Talk:New Wave (science fiction)/Archive 1

Grammar
The following paragraph is more than usually unintelligible, even for Wikipedia, with incomplete sentences and antecedentless references. I'm leaving it here until somebody figures out what it is supposed to mean and corrects it-- RandomCritic 13:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC) :

"Though not identified with the New Wave or any other literary movement, the American anthology series Orbit, edited by Damon Knight. The later New Wave-influenced writers Gardner Dozois and Jack Dann would get published here. Orbit serve as a latter-day showcase of experimental science fiction, to relatively little notice. New Worlds itself ended its days as a paperback anthology, rather than a magazine."

Played out?
I have removed the line below because it is simply patently ridiculous. Played out? Important only to academics? I guess thats why Ursula Leguin, Michael Moorcock, and Harlan Ellison have continued on to very successful science fiction careers and are extremely well known, because they were "played out". Regardless of what one thinks of the New Wave, and that it arguably DID peak in the mid 70's, its absurd to state that the genre was somehow unpopular, little thought of by general readers, and irrelevent to the larger scene.

'', the year the war ended, it was played out. Most of its fruits proved to be more interesting to academics and literary theorists than actual readers''

SiberioS 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
That's a bit glib. Certainly, a lot of the "New Wave" also took place in outer space; what sets it apart are both style and theme. This line implies that it's a matter of setting; I don't think "outer space" can be called the theme of most older SF.

Overall I don't think this article does a good job conveying what "New Wave" SF is. A quick google turned up this this article which does so quite nicely. --Starwed

This whole article needs a lot of work. Recommend a "clean-up" flag be put on. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough on the subject to really tackle it, but I'll aim to at least clean up some of the grammar over the next few days.--216.43.17.100 20:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article makes the common error (at least as seen from one prominent POV, e.g. that of Samuel R. Delany) of retrospectively lumping in a whole lot of stuff that was not part of the New Wave at the time. At the least, we need to distinguish carefully between the "New Wave proper" (centered on New Worlds under the editorship of Moorcock, with Ballard and Aldiss as its most prominent exponents) and the "New Wave in an extended sense", which could include developments in sf publishing in the US and elsewhere (notably Ellison's Dangerous Visions anthologies). Even if we look at that "extended sense", it is pretty controversial to claim Le Guin as part of the New Wave. Metamagician3000 08:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ratings
I am rating this class B and importance = high. This article could be improved by adding more references or further reading and by footnoting specific items. - PKM 02:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think B is a bit generous; there is only one reference, no citations, and it's a pretty unbalanced treatment of the topic. I changed it to Start-class.--ragesoss 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

New Wave in Comics
It occurs to me that there are clear elements of New Wave in science fiction comics of the 70s, especially the French comics published in Metal Hurlant such as Moebius' work (Arzach, The Airtight Garage--which used the character Jerry Cornelius created by Michael Moorcock--and somewhat later The Incal with Jodorowsky), but also less experimental titles such as Valerian and Laureline. Michael Moorcock's other character, Elric, appeared in issues of Conan starting in 1972. I don't feel that I know enough about it to add it to the article, but at least this comment will stand as a reminder. -Snarkibartfast (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is New-wave
The currently uncited lists contains authors who were popular from the 1940's until today. By what criteria are they all "New wave authors"? Is writing one New Wave book (with cite from critic) enough. Or is it just enough to have published any work in 1960-1979? Or anything slightly experimental? Most of the list currently links to authors who make no claim to be New Wave at all. As a result i added more tags, and will start removing examples, except those i think are important, which i will cite.Yobmod (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By one standard, any author who wrote a a New Wave story is a New Wave author. That doesn't necessarily mean we should list them all. I would say that the list should be of authors who made major contributions to the New Wave, and authors whose major works were part of the New Wave. Specifically, I would argue that any contributor to Dangerous Visions/Again, Dangerous Visions is eligible, as well as contributors to New Worlds under Moorcock's editorship (Galaxy under Pohl was also an important outlet).
 * While I acknowledge that citations are desirable and that examples that are challenged should be referenced or removed, I think a number of the entries you've tagged are no-brainers. Aldiss was one of the main forces behind the New Wave; Farmer one of its most prominent writers. Dick and Le Guin have written some of the most well-known New Wave stories. Yeah, many of these writers had careers before and after the New Wave. In the same way, many of the bands that were integral to 60s psychedelic music were active before and/or after that period, often working in very different styles. That doesn't detract from their contribution to the movement. I do agree that the article is currently pretty shoddy, both in research, content and writing, and if you're planning on improving it I encourage that. Snarkibartfast (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As for cites, I don't have my library at hand, and there's no solid, extensive web resource that I know of on the subject (although these lecture notes, co-edited by James Gunn, are good--and incidentally list Brunner, "in part"), but here are two indirect references:
 * A review/summary of The Entropy Exhibition, a book about the British New Wave that argues that the three principal authors were Moorcock, Ballard and Aldiss.
 * A collection of references for the term (many of which could usefully be incorporated into the article). Various quotes name Silverberg and PKD, among those disputed.
 * Furthermore, Google Books has a book about Ursula Le Guin that associates her with the New Wave, and one about Harlan Ellison that has a good section on the New Wave (beginning on p. 129): "Like many literary movements in science fiction [...] the New Wave could almost be defined as consisting of all those authors who denied being part of it." It specifically lists Spinrad and John Harrison as writers "widely considered" to be part of the New Wave, but seems to not include authors who had started writing experimental or controversial stories before the New Wave really got going, such as Farmer and Silverberg. I disagree with that logic, though. I haven't read anything by Lafferty, Roberts or Russ that I remember, though I think it would be best to look for references before removing them. The little I've read of Harry Harrison didn't seem to have much to do with the New Wave, and I wouldn't have a problem with removing him from the list. -Snarkibartfast (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite
Since the article is currently very much start-class, I made an outline of what I think should be in an improved version. I won't be able to work on it over the Christmas holidays, but maybe after new year. If anyone disagrees with anything I'm proposing, or has any suggestions for additional things to cover or other ways to structure it, please mark your edits in the list below. (I haven't done all my research yet, but I intend to check and verify every claim, and make sure everything is fully referenced.) Thanks! - Snarkibartfast (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

- Snarkibartfast (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Intro
 * -A type of science fiction
 * -Period sixties-early seventies
 * -Characteristics: Literary highbrow ambitions, avant garde/experimental, controversial topics (sex, religion, drugs, politics), less focus on hard-SF technology
 * -Prominent writers: Moorcock, Aldiss, Ballard, Ellison, Disch?, Farmer?
 * Origins and Use of the Term
 * Generic term becoming more specific: New Worlds, "the new thing", reference to nouvelle vague. Use by Merril, Ellison, Priest. Often disavowed by those labeled as such.
 * British NW vs. American NW vs. generalized to refer to similar characteristics in other writers
 * History
 * Situation in SF pre-1960s. Precursors to the NW (including Dune). Pre-NW works of future NW writers.
 * Context of 60s radicalism/psychedelia, surrealist/Beat/avant garde influences (Burroughs etc.)
 * British NW: New Worlds, England Swings (SF)
 * American NW: Dangerous Visions
 * Backlash, controversy (but also recognition)
 * Decline, reconciliation/assimilation, cyberpunk as "next new thing", post-NW legacy (feminist SF, slipstream, New Weird, magical realism, etc.)
 * Characteristics
 * Literary Ambition: Higher literary standards, criticism of Golden Age writing, reappropriate "mainstream" writers for SF, seek academic attention, "speculative fiction" as preferred term, writers working in both SF genre and mainstream (Examples)
 * Stylistic Experimentation: Joyce & Burroughs, "Cut-up" style, stream-of-consciousness, subjective storytelling (Examples)
 * Controversial topics
 * Politics: Radical, left-wing, anti-Vietnam War, (in the UK, sometimes) anti-American (Examples)
 * Religion: Blasphemous, mystical/shamanistic/New Age (Examples)
 * Sex: Explicit, permissive, (sometimes) pro-LGBT, topic in its own right (Examples)
 * Drugs: Psychedelics (Examples)
 * Soft SF: Understanding other cultures (anthropology), often claimed: more focus on examining own society, less outer space/distant future, more "innerspace"
 * Criticism
 * Internal criticism: Reject label, reject being seen as part of a movement. Response: Movement/groundswell did take place, label has stuck. (references)
 * External criticism: Pretentious, unreadable, not original. Response: Excesses, but great works have stood test of time. Enduring influence for the better. (references)
 * List of important NW writers
 * List of important NW works (magazines, novels, anthologies)

Satyajit Ray
I've removed the recently added paragraph on a story by Satyajit Ray for several reasons. First, it is inaccurate in its assertion that it was the first story in which an alien interacted with children on a friendly basis, and that all previous aliens had been portrayed as "dangerous creatures". Second, the story itself is in no way an exemplar of the New Wave school: not everyone writing SF at that time was writing "New Wave". Third, I have an uneasy feeling that there may be some sort of intent to assert a primacy of concept here - the concept of course being the "friendly alien that interacts with children" notably exemplified by Spielberg's "ET". The fact that Ray was also a film director seems circumstantially relevant here.
 * I think the purged paragraph you're talking about here remains in the History of Science Fiction page under the 'new wave' heading. Perhaps it should be expunged from there as well?--124.157.108.187 (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Authors list
I propose that the list of authors be deleted. As is often the case with such a list, names are added with no explanation and no references. It is far better that notable authors are discussed in the text of the article, as many of these are, than simply appending a list. Thoughts? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 16:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. Beyond the referencing and accuracy concerns, such lists can never convey the extent to which a given author is associated with the movement. It would be far better to mention the important writers using prose in the body of the article, but for now, removal is the way to go. So as not to lose the references, let's keep the cited authors and try to fit them in the article somewhere.  Skomorokh   16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the following:
 * David R. Bunch
 * Samuel R. Delany
 * Philip K. Dick
 * Thomas M. Disch
 * Philip José Farmer
 * Harry Harrison
 * R. A. Lafferty
 * Ursula K. Le Guin
 * Keith Roberts
 * James Tiptree, Jr.
 * All of these were uncited. Of those that remain, only one, Moorcock, is unreferenced.  However, most of them are already discussed in the text.  The only ones on the list who are not in the body of the article are Kurimoto, Russ, Silverberg, and Spinrad. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  18:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fashioned a crude and weaselly stub section from the remainder.  Skomorokh   19:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Adversarial? How So?
The article states in a couple places that there was an adversarial relationship between the New Wave and traditional SF, but does not discuss this conflict at all. Was there actually conflict? What form did it take? What were the points of contention? Was it one-sided? 12.45.255.66 (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a section under the 'Movement' heading that illustrates the adversarial relationship between the New Wave and traditional SF -- Judith Merril and other New Wave supporters were suspected of trying to eliminate the genre by saying that what was required now (the 1960s) transcended genre -- their opponents considered that they were fighting for the survival of SF (science fiction not speculative fiction) as they knew and loved it. I hope to add more about this aspect. Carey McCarthy (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Cut and Paste
What was previously on this page without any citations had been simply cut and pasted straight from here: http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/16563 Probably this is copyrighted? Maybe this material (I've incorporated a little of it) should be deleted? Carey McCarthy (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, are you sure it's not the other way around? - Snarkibartfast (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Snarkibartfast. It could be that the Russian site is a Wiki mirror, and they copied the material from here, not the other way around. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  13:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I should have thought of that.Carey McCarthy (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Original Research" banner
Is it time to remove the banner

from the heading? There is not much un-referenced material left and what is, is signaled by a second banner near the end. Carey McCarthy (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed first (top) banner. Carey McCarthy (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)