Jump to content

Talk:Science fiction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Fwanksta (talk | contribs) at 06:57, 4 March 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:FAOL

History: earliest works

Some book sources (links to sections with relevant quotes) for the "citation needed" tag in the History section:

Hope this helps. -Miskaton (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding Vinge and the singularity:

Again, hope that helps. -Miskaton (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soft and social SF citations

We might consider including some thoughts from A companion to science fiction By David Seed in this section, not just to resolve the citation needed tag, but also because I think it's a perspective that's not adequately aired here. -Miskaton (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery fiction citation

If anyone's feeling really ambitious about transcribing citation info, there's a great biblo. entry in American studies: an annotated bibliography, Volume 2 By Jack Salzman that I found for the Mystery fiction section. -Miskaton (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"usually set in the future"

I believe this phrase should be removed from the lead sentence as a great deal of science fiction is set in the present or even the past.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'usually' doesn't preclude that SF is sometimes set in the near present or past. However, the majority is set in the future. Is that a contentious statement? In any case, that's what the reliable sources state, so it should be included. LK (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I share the same concerns with the OP and I would like to see the sources in question. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Click the links in the references following the first sentence of the article. LK (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question and that's not how we use references. Per verification, you should be able to just give me a source, quote, and link right here. The use of multiple refs in the lead supporting that statement is a huge red flag. The OP is clearly on to something. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly point out in which policy or guideline it says that providing several reliable sources to back up a disputed statement is "a huge red flag". Since you apparently can't read though the references on the main page, here the ones that include the word 'future' in their description of SF:
[1], [2], [3] Most of the other references also imply that SF is set in the future by using terms such as 'discoveries', 'developments', 'advanced technology', 'space travel'.
I'm not emotionally attached to the term 'future', as far as I'm concerned, it's a purely descriptive term, since if you browse through the SF section of any bookshop, library or video shop, you'll find that most SF is set in the future. It completely escapes me why anyone would want to deny this. However, I would oppose the removal of a sourced description, merely on the basis of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. LK (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More than anything else, common sense is required to edit Wikipedia. The careful use of sources, the understanding of how to write lead sections (citations aren't needed in the lead, please see WP:LEAD), the need to verify sources and passages from those sources on the talk page without having to scroll through text (this is the burden of the editor making the claims, please review WP:V), are all part of the process. Wikipedia:When_to_cite is also helpful here. Wikipedia:Citation overkill has more to say on this subject as well; Telling signs are when an "editor desperately shores up his point with extra citations, in the hope that his opponents will accept there are reliable sources for his edit." This appears to be the case here. The dictionary, Encarta, and writing-world.com, are not what I would consider good sources for the purposes of this article. And making the claim that science fiction is "usually set in the future" in the very first sentence is a gross (and false) simplification of a complex and multifaceted genre. I'm getting the strong sense that you haven't really looked into this subject very closely, because an historical overview of the use of the term to define the genre shows that your definition isn't true. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that I lack 'common sense'? I would suggest to you that if you want to remove something that is i) well sourced, and ii) blindingly obvious, you should start a RfC on the issue and see if anyone else agrees with you on this issue. As for not incorporating references in the lead, I'm happy to move it to the body, as long as you don't then use this as an excuse to remove the statement. Also, congratulations on your arcane reasoning about how sources should be used on Wikipedia to show that plentiful reliable sources that back up a statement somehow makes it suspect. LK (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting that common sense requires one to think about the problem at hand, and to work on solving it. Two editors have told you that there is a problem. Your response so far has not addressed it, but instead, you made a silly request for policies and guidelines that say the use of multiple sources in the lead section is a bad thing. You aren't thinking this through. Tell you what, there's a lot of scholarly books and journal articles on this subject. Taking just 10 seconds to search on Google books, I was able to disprove your poorly sourced assertion. Come back here when you've done the necessary research. There is nothing "well sourced" about your statement. Repeating poorly sourced stereotypes is not a good thing. All one has to do is look at the history of the genre, and how the term came to be used in the first place to see that this assertion doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lead. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any reasoned suggestions on how the text should be changed, I'm all ears. BTW, I'm sure that WP:RS/N will agree with me that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the Cambridge Dictionary, and MS Encarta are perfectly reliable sources for this statement. LK (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tertiary sources are not the best reliable sources for this article, and you still aren't "getting it". If you can't be bothered to do your homework, then I suggest you shouldn't be editing this article. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you what I 'get'. There is a common definition from multiple dictionaries and encyclopedias of what SF is. But for some SF aficionados it somehow 'degrades' SF that a definition can be given, so they cling to this precious affectation that 'oh, SF is so different, so special, you just can't name it'. As far as I'm concerned, that's just an 'in-universe' belief. Let's just stick to Wikipedia policies and practices. See WP:MOSBEGIN where it says, "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic" and "The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?""

In many articles, If contentious, such sentences are often referenced to dictionary definitions; if dictionary definitions are good enough for other articles, they're good enough for SF. Reliable tertiary sources are perfectly appropriate for such uses, as tertiary sources are themselves trying to do exactly the same thing, i.e. come up with a reasonable definition for a term. If you object, let's take it to WP:RS/N and ask if dictionary definitions are appropriate sources to use to source the definition of a term, or alternatively, kindly point out some reliable secondary sources to use. Perusing the list of sources, I don't notice any peer-reviewed academic articles on the list. LK (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't write lead sections based on dictionaries and tertiary sources. We write them based on summaries of the most significant aspects of our topic as covered in the article, sourced to the best secondary sources we can find. There seems to be a basic lack of understanding as to what is required here, but most troubling is your refusal to even consult the most definitive sources on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, can you provide a pointer/link for one or more of the sources which disprove that SF is usually placed in the future? CRETOG8(t/c) 14:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments. First, it might be useful to look at Definitions of science fiction, which lists many different definitions. Heinlein's mentions the future, but many don't, though there are often other words which could be treated as proxies for "future", such as "predict". Second, here are some quotes from the Stableford/Clute/Nicholls article on "Definitions of SF", from the 1992 edition of the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia -- about as definitive a source for this debate as exists. "Oddly enough, the most obvious element in the magazine sf that is the initial focus of nearly all of these earlier definitions is not much mentioned in them: the overwhelming majority of the sf of this period -- especially in the USA -- was set in the future ... writers like E.E. "Doc" Smith ... freed the future for "itself", and effect of this new freedom was, in literary terms, explosive. From this the characteristic (and addictive) flavour of US sf derives: its relaxed embracing of scale and technology, its narrative fluency, and, perhaps, its secret impatience with reason." The article goes on to talk about later definitions, but the passing comment that the "overwhelming majority" of sf was set in the future, plus the implication that it is remarkable this was not mentioned, seems enough to me to justify a mention in the lead. It is still the case that much sf -- I'd guess the majority, but I don't know -- is set in the future. I'd say "usually" is a reasonable word to use, though I'd also be OK with "often". In either case the Nicholls could be used to cite this if necessary, though I don't think a citation is necessary in the lead -- it should be in the body. Mike Christie (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike raises some good points. LK, you have to realize that you are tinkering with what is probably the most heavily-discussed topic in the history of the science fiction genre, haggled over for decades by a series of knowledgeable, articulate and intelligent professionals and gifted aficionados: one which has its own article for very good reasons. To overturn nuanced phrasing based on reasoning drawn from amateur definitions in tertiary sources like Encarta and free onine dictionaries shows an appalling ignorance of the field. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orange Mike, did you meant to address LK in your comment? I think LK is the one supporting the mention of the future, though I agree the sources LK cites are not specialized. Mike Christie (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did; that's why I began the second sentence with, "LK,...". --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serious research will show that the notion that there is a brief, simple, accurate description of "Science Fiction" in one sentence is rarely possible. Quick and wrong, there are many of those. "Fiction of other times and places that does not unreasonably violate the currently known laws of science" is the smallest I know, and can't provide a citation for (John Campbell?) htom (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The insertion of the future-setting parameter, accompanied by a fistful of dictionary definitions, set off alarms for me as well. "Usually" might be a statistically-justifiable modifier (though at what threshold? 51%? 66%?), but as the comments above suggests, including "usually set in the future" in a single-sentence definition exaggerates the significance of that element. And dictionary definitions fail to reflect the nuances, taxonomic rigor, and historical background that literary studies supply. (In fact, a general-purpose dictionary reflects not taxonomy but usage.) A brief definition needs to identify the essential elements, and future setting is not one of them, any more than, say space travel is. RLetson (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been much talk about the inappropriateness of using non-specialized sources. However, they are currently the best sources offered in the article lead. If someone can bring in highly respected reliable specialized sources (e.g. peer reviewed academic work), I'ld be more than happy to see it used to craft a definition in lead. In the meantime the manual of style requires that a reasonably accurate description of science fiction be given in the first sentence (or at least the first paragraph). A statement such as 'science fiction is a type of fiction', or 'science fiction is fiction that is not easily defined' is not acceptable when IMO reasonable, good definitions are offered by reliable sources. I would also note that WP:PSTS does not restrict the use of tertiary sources, and in fact notes that they are useful for "providing broad summaries of topics".
If the only point of contention is the blurb about 'usually set in the future', feel free to remove it if it will settle this argument. That's fine with me. What I would find objectionable is a reversion to a lead sentence that says 'science fiction is a type of fiction'. However, there is no problem with something in the lead about how science fiction is hard to definitively describe, and the history of the discussion over this issue. In fact, the MOS requires that such a summary be offered in the lead since the discussion of this issue forms quite a large part of the article. --LK (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed 'usually set in the future' from the lead, as it is contentious, and currently under discussion. LK (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK by me. Science fiction set in the past is often called "alternative history". Someone else, who I also can't remember, said something like "stories of people in worlds or cultures that are a little different than ours, and what that means to those people." (People in the nominal sense, not always humankind.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs)

Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology.

I doubt this is even close to accurate. Is Star Wars a science fiction story/film? It does not deal with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology, and it takes place in the past. I could go on. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the question of whether Star Wars is science fiction (I feel that Lucas is too obviously scientifically illiterate for the series to aspire to anything more than SF-like fantasy status), perhaps we might offer a genre of fiction shaped by imagined differences in science or technology, either in the future or in an imaginary past. But as the article itself makes clear, you'll never get a single definition that satisfies everyone; and those offered by people ignorant of the field (I don't mean you, Virid) are the least useful. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"as a literary genre" section

Don't know why I didn't notice this long ago, but the "Science Fiction as a literary genre" section is getting wonky. I haven't managed to track it back to its origins, but seems to have been tendentious from the start, an excuse to inject one of Orson Scott Card's anti-literary-culture rants. Now it has attracted a contrary or refining section, and neither passage is a good match for the heading, which should be something more like "Science fiction as serious literature." (SF "as" a literary genre would be a discussion of how it fits into our understanding of genres, how it is distinct from neighboring genres, and so on.) This article does not seem to me to be the place for an argument over how "literary" SF is, particularly one that starts with Card's brand of undergraduate defensiveness. I'd say, relabel this and rework it, or work some of the material into the "Definitions" section, or just cut it. RLetson (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than cut it I have extended the section which maybe connects more to the opening quote from OSC and the section hangs together a bit better?Carey McCarthy (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent job, Carey. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Carey McCarthy (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the work that has already been done, but the topic is more controversial than the discussion on that page makes it appear. Card's statements and thinking have engendered quite a volatile reaction among other respected writers/critics in the genre, but in this section Card's view is presented as if it were the consensus starting point for a discussion of science fiction as literature, rather than the view of a writer who seeks to establish his particular approach as the norm. Perhaps Card's point of view could be moved further down in the paragraph? It is certainly important to note it, as it is at the heart of one of several heated controversies about science fiction's place in literature. However, I believe that Card's position in the debate is a fairly radical one that that holds that science fiction is somehow separate from literature and must be judged only on the terms that he defines. I don't think it's appropriate that his words open the discussion of science fiction as literature, since he in fact negates that position. Furfish (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although in my angrier moments I agree with Card's attitude towards the brahmans of obscurity and preciosity, I nonetheless moved Card down a bit, since LeGuin and Shippey's dialogue is more substantive and less polemical, and deserves prioritization. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Orange Mike. That puts Card's statements in the context of the larger argument. May I respectfully suggest one more change? I think the sentence "Many writers and critics, however, confuse clarity of language with lack of artistic merit" is not an objective statement of fact. (Or, the the very least, it lacks a citation.<g>) It would be more accurate to rephrase as "Card argues that many writers and critics," etc. Furfish (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks, Mike! Furfish (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still recommend a re-titling of the section, since the topic would seem to be the status of SF as literature or, to put it a better way, the literary status of SF. RLetson (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have no problem with new title to reflect the new content. Ursula Le Guin in a 2009 essay (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/29/margaret-atwood-year-of-flood) replying to Margaret Atwood's contention that her (M A's)work is not SF says:

To my mind, The Handmaid's Tale, Oryx and Crake and now The Year of the Flood all

exemplify one of the things science fiction does, which is to extrapolate imaginatively from current trends and events to a near-future that's half prediction, half satire. But Margaret Atwood doesn't want any of her books to be called science fiction. In her recent, brilliant essay collection,Moving Targets, she says that everything that happens in her novels is possible and may even have already happened, so they can't be science fiction, which is "fiction in which things happen that are not possible today". This arbitrarily restrictive definition seems designed to protect her novels from being relegated to a genre still shunned by hidebound readers, reviewers and prize-awarders.

She doesn't want the literary bigots to shove her into the literary ghetto.

I agree with RLetson that this is probably best referenced in the 'definition of SF' section since Le G. herself makes the connection. ? Carey McCarthy (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[rant]
My 2 ¢ents...
I've seen the subsection title change: "Science fiction as serious literature". Seriously? ;-) IMHO, the new title doesn't help at all, because it looks like a teenage feud. How about something along the lines of... "Science fiction literature vs. Mainstream literature (debate)" or "Genre fiction vs. Literary fiction (debate)"; "debate" is optional, of course, but points out that this is an actual on-going feud, not an approval rating.
And I believe that in this debate [a.k.a. acceptance vs. inclusion] it is not the SF writers' job to prove themselves worthy of being part of/accepted by the so-called "mainstream literature", but the opposition writers/critics' burden (who need to overcome their obsolete preconceptions that SF is a geek/kiddie/"social misfit" genre) to accept SF literature as, well... literature, because there is no such thing as "mainstream literature". ;) And besides, part of SF has already been accepted as "mainstream", like it or not.
Those who deny SF's rights as "real"/"serious" literature do it because they don't understand it, because they claim it is either "too wild" or "too far out-there", or because they blame SF writers for lack of literary values.
Unfortunately, even today (at the dawn of the 21st century), people still tend to fear and deny what they don't understand, instead of learning about and accepting it.
[/rant]
MDGx☹☺ 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my contribution to the definitions of science fiction deleted. Is this not *open* encyclopedia? I didn't delete anything

If you look at the edit summary of the deletion you will see the word 'unsourced', which means that the editor in question thinks that you should have quoted some reliable source for the information which you added. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a place to add your own thoughts (original research); instead it is a place to use the works of others, preferably from a reliable source, to form a compedium of accepted knowlege.

If you think that you might want to continue editing and improving Wikipedia then you should consider registering as an editor, possibly under some pseudonym. This makes it easier for you to build up a reputation as a good editor, and also gives you access to a few other features.

One final point: when you write something on a 'discussion' page, it is considered good manners to sign your post by finishing with four tildes. This automatically adds your name or internet address and the date and time. Murray Langton (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dune labelled as a space opera

I don't think this is right. It doesn't even seem to fit the definition given just prior -- the emphasis is on all those themes listed, not just action. Also, there's tremendous characterization. I've therefore removed it. Any thoughts?

The quote, for reference:

"Space opera is adventure science fiction set in outer space or on distant planets, where the emphasis is on action rather than either science or characterization. The conflict is heroic, and typically on a large scale. The best-selling science fiction book of all time[63] (with 12 million copies) is a space opera: Frank Herbert's Dune (1966), which sprawls over thousands of years, a multitude of planets in and beyond an Imperium, and themes as diverse as environmentalism and ecology, empires, religion and jihad, gender issues, and heroism."

-The Fwanksta (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Science_fiction&oldid=417042952"