Talk:History of science fiction: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 21:23, 10 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of science fiction article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 730 days

History of science fiction was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 27, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

Science Fiction Top‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Modern SF

I think Netflix's Black Mirror may merit mention on this page. If there can be some consensus I wouldn't mind writing up a few paragraphs about the show. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:4480:2D00:6DA0:9CAC:937E:5070 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burroughs

The article describes Naked Lunch as the first in a series of novels using the cut-up method. Although episodic and fragmented, Naked Lunch did not use the cut-up method. I'm not sure if he had started using cut-ups before Naked Lunch was published, but NL itself was done before the discovery of cut-ups. Adkins (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lucian's "a true story"

should the above mentioned story be considered science fiction? Manumaker08 (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-SF Gets Way Too Much Emphasis

Brian Aldiss (and I) consider Frankenstein (1818) to be the earliest work of science fiction. Why then in an article purported to be about the history of science fiction is this earliest work not mentioned until almost the halfway point of this chronological entry? In my opinion, all that proto-SF stuff that comes before 1818 needs to either be greatly condensed, comprising no more than 10% of the article, or have its own article titled "proto-SF". There has been a lot that has happened these past forty-odd years in SF. The last two sections could/should be considerably expanded. I'm for a better balanced article by reducing the front load and expanding the latter part. DanQuigley 04:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanQuigley (talk • contribs)

I agree. In fact, the proto part contains unsourced POV. As an example, I would immediately delete the following:

The ancient Hindu mythological epic the Mahabharata (8th and 9th centuries BCE) includes the story of King Kakudmi, who travels to heaven to meet the creator Brahma and is shocked to learn that many ages have passed when he returns to Earth, anticipating the concept of time travel.^[1]

This is unsourced opinion (the citation is merely a summary of the myth). To say this is time travel in the science-fictional sense is silly. The concept of time dilation while visiting the gods or fairies is common and is pure fantasy when it lacks any connection with science or logic. Zaslav (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gibbs, Laura. "Revati". Encyclopedia for Epics of Ancient India. Archived from the original on 30 July 2020. Retrieved 16 May 2013.

Science fiction narratives

To 217.164.100.181 (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Gibbs, Laura. "Revati". Encyclopedia for Epics of Ancient India. Archived from the original on 30 July 2020. Retrieved 16 May 2013.

[1]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Talk header}}
+{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(730d) | archive = Talk:History of science fiction/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 6 }}
 {{Article history
 |action1=GAN
@@ Line 6: / Line 8: @@
 |currentstatus=FGAN
 }}
-{{WikiProject Science Fiction
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
+{{WikiProject Science Fiction  |importance=Top}}
-  |class=B
-  |importance=Top
+{{WikiProject History|importance=low}}
-  |type=Article
 }}
+{{annual readership}}
-{{WikiProject History}}
-{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|}}
+== Modern SF ==
-==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. [[User:Behemothing|Behemothing]] ([[User talk:Behemothing|talk]]) 18:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
+I think Netflix's Black Mirror may merit mention on this page. If there can be some consensus I wouldn't mind writing up a few paragraphs about the show. Thoughts?  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2600:8807:4480:2D00:6DA0:9CAC:937E:5070|2600:8807:4480:2D00:6DA0:9CAC:937E:5070]] ([[User talk:2600:8807:4480:2D00:6DA0:9CAC:937E:5070#top|talk]]) 12:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-==Buffy etc.==
-Neither ''[[Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)|Buffy the Vampire Slayer]]'' nor ''[[The Lord of the Rings film trilogy|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. [[User:LyleHoward|LyleHoward]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kant2k2|Kant2k2]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Nitpyck|Nitpyck]] ([[User talk: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 [[Science-fiction opera|sci-fi opera]] theme or [[U.S._television_science_fiction|scifi in television]] known as [[Sci-fi Romance]]--[[User:Murriemir|Murriemir]] ([[User talk:Murriemir|talk]]) 04:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
-== New Space Opera ==
+== Burroughs ==
-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.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.135.9.212|70.135.9.212]] [[User:Kant2k2|Kant2k2]] This was me by the way [[User:Kant2k2|Kant2k2]] ([[User talk:Kant2k2|talk]]) 18:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
+The article describes Naked Lunch as the first in a series of novels using the cut-up method. Although episodic and fragmented, Naked Lunch did not use the cut-up method. I'm not sure if he had started using cut-ups before Naked Lunch was published, but NL itself was done before the discovery of cut-ups. [[User:Adkins|Adkins]] ([[User talk:Adkins|talk]]) 14:37, 29 November 2021 (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".--[[User:Narayan|Narayan]] ([[User talk:Narayan|talk]]) 21:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
-:Since SF originated in the literature, I'm comfortable with the current arrangement. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]]  &#x007C;  [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 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).--[[User:Narayan|Narayan]] ([[User talk: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".--[[User:Narayan|Narayan]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Euchrid|Euchrid]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:Behemothing|Behemothing]] ([[User talk: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".) --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] &#x007C; [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 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. [[User:Behemothing|Behemothing]] ([[User talk:Behemothing|talk]]) 00:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
+== lucian's "a true story" ==
-==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. --[[User:Szente|Szente]] ([[User talk:Szente|talk]]) 14:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
+should the above mentioned story be considered science fiction? [[User:Manumaker08|Manumaker08]] ([[User talk:Manumaker08|talk]]) 17:54, 4 November 2022 (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? [[User:Euchrid|Euchrid]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Behemothing|Behemothing]] ([[User talk:Behemothing|talk]]) 01:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
+== Proto-SF Gets Way Too Much Emphasis ==
-== External links modified ==
+Brian Aldiss (and I) consider Frankenstein (1818) to be the earliest work of science fiction. Why then in an article purported to be about the history of science fiction is this earliest work not mentioned until almost the halfway point of this chronological entry? In my opinion, all that proto-SF stuff that comes before 1818 needs to either be greatly condensed, comprising no more than 10% of the article, or have its own article titled "proto-SF". There has been a lot that has happened these past forty-odd years in SF. The last two sections could/should be considerably expanded. I'm for a better balanced article by reducing the front load and expanding the latter part. DanQuigley 04:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:DanQuigley|DanQuigley]] ([[User talk:DanQuigley#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DanQuigley|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-Hello fellow Wikipedians,
+:I agree.  In fact, the proto part contains unsourced POV.  As an example, I would immediately delete the following:
-I have just modified one external link on [[History of science fiction]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=801112700 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
+::The ancient Hindu mythological epic the Mahabharata (8th and 9th centuries BCE) includes the story of King Kakudmi, who travels to heaven to meet the creator Brahma and is shocked to learn that many ages have passed when he returns to Earth, anticipating the concept of time travel.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Revati |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia for Epics of Ancient India |url=http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/encyclopedia/revati.htm |access-date=16 May 2013 |last=Gibbs |first=Laura |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200730192138/http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/encyclopedia/revati.htm |archive-date=30 July 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref>
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150425042047/http://writershistory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=41 to http://writershistory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=41
+:This is unsourced opinion (the citation is merely a summary of the myth).  To say this is time travel in the science-fictional sense is silly.  The concept of time dilation while visiting the gods or fairies is common and is pure fantasy when it lacks any connection with science or logic.  [[User:Zaslav|Zaslav]] ([[User talk:Zaslav|talk]]) 06:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
+{{reflist-talk}}
-When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
+== Science fiction narratives  ==
-{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
+To [[Special:Contributions/217.164.100.181|217.164.100.181]] ([[User talk:217.164.100.181|talk]]) 09:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 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 [[special:diff/808792101|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627190020/http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/lit/horror/TheWorksofEdgarAllenPoeVolume1/chap3.html to http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/lit/horror/TheWorksofEdgarAllenPoeVolume1/chap3.html
-When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
-{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
-Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 05:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
-== Genre Toppling ==
-[[Special:Contributions/64.109.54.132|64.109.54.132]] ([[User talk:64.109.54.132|talk]]) 18:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)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?
-[[Special:Contributions/64.109.54.132|64.109.54.132]] ([[User talk: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...