Revision as of 15:21, 27 July 2006

Template:FAOL

Science fiction was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives
October 2001 – March 2006

Worldcon size

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

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

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

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

Good article failed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Splash Section for Suggestions that meet the To-do List

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would make a much start.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose Template from another Wiki Article

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

History of SF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RLetson 05:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RLetson 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

SF Subgenre History

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

Alien Beings

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

Artificial Intelligence

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

Cyberpunk

William Gibson in his novel "Neuromancer"

Environmental

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

Government

1984 by Orwell

Military

H. Beam Piper's Uller Uprising (1952)

Parallel Universes

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

Robots

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

Space Opera

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

Time

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

Utopian and Dystopian

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

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

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

Illustrations

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

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

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

Harlan Ellison Quote

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

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

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

SF Awards

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

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

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

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

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

Definitions of science fiction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RLetson 18:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origins of the term science fiction

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

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

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

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 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 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". ] 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 ] and ] 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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)

• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists