Talk:Science fiction/Related Articles

"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)

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)