Talk:Science fiction/Archive 1

message: Would you agree that an alternative name to the Military science fiction is military space opera? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh no.  Lots of Mil SF has nothing to do with space travel.  Some is alt-history (I.E. 1632 by Flint or Sterling's Nantucket series.)  Even Drakes Hammers Slammers has no "space opera"  It's all ground tank war with sf elements.    Then, there's things like Flint and Drake's Belesarius series......   so,  no, I would not agree with that. Rick Boatright 22:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Military sf

message: Hmmm. . .  It strikes me that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein includes science fiction elements and should be included in the history section.  Just a thought.
Reid 05:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always considered Star Wars to be Sci-Fantasy, so to me it should remain here as well as being mentioned on the Fantasy page...
----
Brian Aldiss argues convincingly in <I>The Trillion Year Spree</i> that modern science fiction started with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
WCFrancis 14:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: Unless I hear otherwise, I think this needs radical changes somehow.
Section: Astounding Magazine
With the emergence in 1937 of a demanding editor, John W. Campbell, Jr., of Astounding Science Fiction (founded in 1930), and with the publication of stories and novels by such writers as Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert A. Heinlein, science fiction began to gain status as serious fiction.  
Ventures into the genre by writers who were not devoted exclusively to science fiction also added respectability; early such writers included Karel Capek, Aldous Huxley, and C. S. Lewis, and later writers included Ray Bradbury and Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Magazine covers of bug-eyed monsters and scantily-clad women, however, preserved the image of a sensational genre appealing only to adolescents. There was naturally a public desire for sensation, a desire of people to be taken out of their dull lives to the worlds of space travel and adventure.
This appears to suggest that Capek, Huxley and Lewis wrote for Astounding. I'm pretty sure they did not. I have not checked my indexes, but I doubt Bradbury or Vonnegut appeared, or if they did they were extremely minor. Also, Campbell specifically avoided covers like those described (though they continued to be very popular on titles like Planet Stories).
I'm not really clear that Campbell's editorial policies led to science fiction began to gain status as serious fiction. They were much respected by readers, but did they reach outside the genre? My impression is that science fiction gained little respectability until the 1960s e.g. with Amis' New Maps Of Hell, which gave more respect to Galaxy.
:The subject of the section is the gradually increasing respectability of science fiction, not just ASF, but I agree that that resepctability came gradually.  As recently as 1980, I was told by a librarian that Canticle for Leibowitz couldn't be science fiction because it was good.  (I brought her a copy of the magazine version of the first part.)  
:I don't think the intent was that Capek et al wrote for ASF, but rather that ASF, and they, increased the respectability of sf -- but that is, as you note, doubtful, and a rewrite of that paragraph would be welcome. Rick Norwood 13:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Astounding magazine 

message: I have removed the comment under "Hard Science Fiction" concerning the Lifter device.  Lifters fail to fulfill the primary requirements of anti-gravity machines, so (regardless of UFO buffs' enthusiasm) they don't provide the technology hard SF postulates.  First of all, they are essentially magnetohydrodynamic propulsion, so they are useless outside a planet's atmosphere.  Second, they work through electromagnetic principles well established in present-day physics, and do not rely upon manipulating gravity in a way that Einstein's General Relativity does not describe.  On both counts, they cannot be the "gravitic propulsion" of Foundation's Edge or the "impeller drive" of Honor Harrington's navy.
This section seems lacking in a couple other respects, too.  Notable examples of hard SF can retain their value long after science has moved on, if they were well-constructed following the science which was known at the time.  For example, people still read and enjoy The Gods Themselves, even though Asimov's description of the strong nuclear force does not contain gluons or quarks, and his notions of cosmology predate the concept of the inflationary universe.  Just because his scientists use a Pionizer instead of a Gluonizer doesn't mean his book is obsolete.
Anville 16:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifters 

message: I remain deeply unsatisfied with the sections on hard and soft SF, as they currently stand.
* Comments like Damn, this was poorly written belong in the cozy environs of Talk pages, not in the main article, where they are both unprofessional and POV.
* Stating that hard SF necessarily has poorer plot and character development than the soft-serve flavor is again POV.  If somebody said this, they deserve to be quoted with proper attribution.  Writers of hard SF—and their fen—who have made rebuttals also deserve representation.
* Who, exactly, has complained that a "speculative essay" category doesn't exist?  Such things have been written; Jorge Luis Borges wrote several good ones.  ("The Library of Babel" was an essay before it was a story.)  Among Asimov's F&SF essays, too, it's not hard to find ones which extrapolate known science in the same way that his fiction does, though often for "educational" purposes.
* Mangling Isaac Asimov's name is worse than a crime; it is a blunder.  He's dead, so someone else has to complain about it.  That person may as well be me.
* While the hard/soft categorization is imperfect (as are all genre breakdowns), it's a starting point that has been widely acknowledged among the writing and critical communities.  Wikipedia is not the place to propose a new pet classification of science fiction, regardless of its merits.  Any particular book's classification can be endlessly debated (that's a perk of fandom), but it's no good to dump book after book into the junk drawer called "other categories".
May the Schwartz be with you.  Anville 15:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard and soft SF 

message: I dropped by during my Wikiholiday to see what's been going on (a vacation from a vacation, as it were) and discovered that the "Types of SF" section had vanished entirely.  It slipped into the aether about two weeks ago, without any comment I see on this Talk page, and without modifications to the articles hard science fiction and soft science fiction.  What's up?
Not that the missing section was the greatest prose in the world, but it worked pretty well.  At the very least, we should have a stub of what had been there, with the details that had grown here farmed out to the main articles on each sub-genre.  A copy-and-paste job, yes?
Somebody should re-read Asimov's "Feeling of Power" and roll that into the paragraph on "mathematical science fiction".  Or else I'll retrieve all the examples I can think of, do some Original Research, write a stuffy and turgid academic paper on the topic, get it printed in Science Fiction Studies or Trendy Academic Poser Weekly, and come back here and cite myself.
Anville 15:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the "Types" section? 

message: I added a picture of Isaac Asimov already on Wikipedia because I felt that it needed some sort of picture to make it look better. If anyone thinks that Asimov is the wrong person to use for such a picture, change it, and let me know if you don't mind so I can try to find a better picture.
--PlantPerson 21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added photo

message: About 20 years ago I read the greatest short story about humanity achieving Singularity through nanotechnology. The touching part was humanity's need for an emotional anchor as they explored the universe with their minds. The heroine of the story was a simple woman who had an elemental connection with her own humanity, and through her mind being a part of the collective, provided the emotional safe harbor and anchor needed for the whole race to achieve Singularity. 
The story was in Analog. Naturally I went to their site to search their archive. No luck! I couldn't find a searchable archive. 
Any ideas on the author/title or how to find it?
Thanks, Rose_Lacy 21:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See if any local libraries have back issues of Analog.  Ask someone over at the Analog website.  Or hope somebody on the net has heard of it.  Sorry, I haven't read it myself.  Those are the only things I can think of.  WhiteC 03:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip. A reader on the Analog discussion forum thinks the story is The Gentle Seduction by Marc Stiegler. I've ordered a copy of his anthology containing the story to confirm. Rose Lacy 18:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Got the book and it is indeed the story I was looking for. I've expanded the page for Marc Stiegler and added The Gentle Seduction to Technological Singularity culture section. Rose Lacy 23:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting.  Now I'll have to try & find a copy :-)  WhiteC 03:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author/Title of short story with nano and Singularity? 

message: I'd like some help here.  On the German Wik/SF page, it is maintained that sputnik's launching gave a big push to SF (implicitly meaning in the US, though the article is coy here).  This doesn't seem right to me.  Can any-one give any evidence for or against this assertion? Uers:Kdammers211.225.32.196 05:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shortly after Sputnik, a large number of US science fiction magazines were launched, but most folded after only a dozen or so issues.  This probably rates a mention in the article.  I'll add it. Rick Norwood 23:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sputnik

message: I am removing the link to chabad.org because it is definitely not an SF portal.  It claims to be a page discussing Chassidic Sci-Fi, though I would question that claim as well because the Sci-Fi themes in the articles are very tenuous. This is just spam. If you can present an argument to the contrary, I'll stop deleting your advertisement.KennyLucius 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the chabad.org link to the External links section. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry for not responding right away, I have many things which I am involved with right now. Regarding the link that I placed, I assure you it is not spam. It is not a commercial site. If you did not see the contents, I don;t know why you have something against it. I am going to re-add it since your reason for removal is that I didn;t post here quickly enough. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree it doesn't belong. Not because of the contents: it just looks like a page with 11 science fiction stories. But there are tens of thousands of science fiction stories on the web: it needs to be a very notable page in order to belong on the main science fiction article. Why is this more notable than any other magazine or collection of stories?  It might be a good choice for an article on Religion in science fiction if anyone makes one. Can we try and get a consensus here before any action?  My 'vote': delete. Notinasnaid 09:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is notable because in general you do not find science fiction and religion coming together. I would agree that if you found a larger site inbolving Jewish science fiction, then that would replace this page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think religious science fiction is nearly as unusual as you think. Consider the works of James Blish for instance. And Piers Anthony often touches on religions. Notinasnaid 16:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I meant from a Jewish viewpoint. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much the only Jewish science fiction I've found is in Jack Dann's anthology Wandering Stars and its sequel, More Wandering Stars. Some great stuff by Silverberg, Tenn, Ellison, and others, and an introduction by Asimov. Ferret-aaron 03:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've found a home for the link already exists in Wikipedia. I recommend moving the material to Religious ideas in science fiction. Notinasnaid 18:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the link there. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of External Links

message: The "scope" section has obviously undergone a lot of rewrites, with the result that sometimes a sentence is in the wrong paragraph, or there is an unexplained transition.  I've tried to smooth it out a bit.  If there are any questions on specific issues, I'll be glad to go into more detail. Rick Norwood 20:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite to smooth the prose and improve organization 

message: The first sentence of the article,  "Science fiction is a form of speculative fiction principally dealing with the impact of imagined science and technology upon society and persons as individuals" seems to be ripped from Britannica, especially the first wikipedia version which was:
"Science fiction is a form of fiction which deals principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals"
The first sentence is a word for word ripof of Encyclopedia Britannica.
:I've taken a shot at a rewrite that avoids the Britannica wording.  I hope I haven't gone too far.  Comments are appreciated. Rick Norwood 17:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem?  Possible britannica ripoff in article

message: "Although these may be technically illegal under copyright law, they often are permitted when no profit is made from them, and there is clear understanding that the copyright remains property of the characters' original creators."
I believe this is incorrect.  Can someone verify what I remember from researching copyright?  Copyright protects works of art and not ideas.  Therefore, the universes and characters created by an author may be used by others without permission, as they are not protected by copyright.  They may, however, be protected by trademark.
:I believe it's not as clear cut as that in actual lawsuits.  —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell you what.  You write a story in a universe created by Harlan Ellison, and then you can ask that question of your lawyer when he sues. Rick Norwood 13:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Statement about Copyright (pretty sure) 

message: (I've mislaid my Wikipedia ID and account, but this is
Eric Steven Raymond writing, 3 Dec 2005.)
The Scope section, as I found it, completely failed to take account of the advances in critical thinking about SF since the mid-1990s, or to reflect the genre analyses in sources like the Clute and Nichols Encyclopedia of SF.  We have much sharper definitional tools than we did twenty years ago, and it was well past time for this entry to use them.
:I certainly understand the temptation to rewrite entire wikiarticles very rapidly.  I did it myself when I first began to wiki.  I have now come around to the belief that it is best to rewrite a little, pause for comments and reflection, and then rewrite a little more. Rick Norwood 14:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Big rewrite of the scope section

message: :I've been working on a massive rewrite of the History of science fiction article for the past couple weeks on a userpage, User:Ferret-aaron/sftest. I would appreciate comparing notes with you on the subject of SF history, especially if you're planning to work on the history section of the main article. Note that my rewrite is nowhere near done; I haven't written anything on contemporary SF, I just copied the (terrible) text from the existing article on the '20s and '30s, and most of the rest still has obvious gaping holes. But it's getting there. Ferret-aaron 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ESR, AFAIK, there's nothing stopping you from editing the page now, though I'd appreciate if you wouldn't make too large changes while it's on my userpage, just for my sanity's sake. I'm trying to take a poorly written, POV, unsourced article and shape it into something reasonable, and that becomes more difficult if the article is being massively changed by others. And I'd really rather you didn't make changes unless you're logged in. I already do mention Kipling alongside Doyle as British writers of romantic fiction who wrote works of with science fictional content. The only Kipling scifi I've seen mentioned is "In the Night Mail" or whatever that story's called, so I don't think it's necessary to go into too much depth about him. I'm curious about your term "neo-Campbellian", as I've never seen it applied. I do know that in reading Brin, Cherryh, Vinge, Bear, etc... I do get the sense that there is a shared purpose, but struggled to find a name in the literature for it. The best I found was a reference to a New Space Opera in Gary Westfahl's essay on Space Opera in The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Do you have a source that uses the phrase "neo-Campbellian"? Also, I'm in agreement with Kenny that your changes seem generally unsourced as well as POV, and you should work on trying to stay within the strictures of WP guidelines better. Ferret-aaron 18:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of SF History Article

message: What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One article. Rick Norwood 15:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there!  Thanks; this is merely a notice: the RfC is actually occurring at the link above/here.  E Pluribus Anthony 15:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Darth_Vader#RfC.2Fpoll:_Darth_Vader.2FAnakin_Skywalker_.E2.80.93_one_article_or_two_articles.3F|'''RfC/poll''' – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?]]

message: I have been working on an overhaul of History of Science Fiction which I just placed at History of science fiction/rewrite. Please comment on my rewrite and whether it should replace the current article at History of Science Fiction's Talk page. If anyone has any suggestions about where I should put this notice to get more comments, let me know. Ferret-aaron 18:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Science Fiction rewrite

message: The Sci-fi term may deserve a section, but not a separate article. -Psyche|logy 23:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is reasonable, yes, to merge Sci-fi into Science fiction. User:Ceyockey 00:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. Rick Norwood 01:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I just missed this discussion - which seems to have entirely taken place in the Christmas period, so will be missed by many. So I reverted [prior to discovering this discussion, as it wasn't at the end of the TOC in this talk page]. This doesn't seem to have taken place in the usual way (with a consensus being recorded).  Sorry if that is now inappropriate, but I have to record that I would oppose the merge. The sci fi article had/has a more detailed discussion of the terminology than is appropriate in this more general article. Making the sci fi a link is going to strongly suggest that it is, in fact, a simple synonym rather than a term capable of causing offense or derision. Notinasnaid 20:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: After reading more, and especially since work has continued, I've put it back as it was, but still, I wouldn't have supported the move... Notinasnaid 20:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[sci-fi]] 

message: I'm sorry to revert, but Pierremenard's changes seem to be just fiddling with the article rather than improving it. Rick Norwood 17:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert 

message: Please provide a reference to show that RAH preceded Forry in the use of SciFi. Rick Norwood 20:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Ackerman's website, "Sacred Heinlein used the term 7 years before I did, in a positive fashion in a private letter to his legendary agent."  Therefore, coined by Heinlein, popularized by Ackerman.Shsilver 20:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have seen the claim elsewhere, that was just the on-line reference that came to hand. And while the letter was a private letter, many of Heinlein's letters have been published (I'm not sure if this one has or not). Hi Fi as a term dates back to 1934 when it was first used by RCA Victor in an ad campaign for Red Seal 78s. Also, from an article about the Oxford English Dictionary SF terms project:  "We also have Heinlein to thank for a term near and dear to most of us: “Sci Fi,” which popped up in letter he wrote in 1949."  The OED SF project itself also accepts Heinlein's creation, although it places it in 1949, not 1947, as Ackerman does. Sicne they are looking at actual sources, I presume they have seen Heinlein's letter. Shsilver 15:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The article was written by Christopher DeFilippis.  According to the italics website, "CHRISTOPHER DeFILIPPIS is an award-winning author and journalist. His first novel, Foreknowledge, was published in 1998 by Berkley Publishing. His DeFlip Side radio segment can be heard monthly on the SF radio show, Destinies: The Voice of Science Fiction."Shsilver 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please provide a reference. 

message: I moved the terminology section of this article so that it now falls after the scope and media sections. I just felt the section drones on a bit with a "fan boy" style that might prevent readers from making it to the rest of the article. I did not change any of the content, so my fan boy comment is not meant derisively. Hiberniantears 14:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added to that dreaded section tonight, but did so because I believed I could sum up the SF/sci-fi brouhaha in a couple of sentences.  I did not delete any other text. MobyMimic 07:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology Move 

message: The article Science fact has been a one sentance stub for over a year, with only one contributer (except for a minor tweak by another user). It should be merged into this article. --Ezeu 23:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Rick Norwood: there is nothing in that article that has anything to do with the Science fiction. If there were any controversy or real meaning to Science fact, the article would be more than a stub, so I see no reason to mention the term in  Science fiction. KennyLucius 20:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will someone please mark science fact for deletion. Rick Norwood 22:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a fallacious argument at best "If there were any controversy or real meaning to Science fact, the article would be more than a stub".  More than 30% of Wikipedia content right now consists of stubs (considering User:Dantheox/Stub percentages), so unless you're willing to blanket nominate for deletion 300,000 articles, let's drop that argument from the armory and start over.  I'd personally recommend merging the content into "science fiction", then making the "science fact" article a redirect, then taking the redirect to redirects-for-deletion with the argument that it is confusing to keep it.  However, it is quite unlikely that will result in deletion owing to the relatively long edit history (back to Jan 2005) associated with the article ... despite its small size .. and the fact it has already survived one trip to articles-for-deletion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Science fact has been renominated for deletion here. --Ezeu 23:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Science fact]] 

message: I just reverted an edit to add a link to http://alphacentauri.castpost.com, appearantly a brazilian scifi podcast in Portugese.  It is the second time I have removed it, and it has not (to the best of my knoweledge) been added to any other articles.  My feeling is that the link does not add much to the article, since it is (a) not in English, and (b) one of a great many possible publications related to science fiction, so not needed.  But I though I'd open it up here for more comments.  Thoughts, anyone?  --Hansnesse 01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Scifi podcast 

message: I feel that The X Files should be included in the section called "Television" along with the descriptions for some of the longest-running science fiction series on television, as The X Files actually retained members of its cast for nine seasons from 1993-2002. Anyway The X Files should be in there somewhere because it is a landmark in Television SF. (Cpt|Kirk 11:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, have no objection.  Go for it. Rick Norwood 21:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The X Files" should be included in the section "Television" 

message: I'd wouldn't mind seeing an example given for "modernist work of literature that overlaps with the themes of science fiction".
Bryan H Bell 17:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science fiction and mainstream literature 

message: Well this has been a crap experience on the SF topic for me. I am just glad that I managed to make the effort to point out (1)The X Files, (2)franchises, (3)series, (4)new series and (5)cast changes, and the need to show some examples of season lengths and what a new series is, while defining it all in less than six lines with included Wiki links. There seems to be some people here who want to kick up a fuss over this and want to revert back to longwinded statements about how fantastic and world changing a specific series has been for them and then accuse others of being fan-boy editors. Let them fly high about themselves bluntly in the face of reason for their preferred personal tastes and ambitions. I, for one, thought about standing my ground and pointing out "facts-only", but maybe I just needed to find out that this is what parts of Wiki can be all about - some cowboys with keyboards who want it all their own way, judging by their 200+ edits on SF with everything anyone has added here to date. If they want to have it all their own way with absolutely no one else allowed to so much as write a single line, then they are welcome to their own limitations. Again, what a crap experience on the SF topic this has been. What has gone on here defies any logic and is purely selfish from the same people over and over again. I enjoy the writing and learning, not wanting to be a control freak as their 200+ edits to absolutely everything show. As we can see I have not even been allowed to add so much as three words as it stands with all their edits and reverts. I have been allow to add absolutely ZERO. NOTHING. So Bye. (Simonapro 20:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Reason for Quitting Helping Science Fiction Wiki