Talk:Ecofiction

Category
Should ecofiction also be considered a fiction category? According to Jim Dwyer, in Where the Wild Books Are: A Field Guide to Ecofiction, eco-fiction is "made up of many styles, primarily modernism, post-modernism, realism, and magical realism and can be found in many genres, primarily mainstream, westerns, mystery, romance, and speculative fiction." Jonathon Levin, in the ecofiction chapter of The Cambridge History of the American Novel, said, "Ecofiction is an elastic term, capacious enough to accommodate a variety of fictional works that address the relationship between natural settings and the human communities that dwell within them." Dwyer also noted, "Ecofiction has deep literary roots and a rich and growing canopy of branches. [ …It is] not uncommon for ecologically oriented authors to write in many different forms: poetry, fiction, literary or philosophical essays, environmental activism, and natural history. Edward Abbey, Mary Austin, Jim Harrison, Barbara Kingsolver, Rick Bass, and Leslie Marmon Silko are good examples of nature-oriented authors who have mastered many forms." Given the abundant forms, genres, styles, and variety of fictional works that are included in ecofiction, this might also be considered a category. Duende Sands (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it can be considered a category and suggest you go ahead and create Category:Ecofiction or Category:Environmental fiction. --Fixuture (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to do this, but will look more soon. I wanted to note that a mod or someone asked for more categories within this article. I added several about a month ago, but the message is still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duende Sands (talk • contribs)§ 05:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Social Impact of Ecofiction
This additional section would make an interesting topic. The added text, however, is a description of the recent trend of "climate fiction" and perhaps should go best in that Wikipedia article. The social impact of ecofiction is not simply a recent trend and may be seen, as the rest of this article has cited, a well-established field with a well-established impact that go back several decades and continue on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duende Sands (talk • contribs) 19:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Revert number 2. Same reasoning as above. This belongs on the "climate fiction" page, not this one.Duende Sands (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Reverted for a third time, with reasons given here and in the summary of changes. Again, this article does not look at ecofiction but at climate fiction, a different subject area that has its own wiki page, which is where this section should go.Duende Sands (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Perhaps this section should be moved to this article instead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_fiction Duende Sands (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Given the growing interest in the impact of ecofiction in academia and beyond, a section on that topic would be a useful addition. The arguments for removing it given here and in the summary of changes are logically fallacious. Here is why. Although it is true that the study cited in the added section concerns climate fiction specifically, it is also true, as the main article on ecoficition clearly indicates, that climate fiction is a subgenre of ecofiction. Therefore to say, as Duende Sands does, that "Climate fiction differs vastly from ecofiction" makes just as much sense as to say, e.g., that wolves differ vastly from animals. That is, zero sense. Moreover, given that climate fiction is a subgenre of ecofiction, a paper on climate fiction may be justifiably presented as an example of the study of ecofiction, the same way a paper on wolves may be justifiably presented as an example of the study of animals, or zoology. Also invalid is the other reason given against the proposed section on the social impact of ecofiction, i.e. that "The social impact of ecofiction is not simply a recent trend and may be seen, as the rest of this article has cited, a well-established field with a well-established impact that go back several decades and continue on." This is because the proposed section talked about a recent trend in the STUDY of ecofiction, not ecofiction itself. To invoke the aforementioned reason in order to argue against adding that section is to confuse the study of ecofiction with ecofiction itself. Therefore it is to again commit a logical fallacy. Given all of the above, I believe that the proposed section on the social impact of ecofiction would be a valid and valuable addition to the Wikipedia entry on ecofiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.251.75 (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I would also note that there are numerous works of "climate fiction" -- such as The Water Knife, Flight Behavior -- that are listed in the Examples section. As noted above (by 83.22.251.75), the distinction that Duende Sands is drawing makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.181.19 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that the proposed section on the social impacts of ecofiction would be a great idea, but the study proposed above is specifically about climate fiction, which is a different genre and already has a separate Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_fiction. That article does not yet have a social impact section, and I think it would be beneficial to add "social impacts of climate fiction" to that article, where it is most relevant and to help that article along. This has been my main point all along. Ecofiction is not synonymous with climate fiction. I believe that there are big enough differences in these categories of literature wherein the social impact of climate fiction does not equal the social impact of ecofiction--the mere history of ecofiction goes back decades and is so much broader in scope and historical relevance, yet also more specific in its characteristics and traits, whereas climate fiction is a fairly new idea and has not been fleshed out as of yet, at least academically. Ecofiction includes fiction about climate change, true, but it equally encompasses science fiction, fantasy, magical realism, solarpunk, pastoral, weird, and even historical fiction, which also cover climate fiction. To me at least, for example, it wouldn't make sense either to put a new and major section about the social impact of science fiction here. It would make more sense to put it in Wiki's science fiction article, despite the fact science and eco-fictions are related in some ways. The formulae set forth in the biggest research about this genre, as stated in this Wiki article, makes up the crux of this field of literature (see Dwyer's and Buell's thoughts above). Another big difference between climate fiction and ecofiction is the academic structure/form/characteristics proposed for ecofiction (Dwyer/Buell) are fleshed out, whereas climate fiction is more of a subject area only. I would be happy to do research and redo your section with study specifically related to ecofiction's social impacts. I think that this is what you're going for. (Edit: I had time tonight to do just this.) Thank you for your ideas.

Edit: I didn't mean to ignore the fiction examples you state; you might call these novels "climate fiction" but others may term them "science fiction" as in The Water Knife or "political fiction" as in Flight Behavior. Old genres can cover new ideas. Some have bandied about "anthropocene fiction" or "solarpunk". Also, trying on a universal label ignores genres such as Afrofuturism, which needs to be dignified. There are a lot of terms that are fairly new these days that cover climate change in fiction; "climate fiction" definitely isn't the only term nor should it be forced. Amitav Ghosh (in the Wire, https://thewire.in/books/amitav-ghosh-interview-climate-change) said, "when you actually have a different genre for climate change fiction, it becomes something separate that is not connected with the seriousness of everyday life." James Bradley, an award-winning author who has written fiction about climate change, said, "What we should call this new literature – or literatures – is an open question. Most discussion has centred upon their fictional expressions, with some suggesting the term cli-fi, or climate fiction, and others, like Adam Trexler arguing we should call it Anthropocene fiction. My personal view is that neither term is sufficient. As I’ve written elsewhere, this view is partly informed by a desire to recognise the diversity of this writing (and indeed the degree to which much of it transcends traditional genre categories). But it is also because to speak in terms of genres or categories is to mistake the wood for the trees." (Sydney Review of Books, https://sydneyreviewofbooks.com/writing-on-the-precipice-climate-change/). There are a lot more examples I can think of. Let's be open-minded about labeling novels that cover climate change. There is not a universal term.Duende Sands (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Once again Duende Sands makes absolutely no sense. There is no logic to these claims, and it's not clear why they're going on about ecofiction versus science fiction. All of the works in the article that they have surgically removed are, without any question, works of ecofiction, yet somehow that's not relevant to a Wikipedia page on ecofiction? The claims this user is making would not get a passing grade in my courses. It's wonderful that Duende Sands has taken such a strong interest in this page, but perhaps they should step back a bit and not try to shape every single word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.181.19 (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I did mistype the word "scientific" in the study. I don't think that means the whole study should be removed, since it also would be of interest and is academically sound for this section. And it would have engaged readers of this page who are interested in specific studies about ecofiction and its social impact. The study of the Alaskan peoples and how they used storytelling to cope and adapt to climate change is a great example of what ecofiction is about. You till haven't replied to my proposal that an article about the impact of "climate fiction"--its own genre--would go here rather than on the climate fiction genre page. I am not trying to shape every word. I'm trying to help this article be about its specific subject. I'm trying to keep it concise and without tangent (i.e. the genres related to ecofiction are many, and climate change fiction is already linked in a couple places here). Subjects within ecofiction are many, and though climate change is one of them, "climate fiction" is a separate, specific genre, which your study states. It is also not a universal term for fiction about climate change, as several actual authors have pointed out. There is no major genre I'm aware of that is simply for fiction about animals (regarding the other study), however. I'm trying to suggest that articles about another specific genre go to their specific genre wiki article.Duende Sands (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As 83.22.251.75 points out, Duende Sands is committing logical fallacy. Climate fiction is not its own genre, and I have never argued this -- either here, or in print. Climate fiction is a category of literature, as is ecofiction. More importantly, climate fiction is absolutely a subset of the larger category environmental literature, aka ecofiction. As 83.22.251.75 states above: "Although it is true that the study cited in the added section concerns climate fiction specifically, it is also true, as the main article on ecoficition clearly indicates, that climate fiction is a subgenre of ecofiction. Therefore to say, as Duende Sands does, that "Climate fiction differs vastly from ecofiction" makes just as much sense as to say, e.g., that wolves differ vastly from animals. That is, zero sense. Moreover, given that climate fiction is a subgenre of ecofiction, a paper on climate fiction may be justifiably presented as an example of the study of ecofiction, the same way a paper on wolves may be justifiably presented as an example of the study of animals, or zoology." I don't really understand all of Duende Sands' hang-ups about "climate fiction" as a term, and that's not of interest to me here. I do know that 100 out of 100 scholars of ecofiction would agree that climate fiction is a subset of ecofiction. (If this were not true, why would there be novels that are identified as "climate fiction" listed as examples of ecofiction?) Therefore, a relevant article about climate fiction might belong in a Wikipedia page about ecofiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.181.10 (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand what logical fallacy is, but you still haven't answered why you insist on posting a study specifically about climate fiction social impacts here rather than on the actual wiki page about climate fiction, which could actually use some fresh voices. You haven't given reasons why an actual study on the social impacts of ecofiction aren't suitable for this section about ecofiction (minus a grammatical error) but why a subgenre might be more suitable. It seems like you have a conflict of interest, and I do have my suspicions about where this is originating from. I also know many ecofiction scholars and publishers (who actually helped to create this article) who might refer to climate fiction as a subgenre within ecofiction, but never would I say it's 100% of them. You'd need to provide some statistics for that claim. Most often, climate fiction scholars don't really recognize ecofiction, which is fine. I don't think I have hangups about climate fiction. As a subject matter expert in this field, scholar of, and advocate for all environmental fiction, I have often posted studies on climate fiction as well. More so, I am an advocate for all genres of environmental and climate change fiction. I have included reference to that genre on this page in two places prior to your editing. Maybe some wiki mods could step in and help resolve this reversion and possible CoI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duende Sands (talk • contribs) 03:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Duende Sands (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it would be valuable to have a Mod resolve this dispute. I would note 1) that the "actual study" you accuse me of removing isn't a "study" -- it's a thesis that speculates about literature. Which is great and important, but is not scientific or a study. 2) That an article might be of relevance to both a page on "climate fiction" and one on "ecofiction" -- it's not either/or. 3) As for conflict of interest, you have previously identified yourself as the editor of a website on "ecofiction" and acknowledged a conflict of interest, so that can run both ways.

I suspect a Mod would find that the extent to which one user is concerned with keeping a legitimately relevant and useful reference off of the page that they have carefully crafted for years is not particularly healthy for the functioning of Wikipedia, and this particular page. But if they decide that this reference -- or the entire section -- shouldn't be in this page, I will be happy to remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.181.17 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia allows thesis citations; it is listed in the same citation templates as journals, papers, and dissertations. 2. The study I submitted is specifically one of ecofiction and one of its topics, climate change. Climate change in fiction does not have to, but can = "climate fiction" -- as I've already stated in this talk section, citing authors who write what you would call "climate fiction" questioning whether the genre label is a good one. The study you submitted is about a different genre, which has its own wiki page. Do you not feel that that page deserves its specific social impact section? While the article may be interesting, it belongs on its own wiki article for reasons I have stated above. 3. I do run eco-fiction.com (which I feel you would only know if you read the archived history of the climate fiction article from 3 or 4 years ago, when I stepped in to ask if the main editor for that article could please stop publicly discrediting my work), but it's not really a conflict of interest. The site is a collaboration by many people and is voluntary and a work of advocacy, not funded in any way whatsoever. Climate fiction is mentioned there, but not overtly--same as this article. If you read the "What is Eco-fiction?" entry (https://eco-fiction.com/eco-fiction/), you'll see that I don't really have a preference for any genre in particular. There is nothing to gain personally here from me, and this article was created by myself and other scholars and publishers of ecofiction because wikipedia lacked an entry. My only concern about your article is that though, while related, it is not a study of ecofiction in particular. It is a study particular to a different genre. I feel it also may be confusing to people because nowhere is it listed that climate fiction is a subgenre of ecofiction either here in this article or in studies I have read. The phrasing used in this article is that climate fiction is one of the many categories that "ecofiction can be seen as an umbrella for, or laterally relative to". This is not fleshed out, nor has the Wiki climate fiction article accepted ecofiction as relative to it; in fact, you will not find any links there showing the relation. I feel that there is some confusion by some that ecofiction and climate fiction are synonymous and your inclusion of a paper on climate fiction, and removal of a cited paper on ecofiction itself, makes me think that maybe the conflict of interest is on your part. Duende Sands (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The fact that your website *features* a section called "Spotlight on Climate Change Authors" certainly seems to suggest that climate change fiction is a subset of ecofiction, and that Wikipedia readers wouldn't be confused by the inclusion of this reference. That the article in question doesn't describe these novels as "ecofiction" seems beside the point. As the other user noted, this is like deleting an article on wolves in an entry on animals because the article doesn't say specifically that wolves are a subset of animals.

I'm fine with including the removed paper on ecofiction, as long as the page doesn't claim that it's "scientific" or a "study." These are specific words with precise meanings. If I publish a paper speculating about what ecofiction does in the world, it's an "article." If I publish a paper empirically evaluating how it impacts readers, or using experiments to determine said impact, then it can rightly be described as a "study."

Moreover, the amount of time you've put into eliminating this reference -- arguing illogically against the judgment of two other users -- suggests that you have some *extremely* strong feelings about this subject which may be motivated by more than just what's best for Wikipedia users. I don't know if that's a CoI, but it's something. But, like I noted previously, at this point only a Mod will be able to adjudicate the disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.55.89.50 (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The climate change author spotlight specifically states, "This series highlights authors who write fiction that deals with global warming. The spotlights are diverse, featuring multiple writing styles and genres. If you read the spotlight, genres are not the focus and most authors do not identify with or talk about "climate fiction" in these features. (A few do.) Exploration of climate change in any field of literature is not automatically "climate fiction". I haven't made any more reverts or additions than you have, and I have only come back to this talk section to reply to your points that seem to prompt further conversation. How does that make you feel I have a CoI and you do not? Oh, and I feel that describing me more than once as "illogical" is unfair. It's sad to see this sort of personal attack against someone who is obviously as passionate as yourself/yourselves about our world, enough that we spend a lot of time advocate for climate/environmental literature. Duende Sands (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Kim Stanley Robinson
I'm surprised that Kim Stanley Robinson has been left out. Rwood128 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add a good article or example. There are dozens of authors who could be added here--the database referenced lists hundreds, including Robinson. I just wasn't sure how much to add without making some of the lists too long.Duende Sands (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)