Talk:Techno-thriller

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Itzeldamota.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

WorldCat Genres

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of suspense-fiction. It might be useful to look at [1] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The link for WorldCat Genres is no longer live & leads to a dead link. The prevalence of "mode" (as opposed to "genre") has somewhat overtaken the concept of genre in academic discussions of fictional types. The term "category" has also become increasingly suspect, since "category" (as relating to fiction) is associated with publishing categories of popular fiction that lead readers to sections of bookstores, or alert them to labels on books in library fiction collections. As a term, "genre" may indicate a variety of concepts, such as a broad classification (fiction vs. poetry, for instance), making it less precise for categorizing types of fiction. "Mode" has replaced "genre" in some academic articles and books, since "mode" is tied to "rhetorical modes," which derive from Aristotle's Poetics. Thus, Gothicism is often now called a "mode" rather than a genre. When treating "techno-thriller" as a classification of genre fiction, it might be preferable to call it category fiction. Note that the Wiki article for "genre fiction" has been flagged as having several possible problems, including being imprecise. Hifrommike65 (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes

Alright, I've seen a lot of edit warring going on for the past few days. Maybe some of the people involved could explain their positions here on the talk page? One of the bigger disputes seems to be whether this is science fiction or not. I think we should go by what the reliable sources say. I did a simple Google search, and it turned up Robin Cook: A Critical Companion, which says that "the techno-thriller overlaps the science fiction genre. Indeed, it is useful to regard the techno-thriller a melding of science fiction and suspense." It seems like what we've got right now is a bunch of original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

which is why I have been removing such inserts/changes - but perhaps not explaining myself too well, apologies. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If I had to guesss, @Luaza1313: and their IP address is responsible. --Soetermans. T / C 08:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I see he's at it again. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

SF v. TT: I would opine that TTs are usually set in the present day (when written), and any exceptional technology is restricted to one or a few "hero/villain" ships, like Red October in The Hunt for Red October. Additionally, TTs tend to obsess on even current day technology. (I recall a comment that Tom Clancy could write a 6 page description of a common pencil.) David Weber obsesses about technology in the Honorverse, but it is very far in the future and definitely SF; the technology descriptions use technobabble, but that is not probative. Patrick O'Brian obsesses about technology, but wrote (most famously) historical fiction, where the technology of the hero ship was not exceptional, but described in great detail, historically correct to the best of my knowledge.

Larry Bond, USN (Ret), co-author of Red Storm Rising (with Tom Clancy) and designer of at least the paper version of Harpoon (series), replied in an interview:

The current techno-thriller era is only the latest surge in the genre. General Sir John Hackett created interest with his “Third World War” in 1986, and its sequel. In 1929, Hector C. Bywater wrote the excellent “Great Pacific War of 1931,” based on his extensive knowledge of naval affairs, and in the early 1900s and 1910s there were several novels written about “modern” wars between the European nations, some involving the USA.

An example of the last point is The Land Ironclads by H.G. Wells. (I saw a picture of a Mark I British tank marked with "HMLS", presumably His Majesty's Land Ship, but I don't know if that was an official marking.)

I cannot draw a bright line between late 20th century and beyond TT and (for one example) Jules Verne's Voyages extraordinaires, for example, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas (1870) where the hero ship/boat is the Nautilus (fictional submarine). Verne alone has several other examples.

A line might be that SF explores social issues or evokes wonder, while TTs are Action fiction. I don't really have a dog in this fight, though I'll note that some of what I, personally, would call TTs, notably Red Storm Rising, do not have anything (as far as I can see) beyond when-written tech. I hope some of this is useful to the stakeholders in this article. Laguna CA (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Techno-thriller/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I fail to see that the term "techno-thriller" is anything more than a marketing term invented to remove the "stigma" of science fiction from novels whose authors don't care to be branded as writers of boyfic. Virtually any classic science fiction novel by Asimov, Clarke or a host of other icons of the science fiction genre could be re-classed as "techno-thrillers". The fact that so-called "techno-thrillers" make use of military technology, near-future scenarios, and alternative history merely puts them squarely in the New Wave of science fiction writing that started in the 1960s. To make up a new classification for these novels is to demonstrate ignorance of the history of science fiction. Science fiction is more than space ships, but even if it weren't, novels such as Michael Crichton's The Andromeda Strain are definitive science fiction--it contains space ships, an alien plague, and near future technology. I urge WikiPedia not to cave in to this marketing ploy, and classify Crichton, Clive Cussler, and other writers of near-future stories involving wildly experimental, non-existent technology and near future scenarios back where they belong: firmly in the embrace of science fiction. Respect the genre.Munchkyn (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)