoughts? Leeborkman 04:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The borders of the genre of science fiction are difficult to define, and the dividing lines between its subgenres are often fluid.

Traditionally, science fiction has often been concerned with the great hopes people place in science but also with their fears concerning the negative side of technological development. The latter is expressed in the classic theme of the hubristic scientist who is destroyed by his own creation, as in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Broadly speaking, the genre is concerned with the effects of science or technology on society or individuals. These effects may be epic in scope or personal. The science-fictional elements may be imagined or rooted in reality, original or cliché. See science-fiction genres for a list of some genres.

Much science fiction attempts to generate a sense of wonder, or awe, from the setting, circumstances, or ideas presented. Paradigm shifts may be used to induce a sense of shock, or a change in the frame of reference for the reader.

A popular misconception is that science fiction attempts to predict the future. Some commentators may even go so far as to judge the "success" of a work of science fiction on the accuracy of its predictions. However, while much science fiction is set in the future, most authors are not attempting literally to predict it; instead, they use the future as an open framework for their themes. As Ray Bradbury put it, "People ask me to predict the future, when all I want to do is prevent it."^[1] A science-fiction writer is generally not trying to write a history of the future that they believe will happen, any more than a writer of westerns is trying to create a historically accurate depiction of the old West. Writers are as likely to write of a future that they hope will not happen as they are to write about a future they think will. Future societies and remarkable technological innovations are presented as enabling devices for cognitive exploration — or simply for entertainment — and the narratives are not meant to be predictive in any simple way. There are exceptions, however, especially in early science fiction.

[edit] Commercial purposes?

Come on, Hayford! You are going to have to provide support for the "for commercial purposes" bit. Are you trying to say that the only rewason to superimpose an SF setting on a non-SF story is "for commercial reasons"? Could a writer not simply choose an SF setting because they think it works better? because they like the SF setting? Are you sure you want to make that claim in the SF lead paragraph? Leeborkman 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I had in mind was Dr. Johnson's dicta: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." From there: If you take a cowboy story, set it on an alien planet, change the cows to digglewaggers and the rustlers to horned purple beings, then you can (could) sell the story to Thrilling Wonder Tales for $50. Hence "commercial purposes". I think most fans of SF overlook, in their enthusiasm for the genre, that once writers have sold their first story or two, then they never again write except for the money. I could be wrong, of course, but I sure ain't gonna argue about it. Hayford Peirce 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Schopenhauer said on his Parerga und Paralipomena that Right of the Author (akin to copyright) is the sole worse thing in the history of literature and philosophy. People should write because they have something to say not because they will earn a reveneu for doing that. He acknowledged that people had to earn its living, but he said that writing for the purpose of earning a living only creates meaningless works. I think he predated in a few centuries the concept of selling out'. :-) Loudenvier 17:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I ain't denying that writers do stuff for money, but is that especially true of SF, and is it especially true of using an SF setting, and even if it is, is that one of the defining features of SF, and even if it is, can you provide reputable citations, and even if you can, is this point notable? ;-) Hayford, mate... keep this stuff for your award-winning collection of critical essays that blows the lid of the whole sordid SF business. Oh, and how did I forget... isn't it true that the majority of SF actually written is probably fan-fic, ie not intended for commercial purposes at all? I think this business has made you cynical, Hayford ;-) Leeborkman 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Schopenhauer had an independent income? If so, it sure makes it easier to write his kind of blather. As for the majority of SF being fan-fic, sure it is, because it's being written to be sold to fans. But even *that* is written in a commercial way, learned by trial and error by each author in order to get sold in the first place. Don't believe me? Ask all the millions of would-be writers who *haven't* been published. And the minor writers, like me, who have difficulty being published. And even being a "big name" isn't enough. The last couple of books by Jack Vance were just *barely* published.... Whether what you write is good or bad, it still has to meet commercial standards, set by editors and publishers, in order to get published in the first place. Hayford Peirce 17:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Loudenvier. And anyway, does it matter that SF writers write for money? What about Dickens? What about Mozart? What about Shakespeare? "...but there are also many works of Renaissance Art in which an exotically religious setting is superimposed, for commercial purposes, upon what would otherwise be a non-religious ceiling." See ya! Leeborkman 17:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Schopenhauer certainly didn't write for money. He was a teacher. I think commercialism will inevitably degrade the quality of human work in general. It takes someone like Grigori Perelman to show that the monetary aspects of creativity is misleading. Schopenhauer recognized the need for making a living, he only critizes the act of writing with profits in mind. How many SF writers changed their characters to make them more commercial-like? You said a work must meet certain commercial standards, and I say the problem is that it must meet a commercial instead of a qualitative standard to be published. See what Metallica had done... How they morphed for commercial purposes into something completely in denial of their roots... By the way, my comment was just a humorous one... But I did agree to some extent with Schopenhauer... It's just like Wikipedia and free/open initiatives.. All of them regards Copyright as something inherently evil. Also, critizing Schopenhauer by reading my words is pointless, read the original because I can't provide better arguments than he himself provided. Dickens wrote for money, and was sometimes critized for that. Mozart was not driven by the money he received, just read about him... He completed his greatest work in poverty and in poverty he died. But, in the end, it has nothing to do with the SF article... I think the removal of "for commercial purposes" to be a correct one, it would read as POV if let in. Regards. Loudenvier 19:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Please discuss link inclusion/exclusion here. Revert warriors will be blocked if they violate the spirit of WP:3RR. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFF Portals

While I appreciate the Wikipedia's concerns about spam, the recent conflict over the SFF Portals section I believe comes from misconception and misunderstanding, and I find it hard to understand how major SFF literary portals can be construed as "spam".

SFF is fundamentally a literary tradition, and literary tradition sites were focused on. That I was threatened with an IP block over the matter suggests to me a poor opinion and knowledge of the topic being discussed - Science Fiction - and where the roots of science fiction continue from the literary tradition continue on the net.

Frankly, I find it hard not to consider this abuse of editorial position - this is a public article, but only 1 editor's opinion of a matter may be published? I think that undermine's the entire principle of the Wikipedia.

As for the issue of contention - I'll list the links used below and discuss them, and if there any any objections to *any* of them then I'll be happy to remove them.

Motivation: The SF genre is primarily a literary genre, with major literary portals online keeping the genre alive, both as a general resource on modern SF, and also as a study aid to SF as a genre full-stop.

Links:

• ASFA - Association of Science Fiction & Fantasy artists

Reason: SF art has gone hand-in-hand with the literary tradition from the earlist days. The ASFA is a pretty major presence for SF art online and know of few similar-sized resources.

• Asimovs - Website for Asimov's science fiction magazine

Reason: Asimov's is a key SF magazine, both in modern and historical terms. Was previously listed.

• Chronicles Network - Established SFF forums

Reason: According to Big Boards this is the largest online community that discusses SF in it's literary tradition, though also covers alternative media such as film and TV.

• Gutenberg Australia SF Project - Many freely downloadable science-fiction books with an extensive bibliography of public domain science fiction.

Reason: This link was previously included, and appeared quite relevant, so was left.

• Locus Mag - Key publication dealing with science fiction

Reason: Locus Mag is an industry magazine dealing with SF publishing. It deals with news, reviews, and interviews perhaps more than most.

• SciFi.com - Official website for the American Sci Fi Channel.

Reason: Probably the best known mass-market SF site online.

• SFFnet - portal for science fiction & fantasy

Reason: Long established SF website, dealing especially with reviews and news. Another key general SF portal.

• SFF World - Established portal with reviews, blogs, and forums.

Reason: Another established portal, with online forums, reviews, and news.

• SF Hub - Science fiction archive project at Liverpool University

Reason: Key resource for academic research on science fiction as a genre and literary tradition.

• SF Site - SF book reviews portal

Reason: Another significant SF portal dealing with news and reviews. Perhaps sffnet and locusmag represent this area sufficiently?

• SFWA - Science Fiction Writers of America.

Reason: Major support arm for SF writers

• Worldcon - Website for the biggest international science fiction convention.

Reason: The major convention for SF as a literary tradition. Note that Dragoncon may be larger, but deals more specifically with SFF as film media. Probably should include Dragoncon, actually.

Overall, I find the claims that these are "spam links" ingenious at best, and ignorant at worst. Without proper explanation as to how these links are so-called "spam" I find no justification in them being awarded that title and being removed.

I also find the behviour of those editors who sought to remove them as quite misguided.

Moving the SFF portals sites above the references should help to reduce the amount of spam, but I'm quite happy to look after the list on that account.

In the meantime, will repost the SFF Portals section and reference this talk entry.

Edit conflict as posted while new version being posted, so re-submitted.

ADDED: Well, the SFF Portals section has gone up, but it's messy and I think there are key omissions. Seems the SF mags that are the foundation of the genre are now delegated as "spam"? Also, list set up with improper descriptions. I figure I get banned if I edit again, so will keep discussing the issue here, even though changes appear to be being made while ignoring it.

• Whoever wrote all of the above should sign his Wiki ID, but I do agree with everything he said -- I don't see how any of these portals can legitimately called spam: it's not as if Charlie Brown kept putting in a link to Locus that urged you to buy a subscription. And the SWFA, of which I'm a member, is hardly spam by any conceivable stretch of the term. So, whoever, is editing out these portals, would you please leave them alone. If you think one (or more) of the portals is spam, please state your reasons. You may well be correct. In which case we'll get rid of it. If not, leave them alone.... Hayford Peirce 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

External links have no place in an article unless they have relevance to an article, even then you dont need 10 sci-fi portals, please state how each of the above links have relevance except to promote a site Wikipedia is not a spam database thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In any encyclopedia, external citations serve not only to reference the existing article but also to suggest further reading. User:Lexic Dark sounds a little hot under the collar. Rick Norwood 18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Looks to me as if each of the 10 existing links was sufficiently explained to justify its continuing presence. If you disagree, rather than just waving the word SPAM about, how about explaining, specifically, how each of these portals is spam rather than being a legitimate link? Hayford Peirce 18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You have to rationlise why they have relvance to an article, why the link needs to be there.. Just being "the best" or, "great news" does not cut it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a useful way forward might be to try to avoid, at this stage the word "spam" the question of "promoting" or whether links are "good". Instead, I encourage everyone interested in this debate to read Wikipedia:External links and be prepared to quote chapter and verse from this guideline to justify the inclusion or exclusion of particular links. Notinasnaid 14:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, back again. I saw the links section was made a mess of just after I left the discussion, but figured against modifying it, due to the somewhat excessive passions involved.

I possibly have a couple of WikiID's, but always forgot to use them, so I've always edited Wikipedia anonymously. It's never been a huge contribution, but always aimed to be constructive. I figured the project remit made anonymous edits an essential part of the contribution.

Anyway - back to links - in my opinion a web resource that seeks to link to reputable resources needs some idea of where to link to, so the existing list was modified to create a proper set of links which are:

- to major authorative portals for SF online - provide further information on SF and its subgenres - are useful for further study of its roots and history - are useful for learning about its current state - are predominantly useful to readers and non-commercial

I've thought again about my previous list and modified it so as to try to avoid duplication of key resources (ie, book review sites), but I think it is especially important to list multiple SF magazines, as these are the platforms of the genre:

• Analog - Website for the Analog SF magazine
• Asimovs - Website for Asimov's science fiction magazine
• Chronicles Network - Established SFF forums
• Locus Mag - Key publication dealing with science fiction
• SFF World - Established portal with reviews, blogs, and forums.
• SF Hub - Science fiction archive project at Liverpool University
• SF Site - Science fiction magazine and reviews
• SFWA - Science Fiction Writers of America.
• Worldcon - Website for the biggest international science fiction convention.

I've specifically moved the ASFA site as that's arts based and I've focused on the literary roots. I've also removed the science fiction museum for the time being as the website is incomplete and not so useful for users until properly rebuilt (the Liverpool resource should easily cover that, especially for study). I've also removed the scifi channel as that's focused on film&TV, and there's are already dedicated Wikipedia pages where this is covered in detail.

If anyone has any specific objections you are welcome to raise them.

Reverted the spamming again - Wikipedia is not a link farm. MatthewFenton (talk •contribs) 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, would you like to make it clear in what way this is "spamming"? I would also be grateful if you could justify the existing list. I am trying to be polite and constructive here, but your hysterical attention to reverting edits with no ample justification is just plain unconstructive to the Wikipedia project.

-- Yeah, isn't the Science Fiction Writers of America just a PR site for a particular commercial interest. I have a feeling someone is a member? I imagine there are plenty of 'establish SF forums'. I have never heard of the one listed there.

I agree that the SFWA doesn't really belong here as an external link. It adds little to the subject of the article. However, as an important trade body it deserves an article just like Teamsters, which would of course link to its page. I don't think it is major enough to become a top level "see also, specifically because the page already links to Worldcon. It is always prefererable in Wikipedia to send people to another article, if it exists and is worthwhile, rather than to an external link. Notinasnaid 08:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

--Finding the External Links area of this page peculiarly sparse, I came to this Talk page. Reading all the backs and forths here about links leaves me with one over-riding impression: the discussion seems wholly focussed on playing an arbitrary game by arbitrary rules, rather than on the actual, real-life utility of this Wikipedia page to the general Wikipedia-using public--everyone is addressing Wikipedia criteria in a narrow, legalistic sense and not at all considering what the average visitor coming to this page might be looking for.

Even so, though, what are the actual Wikipedia "rules" that govern? The External Links page, summarized briefly--but fairly, I think--says:

External links should be kept to those that are meritable and appropriate to the article; later, "meritable" (meritorious) is summed as "useful, tasteful, informative, factual". Avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website. Good link candidates are: sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail; and sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews. And that's what she wrote.

So, even briefer, External Links should be sites that: are appropriate to the topic, useful, tasteful, informative, and factual; and that contain material either too detailed to be integrated into the Wikipedia article or not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews.

As lengthy as the article page is, certainly no one is going to claim that it says all that there is to be said about science fiction, or even--I hope--that it says most of what there is to be said about science fiction. That being so, it is appropriate to link to other locations on the web that can augment a visitor's knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of science fiction beyond whatever levels this page reaches.

Consider that a visitor scrutinizing this page is unlikely to be someone already possessing a deep familiarity with the field; on the contrary, it is most likely that she or he wants and needs basic information (which is the goal of the page), and--following that--wants and needs pointers to other sources, which will dilate on what the article sets forth.

Think about that: that visitor does not need to be directed to a page overflowing with cover iamges and reviews of the very latest sf books, or a magazine that carries sf, or an sf forum or blog--those things come later in a developing appreciation, and by the time a visitor who has started here wants or needs those things, that visitor will be well able to find them. What those visitors want now, as they look over this page, is leads to places that go further into the basics of what sf is and how and why it can be appreciated, and probably to some lists of sound basic reading in the field.

Searching Google for "science fiction" literature is perhaps a good start. With some modest commonsense filtering, the top five links it gives us are:

• the subject Wikipedia page - at #1, so we're on the right track
• http://dmoz.org/Arts/Literature/Genres/Science_Fiction/ : dmoz, Arts: Literature: Genres: Science Fiction
• http://www.adherents.com/lit/ : Religion in Literature, especially Science Fiction
• http://greatsfandf.com/ : Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
• http://www.lib.uoguelph.ca/help/guides/index.cfm?code=SciFiction : University of Guelph Library, guide to Science Fiction Literature

Starting from there, and skipping intermediate details of further research, here is one person's proposal for a Links section for the Wikipedia page (revised 28 November 2006):

References:

• The Open Directory - Arts:Literature:Genres:Science Fiction
• The Internet Speculative-Fiction Database
• SFWA - "Suggested Reading" page
• The Internet Book List - Science Fiction
• The Locus Index to Science Fiction
• The SF Site - site contents
• Nebula Award Winners
• SF Hub - for science fiction research
• The Ultimate Science Fiction Web Guide
• Classics of Science Fiction - lists and various breakdowns
• Littera Scripta - reference works on collectible science fiction, fantasy, and horror

Criticism:

• The Complete Review - science-fiction and fantasy
• The Scriptorium - speculative-fiction author reviews
• Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
• Bookslut - the "Specfic Floozy" department

(Full disclosure: I am the webmaster of greatsfandf.com, on the merits and demerits of which I thus remain silent.)

Granted, that's a long list; but when Abraham Lincoln was teasingly asked how long a man's legs should be, he replied "Long enough to reach the ground." We are--or should be--operating on the theory that this is the visitor's first stop in his or her search.

Someone above demanded please state how each of the above links have relevance except to promote a site; does not the shoe go on the other foot? When a reasonably well-known site dealing in some detail with science-fiction literature is listed, is it not up to its detractors to demonstrate that it is not useful to a visitor seeking information on "science fiction"? That's the "relevance": utility.

So: Which of those are not appropriate to the topic, useful, tasteful, informative, factual? Which do not contain material either too detailed to be integrated into the Wikipedia article or not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews? Which, then, do not "deserve" to be in the list of places a newcomer to this topic should be sent to? And why?

I propose to edit that list into the article in a week or so if no credible objections are raised. Are there any? Owlcroft 04:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to provide reasons as to why we would insert hordes of spam into an article; Wikipedia is NOT a link farm. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 04:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, sir, I do not, because--as I think you understand well enough, your remarks notwithstanding--neither I nor anyone previously posting here suggest any such thing.

To be blunt, your position becomes tedious. Are we children, to bandy "is so/is not" back and forth across the schoolyard? The word "spam" is not a transformative magic wand that, merely by being waved at something, miraculously morphs that thing into the name. Links to responsible, useful resources do not become "spam" because some one person has an insufficient grasp of the definition of spam.

Reasons for including external links are set forth in some detail above--simply, clearly, and logically, I would say. If you disagree with one or more of those reasons, is it not incumbent on you to cite the reason with which you disagree, and to give some substantive argument against it? Those are the rules by which the grown-ups typically play the game.

Let me repeat the gist: utility. Wikipedia pages exist to provide information and guidance to those visitors who come to these pages seeking it. A visitor to the Wikipedia page "Science fiction" is most likely to be wanting and needing basic information (which is the goal of the page), and then--beyond what that one page can reasonably supply--to be wanting and needing pointers to other sources, which will dilate on what the article sets forth. It is that simple.

The posted Wikipedia policies on such links are readily summed: external Links should be sites that: are appropriate to the topic, useful, tasteful, informative, and factual; and that contain material either too detailed to be integrated into the Wikipedia article or not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews.

So, again, what is your argument? Which of those last two paragraphs do you disagee with? Which of the criteria for links--the logical or the policy--do you feel any of the suggested links fail? Which links? Why? Is your position simply that any external link whatever, in any Wikipedia article whatever, is "spam"? If so, say so in as many words; if not, set forth here something more than a chanted mantram. Owlcroft 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Science Fiction" and "SF" not synonymous?

Hi Hayford, Do you really think that SF and Science Fiction are not symonyms? I know that the term "science fiction" has been wildly inapproriate for many years now (as so much science fiction has nothing to do with science), so "SF" has been used as an ambiguous label that could also mean "speculative fiction". But is this really the way the term "SF" is used? I am sure that I use "SF" to mean exactly "Science Fiction". We have certainly said in our intro par that Science Fiction is often known as "sci-fi or SF", which implies to me that we can then use the terms interchangeably. Or should we change the intro to say often (mistakenly) known as "SF"? Just wondering. I don't know how other people might understand the term "SF", so I'm interested. Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 22:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not the one who made that particular change. To me, at least in the right context, they are synonyms. But as I think I wrote in some other discussion, I myself hesitate to use them because I have seen it written as SF, as sf, as S.F. and as s.f. I also hung out in San Francisco for many years, and that, of course, is also SF or S.F. So I was an SF writer in SF. I don't think it's worth saying often (mistakenly) known as "SF", however. I don't care much for "sci-fi", but I don't go into spasms about it the way some people do. I would sure hesitate to write an article in which I used "sci-fi" except to say that a lot of SF people don't like it. As to SF, S.F., sf, or s.f., I suppose that S.F. is the one I myself would use. But I'm sure not going to argue about it. Hayford Peirce 00:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, who made the change? Let us know what your thinking is. I think that the choice between SF, S.F., sf, and s.f. is basically stylistic. Do we use FBI or F.B.I.? USA or U.S.A.? I don't mind which of these we use, although I would prefer consistency across the whole of Wikipedia, but I would usually use SF just because I am lazy ;-) Thanks. Leeborkman 01:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the change crept in at some point. Do with it what thou wilt. And I suppose that "SF" is the shortest and simplest way to deal with the question. I too wish that all of Wiki were consistent, but it ain't, sigh, and never will be. Speaking of which, someone, also put in English 's instead of "s for some of the quotes. Will you change them back, or will I try to train my cat to do it? Hayford Peirce 02:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a good British citizen myself (well, their Queen is my Queen), and I certainly use double-quotes for quoting! I'll see what I can do. I'm meant to be working ;-) Anyway, I'm just looking at the article history, and I see there has been a battle raging on a couple of fronts in the last few hours. I'll have to dig deeper to see what's been going on. Back to "Science Fiction" and "SF"... I am interested to hear if anyone actually makes a distinction between these any more, and if that distinction is still valuable. I use them as synonyms, although the second is less formal. In parctice, this means that I use "Science fiction" at the start of a paragraph, and then use SF in subsequent cases, rather than repeating "science fiction" again and again. In a similar fashion, in an article on the Iraq War, I might talk about "President George W. Bush" at first, and then proceed to use the simpler "Bush" or "the President" as the text continues. See ya. Leeborkman 02:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I made the change. SF and science fiction are not synonyms according to the article which says "The use of SF is not unambiguous, however....". I wouldn't normally worry, but since the article is being picky about what is, and is not, science fiction, the use of an abbreviation that could mean something else (in the same context) is slipshod. Notinasnaid 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can assure everyone that SF (and its lower-case and punctuated variants) has been a common abbreviation for science fiction in the 40-plus years I've been writing about the genre, starting in college and grad school, continuing through scholarly articles and reference-work pieces, right up to next month's review column for Locus. House styles might prefer one or another, but there's never been any serious ambiguity about the meaning. In some critical discussions it has been suggested (mostly as a talking point) that SF could be seen to stand for "speculative fiction" or even "structural fabulation," but these are part of the definition discussion that has been going on for nearly 70 years. All we need to do is decide on our house style for the article (assuming there's no obscure and idiosyncratic Wiki decree to the contrary), set it up early in the first paragraph, and use it. My horseback opinion as a journalist working the field is SF (the current Locus practice), but that's just me. Just as long as we don't use "sci-fi," which annoys the logocentric traditionalists, myself included. RLetson 04:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Righto. I think standardization of style is the most important point. A nice review of the Heinlein-Spider book by the way -- it will keep me from actually having to buy it. It's amazing how many stick-in-your-throat stylizisms Heinlein could get away with.... Hayford Peirce 04:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why should we use sf over sci-fi, sci-fi its self is less amigious then sf.. so explain.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The term sci-fi has an established association with science fiction of the more or less space opera kind. Kdammers 09:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Has SF not established its self as literiture though? Either way we dont need to turn the article into abriv. hell when the title is science fiction. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Now now, I don't want to hear you guys talking that way about the man who gave us "Spung!" Leeborkman 05:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"but these are part of the definition discussion that has been going on for nearly 70 years." Exactly. This is not an article in Locus or a taught presentation. This is writing about the heart of this debate, and therefore requires more precision than other contexts where it can indeed be taken for granted. Otherwise when you arrive later on, having used SF throughout, you suddenly encounter the view that SF doesn't mean what we have been using it to mean. In just the same way, 99% of the time people can talk about "salt" but once we start talking in the context of "salts", it is necessary to use "sodium chloride" instead. Context is everything, and precision is surely an aim of Wikipedia. Separate issue: I think a debate on "science fiction" vs. "science-fiction" would be useful: I realise I have contributed to this unnecessary mix-up. Notinasnaid 08:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that some readers will find it annoying, "sci-fi" has register problems: it is too informal or colloquial for an encyclopedia, and while it is perhaps the more familiar term for a particular audience segment (younger and/or non-print SF fans), it does not offer any logical or descriptive advantage outside a discussion of the demographics and sociology of naming conventions. There is some stylistic/writerly advantage to using an abbreviation, and we have only to settle on one. Or none. The Clute & Nicholls Encyclopedia (UK/Australian editors) uses "sf" throughout; the 5th edition of Barron's Anatomy of Wonder and Tymn and Ashley's Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines use "SF"; others use no abbreviations at all. I re-emphasize the point that the choice of abbreviation (or no abbreviation) is not a major issue in general discussions of the field--it is an editorial and stylistic choice. If there appear to be consistency problems, as Notinasnaid suggests, then edit the copy to reflect the situation--in my not-at-all-uninformed view, the "SF isn't really SF any more" kinds of arguments are peripheral to a general description of the history and nature of the genre and ought to be treated as asides in the conversation, not major topics of discussion. Most of us, like Damon Knight, know what SF is when it is pointed to. On reflection, maybe it's a strategic error to think of this article as "defining" SF--instead, maybe the appropriate verb is "to map," signalling an attempt to describe an area of cultural production (to steal a term from my younger academic colleagues) that does not yield easily to standard genus-and-species definition. This has come up before (see the archived discussions). RLetson 18:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi RL, I like the idea of steering away from a direct definition. My first thoughts when I looked into this page some weeks back was to start with the bald statement that "science fiction" defies easy definition, with the two annoying-but-true quotes "sf is what sf writers write" and "sf is what we point to when we say sf" as illustration. Then make some very broad attempt at a definition anyway (like the one we have right now), but using the preliminary warning as a kind of disclaimer. Then, as you say, a rough "map" of the field to give the reader an idea of the kind of works we are talking about (I think that that is what the current quotes from SF writers is largely aiming to show). btw, it's good to talk with a couple of real practitioners like you and Hayford. Thanks. Leeborkman 06:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone could dig up good references for those two quotes, then I would like to get them into the opening paragraph ASAP. Anyone? Leeborkman 06:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We're back to basics here--rhetorical/logical basics, that is. I have argued that SF is not a genre that yields easily to strict logical definition (in fact, few literary genres do), and that in the culture at large "science fiction" does not only refer to literary or even narrative works (which I would argue should be the immediate focus of attention here) but to a body of motifs, images, tropes, products, and even habits of thought ("That's an idea right out of science fiction"). If that is the case, then an opening section needs to establish which aspect of "science fiction" is under examination here, direct readers to the ones that are not (gaming, toys, films, comics, theme parks, whatever), and proceed to map and explain whatever it is that we are dealing with. I do not see this approach as constituting the dreaded "original research"--it is a necessary adjustment to a state of affairs apparent to anyone familiar with the whole range of history, criticism, and commentary that the field has generated over 70-some years. The fact that a series of editors has struggled so long and hard to establish a single definition of "science fiction" suggests that the problem is not quite the same as one sees with controversial hot-button topics where people just can't ever agree (though there seems to have been a bit of that, too). Maybe the article title should be "Science fiction (literature)," which would limit the topic and permit pointers to related non-literary articles. At the very least, we should acknowledge that narrative SF operates in slightly different ways in different media, with different terminological preferences ("sci-fi" raises no hackles in TV/film) and even different standards of "excellence" (you don't hear a lot about "hard SF" in the TV/film community, but it can be a kind of praise in the literary world). That's what I mean about mapping--it's not a matter of defining so much as establishing relationships and explaining differences and similarities.

This means some major restructuring, but not as much as you'd think, and I'd argue that it makes the rest of the job easier, since the foundation would be solid. I have recommended this sort of thing before, but just look at the Clute & Nicholls Encyclopedia entry on "Definitions of SF" and the equivalent section of Wolfe's Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy (pp. 108 ff) and you'll see what I mean about the range of definitions possible. I think the current "Prominent authors define 'science fiction'" section offers one way of approaching this tangle. Add to that a representative selection of scholarly definitions and you've given readers a rough and necessarily partial map of the territory. The "Science fiction and ---" sections are also useful if what we're doing here is mapping a territory. It's crucial to remember that literary genres are not static, that they are the result of interactions between creators and audiences (that's not original research, either), and that most of us are old enough to have seen the adaptive process in action in our lifetimes. But enough for now. I hope some of this is of use. RLetson 17:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] extradimensional redirects

extradimensional redirects to here, I am going to revert it to the Kaluza-Klein theory if that is all right with everyone. If not change it to the way it was and scold me.

[edit] Compound modifiers -- science-fiction writers write science fiction

That's the way the New York Times handles it and that's good enough for me. Hayford Peirce 15:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science fiction and Failed history

There is a certain overlap if "someone" cares to develop the idea in either article - the "science" that was found not to be the case: examples would be "habitable Venus", extrapolations from present technology/failure to predict potential developments (the Internet and science fiction) and timescales that proved not to be the case. Jackiespeel 17:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English-language bias

As someone seems to have noticed above, writers in languages other than English are not referenced very often in this article; SF is different in France, Poland, and Japan from in America (actually, it's different between the UK and the US, which doesn't especially seem to have been noted, either).

For one thing, Japanese SF blurs the line between fantasy and SF, sometimes beyond recognition. This may be because, though not particularly religious, the majority of the Japanese are certainly not reductionist materialists, like Heinlein was. Polish SF, and Eastern European SF in general, is usually more philosophical, while that from France is, like a great many other French works, very ideologically and philosophically charged.

Shouldn't it also be noted that many, if not most, SF fans regard the whole "Scifi/SF" thing as obsolete? Most modern fans, regardless of the subgenre they prefer, use the two interchangeably, or use whichever they happen to prefer; it can be a serious breach of fandom etiquette to criticize the use of the alternate term. SF may have a slight advantage on the Net because...it's shorter. Forty percent as many letters can be a serious consideration for a person who posts on 62 fan forums a day. 71.223.34.127 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Lacking a polyglot readership--or editorial pool--it's hard to see how one might avoid an Anglophone bias. It would be interesting to have an article on the differences in science fiction across cultures, but I don't see that happening here. On the perennially-hot topic of sci-fi, 71.223.34.127's "modern fans" seems to translate as "fans under 30 whose experience of science fiction is biased in favor of television, movies, and comics." This is a demographic/subcultural divide, not an ancient/modern one--personally, I feel quite modern despite my dodgy knees, trifocals, and personal recollection of reading ASF when it was still Astounding. RLetson 19:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Short of finding some articles or books that specifically contrast Anglo-Saxon SF (as the French would call it) from that of other cultures and that could be used as reference, then almost anything that the editors add is probably gonna be that dreaded Original Research. For instance, if I wrote: "French SF generally places more emphasis on personal reactions to changes in the world around the main characters than does most American SF," someone would be sure to revert it as being either unsourced or Original Research. In any case, the only French SF I've ever read was so lousy that it's not worth writing about. My French wife probably read 500 SF books -- but they were all translations from "the English" or from "the American", as French books are always careful to note.... Hayford Peirce 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this really a problem? I mean, does it particularly matter which writers we reference in the article? As long as we don't say that the true Science Fiction is that which is practised in the American style, then what is the problem? We could certainly note any substantiated international differences (if indeed there is any substantiation). I would actually guess that there is actually no significant difference, and that the perceived diifference is due to the fact that we see so much more American SF, while the only non-English SF we see is the most notable (and therefore not necessarily representative of the non-English mainstream). In other words, we just don't ever see the bulk of mainstream non-English SF, which is very likely just like the bulk of mainstream American SF. That's just my starting hypothesis ;-) Anyways, if we are going to explicitly list notable examples of SF, then it should certainly include Lem, Strugatski, Perry Rhodan, Verne - is that so difficult to accomplish? Leeborkman 23:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Naw, it would be easy, as you say, to merely reference other writers, also various series -- as I recall, there used to be several French publishing houses that ground out SF books regularly, just the way they had monthly publishing schedules of espionage, "gentleman justicier (Saint-like)", adventure, etc. etc. Pure pulp, long after it disappeared in America. I thought the guy was asking for more literary type analysis. On the other hand, why bother? Does the Mystery article (or Detective Story, or whatnot) mention that mystery stories are written and published in many different languages. I don't think so -- it's exclusively about English-language stuff. (Without, however, taking into account India, which surely has its own publishing industry.) Just because it isn't done in the Mystery article, of course, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done in the SF article, but I still question its worth. Beyond saying something like: "Lem and Verne have contributed greatly, while Perry Rhodan has a wide readership in Germany, and organized SF fandom exists in many countries." Hayford Peirce 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with HP. German SF, for example, is far more than PR. It has a history of sorts going back over a century (including at least one significant author) even if we exclude the marvelous ETA Hoffmann. But more than that, the '90s in Germany produced a number of significant, popular SF works. (Whether the news of these books got to Anglophone ears, I don't know. But Wik is not designed to cater to ignorance.) Or take Russia/the Soviet Union. From We to the Strugastky brothers, there are a number of acknowledged greats. Just because pulp SF came of age and flourished in the U.S. and scientific romances of leading quality came from Britain,doesn't mean the article should ignore the rest of SF. (What of it goes into the "History of SF" article and what in SF proper is a different kind of issue that I'm not addressing here.) Kdammers 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) P.S.: There are a number of German works that look at SF theoretically and give their takes on such points as American SF.

I don't think anyone is saying that we should actively ignore non-English SF. If there is something notable and substantiated to say, then say it. The really interesting question we are skirting around is "Is there something signficantly different about non-English SF that warrants special mention?" I theorise that there is not, and that our perceptions of non-English SF are inevitably misleading, given that we actually see a highly selective fraction of it. Thanks. Leeborkman 02:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypehantion

Noticed the back and forth on hyphenation. Perhaps you'll allow an English teacher (and SF fan) to weigh in. Hayford Peirce is correct (at least based on his edit summaries; I haven't gone through the actual corrections): when used as a compound modifier (in this case, "science-fiction" to modify "film" or "actor" or "book"), it is properly hyphenated. When simply "science fiction" (where they act as a noun), typically it is not hyphenated, although you'll see some old school examples where this isn't the case. (Think 19th century literature.) Take a gander here for more. --EEMeltonIV 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Have gone through edits, and Hayford Peirce is correct. --EEMeltonIV 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I too agree, though you may not think so from my reversions. The reason I revert it to the original is because this was the topic of some heated discussion before and it should therefore be discussed here before being changed. I don't get why people can be so anal about hypenating things or other such (to me) trivial changes, but people are strange creatures :) My suggestion: I won't revert it again, but if someone else does, get them to explain why they resist the change. If they don't revert it, well then there isn't a problem now, is there? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people get anal about language because they're editors or writers or teachers. Not trying to be snotty, but those of us who use words for a living find these matters non-trivial. And Wiki culture notwithstanding, I don't see the need for extensive discussion of standard usage. (BTW, "hypehantion" is almost a pun--if only the typo had been "hype-nation.")RLetson 02:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, WD, describing people as "anal" is getting more than a little discourteous, but to understand why people get worked up about these things you just have to consider that this is a would-be encyclopedia we are all jointly writing. As a matter of pride and inclination, many of us are interested in doing this job as well as we possibly can. That doesn't just mean that the content should be true, informative, verifiable, etc, but it also means that all the big and little things to do with language, style, etc, are done to the best of our ability. For many people involved in the Wikipedia project, this is a great part of the challenge. What an experiment! We mix in people who are knowledgeable about various subjects with those who are fans with those who are fanatics with those who are writers with those who are vandals, and so on, and the end result is something to rival the Encyclopedia Britannica. So don't go putting down all those "anal" people who work so hard at polishing this or any other article - a little polish might just be the thing that distinguishes Wikipedia from your average Junior High School book report. Leeborkman 02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This not a "would-be" encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The facts that it is an innovation and is dynamic do not make it not an encyclopedia. Hu 04:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hu. I was attempting to make my point rhetorically by implying that the standards that certainly apply to a "would-be" encyclopedia apply a fotiori to an actual encyclopedia. See ya. Leeborkman 05:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced that the adjectival form usually doesn't include a hyphen. Metamagician3000 03:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, YOU may be pretty convinced of it, but the New York Times and various other style-books aren't. It may be INCORRECTLY used more often than not, but that doesn't make it right. If 50,000 Wikipedians declare that "ain't" is correct usage, does that mean we should let "isn't" be replaced by "ain't" in articles throughout Wikipedia? Hayford Peirce 04:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] Dogmatism about these issues doesn't help. It still looks to me as if, within the field, the adjectival form is usually either just "science fiction" or is an abbreviation such as "SF". Thus, the leading writers' organisation calls itself "Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Inc."; the leading academic organisation devoted to the study of the subject calls itself "the Science Fiction Research Association"; the leading academic journal is Science Fiction Studies (it is some years since it dropped the hyphen in its name). The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors gives only "science fiction" and makes no distinction between the substantive and adjectival forms. I'd be interested to see how the Oxford English Dictionary itself handles the issue. I don't see the relevance of the particular house style adopted by the New York Times. Every newspaper has its own house style on a host of issues; there is no reason for Wikipedia to follow one of them in particular. That said, I see that Science Fiction Studies itself sometimes has "science-fiction" as an adjective. I think that should carry more weight, and it is almost enough to sway me to use the hyphen after all (it might get me over the line if it turns out that this is actually policy at SFS, despite its own name, rather than simply deferring to the choices of contributors; however, there is nothing in the SFS style guide). I seriously doubt that there is a correct and an "INCORRECT" (as you shouted it) form. There is simply variation in what people consider good style. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about what we do here, but simply reported my sense that the adjectival form usually doesn't include the hyphen. Metamagician3000 04:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technology not yet invented

The paragraph "Technology not yet invented" mentions "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" wrt. submarines. But those were invented earlier, as the article on that book states.

At the time 20,000 Leagues was published, submarines were little more than tin cans. Nemo's sub was a major technological advance. Even today, how many subs have a pipe organ? Rick Norwood 13:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading History_of_submarines I must say I find calling Verne's Nautilus "new" quite a stretch. Your other point is good though, and I find myself longing for a bright future with organ-powered submarines.--Niels E 17:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The first science fiction - 180 AD!?

Can we consider the "True History" of the Greek satirist Lucian to be a forerunner, precursor, proto-form of the Science Fiction genre? Can he get the credit for being the very first SF writer?

   * Summary: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LucianSamosata.htm
   * http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/vera_historia01.htm

See history of science fiction. Notinasnaid 08:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, True History is in the spirit of SF but doesn't fully fit the bill. I think it is a legitimate precursor. Consider, for example, how Swift used it in GT. Kdammers 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links redux

I have previously (04:11, 27 November 2006 UTC) posted, under the "SFF Portals" heading, at some length about external links, and stated my intention, absent any substantive objections, to edit a proposed list in after some time. I am here making a new header, to be as sure as I can that this is seen, considering the intensity of the debate on this page over this matter. I have so far received only one post in reply, objecting on grounds that seem to me defective; I replied at some length to that post, and have seen nothing further since. I propose to make the change Monday evening (Pacific Time), unless some other objections come in over the weekend. This seems to me an awful lot of fuss over what one would think ought to be rather uncontroversial, but the history is there to read. The exact changes I propose, and my reasoning, can be found in the later parts of the "SFF Portals" heading. Owlcroft 11:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think any of the links you propose are necessary. WP:EL says that a link should not be included just because it would be useful or relevant. The Locus website, for example, could be legitimately linked from the WP article on Locus; and indeed it is. There's no need to link to it from here. If Locus needs to be mentioned in this article (and it probably does) the link should point to the WP article, not to the Locus website.

A similar argument applies to almost everything on your list. Magazine websites should be linked from the magazine articles; Worldcon should be linked from the Worldcon article. Websites such as SFSite are either notable, in which case they deserve their own article and a link from that article, or they are not, in which case they don't deserve a link from here.

There are three possible types of site that could be supported by an appeal to WP:EL. One is a general bulletin-board/forum site; if there is one that is clearly the main one everyone uses. In fact I don't think there is such a site -- there is surely a market leader but I doubt everyone could agree on which site to include. The second is a collection of reviews; again, if there were a single site that contained such things, and no other significant ones, you might legitimately link to it, but I don't think that's the case. Finally, you could link to a directory of SF links. This is something I do think is worth doing; and WP:EL explicitly says this is the way to bring in external links. For example, the Google SF directory could be linked to, though I'm sure there are better ones. Even if there were a WP article about SF portals specifically, these links would not be necessary -- a link to a directory would be the right answer in that case too. Mike Christie (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that by that line of reasoning, virtually nothing should ever be linked anywhere, which I much doubt was or is the intent.

Instead of hand-waving in the general direction of the WP:EL, it might be useful to consider the actual relevant text from it, verbatim:

Each link [should] be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines.

What should be linked to

1. [inapplicable for this article]

2. [inapplicable for this article]

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. [emphasis added]

4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. [emphasis added]

OK, what is the interpretation of the words "what should be linked to" that does not support the idea that what should be linked to is material that is "neutral and accurate", "that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail", and that "is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews"? That all seems--to me--extremely clear. Do I have to resort to quoting a dictionary as to the meaning of the word should? Consider also:

There are several things which should be considered when adding an external link.

* Is it accessible to the reader?

* Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

* Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?

Continuing, which of the proposed link targets is supposedly not material that is:

• "neutral and accurate",
• "that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail",
• that "is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews",
• that is "accessible to the reader",
• that is "useful, tasteful, informative, and factual", or
• that is "a functional link likely to continue being a functional link"?

Meanwhile, let's also look at what the WP:EL expressly deprecates and whether it applies to any of the proposed sites:

• sites not providing unique resources beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article - nope, none of those;

• sites that mislead the reader with factually inaccurate material - nope, none of those;

• links mainly intended to promote a website - redundant, subsumed by the first and last points here;

• sites that primarily exist to sell products or services - nope, none of those;

• sites with objectionable amounts of advertising - sure don't think so;

• sites that require payment - nope, none of those;

• sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users - nope, none of those;

• documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view - nope, none of those;

• search engine results pages - nope, none of those;

• social networking sites - nope, none of those;

• personal websites - nope, none of those;

• wikis - nope, none of those; and finally,

• sites only indirectly related to the article's subject - nope, none of those, either.

Ok, there it all is in plain English direct from the horse's mouth: the proposed sites all meet the criteria for should and none of them meet any criterion for shouldn't. I hate to keep repeating the same things anew in each posting, but really, now, the words of the WP:EL are about as plain as plain can be. As I keep saying, if there are objections to particular sites on the proposed list, someone please explain--with sufficient particularity to make dialogue (as opposed to hand-waving) possible--which site supposedly fails which WP:EL criterion and in what way. Thank you.

Owlcroft 01:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am impressed by the work you're putting in to make your argument, but I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. A couple of quick points first:

• There has already been a discussion of external links (as opposed to portals) and the consensus was that no external links were needed. That discussion is at Talk:Science_fiction#External_links, above.
• You comment that according to my reasoning, "virtually nothing should ever be linked anywhere, which I much doubt was or is the intent". In fact I believe that the intent of WP:EL is to significantly limit links -- this is subject to debate of course but it seems unambiguous to me. You also comment (in the prior section) that "When a reasonably well-known site dealing in some detail with science-fiction literature is listed, is it not up to its detractors to demonstrate that it is not useful to a visitor seeking information on "science fiction"?" My answer is no; the onus is on the editor who wishes to add a site to show that it meets WP:EL.

I should say that the majority of the links you give are of sites that are worth linking to somewhere in Wikipedia. My objection is not to there being a link ever, it's to the link being from this article. In the great majority of cases, the right place for a link is from the article about the website or organization in question.

To take one specific example, your list includes a link to a website listing the Nebula Award winners. Supposing that we agree this information should be linked to from the main SF article, why should we link to an external website when there's a perfectly good Nebula Awards article, which includes links to lists of winners in each category?

I believe an identical argument applies to everything on your list. Exceptions might be sites that don't seem valuable enough for a WP article (I have my doubts about Specfic Floozy, for example), and, as I said earlier, one web directory. Mike Christie (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Harking back to that earlier discussion, it seems to me that the crux is:

"The only criterion in Wikipedia:External links that seems likely to apply to this article is the last one: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews." Even there I think more than one (representative) site is unnecessary. This article is not an entire encyclopedia of sf in itself; it's just the main article from which many others will be linked."

The first sentence repeats what I have been saying, but I disagree with the balance. I do agree that significant articles logically falling directly under this one should be linked in preference to external sources, and the observation about the Nebulas is a sound one--plus it is what I have been pleading for, one addressed to a particular candidate link on a definite ground, and I concur with it. Indeed, I have added to the "See Also" section a link to the particular subsection of the WP article on "online databases" pertaining to the ISFDB, but labelled the link "On-line s.f. databases" in that that subsection also cites Locus and some others; and I have thus removed the proposed link to those two and to the Internet Book List (which then becomes duplicative).

That said, I still think more generally that we once again see a turning away from the likely interests and needs of visitors to this page and toward instead the tastes and fancies of editors and the parliamentary exercises that seem to fascinate them.

For example, to say of review sites that "more than one (representative) site is unnecessary" simply takes my breath away. Assuming, as a threshold matter, that we are discussing sites that try to take a merit-based survey of the field as a whole--as opposed to reviews of every new thing that comes along--it is indeed breathtaking to suppose that there is such a thing as one representative site (unless we assume that all reviewers always and ever have substantially identical opinions and insights, an idea needing no further comment).

True, "this article is not an entire encyclopedia of sf in itself"; but does not that in itself strongly suggest that the visitor here needs links that do expand to encyclopedic scope? Moreover, it means that the links from this article should be as correspondingly high-level as this article is, not particularized--as links from lower-level articles necessarily must be. That there is an extant WP article on the Nebulas is, as I said, germane; but to go from that fact to "I believe an identical argument [presumably that a WP article exists] applies to everything on your list" seems an amazing leap. I look at the article's list of Wikipedia cross-references (See Also) and do not see articles that correspond to the (now-revised list of) proposed links.

My objection is not to there being a link ever, it's to the link being from this article. In the great majority of cases, the right place for a link is from the article about the website or organization in question.

I have addressed that as to the databases. But I wonder what reasonably high-level articles might cover the others. There is indeed a WP article on the SF Site, but that seems out of keeping with the other "See Also" entries, in that they are all topics rather than particular resources--or perhaps that list should be somewhat subdivided and somewhat expanded? (By the bye, as I type, the supposed over-arching link listed as "Genres, subcategories, and topics related to science fiction" leads to nothing, not terribly helpful to visitors.)

Since this page is become enormous anyway, let me repeat the (here slightly modified) candidate list, as it might appear when implemented (save that I have put in some blank lines here to indicate sub-categories that I do not think need be broken out in the actual list):

 * The Open Directory - some human-selected s.f. links
 * The Ultimate Science Fiction Web Guide - encyclopedic (but obsolescent) s.f. links list

 * The SF Site (site contents) - broad, general s.f. reference
 * SF Hub - resources for science-fiction research

 * Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America - "Suggested Reading" page
 * Classics of Science Fiction - lists, with various breakdowns
 * The Complete Review - reviews of select speculative-fiction authors and works
 * The Scriptorium - reviews of eminent speculative-fiction authors
 * Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works - lists and reviews of select authors

 * Littera Scripta - reference works on collectible speculative fiction

The Littera Scripta page might be replaced by a Wikipedia article on collecting science fiction (and be linked from there), but I can find no such article at present (and am not qualified to start one). The SF Site has, as noted above, a WP article, but not one that seems at present appropriate for the "See Also" list. Aside from those two, I do not see: one, that any of these are subsumed in any extant or likely article under the one at issue; two, that any of them is in any least violation of the WP principles I quoted most extensively earlier; or three, that any of them would not be highly utile to a newcomer wanting to know about science fiction.

To my mind, that last is the paramount consideration, and one we should never lose sight of. The purpose of external links is to supplement the content of a page with material not conveniently or obviously available elsewhere on Wikipedia and which meets the WP standards for external references. We are not, I dearly hope, lawyers haggling over a contract: "See, it says so right there in Clause 17, paragraph C, section iv, part m, seventh sentence." That a link to some useful, high-level resource might, by the WP-knowledgeable, eventually manage to be traced out by following some links chain starting from the main WP "Science fiction" page is very far from saying that that resource has been made reasonably available to the visitor to that page who is seeking a high-level overview of science fiction.

Note that the relatively small list--5 sites--of what amounts to "suggested reading" links is, so far as I know, comprehensive as to sites that suggest science-fiction reading on a reasonably selective and decidely non-fancruft basis. Is inclusion of such resources in the top WP article on science fiction inappropriate? How and why would one justify a Yes answer to that? By saying that it is unwise or inappropriate to point visitors to guides to the better works in the field? Say what?

So, to re-re-repeat myself: what on that list either expressly violates any of the extensively and exactly quoted WP:EL criteria or is not likely to be well useful to a visitor to the page seeking general, high-level knowledge of science fiction?

(And I also repeat the newly raised thought: should the "See Also" section be subdivided and/or expanded?)

Owlcroft 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

I've started List of definitions of science fiction, which may interest some here. Mike Christie (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I like this approach--it takes the pressure off this article to produce a perfect definition. In fact, it demonstrates that there is no single, short, universally-accepted definition, and leaves this article with the more manageable task of mapping the field of narratives (or even of written narratives) that is called "science fiction." If we can point to articles on "definitions," "history," "subgenres," "movies," "television programs," and so on, we don't have to try to cram detailed accounts of all that into this small space. RLetson 06:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science fiction template

I've just made a new science fiction template {{Science fiction}}, modelled from the {{Fantasy}}. Hope it's useful. - Malkinann 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject? and table of contents

The organization of this article seems strange and unfocused. There seems to be a lot of contention. Seems like this would benefit from a Wikiproject, i.e. a focused group to seek consensus, draft page, maintain a consistent tone, etc. The wikiproject would take responsibility for articles tagged with the sf template or related templates.

If I were writing this from scratch, I'd come up with a table of contents like

1. What is science fiction?
   1. Definitions
   2. Related genres and subgenres
2. History of science fiction
3. Ideas in science fiction
   1. Tropes (should all lead to their own articles)
   2. Jargon (again, needs references, shouldn't be hard to find)
4. Great works of science fiction (books)
   1. Major science fiction authors (not more than fifty, should be multiple-Hugo winners, should pretty much all have linked articles)
5. Science fiction in media
   1. Films
   2. Television
   3. Anime, etc.
6. Fandom
   1. Conventions
   2. Fanzines
7. See also
8. References
9. External links

I'm not clear why "Notes" and "References" are separated into two sections, especially for an article not really written by academic standards (i.e. where each referenced work only refers to a small number of notes).

IMO the goal of creating a "good" article is worthwhile. This will require rewrites, which are better discussed before being posted into the article, hence the call for a wikiproject, IMO.Avt tor 18:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate future

Just letting the editors of this article know that there is a discussion on Talk:Alternate future about the encyclopedicness of that article that I think editors of science fiction might be interested in participating in. —Lowellian (reply) 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)