Talk:Space opera noir
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alright... so this is an article that seeks to define a term that is used and cites primary references to explain that, how does that not count as referencing sources? It is NOT calling it a genre, since that was pointed out to be too great a claim, it is calling it a term... which it seems hard to dispute as that it does directly quote the sources. Is it not considered primary research to define a term by using the sources that refer to it?
[edit] Sources? Notablility?
I don't see this term appearing in reviews, articles, or discussions of print/narrative science fiction--it does produce a few Google hits, largely in gaming, but it strikes me as being a very new neologism with minimal circulation. The fact that a term is apt (one can find an example or two of almost any subgeneric term imaginable) doesn't mean it's ready for an encyclopedia article. I'd call this one "not notable" and recommend removal of the article unless someone can show it thriving in the wild. RLetson 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, because it is a term that I was first introduced to in literature classes while in university many years ago. I suppose it also raises the question of whether or not a term need to be universally or professionally utilised in order to be worthy of an encyclopedic entry? Regardless, even the briefest of web searches found numerous examples of its use to describe a wide variety of media. Examples of it's use as follows.
- In relationship to conference discussions of literature - [1]: "Space Opera Noir -Space opera used to be all about optimism, excitement, and fun. Now it's about darkness, danger, and fun. How and why have modern masters such as Banks, Vinge, MacLeod, Reynolds, and Hamilton driven so far into the dark? (And why are they mostly British?)"
- In relation to graphic novels - [2] Grimjack: Killer Instinct, Writer: John Ostrander, Artist: Tim Truman, Publisher: IDW Publishing, Price: $3.99 U.S. "Why Grimjack has not been in continuous publication is a mystery. One of the most original series of the eighties had a long run on First before disappearing into limbo. Now Grimjack is back with its original creators, revitalized and working at the top of their form. Grimjack, or John Gaunt, is a sometimes detective sometimes cop in the trans-dimensional city of Cynosure, where you're as likely to encounter vampires as teleportation machines. It's space opera noir, a grim and gritty quest that can explode at any time into bizarre dimensions. Grimjack has always had a Roger Zelazny flavor, and in fact Zelazny wrote an introduction to the Demon Knight graphic novel in the eighties. Ostrander is a master story-teller who never takes a false step. His dialogue rings true and he keeps the action at a boil."
- In commentary on television programming and letary discussion -[3]Posted by The Tensor at May 4, 2005 12:38 PM: "One aspect of ST:TOS often forgotten is that at the time of broadcast, most TVs were still black and white, and ST had to be produced with that in mind. Try one of the better episodes with the color turned off; the effects are less cheesy, the costumes less garish and distracting, and most importantly the lighting is set up for dramatic punch in B&W. "City at the Edge of Forever" (for example)is a different viewing experience, space opera noir. Something is lost, and little gained, in the switch to color, IMO."
- In reviews: [4] "Space Opera Noir, March 7, 2006 - This seems to have got a fairly negative reaction amongst the online community. However a lot of the genre press have rated it highly. And so do I. I think a lot of this comes from the fact that only really the first 100 and the last 100 pages are real "hard sf" the rest being a sort of film noir with fog, Paris and jazz. Personally I loved it but then I am a big fan of both reynolds and uchronia. Anyway I think it is worth a try. "
- In author's own biographies - :[5]
- and on at least two german pages [6] and [7] which I am afraid I don't understand so cannot go into.
- And yes, as stated, in a number of gaming circles - which I do not personally see the objection to.
- In short, I think that while it is a term that is far from universal, it is a term used in common parlance and as such deserves an entry. --68.81.2.64 19:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I confess that I'm not much persuaded by citations of on-line usages alone. I'll grant that it's an almost-inevitable coining--but then, so is anything with either "cyber" or "punk," and it's easy to add "noir" to any work with the appropriate set of associations and qualities. (I'm sure that somewhere someone is talking about "soap opera noir" or "fairy-tale noir.") But that does not mean that the term is recognized or commonly-used among critics, commentators, and scholars; and if I understand the notablity and original research standards correctly, Wikipedia is based on authoritative sources. This is a long-winded way of saying that while it is descriptive of particular works or their qualtities, I'm not sure that the term is widely-enough used in discourse to be notable. What would make me happier would be examples from a range of professional and/or scholarly commentators/reviewers that show the term used in the sense presented by the article: as a stable, recognizable subcategory of space opera. That's pretty much the standard for a dictionary, and it seems reasonable to apply it here. Come to think of it, nearly everything in this article could be subsumed in a genuinely emerging genre term: new space opera; see the space opera article. RLetson 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I can see your point, though I must admit that todays feature article on Avatar: The Last Airbender may counter argument regarding what should get included.... joking aside... I would certainly agree with the arguement that the Space Opera Noir is a subset of the new space opera... but that term is a generally broad term that encompasses everything from Honour Harrington to Alistair Reynolds... which in is a like lumping Structuralism with post-modernism... if you see what I mean.
- I will note that I didn't come across the term on the web, but will admit that while discussing it above, couldn't be bothered to go through journals to see if it appears. However and more to the point, as to the inclusion of terms and Wikipedia's purpose, the section "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" on the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page, definition 2 notes that it is not a repository for "Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day!"
- Fair enough! And as such, the mere fact that is identified in multiple locations on the web in multiple languages in multiple countries would by itself qualify it as a worthy entry according to Wikipedia's definition of itself, regardless of whether or not it appears in professional journals. Wikipedia does, after all, clearly cover popular culture.
- I can, however, see your point regarding the similarities with the New Space Opera, as it has recently been redefined in the Space Opera section. There is certainly a great deal of overlap, though, to be honest, it had been my impression that the definition of New Space Opera was generally broader than that. I will need to do some research to see if there is any general difference.
- I will note, however, that while if they are in fact one-in-the-same, the Space Opera page is getting a bit long, and even if the two are the same, the topic is generally large enough that it might deserve a new entry, with a sub-entry on the Space Opera page... what do you think? --68.81.2.64 23:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As a reader of science fiction, I have seen the Space Opera Noir label applied to a number of works, in print and amongst discussions. Although it is not incredibly widespread, my sense is it is growing (e.g. I have heard it applied in some circles to the new Battlestar Galactica program). Thus, this new entry (which I happened to come upon while doing some research about new sci-fi) is extremely useful and very apt. I would indeed call it notable and would suggest that it is the ideal use of Wikipedia to document important new trends/terms/issues. Space Opera Noir seems very much to be thriving in the wild, and I find it disconcerting that someone wishes to remove good information on the basis of a personal view that it is not important enough. I definitely encourage Wikipedia to retain this helpful and cutting edge article.69.249.166.74 12:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you. I am glad that at least one other person found this a useful article. I would welcome any additions, citations, or the like. That is, after all, the whole point of Wikipedia as far as I see it. To allow multiple authors to add to the field.
- I guarantee that attempts to construct a definition of space opera noir as a stable subgenre that will hold up in the same way that other category labels do (even fuzzy ones like "hard SF" or "space opera" itself) will encounter non-trivial problems in the logic/taxonomy department. As the article stands, the "noir" part of the term does not identify a distinct body of work--the "dark, disturbing or questionable" qualities are all over the "new space opera" movement, as are moral ambiguity, cyberpunk influences, and the grittiness that everyone seems to find so novel in the new Battlestar Galactica. (In fact, they've been all over SF in general for the last 25 years.) It makes sense to see a noir-ish movement in space opera, to point to noir qualities, to talk about noir effects and atmosphere--but I'd call those matters of style, even of fashion, of elements that have been added to any number of SF and fantasy story-types. From that point of view, observations about "noir" qualities belong in a discussion of the ways that "new space opera" differs from the older version--"noir" is one of the qualities that new space opera possesses, but that doesn't make NSO-with-a-noir-feel into a new or separate entity. (In fact, I'd say that "NSO-with-a-noir-feel" is a redundancy.)
- And "notability" is different for an encyclopedia than for a dictionary: the latter reports on what people actually write and say (with an eye to history and levels of usage), while the former (at least the Wiki version of it) compiles the conclusions of reliable authorities. That's why I keep asking where the term shows up--when critics, reviewers, scholars, and commentators start using it in the way the article proposes, it's a live term; if its natural habitat is the fan forum or the discussion board or the amateur review, then it's linguistically or sociologically interesting but not necessarily of much use to a taxonomist of narrative forms. (Of course, if audience acceptance encourages artists to produce more works that fit a particular formula, to the point that the formula becomes stable and repeatable and describable and distinct from other formulas, then you have a new subgenre being born. It might happen yet. But authorities still have to take notice of it.) RLetson 06:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.encyclopedia To this end, a term with is in general parlance qualifies. Additionally, as that the point of this, or indeed any encyclopedia is to assist others in their ability to understand terms and concepts that they might come across, I would argue that having an entry for a term, obscure though it may be, fulfills this purpose.
For the record, the purpose of writing this article was not to establish a genre or subgenre, but to better define and describe one that was already in use. Like it or not, it is. That has been demostrated by this discussion already. It may not (or may) be used by professionals in the field, but if you examine other definitions, for example that of Celt being developed within these pages, neither is it limited to the definitions utilised by academic circles. While traditional encyclopaedias may indeed be limited by the number pages that one can produce, one of the great advantages of Wikipedia is that such limits are not necessary. While the creation or addition of words, phrases or indeed genres that are made up by individual is to be limited - the reporting on and discussion of ideas that are in the public domain is the point of the service. --68.81.2.64 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Still no sources? And internal consistency
- A quick side note to this section - A week has passed since the date of the very first critique on this entry. One wonders if the phrase "Still" really appropriate?
The article is still in need of sources. For example, the last two sentences of the "Characteristics" section set out the opinions of unspecified critics and fans of the genre. Who expresses these opinions, and where? In the "Examples" section, who says that the work of Reynolds, Dietz, and Banks are space opera noir? Right now this section reads like the writer's analysis rather than a report on what commentators are saying--unless there are commentators, critics, or reviewers who can be cited.
On the matter of consistency: The lead paragraph identifies space opera noir as a genre "that evolved during the early 21st century." Then the Examples section uses two writers (Dietz and Banks) whose exemplary work comes from the 1980s. (Dietz, by the way, is generally identified as a writer of military SF.) If the examples are valid, then the lead needs to be edited.
I know that sourcing is tricky for popular culture topics and for emerging terms and genres, but the "reliable sources" principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) seem reasonable to me. And given the frequency with which fans of SF and fantasy come up with neologisms, nonce terms, joke terms, and other verbal inventions when communicating among themselves, it's worth the effort to distinguish between language that has worked its way into the established vocabulary and items that are not yet part of it.
A bit of theory: A genre label is part of a system of literary taxonomy, and it reflects both the way literary commentators talk about texts and the ways that texts are produced. When a new category of text starts to appear, there can be a period of instability or uncertainty as it is noticed by readers, reviewers, and so on, and eventually named. And as new writers notice it and start to produce new texts that fit the emerging genre. This may be happening with "space opera noir," but I would like to see something more than blog entries, Amazon reader reviews, and marketing copy in order to be convinced. (BTW, the "German" pages cited in a comment above are Swedish; one is a blog, the other is a bookseller's site.) RLetson 01:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the most recent comments. They are very useful, and I will edit and cite as time permits. I have noted the consistancy points, and have also changed the beginning of the article to use the phrase "term" instead of "genre". I would agree that genre is perhaps too strong at this stage to use. Perhaps ever. --68.81.2.64 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
