Talk:Science fiction/Related Articles

Titles

"Architects" hmmm...well, I would use in in context. And I'm still not hip to "googling it" as a solution to anything. But, moving right along, another solution would be simply to title the section "Science fiction pioneers", which I think would cover more than "science fiction creators", and then subtititle "Cineasts", "Authors", perhaps even "Actors". What's the word for radio people? Aleta Curry 17:09, 22 February 2008 (CST)

Well, I *did* think for a moment about using "pioneers", as you say, but then decided that Madeleine L'Engle, for instance, is by no means a pioneer. If we use "pioneers", it's gotta be only for people like Verne, Gernback, Wells, Poe, etc. Even St. RAH himself, the god-like Robert A. Heinlein, although certainly a pioneer of *modern* READABLE science fiction, shouldn't be called a pioneer, as that word has very strong connotations that we don't need to google, hehe. "Radiodramatist"? Hayford Peirce 17:18, 22 February 2008 (CST)

Yeah, good point about "pioneers". Okay, do we want to separate out "pioneers" and "contributors"? I thought "contributors" too weak, as we don't want any of tens of thousands of contributors. Where do we place precursors, like Mary Shelley? Is Frankenstein bona fide science fiction? And on what level "pioneer"? If you consider that Flash Gordon was how many generations before Star Trek, is Gene Roddwenberry a pioneer? On the other hand, what he started was ground-breaking in a lot of ways, social commentary, inclusionism, again, not new, but novel in that time, generation and genre.

As long as I'm making up words anyway, radionistas?

Aleta Curry 17:37, 22 February 2008 (CST)

How about "Precusors" for Shelley, Cyrano de Bergerac, etc, and "Pioneers" for Verne, Poe, etc. Naw, Gene is much too modern to be a pioneer (see above) -- how about something like "Groundbreakers" or "Important figures" -- geez, I wish I could have gotten some of the WP crowd who *really* know their S.F. to contribute to CZ -- a couple of them joined but haven't done anything, I dunno why. I myself am far too lazy to get involved in a complete S.F. article -- except to say, in passing, that *most* true S.F. fans, writers, aficionados, etc., *detest* the term "sci-fi". I myself couldn't care less about it, but it truly upsets a large number of people, so it's probably best to avoid it unless it's clearly being used in some sort of context. Hayford Peirce 17:58, 22 February 2008 (CST)

My understanding is that SF means books & short stories, scifi means films, radio, TV & comics (& presumably computer games &c). Peter Jackson 10:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has probably effectively come to mean that, but *many* people who are not "insider science-fiction types" use "sci-fi" to mean anything in the field. As I said, above, real S.F. types *hate* the term, as they apparently find it demeaning. Although those people may well be dying out and in another 20 years no one will give a hoot one way or another. In the meantime, though, "sci-fi" should not be used in CZ unless it is clearly defined and qualified. Hayford Peirce 18:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Radiurge? (Cf dramaturge) Peter Jackson 10:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You will go to the Moon-help me out, here

I'm rethinking its inclusion. It was speculative, certainly, but was it fiction? Not really a story as I recall...hmm...it's been years. Aleta Curry 03:28, 22 February 2008 (CST)

I've never heard of it -- I *suppose* that one could Google it, but I don't want to suggest *that*, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 09:16, 24 February 2008 (CST)

That's going to be a problem with this kind of list, it's almost an opinion column. There are some, like Star Wars or Star Trek on it that you will probably get unanimous agreement on, but others I imagine could be the source of a lot of debate. I'm not sure how you set the criteria on this sort of thing. --Todd Coles 10:34, 24 February 2008 (CST)

There are bitter, and absolutely unending debates over at WP about this sort of stuff, in the Hard S.F. article for instance. It goes on and on and on.... The list gets to be 300 items long, then a couple of people who really *do* know their stuff delete it, add two or three items -- and it starts all over again. One of the reasons I left WP. Maybe we can smarter here. I do wish that User:Russell Letson would start contributing, however -- he's a tremendous writer and resource.... Hayford Peirce 10:54, 24 February 2008 (CST)

I finally did a Wikipedia look at this and it seems to be a 1959 kids' book -- is it *really* seminal? I never hoid of it. That same year, let us recall, St. RAH wrote Have Spacesuit, Will Travel, a *really* well-known Young Adults book. I would strongly suggest removing this item -- or giving some justification for keeping it. Hayford Peirce 23:10, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

I have never read Have Spacesuit, Will Travell. You will go to the Moon is definitely for a younger audience. I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it, you would have been too old for it when it was published and I wasn't here yet. It was big in my school, what can I tell you? I seem to think that I read it in the school libraries in the Commonwealth AND in the States, but I could be fuzzy there, after all, it WAS mumble...mumble years ago. Aleta Curry 18:01, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

I'll certainly take your word for it. The RAH book was just the last one of his *really* good YA books, even though it was first published in an adult SF magazine. But it certainly wasn't seminal in any way whatsoever.

"Adult SF" - is that the kind where the cover has a picture of a busty heroine in an extemely skimpy spacesuit? :-) J. Noel Chiappa 18:55, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

That was probably "pre-adolescent S.F." or "horny young adolescent S.F.", which gave the field a bad name for 3 decades, or at least the covers on most of the mags did, even if the content therein was actually reasonably grown-up in many cases. Hayford Peirce 00:33, 21 May 2008 (CDT)

My opinion on who makes the cut

I think we have to be careful as we go along, and include in these lists people who became famous for their science fiction and who would have been famous only for that, not people who are famous for other things and just happen to have a work or two of science fiction as well. Aleta Curry 21:53, 24 February 2008 (CST)

And speaking of this, can someone explain the Cyrano de Bergerac/sci fi connection? Nonplussed, here. Pace, Hayford, I typed 'sci fi' oops! Aleta Curry 21:58, 24 February 2008 (CST)

An excellent point -- but maybe we could have a separate category for them: Big Shot Lit'ry Ppl Who Wrote a Little S.F. on the Side and then list Orwell, Waugh, Huxley, Vidal, and, oh, the list is endless. Twain, too.... And another category for idiots like Kurt Vonnegut who wrote some of the best S.F. of all time, then bitterly denied for years and years that he ever wrote S.F. Hayford Peirce 22:03, 24 February 2008 (CST)

The Nose: my big "S.F. Encyl." says "his major work of PROTO SCIENCE FICTION , L'autre monde, exists today only as one short novel blah blah.... CDB's works were highly influential on the 18th-century tradition of the conte philosphique as written by Voltaire and others." Anyway, if you want to research it, he's an important early figure. Also, the above phrase "Proto S.F." isn't a bad one.... Hayford Peirce 22:10, 24 February 2008 (CST)

Who to include

Boy, I'm glad you two are working on this, and not me! A couple of names who ring bells for me as having taken SF as an existing field, with a certain reputation (for space opera, etc) into serious writing, focusing on the English, not just the ideas: Alfred Bester, the guy who did 'Canticle for Leibowitz' (the book that finally convinced the English PhD I had working for me that SF contained some serious writing :-), and Samuel R. Delaney (Nova). Maybe some more, those are three right off the top of my head. J. Noel Chiappa 14:24, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

I know, this is all an enormous can of worms. Completely subjective. Over at WP they are, I believe, *still* arguing bitterly about what should or should not be included in Hard science fiction. Maybe it will happen here if enough people start making contributions. If only User:Russell Letson would stop writing reviews for Locus, and about Hawaiian guitars, and maybe screwing around a little with WP, and start doin' stuff here! Hayford Peirce 14:32, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

Got me. I'm unashamedly into popular sci-fi and fantasy. Aleta Curry 17:57, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

Correction, Noel: Canticle for Leibowitz isn't by Bester, it's by Walter M. Miller (probably his only really important book). Bester wrote The Stars My Destination/Tiger!Tiger! (punctuation maybe inaccurate) & The Demolished Man. If I remember right, all 3 of these books won Hugo awards.

I'm new here so maybe I don't understand how things are meant to work, but it seems reasonable to me that a Related articles page here should list all SF writers for whom articles exist, or are expected to exist, which in turn is determined by the maintainability policy. In the case of authors who wrote different kinds of things it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis whether their SF contribution is important enough to mention: eg do we mention Kipling? Who are the important writers is a matter for the main article. Peter Jackson 10:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)