Talk:Science fiction/Archive 3

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

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))

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)

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)]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [[1]] and [[2]] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [3] and [4], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)