![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think the Vonnegut quote that was just added is probably not worth keeping; I'd like to hear another opinion before I revert, though. It doesn't define sf at all, nor does it say anything about why it's hard to define. It's simply an aside about the habit of defining sf. I don't think it adds anything, and it seems to expand the boundaries of the quotes included beyond what is useful for the article. Any comments? Mike Christie (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It seemed more appropriate to start with Gernsback! -- Ant 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The Blish "a kind of hybrid in which plausibility is specifically invoked" definition is quoted in "Atheling"'s "More Issues at Hand", 1970, per the OED sf website. I don't have my copy with me; can someone with a copy figure out what the publication date was for the original? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Per this page, the Ketterer quote is from 1974. I don't have a copy so I'm going to change it to be in the dated list but not add a cite to the original source. If someone with a copy could add a cite, that would be great. Mike Christie (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The Bonnie Kunzel quote was inherited from the discussion of definitions in the science fiction article. However, I'm doubtful as to whether Kunzel is notable enough to include. Anybody else think this could be cut? It's not a particularly insightful addition, and without some notability on Kunzel's part I see no reason to keep it. Mike Christie (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
A quote from Heinlein is cited from Lloyd Arthur Eshbach's 'Of Worlds Beyond' symposium; specifically from the 1964 reprint. I own this reprint, but cannot find the quote. Is it possible that the quote is from the original but omitted in the reprint?
"[R]ealistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method."
Here are some links to pages that may point at definitions worth adding, or which may help source some of these definitions. At least some of these have already been reviewed but it is probably worth keeping a list here.
-- Mike Christie (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This articles is a list of quotes. Instead of listing quotes of science fiction authors, wouldn't it be more relevant to list definitions given in encyclopedic content - a list of definitions from dictionaries, literary criticism, and critical sources?
That is to say, instead of saying what writers think science fiction is, give definitions that are meant as definitions. This article should be a set of way in which those who define things define science fiction, and have primarily reference-book references.
Most encyclopedias try to define what science fiction is, but as Wikipedia, we can't do so, as it would be original research. Thus, we should try to list other people's general definitions of science fiction to give the reader a sense of what science fiction is. Writers aren't necessarily well-read individuals, and I think most writers will try to define science fiction in the context of why their novels fit into the genre, not generally defining the concept.
-- Nutarama ( talk) 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I find the notion of "reliable sources" a bit tricky in literary matters. On the one hand, specialist scholars such as Suvin and Scholes certainly qualify, but it would be a mistake to dismiss the work of experienced and thoughtful writers who are seriously engaged in the enterprise--Heinlein is probably the best example (and his definition is widely cited in the literature). And in fact the range of testimony from writers about what they think they are doing has been part of the discussion from the beginning. An article calling itself "Definitions of science fiction" already tacitly acknowledges that there is not a single, universally-accepted definition--the "definition of SF" problem is a kind of meta-question. And anyone who has worked with literary taxonomy understands that genus-and-species categorization has only limited usefulness in dealing with genres, which are by their natures as fluid as language itself. RLetson ( talk) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
An anon made this edit recently. I have never heard the Campbell quote and suspect it's a misremembered version of the Damon Knight quote that's already in the article. A Google search for it turned up nothing. The Gernsback quote looks more interesting but it would have to be sourced; again I can't find anything via Google. Is anyone else familiar with that quote? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
See this; not sure what Malzberg meant but it doesn't appear the definition is in Collier's, so the 1981 date seems to be correct. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Science fiction is a form of literature that takes place in an alternative present, a reconceived past, or an extrapolated future." Author Malzberg. I see this in several encyclopedias that are all related (same publisher at least sometimes, they all bought each other or sold rights to each other). Grolier Encyclopedia 1991 [3], Lexicon Universal Encyclopedia 1989 [4], Academic American Encyclopedia 1990 [5]. The last was published by Grolier starting in 1980 (though I can't check it) and with no evidence at all I conjecture that Malzberg got "Collier" and "Grolier" confused. Zero talk 06:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think the Vonnegut quote that was just added is probably not worth keeping; I'd like to hear another opinion before I revert, though. It doesn't define sf at all, nor does it say anything about why it's hard to define. It's simply an aside about the habit of defining sf. I don't think it adds anything, and it seems to expand the boundaries of the quotes included beyond what is useful for the article. Any comments? Mike Christie (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It seemed more appropriate to start with Gernsback! -- Ant 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The Blish "a kind of hybrid in which plausibility is specifically invoked" definition is quoted in "Atheling"'s "More Issues at Hand", 1970, per the OED sf website. I don't have my copy with me; can someone with a copy figure out what the publication date was for the original? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Per this page, the Ketterer quote is from 1974. I don't have a copy so I'm going to change it to be in the dated list but not add a cite to the original source. If someone with a copy could add a cite, that would be great. Mike Christie (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The Bonnie Kunzel quote was inherited from the discussion of definitions in the science fiction article. However, I'm doubtful as to whether Kunzel is notable enough to include. Anybody else think this could be cut? It's not a particularly insightful addition, and without some notability on Kunzel's part I see no reason to keep it. Mike Christie (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
A quote from Heinlein is cited from Lloyd Arthur Eshbach's 'Of Worlds Beyond' symposium; specifically from the 1964 reprint. I own this reprint, but cannot find the quote. Is it possible that the quote is from the original but omitted in the reprint?
"[R]ealistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method."
Here are some links to pages that may point at definitions worth adding, or which may help source some of these definitions. At least some of these have already been reviewed but it is probably worth keeping a list here.
-- Mike Christie (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This articles is a list of quotes. Instead of listing quotes of science fiction authors, wouldn't it be more relevant to list definitions given in encyclopedic content - a list of definitions from dictionaries, literary criticism, and critical sources?
That is to say, instead of saying what writers think science fiction is, give definitions that are meant as definitions. This article should be a set of way in which those who define things define science fiction, and have primarily reference-book references.
Most encyclopedias try to define what science fiction is, but as Wikipedia, we can't do so, as it would be original research. Thus, we should try to list other people's general definitions of science fiction to give the reader a sense of what science fiction is. Writers aren't necessarily well-read individuals, and I think most writers will try to define science fiction in the context of why their novels fit into the genre, not generally defining the concept.
-- Nutarama ( talk) 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I find the notion of "reliable sources" a bit tricky in literary matters. On the one hand, specialist scholars such as Suvin and Scholes certainly qualify, but it would be a mistake to dismiss the work of experienced and thoughtful writers who are seriously engaged in the enterprise--Heinlein is probably the best example (and his definition is widely cited in the literature). And in fact the range of testimony from writers about what they think they are doing has been part of the discussion from the beginning. An article calling itself "Definitions of science fiction" already tacitly acknowledges that there is not a single, universally-accepted definition--the "definition of SF" problem is a kind of meta-question. And anyone who has worked with literary taxonomy understands that genus-and-species categorization has only limited usefulness in dealing with genres, which are by their natures as fluid as language itself. RLetson ( talk) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
An anon made this edit recently. I have never heard the Campbell quote and suspect it's a misremembered version of the Damon Knight quote that's already in the article. A Google search for it turned up nothing. The Gernsback quote looks more interesting but it would have to be sourced; again I can't find anything via Google. Is anyone else familiar with that quote? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
See this; not sure what Malzberg meant but it doesn't appear the definition is in Collier's, so the 1981 date seems to be correct. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Science fiction is a form of literature that takes place in an alternative present, a reconceived past, or an extrapolated future." Author Malzberg. I see this in several encyclopedias that are all related (same publisher at least sometimes, they all bought each other or sold rights to each other). Grolier Encyclopedia 1991 [3], Lexicon Universal Encyclopedia 1989 [4], Academic American Encyclopedia 1990 [5]. The last was published by Grolier starting in 1980 (though I can't check it) and with no evidence at all I conjecture that Malzberg got "Collier" and "Grolier" confused. Zero talk 06:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)