Talk:Definitions of science fiction

message: I think the Vonnegut quote that was just added is probably not worth keeping; I'd like to hear another opinion before I revert, though.  It doesn't define sf at all, nor does it say anything about why it's hard to define.  It's simply an aside about the habit of defining sf.  I don't think it adds anything, and it seems to expand the boundaries of the quotes included beyond what is useful for the article.  Any comments?  Mike Christie (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ambivalent. Vonnegut's quote is not a definition; it speaks to the difficulty of creating a definition, and thus the need for this article. Plus the inherent coolness of quoting Vonnegut in the first place. :) My opinion is not strong enough to revert your edit. Maybe a section on "Problems of definition" is called for (he says, suggesting work for other people....) The Nabokov quote would fit into such a section. Avt tor 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how about we wait for that section to be created (he said, dodging the work assignment . . . ) and then revisit it?  I agree it's a cool quote, but it doesn't really seem to add anything but atmosphere, and I don't think we have enough article to be atmospheric about yet.  Mike Christie (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Avt tor said what I was going to say.  Anville 22:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vonnegut quote 

message: It seemed more appropriate to start with Gernsback! --Ant 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undated quotes moved to last 

message: The Blish "a kind of hybrid in which plausibility is specifically invoked" definition is quoted in "Atheling"'s "More Issues at Hand", 1970, per the OED sf website.  I don't have my copy with me; can someone with a copy figure out what the publication date was for the original?  Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blish/Atheling quote 

message: Per this page, the Ketterer quote is from 1974.  I don't have a copy so I'm going to change it to be in the dated list but not add a cite to the original source.  If someone with a copy could add a cite, that would be great. Mike Christie (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ketterer definition 

message: The Bonnie Kunzel quote was inherited from the discussion of definitions in the science fiction article.  However, I'm doubtful as to whether Kunzel is notable enough to include.  Anybody else think this could be cut?  It's not a particularly insightful addition, and without some notability on Kunzel's part I see no reason to keep it.  Mike Christie (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion. Avt tor 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonnie Kunzel 

message: Here are some links to pages that may point at definitions worth adding, or which may help source some of these definitions.  At least some of these have already been reviewed but it is probably worth keeping a list here.
* http://litmuse.maconstate.edu/litwiki/index.php/Science_fiction
* http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html
* http://www.nvcc.edu/home/ataormina/scifi/define/formaldefine.htm
* http://scifi.about.com/od/scififantasy101/a/SCIFI_defs.htm
* http://scifi.about.com/od/scififantasy101/a/SCIFI_defs_2.htm
* http://www.sciencefiction.info/definitions/
* http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/006102.html
* http://www.sflare.com/archives/the-definition-of-science-fiction/
* http://blog.jhary.com/2006/07/some-definitions-of-science-fiction.html
* http://www.neoconstant.com/1460/the-definition-of-science-fiction-according-to-philip-k-dick/
-- Mike Christie (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages to mine 

message: This articles is a list of quotes.  Instead of listing quotes of science fiction authors, wouldn't it be more relevant to list definitions given in encyclopedic content - a list of definitions from dictionaries, literary criticism, and critical sources?
That is to say, instead of saying what writers think science fiction is, give definitions that are meant as definitions.  This article should be a set of way in which those who define things define science fiction, and have primarily reference-book references.
Most encyclopedias try to define what science fiction is, but as Wikipedia, we can't do so, as it would be original research.  Thus, we should try to list other people's general definitions of science fiction to give the reader a sense of what science fiction is.  Writers aren't necessarily well-read individuals, and I think most writers will try to define science fiction in the context of why their novels fit into the genre, not generally defining the concept.
--Nutarama (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a great idea to turn this into a more thorough discussion of the definitions of sf to be found in reliable sources.  It would be a pity to lose the list of quotes; I have tried to restrict it to those from reliable sources, but perhaps if the article is modified as you suggest, the list could be moved to a separate List of definitions of science fiction. Mike Christie (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of quotes? 

message: An anon made this edit recently.  I have never heard the Campbell quote and suspect it's a misremembered version of the Damon Knight quote that's already in the article.  A Google search for it turned up nothing.  The Gernsback quote looks more interesting but it would have to be sourced; again I can't find anything via Google.  Is anyone else familiar with that quote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the added text as it's unsourced. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition 

message: See this; not sure what Malzberg meant but it doesn't appear the definition is in Collier's, so the 1981 date seems to be correct. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, the article of Malzberg where we says he is citing himself in Colliers has "reconceived history", not "reconceived past" as here. Zerotalk 11:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure where you're seeing that?  Here (p. 18) has "past".  Do you mean the version of that article that appeared in book form the next year (as far as I can tell) as Engines of the Night?  I don't have a copy so I can't check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see it in the article of Malzberg called "The Number of the Beast" that is reprinted in the anthology "Speculations on Speculation" . Malzberg presents it as an indented quotation preceded by "Here I am in Collier's Encyclopedia:".  The notes say that the article is from Malzberg's 1982 book "The Engines of the Night". I don't have Engines of the Night, but I can see a snippet at Google that includes all of this quotation. It also appears in Malzberg's "Breakfast in the Ruins"  which includes Engines of the Night. You can read it here with a free registration. All of these have "history". Zerotalk 13:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

text:  It is indeed "past" in the magazine article. There Engines of the Night is refered to as "to be published", so I'm guessing that "history" in his book when it actually came out was a correction. Zerotalk 13:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be OK if you wanted to add a comment at the end of that entry, cited to Engines of the Night, saying that in the 1982 book publication the word was changed. That way the reader sees the whole history. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it was changed. Both times Malzberg claimed to be quoting from existing text in Collier. The most likely explanation is that in the magazine he misremembered or accidentally misquoted. I think the magazine citation should be dropped and the book version should be adopted with citation to the book. Zerotalk 02:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly plausible, and I'm fine if you want to change it to the book version, but I think we should tell the reader that both versions exist if we're not giving the earliest form of the citation.  It is possible that the "past" version is what he submitted to Collier's and it got changed by him or an editor at the proof stage.  I'd really like to find it in Collier's but Doc Taxon couldn't see it so I'm not sure it ever got printed.  Maybe Malzberg's comment was when he was told it would be appearing but it never did. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to me that he is saying that it had appeared in "Groff Conklin's essay" in Collier's 1980 edition.  I see Conklin listed as a contributor in an earlier edition of Collier's but searching is too hard without even knowing which volume to look at. Anyway, to make this more fun I came across yet another version: "" Author Malzberg. I see this in several encyclopedias that are all related (same publisher at least sometimes, they all bought each other or sold rights to each other). Grolier Encyclopedia 1991 , Lexicon Universal Encyclopedia 1989 , Academic American Encyclopedia 1990 . The last was published by Grolier starting in 1980 (though I can't check it) and with no evidence at all I conjecture that Malzberg got "Collier" and "Grolier" confused. Zerotalk 06:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  That does sound possible.  I took Malzberg to mean that his essay replaced Conklin's essay in an edition.  If Conklin is listed as a contributor to Collier's that does make it less likely Malzberg was wrong.  Perhaps Malzberg sold the essay to both encyclopedias?  As to what we should put in the article ... I'm inclined to go with the earliest form which now sounds like it would be the 1980 Grolier's, but without more direct evidence I don't think we can.  How about using the 1982 version as you suggested, but giving the alternate wordings we've found in the definition paragraph, including the 1990 AAE?  Then in a footnote we could say that it's possible the earliest version appeared in either Collier's or Grolier's in 1980 but this has not been confirmed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since it is Malzberg's definition, I think that highlighting the 1982 definition from Engines of the Night is good, then (in a footnote?) we can mention the two variations. I don't see a point of mentioning encyclopedias because we haven't tracked that aspect down (I don't have 1980 Grolier and am only guessing it might be there) and there is no question that Malzberg is the author so attribution is not an issue. Ok? Zerotalk 11:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malzberg 1981 quote