Talk:History of science fiction/rewrite

I read the article very quickly. I will be able to help more after finals next week.

I like the intro immensely--a definite improvement. The first para seems redundant--a re-statement of the title. If such precision is needed, start para 2 with "Before the literary genre science fiction (SF)..."
 * I really didn't know how to start the topic. I know WP style is to start with a sentence or two explaining what the topic is all about, but defining SF belongs in the SF article, not the HoSF article. Ferret-aaron 23:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

" However, The Epic of Gilgamesh can probably be better categorized..." This sentence could be more neutral. It is a statement of opinion that is not attributed to anyone. The next paragraph dismisses "True History" with an Amis quote, which is an acceptable way of inserting an opinion into pedia articles.

"Most notable of all is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein," Neutrality again. Perhaps "M.S. F is most often cited as the beginning...", although the Aldiss quotes say it all.
 * Valid point... Those, and perhaps a few other neutrality problems either stem from sentences I didn't find objectionable enough to fix from the original or from attempts to create a sense of narrative. They're definitely fixable. I'll source the claims soon.Ferret-aaron 23:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I scanned the rest, and only have a two comments.

Beginning a discussion of the Golden Age with "Metropolis" is inherently confusing, so your reorganization of this part is great--much better than it was.

"Contemporary Science Fiction and its Future" focuses on cyberpunk. Is that intentional? It's probably appropriate to explicitly state the reason for this. Here's my personal opinion: It has become impossible to write fiction based in the present or future without displaying humanity's personal relationship with computers and technology, and any such display is a connection to cyberpunk. Cyberpunk is becoming ubiquitous. Personal technology becoming an archetype.

I don't understand the last two paragraphs. I don't have time to think so deeply. I have no problem with this article going live in its present condition--there are no show-stopping problems. KennyLucius 21:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The contemporary SF section is something I knew was obligatory, but I really don't know enough to write it, and most of the books i'm working off of are 10+ years old. I made something up. It's largely my own observations, backed up by John Clute's essay in The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. The essential point Clute makes is that there are two ways to view the past 15 or so years in science fiction- Either you say that because we live in such a technologically advanced society, science fiction has become obsolete- the opinion of the author of the current HoSF article's section on modern SF. Or you argue that this period is testimony to the great triumph of science fiction, which now holds tremendous influence over society, and science fiction as a mature genre will continue to shape the direction of technological and sociological changes to society- the opinion I hold.
 * It is definitely my observation that cyberpunk has become a dominant influence on turn of the century science fiction. I don't know any reason for this, but I do know that as cyberpunk has become a more diffuse phenomenon, it has become more ubiquitous. My sense is that it is because cyberpunk has always been a near-future brand of science fiction, and technology caught up to it very quickly, so that works of non-science fiction can easily employ cyberpunk motifs.
 * One more point I would like to make is that the Hugo Award has been given in the past 5 years to 4 fantasy novels (and the one SF novel that won was awarded at a TorCon to Robert Sawyer, a hometown writer who beat out several superior novels)... this fact should be discussed, though there are different theories to explain it- whether science fiction has died or whether genre boundaries have blurred is up for debate.Ferret-aaron 23:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Hugos don't really claim to be a SF award, so I wouldn't say the boundaries between SF and Fantasy are blurring. The Hugos are picked by attendees of a SF convention, so one would expect SF novels to win, but I don't think the rules restrict the genre at all. The Nebula explicitly accepts both SF and Fantasy.

Good SF is very difficult. The exposition of science is inherently boring to most people, and becoming more so. It's easier (in my talentless opinion) to instill a Fantasy with literary value because the exposition of technical detail is not an important feature of the story. I think that's why Fantasies have been winning the Hugos. Furthermore, future science has come to a fairly boring place. The really exciting stuff of yesteryear has been so thoroughly explored, both by writers and by real scientific exploration, that fanciful SF seems silly and realistic SF seems boring.

I think SF is becoming more of a subgenre of Speculative Fiction than it was before. Stories that are clearly both SF and Fantasy (like the Matrix) are clearly hot, and that makes perfect sense to me--everyone likes a little magic in their stories, and they need a little science to connect the story with their own lives. Science is becoming that mundane feature that makes the story seem possible and down-to-Earth, whereas it used to be the fantastic part.

I'm just opining--I know there are many opinions on this. I wonder if a section on the Future is necessary in an History article? KennyLucius 03:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We've reached the point in the conversation where my friends would be inclined to Clarke's Third Law the whole conversation. The Hugos do not explicitly require science fiction, as to do so would be an absurdity when nobody can definite science fiction. Nonetheless, the winners in the past 5 years have been atypical as compared to the history of the award.


 * I would argue that a section on the Future is the whole point of a History article, but in any case the section there now isn't really a speculation on the future of the genre but an examination of the extreme near past. It's just not really that well written yet. Ferret-aaron 03:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the work rewriting and for extending me an invitation to review. At first glance, I find it a good rewrite and worthy of replacing the article. I have not looked at it in detail. I do think the introductory paragraphs are unnecessarily wordy and could be condensed, but in this version I offer for your consideration here, I also added a little about how common-place SF has become:


 * The literary genre of science fiction is diverse and since there is little consensus of definition among scholars or devotees, its origins are open questions. Inclusionists offer works like the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh as the primal texts of science fiction. Exclusionists argue that science fiction became possible only with the scientific revolution, notably discoveries by Galileo and Newton in astronomy, physics and mathematics. Some place the origin with Gothic novels, particularly Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.


 * Science fiction blossomed and boomed in the 20th century, as the deep penetration of science and inventions into society created an interest in literature that explored technology's influence on people and society. Today, science fiction has significant influence on world culture and thought. It is represented in all varieties of ordinary and advanced media and has become so widespread that now it is often not specially designated as "science fiction".

The reference to Lucian's story is too much detail for an introduction, and citing Brian Aldiss gives him too much prominence in the scholarly examination of the history. Both are referenced later. Terms like "ur-text" are overly intellectual for an introductory section. I used the word "devotees" (or possibly "enthusiasts") instead of "fans" for the opposite reason, to keep the tone on the serious plane you establish. A list of media disrupts the flow, and in any case, the important point is how accepted SF is now.

I wonder what amount of time you would like for review until the replacement. As I have more time I will try to add more comments. Hu 14:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Hu. Your suggestion for the opening paragraphs looks good to me, except possibly for that last clause, from "has become so widespread...", which I don't really agree with. I don't know how long I'm going to keep this up for review before merging. I've never made changes this large to an article before and I want to make sure I don't step on toes. A couple days, at least. There's a few people in particular that I'm waiting for their comments. Ferret-aaron 15:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Literature template
Thanks to Kenny for moving the template. It definitely looks better there. But I find this template hideously overlong. Is it required? Is it necessary? Can we replace it with a smaller template that places the article within the context of SF instead of within the context of literary history?

For example

?

Initial comments
Hi. Thanks for giving me the heads-up on your rewrite. I'm just beginning to read through the page but I've got to give an initial comment before I read further.

First thing is: Inclusionist  is a self-referential Wikipedian term, a neologism which doesn't have broad usage beyond Wikipedia itself. The only other usage I know of is with reference to theology, and even that usage is rare.

There's a convention in Wikipedia against allowing the encyclopedia to make self-references. Likewise there is a convention against proliferation of neologisms. I agree strongly with both of these conventions.

Next thing which leaps out at me is the suggestion that anyone would seriously date science fiction back to Gilgamesh! Yeah sure fantasy  dates back that far and beyond,  fiction dates back that far and beyond, but  science  fiction? No. I've never heard of anyone claiming Gilgamesh was anything to do with science.

Sorry but the intro is all wrong.


 * Okay, I'll remove inclusionist and exclusionist, though they accurately describe the difference in opinion which definitely exists. I would like to find terms to describe the difference, though, so the concept can be carried through the article. If you have acceptable terms for the difference, please let me know. Ferret-aaron 23:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll read the rest of the article now and then get back with any further comment I may have. --wayland 18:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll jump just in here; I seem to remember a part of the bible where one could see a bit of SF. It's in one of the prophets books, and it speaks of wheels within wheels, has a description of a machine te. al. The author is transported out of the atmosphere (although he feels as in a dream). I'll have to look this up. Lectonar 07:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And as a PS: could we settle on mentioning Gilgamesh at least as an influence? It has definite connotations and patterns which recur in later hardcore SF-works Lectonar 07:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Reading a little further
Okay, I've read a little way further on and, Lester del Rey notwithstanding, the flow and direction of the text here is tending to blur science fiction and fantasy together. These two genres have an established history of being dealt with as separate entities and there is good reason for treating them separately. A story which combines science and fiction doesn't need to be fantastical unless we're in the business of dumbing-down the genre. On the other hand, a fantastical story most often derives its thrust into the unknown by leaving known science behind.

Who are the "various historians" who  "claim an ancient history for the genre of science fiction."  ?


 * Thanks for reading the article and responding. I know my rewrite is not perfect. I just felt the old article was so poorly organized that it was actively preventing people from improving it. The main improvement that I'm happy with is the general reorganization. Smaller details still need work, there are gaping holes in places and it's very anglocentric and blah blah blah... I know all that, but these are things that can be fixed gradually. The organizational problems that placed Metropolis in the Golden Age and Karel Capek in contemporary SF needed fixing. Now, I'll talk about your question.


 * Aside from the Lester del Rey quote from his Worlds of Science Fiction, L. Sprague de Camp's Science Fiction Handbook devotes as much time to Lucian as to Frankenstein and Poe. Those are two serious science fiction writers and thinkers on the genre. Asimov's historical musings on SF have, off the top of my head, invoked the Faust legend, the Nibelungenlied,. There was a strong tendency among these early SF historians to claim an ancient history for the genre. This notion wasn't debunked until Amis's New Maps of Hell. I've been reading a helluva lot of SF history over the past few weeks, and I'm telling you this is so. I hadn't realized the extent that the ancient history of science fiction was claimed until I started researching for this article.


 * The start of the modern, serious study of SF history was the rejection of this claim by people like Amis and Aldiss. Amis and Aldiss offer different alternate ideas, but there was before them a dominant, extremely pretentious, claim that SF had always been around.


 * I don't like the idea any more than you do. It's absurd to call anything before Utopia science fiction, and even Utopia is only vaguely SF. But despite my opinion, and despite your opinion, this is an idea that has to be touched upon if we're going to produce an NPOV article. I tried to skim through it as quickly as possible and make it clear that almost nobody takes the idea very seriously anymore. Ferret-aaron 21:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Another source I've found is Asimov's Gold, wherein he finds The Iliad to be a robot story, for giving an appearance to Hephaestus's metallic helpers, and argues that the legend of Prometheus is a science fiction story, dealing as it does with technology and mankind. In the introduction to Isaac Asimov Presents the Best Science Fiction FIRSTS Asimov writes, "It is very tempting to say that the first person who conceived of a voyage to the Moon was Lucian of Samosata... What we are really saying, however, is that Lucian was the first person to write a story based on such an idea. Even that is perhaps not as good as it sounds. He was the first person to write such a story, copies of which have survived to our time. Can we be sure earlier stories were not written; that they have not survived?" In other words, Asimov argues that science fiction has a prehistory before the written word existed.
 * I hope I've made my case for the inclusion of just a few brief paragraphs on this material. It's not a lot, but it must be addressed. Ferret-aaron 00:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the general impression I'm getting from the text is as if there had once been a serious and strong claim of ancient origins for sci-fi and as if such a view, having once ruled, has now been discredited. Now, honestly, I've been reading science fiction for over four decades and I've never seen evidence of more than the most tongue-in-cheek attempt to trace sci-fi back further than the science from which it takes its name.

The rewrite says "This claim is now a minority opinion" whereas, in reality, it has  always  been a minority opinion, and a minority so small as to be hardly worth mentioning.

I'll read the next bit and get back to you. --wayland 19:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A definite problem seems to be that I for one am not sure if we are talking about the hard SF here, or the whole wide span of fantasy fiction, soft SF and the likes. Utopia for one hasn't anything to do with science per se, but is definitely needed to illuminate the coming into being of the genre (as would be Candide, as another utopy.) Lectonar 07:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Astounding magazine
The sentences: "As Campbell's reign as editor of Astounding progressed, Campbell gave more attention to ideas like Hubbard's, writing editorials in support of Dianetics. Readers started turning to other magazines to find science fiction stories." are a bit odd. Around 1949 Street and Smith stopped publishing most of their pulps but Astounding continued because it still had dependable loyal readership. It continued on despite any references to dianetics etc. The loyal readership continued to be loyal and other sci-fi magazines flourished alongside of Astounding/Analog,  not at its expense. --wayland 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am willing to amend the wording of this phrasing slightly, but not significantly. It is indeed true that Astounding maintained a loyal fanbase. At the same time, the indications I've seen are that its subscription base declined- one of the reasons, if not the main reason, why Campbell changed the name to Analog. Galaxy, TMFSF, and the others certainly seem to have drawn significant attention away from Astounding. If we want to change the message of this statement, I'll only concede on this point if we develop the issue much further and source all assertions. Ferret-aaron 06:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Looked this up in Clute's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and his account mostly agrees with mine- Astounding continued and had a loyal fanbase, but not near as strong, as most of the best new writers went elsewhere. Ferret-aaron 00:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The rest
Okay, I've read through the rest of the article and my main criticisms of it are that it tends toward a very insular view and that there are thin patches in the chronology. The section concerning the 1980s is not preceded by much about the seventies or followed by much about recent sci-fi. Also it reminds me of the sort of article which might be encountered in a sci-fi fanzine. Not actually bad in itself but lacking in literary context. For instance sections on the 70s, 80s and more recent works would be of interest to the general reader if comparisons were made to contemporaneous developments in the field of writing as a whole.

Example: After reading All the Presidents Men  by the two  Washington Post journalists Woodward and Bernstein you can't help but see the enormous influence of their methodology and story-telling style upon science fiction and other genres.

Example: The development of cyber-punk should be within the context of computers becoming a young & sexy desktop product instead the clunky tool of science and business (as it was in the 1960s). The increase of computer usage and diversity in the real world leads to a greater popularity for the fictional extension of computers into sci-fi.

Example: When I was a boy in the 1960s my schoolteachers berated me for reading stacks and stacks of science fiction because, as they put it: "The world you're going to grow up into will be the  REAL world laddy!! You'll have to earn a living in the world of work and money! There won't  BE  any computers or robots or spaceships or genetic engineering in the  real world sonny jim!!! So get your head out of the clouds and forget about robots and suchlike!  (  ...etc. etc. etc. and so on and so forth...). Obviously I was right and they were wrong but the fact that they could be so completely and absolutely wrong is a sociological phenomenon. People's perception of how drastically science changes all our tomorrows has itself changed and, in turn, this affects the stories which can be told and the audiences to which the can be addressed.

Example: The increasing ease with which mainstream writers adopt science fiction themes and narrative methods is allowing the greatest ever amount of literary cross-pollination to take place. It is no longer enough to place a science fiction story within the context of Gernsback, Asimov and Poul Anderson when the story may actually be influenced by Jeanette Winterson and Salman Rushdie.

Why has the entire section: Onward and Upward been axed:

Removing the following intellectually castrates the article:


 * There are very important ideas in there, yes. But it's so poorly written that they're all lost. If you want to try to salvage the good stuff, go ahead. But this was the 'onward and upward section' of a history article, yet without noting chronology, it lumped together Huxley and Orwell with Crichton. It lumped Vonnegut and Burgess with Banks and Amis. (In other words, it has no sense of the chronology of the affair).


 * It gives full paragraphs to Philip K. Dick and Primo Levi, for reasons which escape me, without any sort of historical context. It attempts to argue that Tom Wolfe is science fiction. If you want to put this stuff under the 'scope' section of the main SF article, I'm fine with it. But it doesn't belong in a history article because it has no sense of history. What exactly is intellectually castrated?


 * At the same time, my current 'contemporary SF' section is truly lacking in a number of ways, which you hit upon above quite effectively. I'd appreciate it if you'd make the points you make about the influence of Woodward and Bernstein, Winterson and Rushdie, and how the hypertechnologization of society has affected SF and add that to the article. I don't dispute that that stuff belongs. I'm just not qualified to write that part of the article. Ferret-aaron 21:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

''The increasing intellectual sophistication of the genre and the emphasis on wider societal and psychological issues significantly broadened the appeal of science fiction to the reading public. Serious criticism of the genre is now common, and science fiction is studied in colleges and universities, both as literature and in how it relates to science and society.''

''There have been many crossover writings between science fiction and the mainstream of literature. There are writers who are generally known for mainstream literature who branch-out into writing science fiction. Examples are: Brave New World (Aldous Huxley), The Ransom Trilogy (C. S. Lewis), 1984 (George Orwell), On the Beach (Nevil Shute), The Alteration (Kingsley Amis), Shikasta (Doris Lessing) and The Andromeda Strain (Michael Crichton). Then there are writers first known for science fiction and fantasy who crossover into mainstream literature. Examples would be J. G. Ballard, Brian Aldiss and Michael Moorcock.''

There are writers whose work spans both the SF genre and the mainstream with ease, such as: Kurt Vonnegut, Anthony Burgess, Margaret Atwood, Iain Banks, Michael Frayn and Martin Amis.

Philip K. Dick wrote several novels which were mainstream studies of people, situations and relationships (with no science fiction element at all) but they didn't sell very well until after his death and, consequently, he is remembered by most people as an author of science fiction alone.

''There are also novels which combine science, fiction, fact, fantasy and allegory in ways which make categorisation difficult. For example, The Periodic Table by Primo Levi. In this autobiographical novel Primo Levi combines the true story of his life as a student chemist and victim of Nazi anti-Semitism with allegorical fables and the structure of scientific classification of the chemical elements. He makes it clear that the science and the fables both have important roles in his development as a young man.''

''As we progress, further into the 21st century, technology and planned obsolescence have become so much a part of our lives that, these days, to write a contemporary novel means to write a story in which people's lives are continually impacted by the presence of satellite technology, broadband internet, iPods, genetically modified organisms, environmental problems, robot assembly lines, cloning, designer babies, etc. etc. There is a very blurry line between the themes focused on by the work of William Gibson (who gets clearly labelled as a cyberpunk science fiction writer) and those of Jeff Noon (who gets labelled as a writer of contemporary fiction and only sometimes described as science fiction) for instance. Even factual writing like Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff is covering areas previously the stuff of science fiction. The world has caught-up with many of science fiction's favorite themes and literature can only reflect this. As a result, the dividing line between science fiction and the rest of literature is getting thinner.''

--wayland 20:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ferret-aaron: this bit was important but overdone. I think it would be relatively concise merely to present SF as a moving target. The "science" in SF often becomes fact, so that science fact is a moving area constantly encroaching on SF, but SF moves as well.
 * The boundaries of SF have always been blurry, and perhaps they are more so now because of the proliferation of gadgetry, but I don't think it worth expounding on in a history article. I suggest a short explanation with a link to Speculative Fiction, where crossover and boundaries are more appropriately documented.
 * That's my $0.02. KennyLucius 02:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not to say that I disagree with Wayland that this is important content that belongs in the article. I preserved the sections on the Modernists, the Beats, etc... for a reason. But in a history article, i feel a sense of chronology should be preserved. All treatment of crossover should not be dealt with in the final section of the history. That would not be the right way to handle it, I feel. The right way to do it is to discuss Vonnegut and Burgess in the context of the New Wave, etc... Likewise, the influence does not merely run one way, from the mainstream to SF. If we're going to do this right, the influence of the SF novel on the technothriller of Tom Clancy should be discussed (I can find sources on this, believe it or not). My finals are done Tuesday and I'll have nearly a month to work on this with access to NYU's extensive library. I should be able to make significant progress.
 * In any case, I'm trying to build a consensus to replace the current article with this. I know it's not perfect, but personally I'd rather have random people reading this, flawed as it is, than reading the current article, and I'd rather have random people correcting this article than correcting the current article. Is the consensus that we should merge this into the main track or are there structural problems that need fixing? I'm not moving this into the main track until I'm convinced there's no serious structural objections (i.e., I'm waiting to see if my cited sources satisfy Wayland that many historians attribute an ancient history to SF). Ferret-aaron 09:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm all for maintaining the chronology, but if there are major problems with the modern crossovers in literature, perhaps we should split at a certain point (perhaps before the contemporary section), and consecrate another article to the differing influences of one genre on the other. And, btw Ferret-aaron, I really think you did a great job rewriting this. I might be able to get something done after christmas, especially concerning Stanislaw Lem and other eastern European authors, but i'm quite caught up in work and admin duties just now. Lectonar 08:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

SF Scope rewrite
I have created a SF Scope Rewrite where we can work on it. It contains my first draft, and ESR's version is available in the history. I would appreciate comments. In fact, I need help. KennyLucius 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Substition
Finally substituted this in as the official article. I still welcome any improvements, and put a To Do List of still unresolved problems on the Talk Page. Ferret-aaron 14:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good Article
Congratulations on a good article to everyone involved, especially Ferret-aaron. If I recall correctly, Ferret-aaron did a major re-wrote on a separate page and offered up a clearly better one. The new article replaced the old one about six weeks later without any bickering. Nice job.

I was moved to congratulate you because I admire the way this rewrite proceeded, especially in light of recent events at the SF article. I feel that the rewriting process deserved its own recognition, and this is all I could come up with. KennyLucius 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kenny. I have to confess I'm not very clear on the Good Article criteria or the process, and since I know all the holes this article still has, I'm not really sure why it was given Good Article status. Ferret-aaron 20:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)