Talk:History of science fiction/Archive 1

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

General

I miss Lucian, The Steam Man of the Prairies, and !!!Bellamy!!!. Kdammers 07:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We really have to do some-thing about this HoSF: It is too unbalanced. J.-H. Rosny Aîné is not mentioned at all as far as I can see, yet there is a whole section on Beat Lit (Burroughs and Kerouac). I'm sorry, but this is weird. Also, I know we think of JV as toward the end of the cnetury, but if you check his dates, you'll see he began doing SF in the '60s (JttCotE: 1864). Kdammers 06:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

fantasy

The article currently closes with "Television shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and movies like The Lord of the Rings created new interest in all the speculative genres in films, television, computer games, and books. According to Alan Laughlin, the Harry Potter stories have been wildly popular among young readers, increasing literacy rates worldwide.[24]" I question whether BVS, LotR, and HP belong in the artifcle at all. They certainly don't belong as the conclusion.Kdammers (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet sci-fi and world sci-fi

This article seems largely (with the exception of the proto-sci-fi section) American centered, there should be more about Soviet science fiction and world sci-fi during the 20th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Kdammers (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually British science fiction is more appropriate. With the start of it on television as R.U.R. And having the longest running program called Doctor Who, America's Stargate coming in second. British sci-fi is better than soviet sci-fi. Here is a summary american:fantasy sci-fi Japanese:future fantasy British:realworld sci-fi Russian:Apocalyptic sci fi. British makes the most sense of things.--64.9.236.247 (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

fixing up the article

I'm going to work on this article seriously. I added a section on SF of the '80s, and I'm going to rewrite the "onward and upward" section nearly entirely. There are some parts that are important, particularly the mention of Vonnegut, Amis, Banks et. al... But the reference to Dick is irrelevent to the history of the genre (it's only of interest to the history of Dick's own evolution as a writer), the discussion of Levi is overlong and misplaced (especially since Levi wrote 50 years ago), and calling Tom Wolfe science-fiction because the aerospace technology he's writing about factually was once the stuff of fiction is hilarious. Admittedly, I have a bias against the author's idea that the future of science fiction lies in it becoming assimilated into the mainstream entirely. I'm going to work hard to try to maintain NPOV, and I urge people to watch me on it. I think I did a fair job of discussing cyberpunk, though I have an ideological hatred of that subgenre. I'm not sure what to do with the Television and Film section. It's decently written, but it seems out of place. There are already stray references to TV and Film throughout the article, and it might be the best plan to just remove the section and put all the important references in their correct chronological places. Ferret-aaron 14:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


  • I agree that there doesn't seem to be a point to breaking off television and film if they aren't a *historically* different force in science fiction. Of course, there might be a Science fiction in television and film article, or some such, and it might be appropriate to have a separate history section there. -- Creidieki 15:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the way I'd like to organize this article... The early stuff is important, but needs to be totally reorganized. There's too much before the contents that belongs under early European or early American science fiction. I think we need a new introduction, probably. Something like

This article covers the history of the literary genre of science fiction.
Before science fiction (SF) there were travellers' tales. These tales told of strange cultures, exotic fauna and flora, and mysterious phenomena that existed somewhere around the partially explored world. Science fiction was made possible only by the rise of modern science itself, notably the revolutions in astronomy and physics.
There are a number of earlier stories that can be considered to be science fiction in some way, but the genre only really developed starting in the 19th century. Its development took off in the 20th century, as the permeation of new technology into society created an interest in literature that explored technology's influence on society. Today, science fiction is a medium with significant influence on world culture and thought.

Then, after Early Science Fiction (which should probably be enhanced with non-Western early SF. I'm no expert on this, but surely Chinese folktales exist with SF elements, and I think a discussion of the Tower of Babel as SF might be appropriate, though as an Orthodox Jew it pains me to think of it that way) there's Verne and Wells, who really deserve more than two lines in any good history of the genre. Because is there any SF theme that one or the other didn't write about in one shape or form?

After Verne and Wells, the confluence of ideas in the 20s and 30s that includes Metropolis, the first SF-only pulps, Modernists like Kafka and Capek, etc.. is discussed, as it is currently, though not under the heading "The Golden Age", as I reserve that for the age of Campbell. Flash Gordon and Buck Rodgers should be mentioned in terms of filmic SF representations.

Then comes the Campbellian "Golden Age", which I feel should be beefed up. Ellison's Dangerous Visions has an introduction which offers a decent history of the Golden Age. When I find my copy, I'll work on this section. The SF movies of the 50s should be discussed here in some form. Probably Star Trek fits in with this general trend.

Then the Beats and the British New Wave (and its American counterpart) come. Here the article is fairly good, though I'd change "Modern era and New Wave" to just "The New Wave" and cite a few specific examples of New Wave writers. The stuff about 2001, Clockwork Orange, etc... definitely belongs here. Star Wars has more of a connection to the pulps of the 30s, but should be mentioned here for chronological reasons.

Then the SF of the 1980s, the section I just added. I'm pretty happy with how it is now, though I'm open to any suggestions. Significant modern SF movies should be mentioned here, particularly Blade Runner and The Matrix as examples of cyberpunk film.

Lastly, the Onward and Upward section, significantly revised, should discuss the most modern trends in SF and discuss possible future directions. Ferret-aaron 21:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

My rewrite, largely complete but by no means perfect, is now sitting at History of science fiction/rewrite. Please read and comment on whether this should replace the current article. Feel free to make changes, fix mistakes, etc... I feel this is a much clearer arrangement of the history, much better sourced, and much less POV. Ferret-aaron 18:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

To Do List

I just pasted in my rewrite. It's not perfect, and here's a To-Do list of things that we can make better.

1. Internationalize as much as possible. Stanislaw Lem is a looming omission, because I don't know enough about his work to place him, and historically he's difficult to place, because the language gap meant that he was not widely read in English until long after he started to write. Borges, Levi, and Calvino probably should be referenced. Any international SF discussion should note that there is tremendous one-way influence from English language SF to non-English SF, but rarely do non-English SF writers influence English SF. And as a result, it is tricky to discuss international SF in the context of SF history.

2.Create a better assessment of contemporary SF. This is tricky because it's contemporary, but we should do the best we can. We shouldn't hide from contemporary SF.

3. Better and broader discussion of the Hard SF/Soft SF distinction,its relationship to the New Wave, and its place in 1970s science fiction.

4. Better discussion of SF film, television, comic books, and video games and its relationship to SF history. I'm not knowledgeable enough to write any of this.

5. Fix links from the article. There are too many glaring SF stubs. Once we're happy with this article, I'm going to start going through the links from it and improving them. Ferret-aaron 18:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


I think the rewrite is very good. Take a bow. The gap that I see is that there is nothing about the 1970s. It comes across that this period just sort of whoooshed by between the New Wave and the cyberpunk movement. However a lot of important things happened in the 1970s - it's just difficult to sum them up neatly. Some of them were at the periphery of literary sf, but there were also things like the emergence of Joe Haldeman, important work by Joanna Russ and Samuel R. Delany (the whole heterotopia thing which looms very large in the minds of critics belongs here, though Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness and The Dispossessed were, hmmm, when exactly? Maybe a bit earlier?). Then there's the sudden eruption of media sf with the orginal Star Wars movie. This was also the decade of Gravity's Rainbow, perhaps the most important quasi-sf book sitting just outside the genre that has been written so far. I can't quite see how to sum this up, but we need something to cover this exciting decade, even if it's just a further sub-heading under the New Wave and its aftermath heading. Metamagician3000 06:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

^I have no idea why the above has gone into italics for the last few sentences, but never mind. :) Metamagician3000 06:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed your italics- you used a double quote instead of two single quotes before The Left Hand. I agree with you that I'm sparse on the seventies. This is partially attributable to my using sources that were written in the 70s, and is partially attributable to there not really being a distinct MOVEMENT for the '70s to discuss. In trying to write a history that painted with a broad pen, it was easier to focus on specific movements and their influence on SF than it is to focus on specific writers. That's why I'm trying to paint the '70s as an ideological standoff between the New Wave's general spurning of harder science and a backlash of hard SF writers. It's also fair to link '70s SF more closely to the post-modernists, a la Gravity's Rainbow. If you want to try your hand at filling out the details, go ahead. I'm also going to give it a try, but I'm working at reworking the '90s first. Ferret-aaron 18:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
SF in the nineties was (POV->) diluted by a massive (POV->) infiltration by fantasy writers and publishers calling fantasy and science fantasy "sicence fiction." While the line between F & SF has never been firm, the '90s saw a definite blending as an alternative to cyberpunk. The same period, more or less, also saw a lot of post-modrn type writing is certain SF circles. In another area, traditional SF did not disappear either, with Perry Rhodan ) which, besides doing nicely in Germnay: "Translations of Perry Rhodan are currently available in Brazil, Russia, China, Japan, France, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands" (Wik article on PR).) as just one example. Kdammers 06:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I confess I had never heard of Perry Rhodan until you mentioned the name, but if the WP article is anywhere near accurate, I find myself absolutely opposed to mentioning Perry Rhodan in the contemporary SF section of the article. If you can find a place for him in the '60s section, do it. But just because the series still exists doesn't mean it should be cited as an example of a current trend in SF. However, I don't know non-English language SF very well, even in translation, and I depend on others to fill in those parts of SF history that were transacted in other languages. I've been trying to read Lem lately to rectify that gap in my knowledge, and find myself frustrated that in English Solaris reads an awful lot like a Jules Verne novel does in English. It's that kind of experience that makes me wish I were more multilingual, but as my non-English linguistic experience is largely in Hebrew and Spanish, I'm not going to have much luck tangling with Polish or French. Ferret-aaron 04:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Rhodan belongs in the sixties section. I simply brought it up as an example of the continuing presence of more-or-less traditional SF. Kdammers 10:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Systemic bias

This article is focused almost exclusively on American and British writers. What about European (especially Polish and Russian) science fiction, like Stanisław Lem and Strugatsky brothers? Ausir 19:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a known problem with the current version of the article, see above. Thinking some more about it, it may be difficult to incorporate all non-English traditions into one article since, as other editors have pointed out, the influence was almost entirely unidirectional. Back in the 1960s and 1970s there were some attempts to introduce foreign language science fiction to the Anglo-American audience (Magidoff, Lem, Barbet, Strugatsky, etc), but they were commercially unsuccessul and faded away in the 1980s. Other markets may simply not have enough in common to squeeze them into the same article. If so, then multiple language- or country-specific articles will eventually emerge, at which point this one will be renamed to reflect that it covers "common origins of the genre" and its subsequent development in the English language market(s). Ahasuerus 20:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
But some paragraphs on the subject would be welcome. Either they stay here as separate sections, or they can go to a new article or articles, with a cross-link. Septentrionalis 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, this article is as good a place to start fleshing it out as any. Once we have some meat on the bones, we can decide if some/all of it would be better off as standalone articles. Ahasuerus 22:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

niggles (and POV)

In the description of War of the Worlds, the assertion that "the story is resolved by an illogical deus ex machina" is clearly POV and (in the view of most critics who have discussed the novel) dismissive of one of the book's thematic points: that even the intellectually and technologically superior Martians are not immune to something as basic as a disease for which their evolution has not prepared them. This is not just my POV but a critical consensus. (I can, if necessary, provide sources when I have the time to rummage through my library.)

This points to a somewhat subtler POV issue in this section, signalled by the reasonable and supportable assertion that SF has always exhibited "a tension . . . [over] whether to present realistic technology or to focus on characters and ideas . . . , whether to tell an exciting story or make a didactic point." There is indeed a cultural tension that runs through SF, but it's not quite as flat as is implied here by the opposition of "realistic technology" and providing "an exciting story" to "didactic" qualities. (There's a forced-choice, false-dichotomy thing going on here.) It should be possible to acknowledge that cultural divide (which is primarily a characteristic of the readership) without oversimplifying the qualities of the fiction and implying an aesthetic value judgment--"didactic," used outside a literary-critical context, often has negative overtones: dull, dry, one-dimensional.

Some true niggles and details: In "Birth of the Pulps," note that the pulp magazines had been around for a couple decades when Gernsback started Amazing, and that SF had been part of that mix right along (Princess of Mars, 1912, is cited--it appeared in All-Story Magazine). The wording obscures the fact that the SF pulps were just one part of that publishing environment.

Genre divisions within the pulps, however, were more recent; though I'd hate to have to source that. Septentrionalis 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In the "Modernist Writing" section, Joyce, Eliot, and Woolf are not magic realists--that tradition comes after their time, out of South America. And "modernist" is the preferred modifier, not "modernistic."

Brave New World is properly located among the dystopias but is characterized as depicting "a stable, happy society." The commentators I'm familiar with see it as dystopic or at least deeply ironic.

"A stable society of content people"? That's what dystopic, of course. See also The Machine Stops or We.Septentrionalis 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Now you're being ironic, right? The language as it stands says the opposite of what I suspect the writer meant to say. A repair would amend to to something like "an ironic portrait of an ostensibly stable, happy society." And now I also see that the final clause of that sentence needs to be fixed. RLetson 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That "many other works of later science fiction patterned themselves on the tradition of these dystopian novels" (my emphasis) is incautious--better to write "followed in the tradition." (There's a significant difference between working in a tradition and patterning one's writing on preceding books--ask a writer.)

The Golden Age might be identified as the GA of American SF--it is tied specifically to American magazines and the writers who published in them.

But "Golden Age of SF" is the fised phrase, and should be in quotes. Septentrionalis 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In the section on Astounding: As soon as I see the line "science fiction began to gain status as serious fiction," I ask, "With whom?" While one might argue that the long, long process that got us to where Margaret Atwood can cop SF motifs for Handmaid's Tale starts with ASF, he might also trace it back to Stapledon, or Wells, for that matter. I wonder if what is meant here might be something more like "Campbell demanded and encouraged a seriousness of purpose and thought that had previously not been seem much in pulp SF."

In the "Beat Generation" section, I'd like to see a source that discusses Beckett's influence on SF. I know that writers like Silverberg read and admired Beckett and other modernists, but I can't recall much comment on direct influence. A case can certainly be made for W. Burroughs, but that would better be placed in the "New Wave" section.

New Space Opera: The term is much more recent than the 1980s--I didn't see it until a few years ago, when it started to be applied to the work of Iain M. Banks, Stephen Baxter, Neal Asher, Charles Stross, and other, mostly Brit writers. It can usefully be applied retroactively to much of what is discussed here (in fact, the line between NSO and the good old stuff from the 80s onward is blurry), but it might be a good idea to get the timeline straight. (And a real nerdly niggle: is the Foundation series, especially the late stuff, really space opera?)

RLetson 18:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So edit, until someone disagrees with you. Septentrionalis 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Many of these problems, and I agree that at least some of them are problems, stem from the fact that when I rewrote this article, most of it was working from sources, but I needed to fill in some essential gaps. Those places where I filled in gaps are susceptible to POV problems. Feel free to make any of these changes yourself. That's what Wikipedia is about.
Let me note that I applied the term NSO to this early '80s stuff because I found a source for it, in the Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction, that used that term for those authors. Prior to reading that, I was at a loss for what to term those writers. Further, Foundation's Edge at the least certainly seems Space Opera to me. Ferret-aaron 18:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I just did a rewrite on the NSO section. I added a bunch of examples and tried to get the sequence right--the term itself is fairly recent, but it has been retroactively applied to work going back 20 years and more. I haven't seen the Cambridge Companion yet, but I'd think that's what they're doing (I know the editors and I think I know what they know, if that makes any sense). I also tried to leave the material about cyberpunk in without having it unbalance the section--there was just a hint of carrying on an argument, only one side of which you can hear. There are some interesting connections, but mostly the result of NSO soaking up motifs from from other subdivisions of SF. In fact, I'd say that's one of NSO's significant characteristics, but that might be a bit POV for this venue. RLetson 05:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

It is on hold for two minor and easy to fix concerns :

  • This sentence is tough to understand : It has an account of i.a. the launch, the construction of the cabin, descriptions of strata and many more science-like aspects. Overall it's a fairly ironic story though.
  • There are no pictures ... Just put pictures of books that have been talked about beside each section.

As for the progression :

  • It needs to have inline citations.
  • It needs to turn red link into articles. Lincher 17:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I added some pictures ... it still needs more. Lincher 17:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for History of science fiction/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:

Some of the concerns initially raised were not addressed.
Section headers with all words in caps is not in keeping with established style guidelines.
There are bits of non-NPOV writing sprinkled throughout the article.
Although a good list of references is given, it would be much more helpful to have inline citations. That way, we know what opinions (and there are many in the article) are backed up by sources.--cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New Weird?

For the modern science fiction, should we mention the New Weird works of writers such as China Mieaville? They are more fantasy oriented, but they often contain Sci-fi elements.

Richard K. Morgan

Why insert Morgan into a list of New Space Opera writers? Altered Carbon was pretty well received, but he's not generally classed with the NSO crew. I'm inclined to cut him from this list, though the nameless editor (who also wonders about China Miéville and the New Weird above) might be able to suggest a more appropriate spot for a mention. RLetson 21:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proto Science Fiction

I wanted to insert a sentence about Hephaestus, but as I'm new to editing, I didn't know if it would be a faux pas to post it before discussion. He is a god of teknos, after all, making him an early transition from the inexplicable (magic) to the explained (a rationalizing step toward science). I agree with the articles main claim that science fiction must post-date science as we understand the term, but technology (which is a dominating aspect of science fiction) certainly is a strong theme regarding the Hephaestian myths. For citations, we have the Iliad and the Odyssey, as well as several references by Hesiod. I can link straight to the Perseus Project for that one. - Icowrich —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Any authoritative sources linking this mythic material with the history and development of SF? That is the place to start--otherwise, we're in OR territory. RLetson 19:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

in the proto-science fiction section, you include edgar allan poe in the european section. he is an american author and, while the story takes place in europe, he may fit better in the american section.Jendock (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)jendock

Indian proto-science fiction

I have serious qualms about this article section. First, all the information is taken from a single article by Debjani Sengubta --- a problem since the article is unscholarly, containing no citations or references. It's not just taken, in fact, but plagiarized. Whoever inserted this stuff just cut & pasted from Sengubta. Second, it's error-ridden and features illogic and non-sequiturs. Let me focus on one paragraph in particular.

"The earliest notable Bengali science fiction was Jagadananda Roy's Shukra Bhraman (Travels to Jupiter), written in 1857 and published in 1879. This story is of particular interest to literary historians, as it described an interstellar journey to another planet and its description of the alien creatures that are seen in Uranus used an evolutionary theory similar to the origins of man: "They resembled our apes to a large extent. Their bodies were covered with dense black fur. Their heads were larger in comparison with their bodies, limbs sported long nails and they were completely naked." This story was published a decade before H. G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds (1898) in which Wells describes the aliens from Mars.[8]"

A book published in 1879 is two decades before War of the Worlds, not one; Sengubta falsely dated Wells's book to 1889, but an editor has corrected him without correcting the plagiarized text. The paragraph makes little sense. Sengubta claims that Roy described aliens using "an evolutionary theory similar to the origins of man," but the quotation supposed to illustrate that does nothing of the kind. Sengubta also did not say that Shukra Bhraman was the first science fiction work in Bengali. He says that a book published in 1882 by Hemlal Dutta was. Some editor has looked at the dates and shifted the honor to Roy. On the surface that seems more reasonable that whatever Sengubta was blathering about. However, Jagadananda Roy appears to have been born in 1869. http://www.visva-bharati.ac.in/GreatMasters/Contents/jagadanandaroy.htm The article doesn't mention Roy's Jupiter novel, but he seems to be the same guy since he matches Sengubta's description of Roy as an eminent Bengali science writer. Also, Sengubta's survey is chronological and sandwiches Roy's book between a piece published in 1886 and another novel from the 1910s, which fits someone who lived 1869-1933.

I don't know how to edit this, because it's through and through a mess. My own inclination would be to delete the material derived from Sengubta, since it's such a problematic piece --- a very thin reed to pile so much of the article on. Any valid information that's here should be capable of corroboration from another source. 69.224.223.14 (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism needs to be removed from WP. I'll go ahead and delete the section. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Frankenstein Cover.jpg

Image:Frankenstein Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Logical Structure Now Lacking

As is common in a work of many hands, with a lot of patch, patch, patch, the base structure has come to make no sense.

In all national groups, including English language, everyone is a "precursor" even when they are writing later than Verne (Mark Twain, Jack London, EE Hale, and even ERB in 1911) and inventing new templates and mechanisms for the genre (Hudson, A Crystal Age, 1886, the Long Sleeper used by Bellamy, 1887) or preceding Wells in mechanisms (time-travel, The British Barbarians, 1895, Grant Allen).

Why, other than the prejudice that "sf is for boys' adventure stories," do we have to wait for Verne and Wells to have "science fiction"? ("The European brand of science fiction proper began later in the 19th century with the scientific romances of Jules Verne and the science-oriented novels of social criticism of H. G. Wells.[8]") To begin with, these are very different generations of men. Like Verne is 1860s while most of Wells' life was in the 20th C. Wells follows Verne in time, rather than being coeval.

The term "science fiction" wasn't invented until 1926, so that's not a criteria. Genre terminology always lags behind the existence of the genre: a body of work with common factors has to first exist before it can be recognized as in some way distinctive. Thus, when "cyberpunk" was defined in the 1980s, it included works back into at least the 1950s (The Tenth Victim), and 1990s "steampunk" works back into at least the 1970s (The Other Log of Phileas Fogg; Sherlock Holmes vs. Dracula).

As the article says, according to Aldiss, Mary Shelley has an earlier claim that can't be faulted, in Frankenstein, The Last Man, and '"Roger Dodsworth". To say it isn't science fiction because "it's gothic horror" is to eliminate Verne because "it's scientific romance". This is historical fossilization, when I thought Wikipedia existed to stay up to date. So I think we can start science fiction proper in 1816, and show Verne in his proper place as the inheritor of sf tradition, just as he inherited a body of submarine knowledge rather than inventing the Nautilus (named for the working Napoleonic sub) from the whole cloth as sometimes claimed.

As soon as I find where I stashed my chron of early sf (1700s to 1914), I'm going in. I think it more important to address issues truly historical rather than worrying about contemporary work, where the perception of its location and importance may change as soon as someone invents a new genre name or school of endeavour, or the writer publishes new stuff. What would we think of Heinlein if he had died before writing Stranger in a Strange Land?

I will also be integrating non-English sf, from the various Wiki articles, chronologically, not separating them out into ethnic pigeonholes, which the articles already do. If those articles are innaccurate--someone who knows better, become part of the group mind and correct it!

HollyI (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard not to agree that the article rambles and shambles--though I find the "Early Science Fiction" sections does so less than the list-y stuff that follows ("The New Wave and its aftermath" is particularly messy and over-inclusive). But I'm not sure that the edits made to the paragraph on Frankenstein and Mary Shelley are optimal. The previous version said that the novel is "normally associated with the gothic horror genre" (which matches my recollection of the pre-Aldiss perception of the book) and that it includes SF themes. I don't see this as "historical fossilization" but simply a statement of the various genre labels that the book has carried. The comment about The Last Man being soft SF "at best" strikes me as an opinion (the "not advanced an iota" phrase is the giveaway), and maybe beside the point. (Hard, soft, medium--who's keeping score?) Similarly, the later comment on the presence of Satan in the de Grainville might be worth a bit of discussion here (and perhaps de-listing if it turns out to look more like fantasy than SF), but it seems out of place in the body of the entry. So I've reverted these edits but left the Loudon (with which I'm unfamiliar) list entry intact. RLetson (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A Voyage to Arcturus

Just wonder, should the novel A Voyage to Arcturus be included. After all, it is a part of the history being published back in 1920, and is considered by many to be one of the best books written of that period. 84.48.35.203 (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that any book which a reputable history of sf discusses as a significant work in the growth of pre-Amazing science fiction could be included. We would have to cull the list if there are too many, but in principle I'd say find a reference work that mentions it and use that as a citation. Mike Christie (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oz as SF?

An editor has recently added Baum's Oz books as examples of American proto-SF. This is news to me, and I think it needs a source. Or two. Any notable critic or scholar place Oz in SF-land? If not, I'd recommend reverting the paragraph. RLetson (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I'd suggest reverting unless a source can be found. Mike Christie (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
E.F. Bleiler says that they're "children's fantasies, not science fiction" (Science Fiction: The Early Years, pg. 42). Since his is the most comprehensive reference on pre-1930 SF, I'd say that's a pretty weighty scholarly verdict. 69.229.238.191 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Brian Aldiss

Brian Aldiss's comprehensive book : Trillion Year Spree: The History of Science Fiction By Brian Wilson Aldiss, David Wingrove Edition: revised, illustrated Published by House of Stratus, 2001 ISBN 0755100689, 9780755100682 639 pages should be added as a citation. It is a revision of and earlier version and an extension of Billion Year Spree.--aajacksoniv (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Confussion

Gilgamesh? Sounds like some people can't make difference among SCIENCE fiction and fantasy. The difference lies on were the inspiration came from by example. Gilgamesh is a fantasy book, not science fiction. Sorry I need to discuss it and propose to erase all the fantasy references to this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.145.194.221 (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

New Space Opera

Was the removal of the New Space Opera section a serious edit or vandalism? There was a lot of the latter on this page today so I'm tempted to revert teh section back in, but at the same time, I acknowledge I'm new to this page and this might be something that the community seriously wanted removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.9.212 Kant2k2 This was me by the way Kant2k2 (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Buffy etc.

Neither Buffy the Vampire Slayer nor The Lord of the Rings are science fiction, according to any reasonable, consensus definition of that term. I have removed them from the "Contemporary SF on Television" section. LyleHoward (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of leaving Buffy as SF, it features both mad scientists and robots on multiple occasions, as well as alternate realities, immortality, invisibility, and many other SF elements. Admittedly, it fits better as Horror or even Comedy, than it does as Science Fiction, but soft as it is, it is at least in part SF. Kant2k2 (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't the tv section be better if moved to the history of s-f in film? And while I'm being my nit-picky self shouldn't there be a sentence about steam-punk? Nitpyck (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is an analysis to your answer with a few examples:

IMO this genre focuses the most in each country: American-scifi adventure horror or a combination of adventure and fantasy sci-fi (Sci-fi Romance eg 1984, starwars films, scifi with opera or romance or the new age militarism sci fi theme etc.), British-scifi or cultic scifi (sci-fi literature), Japanese-scifi horror (j-horror and japanime as well), Russian-apocalyptic scifi, or non-empathetic romantic scifi (scifi), french-adventure scifi (also fantasy sci-fi) The most popular of the genres are most likely Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek in the US, Americans tend to take from British sci-fi to make it into either scifi horror or scifi fantasy adventure, one example is from the episodes of Twilight Zone, they also heavily rely on technology like the British except for not as much complex scripting instead vying for action sequences. Actually Twilight ZOne reminds me alot like Doctor Who in sci-fi horror, a combination of J-horror and science fiction. Mysterious and at the same time totally fictional. Japanese make anything into scifi, even their J-horror films I realized. Watching The Ring, or various sentry-mech themes are hard to come by, because they both have analogous themes with little dialogue. 7 samarai by Akira Kurosawa is one example of a hidden genre. Oblivious Sci-fi horror with adventure. Its almost unworldly or Apocalyptic theme in a futuristic environment. Weirdly enough this genre reminds me alot like the Russian movies. The Soviet's make anything into sci-fi as well, without the technology, andrei tarkovosky is proof of this. It relies on spiritualism and art. They make anything into science fiction it seems. The french tend to stick to fairy tales (metropolis hr giger theme ala city of lost children), and the German films like run lola run remind me alot of American sci-fi, minus the historical accuracy or incorrect sci-fi adventure horror/adventure romance with bad acting (note: culturally Russians try to be as historically accurate as possible while Germans do not, important elements of film making and history which make up science fiction that German directors do not care for, or tend to avoid all together see also the Chinese film industry). Having watched alot of each genre, this is the conclusion I came to. At times its hard to tell, steampunk delivers something from french science fiction, while Buffy reminds me of a comic book themed Sci-fi horror. I personally see it as a part of the below because of the amount of suggestive dialogues could be termed as a hybrid sci-fi opera theme or scifi in television known as Sci-fi Romance--Murriemir (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilgamesh technology

"...Gilgamesh .... there is little of science or technology in it..." Little? Are there any? I don't think so. I think this is just a paradox sentence of prefantasy times (before 50s-60s). Now the Gilgamesh is not sci-fi. --Szente (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Article name

Shouldn't this article be renamed to "History of science fiction literature"? Cause that's in fact the real subject of this article. This might also prevent confusion with "History of science fiction films".--Narayan (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Since SF originated in the literature, I'm comfortable with the current arrangement. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
That's indeed a fact, but these origins are now way behind us. I suggested this move merely because i think there is something wrong when "science fiction" (title) is presented as "The literary genre of science fiction" (intro).--Narayan (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No one else who's thinking with us here? I keep finding it odd to read that an article wich states This article is about science fiction literature. cannot be renamed "History of science fiction literature".--Narayan (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of the rename, if there was then a more generic, high-level summation created to go under the name History of Science Fiction, which DID encompass all media, though in less detail that the ones dedicated to film and literature. Euchrid (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This would also involve removing the references to television and film that are still present within various sections of the article -- perhaps there should be a short section on the intersections between lit and film in the last half-century and thus keep it quarantined? I agree that a non-media-specific article on the history of sci-fi as a genre or mode might be useful to have in conjunction with those dedicated to film, literature, TV, etc., and thus really merit the idea of changing this article name to 'history of sci-fi lit' and highlighting the questions and historical trajectories specific to literature or print media. It would be helpful to add other links on the top of the page that reroute people to the article on sci-fi TV as well as film. Anyone else still watching this issue?Behemothing (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am still watching this. There is almost nothing substantive in the visual media iterations of science fiction which did not originate in the actual literature itself. (And please: refrain from using the pejorative "sci-fi" as if it meant the same thing as "science fiction".) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah great, glad to hear that there are others still interested, most of the comments on the talk page are quite a few years old so I was not sure. Also -- my goodness, I certainly didn't mean to upset anyone with my use of 'sci-fi', which I know some take as belittling but I simply use as an abbreviation for a genre I have loved and taken seriously for years. Anyway! Given your statement about the connectivity of the various media in which the genre exists, do you therefore think it would therefore be better to change this page from a focus on the literature/print media aspect (which this page is supposed to be, at least according to the disambiguation text at the top) to encompass a broader definition of the genre? Or, as I mentioned above, would it be better to create an additional page that deals with the genre in a broader non-media specific manner? Or do you think it is good as is? I am not sure what in your statement relates to the article and what is simply your annoyance with my query (and/or how it was posed). I am asking instead of just going in and editing heavily because I want to get a feel as to what others who have put work into this page envision for its future development, and it seems one of the more contentious issues on the talk page is related to that of lit vs. non-lit for the purposes of this article. Just trying to get a sense of where people in the community think this page is currently at, and where it should be further developed. Any comments relevant to the development of the article would be much appreciated, and I'm happy to add my help. Behemothing (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent trends

The article ends with cyberpunk, and then a vague summary of recent developments. I'd be in favour of adding new sections (cyberpunk was several decades ago now after all) outlining New Space Opera, New Weird and perhaps even steampunk, though that's become more of a fashion/scene than a legitimate literary movement. Thoughts? Euchrid (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems one of the tricky things with this article is determining its limits (exactly as you mention, for example, differentiating the literary movement from the broader scene) but I think adding more on recent trends in the genre would be great. Do you have any thoughts on subgenres that should be added to the 'contemporary' section? I am more of a history person myself, so cannot properly speak to the more recent works and trends. Behemothing (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Internationalizing

This has been an concern on this page for years now. From the archived talk pages, editors have mentioned names like J.-H. Rosny Aîné, Lem, Magidoff, Barbet, Borges, Levi, Calvino, the Strugatsky brothers, and regions including Poland, Russia/USSR, and India. Standalone Wikipedia articles (about current rather than historical trends) currently exist for a variety of regions, including Russian, Chinese, Bengali, Japanese, Croatia, Czech, French, Norwegian, Poland, Romanina, and Serbian literature. Since this history article is not restricted to English-language or Anglo trends, it would be great to incorporate these wider regions. Behemothing (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of 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) 18:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of 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) 05:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Genre Toppling

I'm reading Beowulf by Tolkien, and if the actual text invokes a natural process or technology, perhaps even in their terms as such, I am editing this article to cease reflecting two ideologies...A, that Science means physics, therefore physics did not exist before Science, a mere method of study. Ancients knew physics and technology without the method or a formalized recognition of those practicing the method. They were not superstitious, not as one imagines in general. Often older civilizations are derided for being older without a thought or care. B, that there is such thing as genre in the first place, or that the line between fantasy, dreaming of something unreal, and the desire for new invention, also fantasy, but in favor of dreaming of technology, discovery, etc., is even a real line. I will respect two things equally: Science Fiction is not generally the things that are true, much like the errant scientific method and its massive failings...Rather it is the things that may or may not be true without knowing whatsoever and simply dreaming of something being true, being discovered, and being used. That is sci fi. An idea of What If, like fantasy, and what if this is so. It is more of a topical difference between our ideas of genre, technology and research, versus wonders of anything else I guess. You technically could form a million more genres of Story or fantasy and call them many things, from sci fi to fairy tales, and beyond into other topics. We just don't as humans. Second, that the idea is not just a superstitious miracle...Unless that miracle is related to the technology! Genre is a make believe generalization of make believe, yet historically something that is not real but hypothetical made up tech or discoveries is what concerns sci fi, and then sometimes these are explained without atheism, saying that physical things are controlled by the supernatural discovered, or by a more powerful natural thing or process in itself. Also we have this wavering line of H.G. Wells Heat Ray which is not a real laser at all, though close in likeness. So one has to be choosy about such a subjective and artificial concept to the reality and facts of any Story, genre, and simply pick something. A Jetpack is not Icarus's wings, no, but some things may come close enough to include.

Realistically, all I want to do is edit the part about things being more magical than sci fi if they are in fact nonmagical, however imagined, within the tale. Unfairly choosing what is more realistic or less without the fortune telling skill, 3D6+9, in the process of discovery, when in the Story of sci fi it is factually discovered already, period, and the fact it is just subjective to our liking of an idea for being possible or not, or being "science" or not, or is good to imagine as technology or not, is irrelevant to the fact sci fi is about things we do not have being imagined still. Usually tech and discovery, again, which is more than science. Otherwise we might as well write that sci fi did not exist because the formal recognition of the method of science is too new. Anyone want to check Metamorphosis and the others for features of technology or discovery rather than merely writing it off as magic? 64.109.54.132 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Yes, yes...The Alexander Romance mentions are good and what I mean by close to the mark as far as new discovery held back by God. Some of this is similar to comparisons with Prometheus and fire from the gods, but realistically some of this is about invention and discovery, and relates to the plane. The orb of glass like a submarine, someone should almost mention Talhoffer. But he was not writing fiction at the time. So who knows what to say. Then some other things, like golden tubes through the body with fluid. If the fluid is natural, maybe. This is the hard part. Even alchemy was very much early chemistry and sci fi in many ways. All of this may be for not with arbitrary concepts human invoked running about, like science vs nature. Genre vs Secondary World, Story World. And a tech or nature of magic and gods being a part of their interpretation of nature and laws of physics as surely as I am no atheist when the Bible says meteors are just rocks, sorcerers conmen, the dead stay dead, and idols made up gods. Supernature gave birth to nature. So this is why fantasy and sci fi are already pretty much the same, as I said before. There is more to it, which I also said. But this is why genre definitions are kind of whack, especially one of such a modern anachronistic ideology, unfortunately biased by atheism and the superstition that the scientific method requires atheism or proves atheism, therefore sci fi must exclude magic...Even when atheistic sci fi writers have included many gods and supernatural beings in their own science fiction really. In fact, there may be more discussion of faith and science in sci fi than in the old mythologies that have technologies run by gods. Yikes guys! This article may be self-sundering... 64.109.54.132 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I believe there is a clear difference between "true" sci-fi and that which is more properly called fantasy, and that is simply whether the author bothers to use scientific (or even pseudo-scientific) reasoning for what would otherwise be accepted by readers as implausible "magic." Fantasy offers no explanations, simply forcing a reader to accept everything that happens no matter how outlandish as plausible simply because it's fiction and anything goes with fiction (much the same as we accept that cartoon characters can blow themselves back into shape after being smashed into accordians). Sci-fi demands explanations. Where the lines blur is that sci-fi is allowed to use implausible explanations so long as they aren't too ridiculous by normal standards. There is one extreme that is most certainly Science Fiction, and the opposite extreme that is most certainly Fantasy (capitalization intended to convey "officialness"). However there is a vast array (shall we say spectrum?) between the two where authors unabashedly mix the two, sometimes explaining, sometimes leaving the unexplained to the reader's imagination.
Important to authors and readers alike, is that if we simply mash all of them into one homogeneous ball of wax (see what I did there?), aficionados of both Science Fiction and Fantasy (the extremes were purists live), would have our heads and either boil them in cauldrons, causing the end of our universes, or rocket them into galactic black holes with the same result. I much prefer to keep my head thank you very much, AND my universe. The separate genres exist for a reason and they aren't about to be mashed because too many people have accepted they exist and want it to stay that way. SentientParadox (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_science_fiction/Archive_1&oldid=1221488692"