Talk:Mundane science fiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I added and changed a few words to emphasize the speculative nature of some of these statements.

Noclevername 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Manifesto[edit]

Anyone got a working like to a mirror of the original manifesto? Artw 04:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This forum post appears to have a partial copy, but I don't actually know. --DocumentN (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another non-notable neologism?[edit]

As far as I can tell, "mundane science fiction" is not a standard term but the invention of Geoff Ryman and some friends with a particular literary/philosophical/political take on SF, and it lives mainly on blogs and in a couple of interviews with Ryman. Any notability the term might possess comes from this attempt to start a movement (not unlike the promotion of cyberpunk by Bruce Sterling & company a couple decades ago). But a genre it isn't and as far as I can tell, as a movement it's stalled and all but invisible outside a small circle of enthusiasts. The "manifesto" might rate a mention somewhere, but I doubt that it's worth a whole article. RLetson 05:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And one could hardly claim that it was "founded" by Geoff Ryman. There has always been sf that takes place on Earth, with absolutely no space travel, or aliens, or the like. From the sound of it, a lot of hard sf and cyberpunk could fall under this definition - like Bruce Sterling or Greg Bear. Should this article be merged with Ryman's page?Pooneil 19:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Mundane SF clearly has an existance independant from Ryman, others such as Charles Stross have used the term, so I'd be against any merge Artw 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
I think there will always be people pedantic enough to try to put SF in a box like this... it may go by different names, but there are always folks trying to take warp travel, time travel, AI, nanotech, and psychic powers out of the SF genre. This is as good a label as any. Get rid of this article, and it'll just pop up again with a different name but basically the same content. -- TomXP411[Talk] 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase, "Show me da sources." I have heard Ryman talk about the idea, and I don't doubt that it comes up in private discussions or on blogs--I used it myself, in an after-dinner conversation about the Ryman speech I heard. But that's not the same thing as being an established term in general use in commentary, reviews, criticism, journalism, and scholarship. Absent sources that show this as a living term outside a small circle, I'd say it belongs in whatever its actual context is--most likely an article on Geoff Ryman. RLetson 06:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See the guidelines for the upcoming "Mundane" issue of Interzone at [1]. Other references include an interview with Ryman at Locus and a review (of stuff unrelated to Ryman) at Strange Horizons. --Zeborah 10:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
That assumes that a single issue of Interzone is "notable."Mzmadmike (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It assumes that an issue of Interzone is a reliable source that is independent of the subject "Mundane science fiction". Sources do not themselves need to be notable in order to indicate that the topic in question is notable. (Interzone happens to be notable too; no, individual issues aren't notable, but individual issues of the NY Times aren't notable either -- but articles in them can still be used to show that some other topic is notable.) --Zeborah (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Central ideas" makes no positive statements[edit]

At the moment, the list of "Central ideas" is exclusively negative -- it states what this "sub genre" is not, what things found in other science fiction that it avoids using. However, nowhere in the article does it state what mundane SF is in itself, what themes or tropes it does deal with, what kinds of stories it does focus on.

Since I haven't read any mundane SF, I cannot add to the article, but this is a serious defect and a major lack in the article as it stands now.Glaurung quena 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it IS primarily a list of don'ts - thing Dogme 95 but for SF Literature. Artw 18:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added in something to fix this.--Alabamaboy 17:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Good edit. Artw 17:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I came in here to say, too. How is "mundane SF" SF at all? It sounds like straight fiction to me. And very pragmatic fiction at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.73.116 (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed bullet points[edit]

I rewrote the list of beliefs as prose and removed some redundant beliefs, such as "interstellar travel is unlikely," which was listed several times. Macrowriter (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Somehow it seems a little more space-travel centric than the original - I might have a quick go at it tonight. Artw (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Addded a little to the article, as well as a link to the original manifesto. One thing I noticed is that the portion of this article in bullets was actually a quote from the manifesto, which we've now rewritten as prose - possibly we should do a copy edit on that and replace any portions of direct quote left in there with a paraphrased version. Alternately we could chop those paragraphs back and start again. Artw (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

BRD: It's not Mundane science fiction with a capital M[edit]

There's been some repeated edits to change "mundane" to "Mundane"; I don't know why. In English, we capitalize proper nouns and the start of sentences, and that's about it. If "mundane science fiction" was a proper noun, which it is not, then it would be "Mundane Science Fiction" anyway. I'm putting it back to "m". Per WP:BRD, please comment here rather than repeat this change. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Per the sources it's capitalized. Think SF that follows the posits of the Mundane Manifesto rather than SF that is mundane. Artw (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Possibly we need to rewrite or restructure a little to make this clearer. Artw (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
(Note I said comment here rather than repeat the change, per WP:EW. This issue hasn't reached consensus.)
I think MOS trumps source use. Many fads and movements have supporters that like to puff the importance of their view with Capital Letters. It's still not English grammar, nor MOS, until it's recognized as a proper noun. (Sources influence article titles, but that's not the issue here.)
--A D Monroe III (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Note that if we want to quote the source, we may actually do so: when using the capital M, put it in quotes, such as "Mundane science fiction". This shows WP is using the phrase as others use it (the sources), not just employing poor grammar. We probably shouldn't do that for all uses, tho. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Rethinking: after encountering similar issues elsewhere, I come to realize that WP:MOSCAPS can be said to support the capital "M": words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia. Now, "Mundane science fiction" is not used as a proper noun, since only the "M" is capitalized, but I'm no longer sure that matters. The only point of "proper noun" in MOS is its capitalization; the only significant point is about following the sources' use. So, reviewing the sources here... I'm even more confused. Many capitalize the "M", but some don't, and some capitalize all three words (as if was a proper noun). Sigh. So, I'm just leaving the article as is. But if someone else wants to sort this out and "fix" in whatever manner, that's okay by me. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)