Talk:Science fiction

From Citizendium
Revision as of 20:35, 19 May 2008 by imported>Denis Cavanagh (→‎The love of a good woman?!)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is a stub and thus not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Catalogs [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  A story-telling genre that presents alternatives to what is currently considered scientifically possible or that extrapolates from present-day knowledge. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  Literature [Categories OK]
 Subgroup category:  Science fiction
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  British English

Duplication? Isn't that cross-referencing?

Okay, Hayford, not sure I take your point in removing some author's works from the "literature" list in Related Articles.

If I follow you, "Frankenstein", e.g. is to be removed because "Mary Shelley" is listed under "Authors"?

But surely, if that were the case, we would have to decide to have either a literature list or an author's list?

I don't think that the list of Literature will contain more than one--maybe two?--of any particular person's work, but I do think it should exist for those larger-than-life works, wherein a person might not necessarily know who wrote it, or remember the exact title, etc. etc.

By the same token, if there is not to be this cross-referencing, why do we need film, tv or radio lists? George Lucas AND Star Wars?

Maybe you have another way of looking at this?

Aleta Curry 18:35, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

Well, I'm not the person who started this page -- I've made a couple of contributions to it, and have removed a couple of items, but it isn't something that interests me greatly. Didn't we discuss this before, somewhere? If so, I don't think we came to any conclusions about it. But, off the top of my head, if we're going to have Authors, with, say, Chulz Voine, as Isaac Asimov thought he was called when he (Isaac) was a boy in Brooklyn, on one list, then I think it would make more sense to have:
  • Jules Verne
  • 20,000 Leagues Under
  • Voyage to the Center
  • A Trip to the Moon
  • Etc. etc.

rather than just his name up at the top of the page, *then*, somewhere far below, a list of books with *no* mention of who wrote them. Ditto for the other categories. If we have George Lucas, why not list Star Wars under his name rather than separately?

Of course, if you want to be a completist, you could also cross reference all of the above stuff the *other* way around *also*, so that everything is listed twice....

Dunno if any of this makes sense.... Hayford Peirce 18:56, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

  • Makes a good deal of sense. I'm fine with listing authors/pioneers/originators with a list of their works, seminal or otherwise.
  • Did we discuss this before? And would I remember where it was if we did? Hahahahahahahahahahaha
  • I'm not sure, once we start organising into anything other than just a straight list with definitions, doesn't that put us into catalogues rather than related pages?
Aleta Curry 19:04, 18 May 2008 (CDT)
Well, I know that I discussed it with *someone*, but maybe it was just by lengthy notes on the Summary line when we made editorial changes. Why don't we (you, me, someone, the spirit of St. RAH, perhaps) just rearrange the present list as we've just discussed. At some point, I imagine, if warranted, our Kindly Editor-in-Chief will make a dramatic appearance and "gently guide" us into creating Catalogs or Subpages or some other Arcana that I can't ever quite wrap my tired old brain around. And how difficult it must be for *you*, being down there on the other side of the world, upside down and all, with all the blood draining from your brain down to yer feet.... Frightening! Hayford Peirce 19:31, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

The love of a good woman?!

[Rises to bait indignantly]

Now, really! Really, now!

What's so #$%^&*%! hard about that?! Ya'll want some pointers?

What you lot *really* want is the love of a good woman who looks like that Kidman person, dances like Fonteyn, sings like Kathy Battle, cooks like Julia Child, has Marie Curie's brain and Mother Theresa's morals, Madonna's abandon, Oprah's money and can kick a** like Wonder Woman.

Dayum, baby, I'd want her too!

God don't work like that; she's a fair God.

Do me a favour, bro!

(And it's amazing how many sci-fi books work in that love of a good woman theme--just so this post is relevant to the talk page.)

Aleta Curry 19:56, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

I dunno who the "Kidman person" is, but I suppose, in a pinch, the young Brigitte Bardot could fill in, or maybe France Nuyen.... And you left out: plays tennis like Venus Williams and, from South Pacific, is "faithful as a bird dog and kind as Santy Claus".... In any case, I would think you would have learned from experience that there are far more good wimmin around than there are good men! Not even close. As for the S.F. books, check out Flickerman, by yours truly, probably my best book -- 100% serious: about the obsessive love of a good man for a semi-good woman -- who has vanished behind an alien forcefield established around Polynesia and who is now dead 100 years in his past. He wants her back -- I mean, he really wants her back.... Hayford Peirce 21:30, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

Asimov... one of my favourite writers. Can we have an article on him pleaseeeee... Denis Cavanagh 21:35, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Science_fiction&oldid=358424"