Talk:Science fiction
|
|
| Contents |
Definition
The current definition is
- Science fiction is a form of fiction which deals principally with the impact of actual or imagined science and/or technology upon society or individuals.
However, the definition is too broad: I don't think that a story about the impact of an iPod on my life would be considered as science fiction. Any suggestions? -- Card 19:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There is a sense of the future in science fiction. Alternative histories are not in my opinion science fiction, though they fit the broader category of speculative fiction and are often shelved with science fiction in books stores. If the technology in question is actual, then the impacts would need to be future in order to be science fiction, otherwise it becomes an alternative history. Perhaps it would be best to change "impact" to "future impact". -- Hu.
Military sf
Would you agree that an alternative name to the Military science fiction is military space opera? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Gosh no. Lots of Mil SF has nothing to do with space travel. Some is alt-history (I.E. 1632 by Flint or Sterling's Nantucket series.) Even Drakes Hammers Slammers has no "space opera" It's all ground tank war with sf elements. Then, there's things like Flint and Drake's Belesarius series...... so, no, I would not agree with that. Rick Boatright 22:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Other
Hmmm. . . It strikes me that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein includes science fiction elements and should be included in the history section. Just a thought.
Reid 05:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree with that, but think we should include some slightly earlier SF - in the form of the Daedalus and Icarus myth. If that is not a template for Science Fiction, then little is.
No-one 21:06, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
With respect to Star Wars... Although I'm not going to argue for its place in the Science Fiction hall of fame, the reasons given for excluding it seem sort of arbitrary. If we start booting out every work that isn't scientifically plausible, seems to me we have to start with every work that violates General Relativity. "Sci-fi" gets a whole lot smaller when you do that. Perhaps it would be better to point out the difference between "hard" sci-fi and things like Star Wars... Or just to ditch the sentences? -D
I'd say Star Wars is smack in the venerable Space Opera tradition. I mean, do we kick out Burrough's John Carter on Barsoom and the Lens stories as well?
Brian Aldiss argues convincingly in The Trillion Year Spree that modern science fiction started with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
WCFrancis 14:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hard SF
From Science fiction/Hard science fiction:
"Hard science fiction is largely a literary genre, as the complexities of physics rarely translate well to the screen."
Interesting point!! Can anybody think of any exceptions offhand?? Personally, I'd question whether 2001 is an example -- details of astrophysics and technology certainly aren't discussed much therein. I think 2001 might be more of a "New Wave" movie than anything else.
- Good points, but there was considerable attention to scientific detail and accuracy that hasn't been present in virtually any other sci-fi film. For instance, note the time delay on the videophone conversations, the silence of space, the depiction of zero-g and the carousel, and so on. Also, it's very abstractly philosophical rather than too concerned with the relationships between people - another trait of hard sci-fi. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Certainly it's closer than anything else I can think of. It's certainly not space opera. --Robert Merkel
Probably not. :-) But the techically accurate details are background rather than crucial to the plot -- the plot would procceed identically without the time-lag, silent space, centrifugal "gravity", etc. Most of the plot developments hinge on Clarke's Third Law more than anything else, I'd say.
(I mean, the film that plays Also Sprach Zarathrustra on the sound track when somebody re-solders a diode is really hard science fiction. :-)
The only Hard SF movie I've ever seen, also my favorite movie, is GATTACA. It deals mainly with genetic modification and some space flight. Highly recommended, and very popular movie.
I changed the Hal Clement reference to Arthur C. Clarke. No offence to Clement, but Clarke is far better known and thus makes a better example IMHO. --Robert Merkel
OK, somebody's put the Hal Clement reference back in. Could somebody explain to me why him, and not, say, Stephen Baxter, or David Brin? What makes him the canonical example of hard sci-fi? Not trying to diss the guy, but if you're writing an article about a topic and you're trying to pick an example, why somebody who's comparatively a lot less well-known? --Robert Merkel
Put in all the examples you want!! As long as they are good examples. :-) (I'd prefer an accurate but obscure example over a well-known but dodgy one.) Clement is, as far as I know, the canonical example of hard SF, i.e. the details of physical sciences really do drive the plots, and characterization, etc., are secondary. I wouldn't say Brin is nearly as "hard". I'm not familiar with Baxter.
- Put in all the examples you want!!
This is a debate that's come up in other places (discussions of musical genres, for instance). Many people take your position, that the more (accurate) examples of participants (or works) in a genre, the better. That's quite reasonable, if you add a list of ("genre foo" practitioners). I would argue that, for the sake of clarity and flow in prose, that restricting examples to the most well-known or influential practitioners can be a good thing.
As far as the specific examples go, if people think Hal Clement deserves a mention as a particularly apt example here, well and good. Could somebody who knows about him please add an entry? I'm curious now :) --Robert Merkel
I'm not sure I like the generalization that "Character development is commonly secondary to explorations of astronomical or physics phenomena" since it seems slightly derogatory, and since there are lots of examples of Hard SF in which character development is not secondary (I'm thinking Larry Niven and John Varley). That said, if we accept the "derogatory" definition, Clement is particularly apt in that his prose is wooden and his characters two-dimensional, IMNSHO!
However, Clement certainly is an important part of the tradition. As it says on his page, he was named an SFWA Grand Master. I say he deserves to stay.
By the way, I would extend the definition beyond physics and astronomy to include biology at least (thinking about John Varley again).
And should there be a link to the Cyber Punk tradition? In my opinion, a modern subset of Hard SF.
-- Cayzle
Please come to Talk, it's cozy over here :
I would really like to get more in depth explanations about the derivation of the various coinages than have been offered in the edit summaries. So why not hash this out here in talk, before this whole thing descends into an edit war, huh? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 00:31, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)
- As a science fiction loon I am aware that Gernsback coined the expression. In his later musings he repeatedly lamented about coming up with the term. I highly doubt that he would be so apologetic if he wasn't responsible. What I do agree with, is the dubious date. I have seen many dates quoted, notable: 1916, 1925, and 1927. So I don't doubt that the date I gave in the prior revision was incorrect. User:Imran mentions the OED, but he doesn't tell us what it does say about the term. -- sugarfish 06:42, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- The reason I removed it was that the word was used by authors other than Gernsback before 1925, however doing background research it turns out the earliest known usage is by Gernsback but in a 1916 issue Electrical Experimenter "I am supposed to report Münchhaussen's doings; am supposed to be writing fiction, scientifiction, to be correct.". However that fact that Gernsback gets the date of the coinage wrong by a fair amount, raises question as to whether the he actually coined the term (he may have just been told by someone before that he coined the term and assumed it to be true). As for sci-fi, that term has been in use since at least Robert Heinlein's "Grumbles from the Grave" (1949).
- It isn't common practice to accept claims of coinages any more, unless there is substantial independent evidence to accompany it. Even in those cases mistakes have been made (for instance it was thought for a long time Karel Capek had coined the word "robot" until someone noticed the term was used by his brother Josef Capek in his short story "Opilec" three years earlier). --Imran 11:09, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC) that is incorrect. The word used in Josef's Opilec is "automat" in the original Czech version. The word was INVENTED by Josef and USED by Karel in RUR for the first time in history. For further reading see http://capek.misto.cz/english/robot.html
Thank you, that was most illuminating. Would you have objections to a mention that the popularisation of the term "scientifiction" is often associated with Hugo Gernsback, and that it was the earliest term for science fiction that enjoyed wider circulation and had a cohesive referent?
- I'd be happy with that. --Imran 21:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
On "Sci-fi" I have to admit I feel matters are much murkier. Can you suggest a formulation which would allow us to say something about its origins? Respectfully -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 11:35, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)
- We could put something along the lines of "the origin is unknown, the earlist known mention being in a letter Heinlein wrote to his editor in 1949, but the word has been recoined by later writers including xxx....."
- Incidently if you just want to find the earliest known usage of a sci-fi term have a look at http://www.jessesword.com/SF/sf_citations.shtml --Imran 21:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I put scientifiction up there with Gernsback. On Sci-fi though, your thoughts make me hesitate. Maybe that particular subject is a bit too murky for an overview page of the genre. Perhaps the whole subject matter of terms for Science fiction should have its own article. Hmm. I'll have to check if there already is one... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 10:17, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)
On Forerunners of Science Fiction, I think some thought might be given to noting utopian fiction, especially that specifically set in the future. Most blatant example is Louis-Sebastien Mercier's Memoirs of the Year 2500 (1770 or so, in English in 1772) which does not have itself much technical change but does open other doors than imaginary voyages do.
Also, there seems an implication that science fiction got to the Soviet Union after Star Trek came on TV. Nikolai A. Rynin's 9-volume or something INTERPLANETARY FLIGHT AND COMMUNICATION (Leningrad 1928, in English from the Israeli Program for Scientific Translation: Jerusalem, 1971) is full of details of sf available to him in the 1920s. -- Mark Owings
This quote seems like a fringe view of artificial intelligence. "The 'individual' might be an artificial intelligence, and the story may partly be concerned with the Turing test." The Turing Test is really a non-issue in science fiction involving robots. Even the robots of classic Asimov would all easily pass. The point of all of the science fiction about robots that I've read is to show robots talking casually and doing so much more. Do you agree? --Invicktus
FWIW, my thinking on the Related Topics list order: 1) Group like items 2) Try to have most broadly relevant topics at the top, least at the bottom
- Science fiction themes--all media, all topics, all people
- science fiction by nationality or gender--all media, all topics
- science fiction by media--all topics, all people
- authors
- film
- TV
- visual artists
- science fiction specific topics--all media, all people
- fandom--in some ways broad, but since it's more about the consumers of scifi...
- science fiction external reference material
- Cross-over subjects
Section on Astounding magazine
Unless I hear otherwise, I think this needs radical changes somehow.
Section: Astounding Magazine
With the emergence in 1937 of a demanding editor, John W. Campbell, Jr., of Astounding Science Fiction (founded in 1930), and with the publication of stories and novels by such writers as Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein, science fiction began to gain status as serious fiction. Ventures into the genre by writers who were not devoted exclusively to science fiction also added respectability; early such writers included Karel Capek, Aldous Huxley, and C. S. Lewis, and later writers included Ray Bradbury and Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Magazine covers of bug-eyed monsters and scantily-clad women, however, preserved the image of a sensational genre appealing only to adolescents. There was naturally a public desire for sensation, a desire of people to be taken out of their dull lives to the worlds of space travel and adventure.
This appears to suggest that Capek, Huxley and Lewis wrote for Astounding. I'm pretty sure they did not. I have not checked my indexes, but I doubt Bradbury or Vonnegut appeared, or if they did they were extremely minor. Also, Campbell specifically avoided covers like those described (though they continued to be very popular on titles like Planet Stories).
I'm not really clear that Campbell's editorial policies led to science fiction began to gain status as serious fiction. They were much respected by readers, but did they reach outside the genre? My impression is that science fiction gained little respectability until the 1960s e.g. with Amis' New Maps Of Hell, which gave more respect to Galaxy.
Lifters
I have removed the comment under "Hard Science Fiction" concerning the Lifter device. Lifters fail to fulfill the primary requirements of anti-gravity machines, so (regardless of UFO buffs' enthusiasm) they don't provide the technology hard SF postulates. First of all, they are essentially magnetohydrodynamic propulsion, so they are useless outside a planet's atmosphere. Second, they work through electromagnetic principles well established in present-day physics, and do not rely upon manipulating gravity in a way that Einstein's General Relativity does not describe. On both counts, they cannot be the "gravitic propulsion" of Foundation's Edge or the "impeller drive" of Honor Harrington's navy.
This section seems lacking in a couple other respects, too. Notable examples of hard SF can retain their value long after science has moved on, if they were well-constructed following the science which was known at the time. For example, people still read and enjoy The Gods Themselves, even though Asimov's description of the strong nuclear force does not contain gluons or quarks, and his notions of cosmology predate the concept of the inflationary universe. Just because his scientists use a Pionizer instead of a Gluonizer doesn't mean his book is obsolete.
Anville 16:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hard and soft SF
I remain deeply unsatisfied with the sections on hard and soft SF, as they currently stand.
- Comments like Damn, this was poorly written belong in the cozy environs of Talk pages, not in the main article, where they are both unprofessional and POV.
- Stating that hard SF necessarily has poorer plot and character development than the soft-serve flavor is again POV. If somebody said this, they deserve to be quoted with proper attribution. Writers of hard SF—and their fen—who have made rebuttals also deserve representation.
- Who, exactly, has complained that a "speculative essay" category doesn't exist? Such things have been written; Jorge Luis Borges wrote several good ones. ("The Library of Babel" was an essay before it was a story.) Among Asimov's F&SF essays, too, it's not hard to find ones which extrapolate known science in the same way that his fiction does, though often for "educational" purposes.
- Mangling Isaac Asimov's name is worse than a crime; it is a blunder. He's dead, so someone else has to complain about it. That person may as well be me.
- While the hard/soft categorization is imperfect (as are all genre breakdowns), it's a starting point that has been widely acknowledged among the writing and critical communities. Wikipedia is not the place to propose a new pet classification of science fiction, regardless of its merits. Any particular book's classification can be endlessly debated (that's a perk of fandom), but it's no good to dump book after book into the junk drawer called "other categories".
May the Schwartz be with you. Anville 15:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comedy science fiction
What about the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy and that general genre? There are no references to that anywhere in here. Its a popular enough series to warrent at least mention i think.
- Yes, what was around in comedy sci-fi before that (if anything)? I'm under the impression that Douglas Adams either started that genre or brought it into the mainstream. WhiteC 20:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There has been humour in science fiction almost as long as there has been science fiction. Think of Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee At The Court Of King Arthur or Samuel Butler's Erewhon. Notable 20th Century writers of funny SF include Harry Harrison, John Sladek, Robert Sheckley, Keith Laumer, R. A. Lafferty and many others. Other writers like Frederik Pohl or Thomas M. Disch are frequently ironic. Notinasnaid 21:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Patrick Stewart says that Transmetropolitan makes him "laugh like a drain". Anville 20:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What happened to the "Types" section?
I dropped by during my Wikiholiday to see what's been going on (a vacation from a vacation, as it were) and discovered that the "Types of SF" section had vanished entirely. It slipped into the aether about two weeks ago, without any comment I see on this Talk page, and without modifications to the articles hard science fiction and soft science fiction. What's up?
Not that the missing section was the greatest prose in the world, but it worked pretty well. At the very least, we should have a stub of what had been there, with the details that had grown here farmed out to the main articles on each sub-genre. A copy-and-paste job, yes?
Somebody should re-read Asimov's "Feeling of Power" and roll that into the paragraph on "mathematical science fiction". Or else I'll retrieve all the examples I can think of, do some Original Research, write a stuffy and turgid academic paper on the topic, get it printed in Science Fiction Studies or Trendy Academic Poser Weekly, and come back here and cite myself.
Anville 15:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Added photo
I added a picture of Isaac Asimov already on Wikipedia because I felt that it needed some sort of picture to make it look better. If anyone thinks that Asimov is the wrong person to use for such a picture, change it, and let me know if you don't mind so I can try to find a better picture. --PlantPerson 21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I decided to change the picture myself in the end. I thought this stack of books (and a magazine) suited the article better. --PlantPerson 22:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)