Talk:Science fiction

Hard & soft

I've just posted a call for revision of the soft science fiction article (see the talk page), working on the assumption that solid sub-topic pages will make the work here go easier. I edited the hard science fiction article a while back and it seems stable (though I can see some room for improvement still), and have proposed revising "soft SF" make the two articles properly complementary. Then all we need do here is provide a thumbnail explanation of the pair of terms and point to the full articles, yes? RLetson 18:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just posted a proposed new lead paragraph for the soft SF article on its talk page. Comments and improvements welcome. RLetson 06:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems passing strange that Robert A. Heinlein would be left out of the section on Hard SF!?--aajacksoniv (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because he mostly wrote soft SF? Yobmod (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is what the WIKI main page about Heinlein has to say:

"Robert Anson Heinlein (July 7 1907 – May 8 1988) was an American novelist and science fiction writer. Often called "the dean of science fiction writers", he is one of the most popular, influential, and controversial authors of "hard science fiction".

Tho I would say that a fair amount of his work after 1960 was a mix of hard and soft SF , from his days in Astounding in the 1940's and espeically from 1950 to 1960 he was as good a writer of solid science based SF as well as one of SF's most talented story tellers. --aajacksoniv (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Even when his science is plausible, he focuses far more on his characters and sociology imo, eg in The Moon is a Hard Mistress, Starship Trooper. Others are completely non-scienctific. like Stranger in a Strange Land. Then there are the fantasies and science fantasies....

The wikipage should clearly not be featured, and i think should be taken to FAR. Note that calling him a Hard SF is only one of very many things therin that is not cited at all.Yobmod (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not true of his early work, see Robert A. Heinlein bibliography, have you read any of his works written before 1960? Good Lord ask any expert on 'hard SF' and they would tell you Star Ship Troopers is 'hard SF' , same is true of Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Sure there are good characters and story too but the science in most all his work from 1939 to 1960 is solid. Equivalent to Asimov and Clarke.--aajacksoniv (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about the WIKI page.--aajacksoniv (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read some of the earlier shorts, and Door into Summer, which has totally unexplained time-travel and some wierd social message about freezing yourself to have sex with children one has groomed once they become legal. It didn't stike me as particularly Hard SF compared to Hard SF classics like Mission of Gravity, which i'm suprised didn't have equation instead of chapter titles!

But if plaubible scince is the only criterion for being Hard SF, then so is Atwood's SF. And much of LeGuin and Octavia Butler. Luckily, our opinions mean nothing, only reliable sources :-). Anything you can find verifiable sources for the Heinlein page would be great.

See the Heinlein talk page, i'm not the only one to notice that there are huge chunks of original research and fan speculation - anything from that page that doesn't have a cite should be considered suspect.

Yobmod (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But look both Clarke and Asimov are listed there, just to pick one piece of extrapolated super science both use FTL , Asimov in all his SF he uses FTL interstellar travel, Clarke the star gate in 2001 is another extrapolation, but these are as 'totally unexplained' as Heinlein's time travel. By the by both Faster than light and Time travel have a body of even 'hard science' within physics for some many years now.

Heinlein uses a clever take off on Einstein Rosen bridges Wormhole in Star Man Jones for interstellar travel... the space flight in Space Cadet, Between Planets, Farmer in the Sky, Red Planet, Rolling Stones, all contain perfectly ordinary known (now practiced) means of interplanetary flight. (In fact almost all his early SF short stories use ordinary known extrapolated interplanetary flight at the same level as von Braun was writing about it at the time.)

In fact Heinlein wrote a short story for Destination Moon (since he felt trying to base that movie on Rocket Ship Galileo seems a little goofy). Recall he was the 'hard science' space flight adviser on that George Pal film.

Double Star has a trip to Mars on a perfectly realizable nuclear powered space craft.

I don't know of anything in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress which is not perfectly realizable extrapolated known technology.

The FTL drives in Star Ship Troopers don't differ from Asimov's 'jump' ships in any particular way.

Time for the Stars uses Slower than Light interstellar flight and known special relativistic physics.

One could pick and choose some soft SF even before 1960.

But the main problem is why is does the WIKI entry for Heinlein list him as a 'hard SF' writer and that does not qualify on the main page here? I frankly I consider that Asimov and Clarke also both wrote soft some SF , so should they be removed from the Hard SF section? --aajacksoniv (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not our analysis that counts, it's what the reliable sources say. I haven't looked in the Nicholls Encyclopedia, but I'm pretty sure that you won't find Heinlein or Asimov listed as exemplars of hard sf. If we can see that a reasonable amount of scholarly discussion refers to X as a hard sf writer, we can refer to them that way. Mike Christie (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The WIKI page on Heinlein is not a reliable source?

It is interesting that Clarke's , well it wasn't really a prediction, about geostationary satellites did not appear in the context of science fiction. It is really a scientific article.

Heinlein worked directing aeronautical engineering at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard ... he also had the equivalent of an engineering degree from the Naval Academy. If references are needed to qualify that part of his career as a Hard SF writer I will find them.--aajacksoniv (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To quote David N. Samuelson "Modes of Extrapolation: The Formulas of Hard Science Fiction

As long as science fiction has had a coherent existence, writers and critics have debated its relevance to science. From Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, through Hugo Gernsback and John W. Campbell, Jr., to Gregory Benford and J.G. Ballard, SF's "hardness" has been both help and hindrance to popular and critical appreciation. In the last half-century, the label "hard SF" has been applied to tales in which scientific theories and technological applications get a significant share of attention. Both friends and foes of hard SF acknowledge that it bears some relationship to science, pure or applied, though they do not agree on the worth of that core. Neither camp claims scientific "hardness" as a guarantee of literary quality, and some detractors of hard SF derive the label from "hard to read," because it is badly written. Some essays from the 1983 Eaton Conference on SF and fantasy, collected in Hard Science Fiction, approach the controversy from a post-structuralist position, denying any claims of science to have a unique corner on truth. SF writers argued for scientific content and accuracy; literature professors discounted them, seeing "hardness" as mere rhetoric. Rhetorical features of science do help characterize hard SF, since it uses scientific findings and theories as measures of reality. Accurate but unobtrusive science may not define the subgenre, but neither does a rhetoric of hardness without scientific substance. In the best examples, the two interact positively, demanding reader sensitivity to both as indicators of quality. Writing and reading hard SF require a mind set that thrives on "hypotheticals," fantastic assumptions with theoretical justification in science, a seemingly paradoxical yoking of fantasies to the oxen of science and technology. If agreement fails on what constitutes hard SF, confusion reigns about who writes it. Some Eaton contributors emphasized Stanislaw Lem, C.S. Lewis, William Morris and the 17th century geologist, Thomas Burnet, none of whom qualify in my view. Hard SF has never existed in large quantities. Without some technical education, it is difficult to write, and most scientists do not write fiction. In SF's formative years, Verne, Wells, Gernsback and E.E. "Doc" Smith at least had technical training. During the "Golden Age," SF magazines published scientific puzzle stories and tales invoking the vast universe. Few writers, however, wrote hard SF before the '50s. The major body of evidence is less than 50 years old, and more people seem to be writing it now than ever before. Authors who write hard SF regularly include Poul Anderson, Greg Bear, Gregory Benford, Arthur C. Clarke, Hal Clement, Robert L. Forward, Larry Niven, Paul Preuss, Charles Sheffield, and Vernor Vinge. More occasional visitors include Brian W. Aldiss, Isaac Asimov, Ben Bova, David Brin, John Brunner, Michael Crichton, Gordon R. Dickson, Harry Harrison, Robert A. Heinlein, Frank Herbert, Fred Hoyle, Frederik Pohl, Jerry Pournelle, Carl Sagan, and George Zebrowski. Besides the classic and basically unclassifiable Olaf Stapledon, the essays following propose Stephen Baxter and John Cramer; other plausible newcomers include Roger McBride Allen, Michael Kube-McDowell, Michael McCollum, Allen Steele, and John Stith." [1] --aajacksoniv (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia's own articles are not reliable sources in the sense that that phrase is used here. Take a look at the relevant policy, which says "Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources".

Re Heinlein and Asimov, the source you quote mentions them as "occasional visitors". I doubt anyone would dispute that. Given that this article is a survey of the field, and not a detailed article on hard sf or Heinlein, that source wouldn't incline me to mention Heinlein as a hard sf writer. Even in the hard sf article it might be difficult to justify mentioning the occasional visitors, though that's more plausible. Mike Christie (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Heinlein is a hard sf writer by any reasonable measure. That he also wrote soft sf and fantasy is irrelevant -- so did Asimov and Clarke. Heinlein did the math! He worked out many of the engineering details of spaceflight long before the fact. To give just one example, he described how to build equal volume joints for spacesuits long before the reality. His "hard sf" credentials are especially on display in his books for teenagers. Many NASA scientists point to those books as the spark that inspired them to become scientists. In them, he described the planets and moons of our solar system as accurately as they were understood at the time, and explained relativity, computers, and rockets better than any fiction writer had done before. You need a reference. Here is one, from Clute and Nicholls' Encyclopedia of Science Fiction: "A strong narrative line, carefully worked-out technical detail, realistic characters and brisk dialogue are the leading virtues of this and most of his later juveniles, ..." Rick Norwood (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another identification of a Heinlein novel as hard SF:

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress[2]

The article Grading SF for Realism is really quite good , should be linked on the main article page.--aajacksoniv (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Norwood above one could select a number of Hard SF writings among Heinlein's works. I think Norwood's literature citation is adequate, I will look for others.--aajacksoniv (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that Heinlein as technical adviser on Destination Moon is a qualification. But then Clarke is not listed on the main page as being a technical adviser for 2001:A Space Odyssey, but then there were many on that film including Ordway, Lange and others ....--aajacksoniv (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the "occasional visitor" part of the long quote above. I would even say it is enough for Heinlein to be mentioned on the Hard SF page. But the overall SF page should only give very few examples, and that is easier done by selecting authors who only wrote hard SF. Likewise, identifying Heinlein simply as a "Hard SF writer" in the lead in his article ignores his many contributions to soft Sf and fantasy, hence i think the lead there would better say "SF writer" and leave the main body of text to explain the different subgenres he wrote in.

Trying to pigeonhole great writers with varied output is the bane of SF criticism and fandom, imo - anyone reading Moon is a Hard Mistress primarily for the technology instead of the social commentary / politics / characters / humour and technology is missing out on a lot, and i don't really see any benifit in defining it as Hard SF, Social SF & Military SF instead of simply (great?) science fiction. But maybe that's jsut me :-).Yobmod (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Including Heinlein as a Hard SF writer would in no way pigeonhole him, using that logic should exclude Asimov too! At least the main article does link to the Wiki entries on 'hard SF' and to Heinlein himself where he is identified as being in a large group of SF writers who have written in many different modes including hard SF. Some of them like Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke have academic degrees in engineering, chemistry and physics and other hard sciences. It is passing strange to not even mention one of SF's most famous practitioners of hard SF, early on he and Asimov were the authors who most realized Campbell's concept of melding a good story with scientific rigor.--aajacksoniv (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And each of the 3 greats are mentioned multiple times. Heinlein 4 times, Asimov 5, Clarke 3, all also included in the "innovation" section about predicting real science. Sure, they are important to SF, but that should be enough to point readers to their articles. They get more references than the inventors of SF (Welles / Verne etc)! Every repeated use of one of them as an example excludes another writer, isn't 4 times enough for any single author in an article about the whole genre?

Yobmod (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just seems Wiki ought to be self consistent even if can't be 'reliable'.(The response to my question that still puzzles me a little.)

Actually I turn to Wiki often now days as reliable source, yeah I know about the mischief lately..

and I think the espoused mechanisms can cure that.

Wells not mentioned as often! Me-thinks the whole main page needs expanding.--aajacksoniv (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Counterfactual history is not science fiction

'What if Britain had won the Revolutionary War?' is not science fiction in any way shape or form. It's counterfactual history. 68.49.36.18 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually.... that's Alternate History. There is no such genre as Counterfactual, there is a genre called Alternate History however. The Rypcord. 06:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And throughout publishing history, the vast majority of alternate history published, is still published as science fiction; and the only awards for alternate history are awarded by science fiction fans. I'm sorry if that offends you for some reason. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Contrafactual history and reasoning are terms from within history science. (It's not fiction, but the word may be borrowed if the English speaking community so decides). It's a controlled reasoning about alternatives that never occurred in real history. I'm not informed of how it is used in academic circles, and how often, but I would speculate that it may be useful for determining the logics of behavior of the people that acted in the historical situation that is studied by the historians. Said: Rursus ☻ 16:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the very term "Counterfactual" was, I'm fairly sure, coined by the sometime SF writer and editor Kingsley Amis, for use as a synonym for "Science fiction" in his alternative history novel The Alteration! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Related genres&subgenres -or WHAT IS SCIENCE FICTION?

Ok, one thing. "science fiction" is much too broad to be considered a genre. Genre, in the literary sense of the word, refers to very specific formal similarities. A mere futuristic setting or technological context is not formally specific enough to classify SF as "genre fiction". Rather, science fiction should be referred to as a literary movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.124.150 (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"...and the categories and genres used by mass markets and literary criticism differ considerably." This reminded me of reading Kurt Vonnegut's "Wampeters, Foma & Granfalloons" in which he expresses annoyance at the sci-fi label and proposes "prophetic fiction," if I remember correctly. At any rate, I think it might be worthwhile to consider that, in literary criticism, a number of people, including "sci-fi" authors themselves, beleive that sci-fi is not a legitimate "critical" category/genre! That "Science fiction" and its subgenres only have use and value as marketing labels ONLY! It seems to me, contributers to this article, like a lot of science fiction fans, spend excessive amounts of time sorting out these labels. Just stop and consider an alternative- its all just fiction! Cuvtixo (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) PS on the above "counterfictional history blahblahblah..." What's to stop a publisher from slapping a sci-fi label on it and selling it as such- answer: nothing.

Um, even if it's only a marketing label, what exactly gets the label? What might consumers reasonably expect to find inside when they buy a package so labelled? Are all genre labels (mystery, romance, thriller) similarly illegitimate? If "it's all just fiction," then why have critics spent all that time and effort devising definitions? In fact, the critical/scholarly consensus is that there is such a genre as science fiction and that it can be described. (Vonnegut's prickly relationship with the science fiction label was not exactly a matter of literary theory--more of wanting to move into a nicer neighborhood.) RLetson (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the theory of meaning we choose, at least two alternatives are around:

1. a term means what the general population choose it to mean, that is – if people use "SF"/"SciFi" to include "Fantasy" then "SF"/"SciFi" includes "Fantasy".
2. a term means what the term inventors (or cultural upbearers) choose it to mean, the same reasoning for the term inventors, or if they're not around anymore, any hint they gave about what they considered well within "SF" and what they didn't.

Since I'm a computer science educated guy, I choose the second one – using the marketing promises confuses terminology in absurdum – given enough dishonest marketeers, a word may change meaning entirely to cover anything irrelevant of no value. So "SF" as marketing boasts has no terminology meaning. If people start to use "SF" as the marketeers do, they speak rubbish and untrue. A lie is always a lie. But "SF" is an actual genre with specialized fandoms, convents etc., so it is "protected" by a developed and self-conscious culture that has a clear opinion of how to classify the stuff. Go to them and ask, I'm a lesser and sporadic fan of "SF". Said: Rursus ☻ 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, regarding Kurt Vonnegut: he is a fascinating author, but not anything near the SF main line, since I regard the SF main line to be Asimov/Clarke/Star Trek (and many others): future, science and technology that is similar to current real sci/tech, simple straight story presenting one problem, often a very speculative and philosophical one, and at the end giving the grand explanation to make everything clear. Kurt Vonnegut's visions are vast storm of extremely speculative problems and explanations – of which some are completely impossible – producing a chaotic patchwork which isn't very probable, but very striking and touching. If Kurt Vonnegut disliked the term, that was because he had his very own very deviant style. Said: Rursus ☻ 16:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to read more modern SF (post 1966 or so) and watch less television. Vonnegut is very much in the mainstream of written SF; certainly closer than certain other folks who never escaped the SF ghetto (at least in the U.S.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, all points granted. I guess what I want to suggest is that the list of "related genres and sub-genres" does not belong where it is and is probably overlong, and discussions here about what is and isn't sci-fi are a little overwrought. While the term Science Fiction and sci-fi certainly used both colloquially, in marketing, and in academia, most of these others aren't" by the way, Vonnegut gave this opinion in the 60's. He might have changed his mind afterwards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuvtixo (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are talking about two different things here: various genre conventions within sci-fi, and the subversions of same by certain sci-fi writers; and the assertion by the anonymous user who began this conversation that we should stop calling sci-fi a genre altogether and start calling it a literary movement, with, I am assuming, different genre "camps" within the movement. The problem with this assertion is that it is unreferenced, has apparently never been advanced in any notable sci-fi publication---this is, I admit, an assumption on my part, but I have never seen any such assertion in any notable publication---and would also seem to violate the definition of a literary movement. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You know Brian Aldiss on the first page of The Trillion Year Spree stated that calling science fiction a 'genre' was wrong , it should be called a 'mode'. Aldiss then said he was not going go to war over that!--aajacksoniv (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Subgenres

Incidentally, does anyone else think that this page is overwhelmed by the subgenre descriptions? They each have there own page, and a SF subgenre page, so i think they should be shortened considerably to fit with summary style. I'm thinking that only examples/authors that are firmly tied into understanding the subgenre are really needed here (eg Gibson for Cyberpunk andStar wars for Space opera, but all the other films/TV series add nothing), with further examples restricted to the subgenresown pages the This page should discuss SF overall, not just highlight the sunbgenres.Yobmod (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How much would we cut them down? They're already roughly only 2-3 sentences. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

cyberpunk is 6 sentences, and ans already covered in it's own article. I find that subgenres are generally only of interest to hard-core fans, who love debatig which subgenre a work is, and making lists of examples. But as a general entry in a general encylopedia, the subgenres are really not that interesting - i don't think they need: a subheading each, an explantion of what they are, who are (a random assortment of) major authors, and what are (a random choice of) example works from each type of media. If someone wants to know that much about cyberpunk, they should click on the link.

I know people don't like to change long standing articles, but this has been stuck as B class for ever, and no improvment can take place without changes.Yobmod (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok; well if you want to shorten them, it is fine with me, I just wasn't sure how to go out about it. They already seemed terse, but I had only given them a cursory glance. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I just removed some of the longer lists of example authors, which seemed randomly selected (eg, the authors "who write both SF and fantasy". If people read more short story collections, they would find that this includes 90% of SF authors, including the all of the big 3. So a list of lesser known authors adds nothing.

Buffy /LoTR

Television shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and films like The Lord of the Rings created new interest in all the speculative genres in films, television, computer games, and books.

I moved the above from the page, to see if it was verifiable. Buffy is a ground-breaking and influential cult programm, but i wouldn't say it "created new interest in all the speculative genres". Similarly, LotR (film) gave massive boost to fantasy films and maybe books, but what is the proof it had particular influence on science fiction? With limited space, discusion should stick to film and TV that is really SF, and has sources discussing their influence.Yobmod (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

BtVS might be credited (eventually) with part of the growth of "vampire fiction" or "supernatural villain fiction", but I don't see the series as having much of an effect on science fiction as a whole. Anne Rice probably should get as much credit for the vampire stuff, and the X-files for the supernatural. I must say, though, that having read your comment above, and then picking up Mike Shepherd's new Kris Longknife story, I did think "here, Buffy is a Space Marine, and a princess!" "Strong women" characters are going to be more frequent throughout fiction, I think, so maybe she is having an effect. htom (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Strong female characters have been increasingly present in SF since the rise of second wave feminism, decades before the show first aired. The first Worldcon "women's panel" was in 1976; things like WisCon, A Women's APA and Broad Universe have less than nothing to do with Buffy. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not being absurd. There were strong women characters in science fiction (and in science fantasy and in fantasy and in sword&sorcery and ...) long before Buffy showed up, and long before 1976. Buffy, however, got people to talking about those strong women characters, which existed but were "popularly" unnoticed. Podkayne of Mars, The Left Hand of Darkness, modesty Blaise ... the list of the ignored is long Honey West(not science fiction). htom (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I error in claiming that Kris Longknife is a Space Marine; she's in the Navy! htom (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ja, not saying is not groundbreaking in her niche, i even have sources for that. But also have sources for Xena being groundbreaking, and i don't think either has had a specific impact on SF, as opposed to on fantasy or kids TV (which certainly were behind in gender equality compared to SF). They will be mentioned in Gender in SF, which is what i'm currently working on.Yobmod (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is my experience that people who don't read SF have a bizarrely exaggerated idea of how much visual-media stuff influences the genre itself (by "the genre" I mean actual written SF), perhaps because the non-written stuff looms so large in their mindspace. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Alien space bats?

The editor who inserted this term into the Alternate History section (and who created the ASB WP page) as a common one for "Alternate histories that have been created by implausible means" is perhaps pushing the point. It strikes me as 1) peculiar to UK discussions, and primarily fannish ones at that and 2) not noteworthy enough for inclusion in a general article on SF and its major subdivisions. It is certainly not part of the general SF critical vocabulary outside newsgroups and similar informal settings, pace its appearance in the occasional review. Amateur and fan language does work its way into the standard critical-descriptive vocabulary ("space opera," for example), but I would argue that ASB hasn't gotten there yet. RLetson (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would argue differently as I have seen that writers and readers use the term a lot, which is why I created the article and added it here. However what do you mean by "peculiar to UK discussions"? Do you mean UK the country because it is used in the US a lot. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the UK because the non-Usenet/discussion-group examples I found were mostly UK sites--apparently result of not enough searching. But to other matters: One of the questions I ask about an unfamiliar term is who uses it. From the references in the ASB article, it appears to be a fannish term that is edging into reviews. It might be appropriate to mention it in a discussion of the alternate history subgenre (particularly one deals with readership and reader responses), but in a general-SF piece it seems neither significant nor widespread enough to warrant a mention. It's a bit like including in the fandom section of this article mentions of BNF, gafiating, or poctsards. (I'm showing my age here.) RLetson (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Seema to be used enough to have it's own article (at least as much as all the crappy stubs for other fan terms), and mention in the AH article. Buti agree that for a general article on SF, it is too much detail. We don't define terms like this for the other genres, that is the purpose of the inline links. But at least someone added something about a SF genre instead of an example from a single episode of a TV series :-).Yobmod (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You guys make reasoned arguments even if I do think its more widespread, though to prove that I would have to start posting a long list of non-notable blogs, reviews, and discussion boards. You are probably right though that in the end it goes better with the alternate history article than the sci-fi page. I have removed it. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite a reasonable arrangement--one of the things WP is good for is documenting emergent or niche terminology and pop-culture materials (though with a history that goes back a decade, ASB apparently isn't all that new), but it's best to let items find an appropriate level or spot in the Wiki environment. Without ZHS's ASB entry, I would not have been aware of the notion (outside Ken MacLeod's rather different use of the term), and I'm glad that an explanation and historical account is available. RLetson (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Claim in 'Definitions' section now disproved

Re: "Forrest J. Ackerman publicly used the term "sci-fi" at UCLA in 1954,[13] though Robert A. Heinlein had used it in private correspondence six years earlier.[14]"

Heinlein's supposed use of "sci-fi" has recently (December-January 2008-9) been shown - in Mike Glyer's fanzine File 770 - to be a misprint in a published version of the correspondence in question: see http://file770.com/?p=710 where the claim is discussed and the truth unearthed by commenters.

Briefly, this use of "sci fi" appeared in Grumbles from the Grave, a posthumous collection of some of Heinlein's correspondence, in a letter "October 1, 1949: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Blassingame" found on p110 of a mass-market paperback edition [p114 of the UK pbk I myself own], as documented by File 770 commenter Eric Schultheis.

However, commenter Christopher Kovacs has obtained a pdf of the original letter, and found that Heinlein had actually typed "sci-fic" (a contraction then widespread in professional and fan SF circles). Kovacs and others provide relevant links to the material involved.

File 770 is well known in SF circles and this discussion has been linked to by Dave Langford's Ansible, an SF Journal of Record, but I feel unable to suggest what would be considered Wikipedia-appropriate references, since research and publication is virtually ongoing - Langford himself has informed the OED of the matter. I'm also unsure whether in the context of this article, the mistaken attribution and real story warrants mention, or whether the Heinlein "ghost-usage" should simply be ignored. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I cut it. I've downloaded the image of the relevant page, and it is certainly "sci-fic"; there's no need for the article to mention the usage just to dismiss it. Anyone can download that page for $2, so it's verifiable. Mike Christie (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Mike. Hopefully this discussion record will suffice to head off well-meaning re-discoverers of the misprint. Terry Hunt aka87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hard SF, Clarke, Lunar Dust

The deep lunar dust theory was due to astrophysicist Thomas Gold long before Clarke wrote A Fall of Moondust (1961), Clarke did not make that prediction. --aajacksoniv (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive pass

I've archived a bunch of stuff since the page was getting long; I tried to leave anything with a note on it less than three or four months old. If I accidentally archived anything that shouldn't have been moved, please just bring it back. I also took out the dated talk page archive headers as the {{talkheader}} template already has archive links automatically. Mike Christie (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hard SF: Author-scientist roll call

Several authors listed as having "distinguished themselves as working scientists" have not actually done so, as far as I can tell. I noticed this issue when I saw Neal Asher's name at the beginning of the list, and to my knowledge he has never been a "working scientist." Nor has Adam Roberts, for that matter, and I'm doubtful of Peter F. Hamilton's inclusion in the list.

The citation given at the end of the list certainly doesn't reference these three authors, and a bit of googling hasn't turned up any evidence for their inclusion in this list. It would seem that Asher, Roberts, and Hamilton should be removed from the list, but I figured I'd post something here for discussion first as I'm not experienced in the dos and don'ts of editing here.

Some hard SF authors have distinguished themselves as working scientists, including Neal Asher, Adam Roberts, Peter F. Hamilton, Alastair Reynolds, Robert Forward, Gregory Benford, Charles Sheffield, Isaac Asimov, and Geoffrey A. Landis,[48]

Scott McG (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The list is almost entirely pointless, and exists only because some editors want there favourite authors listed. The point of the paragraph is informative, but how does a list of not-so-famous authors who happen to have degrees in a science help the understanding of SF overall? A few examples should be included at most (2 or 3). So we should just decide which are most famous for being working scientists, preferably those whose science reseach has been noted for influencing their works specifically (Eg a famous computer scientist who writes about SF computing, like V. Vinge). If people disagree, then a subarticle can be made: "Scientists writers of science fiction". YobMod 08:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a useful point to be made about writers who have also been "working scientists," but the list as it stands is, as already indicated, full of errors, and one source cited (the Sigma website) is contaminated with what looks like resume padding. (Larry Niven's doctorate, for example, is honorary--and a D.Litt at that.) The Astronomy Education Review page looks more reliable, though even that list is of "Science Fiction Authors With Science Degrees" rather than "working scientists." The last six names here are all of people who have worked as scientists (though Asimov was primarily a classroom teacher). This stuff is not that hard to research and confirm, but I'd think a half-dozen representative writers would do--otherwise we get list-bloat. And there will be the wrangles about who deserves to be a representative, which is silly but inevitable. A somewhat broader point might be to indicate the range of science/math/computer-related backgrounds to be found among SF writers--teachers, engineers, science journalists--though the sociology of the field might be beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article. RLetson (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Scientifiction"

The alternate term "scientifiction" should be mentioned in this article. Badagnani (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Scientifiction" is of interest as one of the early names for the genre, but it has not been in common use for some decades. It might rate a passing mention (say, in para. 4 of the History section), but not anything more. RLetson (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good science

Whatever the definition may be, I think what's most important is that a clear delineation between what is scientifically possible and what is pure fantasy needs to be made. The historic "Scientist Authors" used the medium of their literature to inspire a greater appreciation for science by grounding their work in what (at the time) was realistically and scientifically possible. How the literature impacts the public should be the first priority. Does it inform, or confuse ? Too many people without substantive education in science read or watch what is clearly "science fantasy" and believe it to be scientifically possible. The converse is also true, and both of these dynamics are counter-productive to human development. There needs to be a way to define what literature is "good science" and what is the equivalent of a mexican soap-opera. If the edges are a little fuzzy, so what ? Better to get most literature on one side of the line or the other, and live with the inaccuracies, rather than mish-mash the terms "science fiction" and "science fantasy" such that both are meaningless, and constructive literature appears to the uneducated exactly the same literature focused on Dungeons & Dragons "magic". (I don't know how to sign my post, sorry.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.148.74.228 (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for adding external link: Sci-Fi-Online

An IP editor recently added the following link. To prevent the page from again becoming a linkfarm, I have brought the link here for the community to discuss whether it meets our WP:EL guidelines, and if so if it should replace one of the current links. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Sci-fi-online - dedicated to modern sci-fi shows and movies

discussion

• No - adds nothing to our understanding of the subject matter; just another dose of recentism, especially since this is not the article about science fiction films or science fiction television. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

possible unreliable source used on this page

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/aclarke.htm

The above website appears to not meet the requirements of being a reliable source since it is self published. There is a discussion [here]. There is also a discussion at the [plagiarism talk page] about how to handle this issue.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed an amateur site and lacking standard documentation beyond a "further reading" list that presumably includes its sources. I wouldn't accept it as a source in a term paper aimed at getting the writer as close as possible to most reliable sources.

And speaking on a related matter, I question the appropriateness of the "How Science Fiction Found Religion" piece in the External Links list. It's an op-ed essay on the website of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. It also focuses almost entirely on films, and recent ones at that. It's not exactly disinterested scholarship--nor, for that matter, very interesting. RLetson (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In the intro

Science fiction is largely based on writing entertainingly and rationally about alternate possibilities[2] in settings that are contrary to known reality. Either the footnote belongs at the end of the sentence or the last clause needs to be justified. I doubt you can find any professional s-f writer who used that criteria as a working definition of the genre. Nitpyck (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it's a fair summary of the situations unfolded in the next paragraph of the lede, which unfolds the main sorts of "setting that are contrary to known reality" which SF encompasses. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But it implies most strongly that stories set in: an historical past that does not contradict known facts of history or the archeological record or on other worlds, could not be science fiction. And this is not correct; Tim Powers is an example of science fiction set in real world matching real history and archeological record. Stories from the 40's and 50's based on other planets, matching all know facts about those planets, are common. As written this is too limiting. Again if there is a reliable source that places those limits ok but I'd expect it to be written that way: Leo X says science fiction is always set outside and beyond the real world as we know it. And later in that paragraph- is there not a lot of Hard s-f that deals with extrapolation from science and technology as it currently exists? You know maybe changing the word largely to a less inclusive modifier would fix the problem? Nitpyck (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Defining sf is tricky, certainly, but this is cited to del Rey, and the list of examples in the article does explicitly include alternate history, so I think it's OK. Mike Christie (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Then move the footnote to the end of the sentence. But I believe the cite is to the statement writing rationally about alternate possibilities and not about the rest of that statement. Note that the most commercially successful writer for the last 30 years of the 20th century according to Disch's The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of put his stories in a "plausible present". Maybe change it fromScience fiction is largely based... to Less successful science fiction is largely based...Nitpyck (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sci Fi

I'm not against having a re-direct, but some-where there shouldbe a discussion of the term "sci fi," since it is used by some forscince fiction and by others as a particular kind of science fiction. Kdammers (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry: I used a search on this term and came up blank, but I didn't check for the hyphenated version, which is present and fully covers my concerns.Kdammers (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Slan miscategorised?

In the Superhuman section it says: "result of intentional augmentation such as in A.E. Van Vogt's novel Slan".

It's many years since I read this, but although the Slan are generally believed to be the result of modification by Samuel Lann, don't they eventually turn out to be the result of natural mutation?

Sorry if I'm misremembering. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Head paragraph

It currently looks stupid to have a fairly bald definition with bold claims in the lead paragraph of the article, immediately followed by the "definitions" section where it's claimed that the genre is hard to define. The genre IS hard to define and the paragraph should reflect that, leading into the definitions section, rather than taking some kind of stand. "Differs from fantasy" is such a stand, for instance--it presumes the narrow definition of "Fantasy." In the broad sense of the word, science fiction is a SUBSET of fantasy, as are all escapist fictions. This leads into the argument over what constitutes memetic fiction generally, and ... CAN OF WORMS. It would be best to simply establish the genre as extremely nebulous right from the word go, rather than allow catering to any particular viewpoint.75.64.204.99 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken link in footnote 32

correct link should be http://www.nvcc.edu/home/ataormina/beyond/ Tjfloyddc 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjfloyddc (talk • contribs)

I see it. I think the right link is now actually Science Fiction Chronology but I'm not 100% clear. It seems the author has re-arranged her site greatly to exclude specific SF "History" and include "Chronology" instead. Hopefully, we can check on it some more to make sure that the cite gets updated properly. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Religious/Spritiual" "science" fiction

Oxymoron is the word that springs to mind on this. Further the entry on it seems more to be a justification than an explanation or a definition on just what it's supposed to be. I recommend removing it altogether unless someone can 1) define it in a sense that is not contradictory to the core of science fiction (i.e. fiction that in some way has science at the center of the story -- stories which abuse science to further a religious cause does not have science at it's core) 2) provide good examples of either authors or works that fall into the genre and 3) explain why this is not an entirely separate genre (which it sound to me like it is) FrederikHertzum (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)