Talk:New Wave (science fiction)

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


Order[edit]

Guys, you can debate about what's important and what isn't later, but the article is just a big mess, those quotes are insane. Is never late to learn how to paraphrase --chilean anon

Quotes[edit]

Yo dawg I heard you like quotes. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, does it need this many in order to fully explain the phenomenon of New Wave science fiction? Does it even do that, with all these quotes? What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there does seem to be a lot, but this is a particular ‘style’ which I think is quite common. You ask: “Does it fully explain the phenomenon of New Wave science fiction?” Probably not. Whole books and chapters of books from which I quoted have attempted this, I only intended to describe the New Wave and offer a ‘neutral point of view’ on it. Is there a part of the phenomenon you think I have neglected or have left out? I could have written an essay on the subject and paraphrased a lot of what I quoted, but inevitably ‘original research’ and my opinions would emerge. My intention was to write an encyclopedia entry and not an essay that offered ‘my full explanation’ of the phenomenon. This was, I think, my first lengthy contribution to WP – maybe it needs a rewrite! Any suggestions for this? I used narrative text to link the quotations as best I could, but this is difficult to achieve in all cases; do you know if my presentation style breaks or bends any WP recommended format/style? (If so grateful for links).Carey McCarthy (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article really has too many quotes, at a point to which it becomes impossible to read the remaining text in a continuous manner and get an idea on the topic. --MathsPoetry (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carel, your presentation style is awful, and the article isn't fit for purpose. It's incomprehensible. As if someone dropped a mass of quotes onto the page, stood back, and said "there you go - sort it out". In which context is it supposed to work? As a general-purpose editorial article it's impossible to parse; as an encyclopaedia entry it's unprocessed; as a university dissertation it reads like a set of research notes. You're supposed to take those quotes and the information they contain and use them as a foundation, not just dump them on the page and expect other people to form them into a building.

The best course of action would be to sweep the whole lot away and rewrite it from scratch. Begin by describing the state of sci-fi immediately pre-New Wave; then broadly describe the New Wave, its key works, its influence, awards etc, and its eventual dissipation as its themes became mainstream. Of course no-one's going to do this because no-one wants to take responsibility for destroying Carey McCarthy's hard but misguided work. No-one has the guts. Even though it's necessary. 91.125.97.4 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to remain civil. That's all good advice, if aggressively delivered. Euchrid (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes, shortening some quotes and working them into the text more. There's more that I want to do, but I'm going to work slowly to give people time to discuss or make their own changes.Euchrid (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further condensing has been done. My plan, in case anyone is reading this, is to condense what's currently in the article, as the enormous block quotes have bloated it completely out of control. Once the information actually in the article is in a managable form the article itself will likely be half of its current size; at that point I want to go back through and add more. The result should be an article the same length as what is presently there, but twice as useful and informative.Euchrid (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The shore isn't so deserted as it may seem, you may be willing to check the statistics. Do you have any plans for making neighbours to that related lonely link related, Feminist science fiction ? --Askedonty (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Euchrid, I'm not convinced at all that Gold's work was to lead inevitably to the New Wave. --Askedonty (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nor am I, but that's what the source says. Tracing the origins of any genre are difficult, and there isn't a great deal written on the New Wave. It would be great if more sources were added, though. In truth I've gotten a bit distracted from this article recently.Euchrid (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"That's all good advice, if aggressively delivered" - I wrote that. I have no idea why there's an IP address. It's not aggressively delivered - it's passionately delivered. I came here because I want to know about the sci-fi I read when I was young; the article is awful and doesn't even explain the concept in the simplest terms. It's dreadful. There's no sin in pointing out genuine awfulness. It deserves to be kicked in the face, knocked to the ground, and then continually kicked in the torso until its liver ruptures and blood comes out of its mouth and it dies. I can't do it because I wasn't even alive at the time. Who will? Not any of the people above, that's for sure. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashley Pomeroy; we did that, but you didn't see, because many of our powers are in fluids. New-wave superficially, and perhaps artificially differed from other sci-fi that it was not exposed to being called a subgenre. Cyberpunk may perhaps be the outcome of that. The real thing is better described by its authors themselves (google does not let me access introduction page 13 directly, sorry) --Askedonty (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

The article says it was Judith Merril who coined the name, but she says she never used it (reference given). Since I have no copy of january 1966 magazine of F&SF, I have left these contradictory pieces of information together. --MathsPoetry (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence should be reformulated. Wolfe does certainly not say that Merril coined the name ( ISBN 0814208924 for only one short example ), he must be stating that it is because of what Merril wrote that new wave became associated to SF; which gave rise to the furor of many authors who did not want to be recategorized by critics on an outer edge of SF. Merril's "defense" by contrast, relies on the fact that she didn't use the word herself. --Askedonty (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article says "... who used the term to refer to ...", as if she used the "New Wave" term, which she denies. That should definitely be reformulated. --MathsPoetry (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Wave science fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major Rewrite[edit]

Hi! I just participated in a major rewrite of Mundane Science Fiction. I will now be rewriting New Wave. This major rewrite will take approximately one week and will be structured as follows: 1) Day 1. Flag page with appropriate templates. 2) Day 2. Add 'Under construction template'. Restructure page according to Snarkibartfast's suggestion and current best practices on similar pages. 3) Days 3-4. Addition of material. 4) Days 5-6. Cut down and restructure. 5) Day 7. Remove templates; achieve consensus on whether results are satisfactory, re-appraise page quality status. Please feel free to participate! Johncdraper (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Launch Status Check[edit]

I am requesting comments on progress so far. Johncdraper (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status Update[edit]

Rewrite and third-party peer review completed. See my Talk. Requesting uninvolved contributor to initiate article promotion peer review process to GA. CapnZapp Might you be interested in taking a look? Johncdraper (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but no - I have no prior history with this article. CapnZapp (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happening on this, I took a look. To start with, the section about origins needs work. It is currently unclear as to whether Merril did or didn't use the phrase in F&SF so we could use a quote. And there are other, earlier examples. I shall make an update. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is a List of Authors?[edit]

Not sure it was there or I’m misremembering something. If there is not, I believe there should be. No buts. Thank you 172.248.174.74 (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Wave_(science_fiction)&oldid=1212548915"