Talk:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 01:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

A handful of copy changes and, if possible, the book cover would cap this GA off. That's about it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• The stories are arranged alphabetically by author, and then chronologically for each author Comma not needed. See User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences (CinS)
  • Done. TompaDompa (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• a list of anthologies the stories have been reprinted in Maybe avoid prepositional ending by writing a list of anthologies in which the stories have been reprinted
  • Done. TompaDompa (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• one for motifs and themes, containing entries like "High civilizations of the past, non-human" and "Mad scientist, motivations, purposes", one for titles, and one for authors The last two commas should be semicolons, as the list entry ending in "purposes" contains a comma.
  • Done. TompaDompa (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• He nevertheless found himself inspired by the book to revisit some of the more obscure works discussed, and suggested readers Remove comma (CinS). "He" is the subject on both sides.
  • Done. TompaDompa (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• ...the book "An essential companion... Consider "[a]n essential to conform it a bit better to the sentence grammar.
  • Done. TompaDompa (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Spot checks

I selected three sources to spot check at random:

• 1: Gunn review in Utopian Studies, which is used ten times. Y
  • Quote reproduction is accurate.
  • Praise for the magazine section.
  • Amazing Stories as the first SF mag.
  • Preface: preface and the introduction in which Bleiler puts the scholar's task and the period into perspective...
  • each story summary is followed by a one-phrase evaluation
  • story descriptions occupy the first 522 pages
  • These are reinforced by a list of the anthologies in which these stories have been reprinted, a valuable motif and theme index, a title index, and an author index.
• 8: Y
  • "detailed plot summaries ... each summary hundreds of words long"
  • Appendices; the sample indices are mentioned here.
  • Silverberg's quote is accurately reproduced.
• 9: Are Booklist blurbs typically written by the author? This would at least be a reliable source for the claim, drawing from This provides summaries for each of the 1,835 stories in early American and English science-fiction magazines. Y
  • I don't know if they typically are, but this one is apparently written by the younger Bleiler. TompaDompa (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Images

• An image of the cover of this work would be an appropriate fair use addition if it is available.
  • I'll admit to lacking the know-how for this. I also don't think it would add much—the images I am able to find online are of rather poor quality and the cover is just black text on a red background anyway. TompaDompa (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that science fiction scholars lamented not having had access to Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years sooner? Source: See the quotes from James E. Gunn and Gary Westfahl in the article.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Beaver drop

Improved to Good Article status by TompaDompa (talk). Self-nominated at 07:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @TompaDompa: Thank you for your recent GA on Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years. It is a well written, well crafted short article that covers most of the main points. I say most, because I think it comes close to failing the NPOV criterion, but this might instead be attributable to the lack of secondary source coverage of such a niche work. I say this, because none of the controversial material raised in the introduction appears in the final article. This includes things like Gernsback's early stance of neutrality towards the Nazis (even more surprising since he was Jewish) and his inclusion of proto-Nazi, fascist science fiction in his publication. There's also the fact (raised by the author) that most of the content in question exemplifies "xenophobia and colonialism", while the characters reflect a "male, white Anglo-Saxon world", where Asians are "usually treated with hostility, while Blacks are almost altogether absent, except for occasional ridicule or occasional villainous roles". Bleiler notes, "If science-fiction is to be considered, as it is by some theorists, a means of opening mankind to the wonders of the universe, it certainly failed badly during this period". There are pages and pages of this stuff, none of which is represented in your article. And perhaps that is a failure of the secondary source literature, and not entirely your fault, but in terms of writing a synopsis, we are allowed as editors to represent the major points from the primary work, which you do not. It is unfortunate, but I think the GA reviewer (User:Sammi Brie) missed a lot of this in terms of NPOV. Putting the neutrality issues aside for the moment, you've got additional "hooky" opportunities that Thomas Easton notes in regards to the "large number of people among the most devoted fans who would go on to be significant personages within the fields of science and literature". While Easton doesn't go into it more than that in his review, Bleiler names them, with a focus on the most important seven: Asimov, Clarke, Conover, Gardner, Kelly, Pierce, and Sterling. Not sure where this DYK is going to go, but I would recommend updating the synopsis section and coming up with more hooks. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @Viriditas and TompaDompa: I will admit that science fiction is not my primary topic area and that I didn't see it raised in the reviews, but I also feel that this would be a large omission if correct and would like to see it added. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
    • A single sentence or two summarizing the bias could easily solve the problem. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
      • I can't agree that an article not mentioning aspects that are not mentioned by secondary sources constitutes a WP:NPOV problem. On the contrary, articles are supposed to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. We're allowed to think the secondary sources do a poor job of covering what we consider to be the salient points, but ultimately deciding the relative importance of different aspects is up to them, not us. That being said, I have added a couple of sentences about Bleiler's primary analysis.
        As for the observation that a high number of early sci-fi magazine readers became influential figures (and Easton's quip about Harvard), I agree that it's the most interesting fact in the article and I considered using it for a hook, but I ultimately decided against it as it doesn't directly relate to the subject of the article itself. TompaDompa (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
        • Putting all the arguments aside for just a moment, I don’t find the current hook compelling or hooky, which is one of many reasons I asked for more. I also think this is one of the reasons it has sat for almost a month with no engagement. I will address the rest later tonight, but I wanted to make a note about a request for more hooks. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
          • Very well.

            ALT1: ... that Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years was praised for summarizing nearly 2,000 stories so nobody would have to read them? Source: Pringle

            ALT2: ... that Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years was described as "the equivalent of what teams of monks might have spent decades producing in the thirteenth century"? Source: Silverberg

            ALT3: ... that E. F. Bleiler conducted research for Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years by reading all 1,835 stories published in science fiction magazines between 1926 and 1936? Source: Pringle, Westfahl

          • TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Reply

• I can't agree that an article not mentioning aspects that are not mentioned by secondary sources constitutes a WP:NPOV problem. I would disagree, as it's a grey area between primary and secondary, and there's always been a bit of confusion on the project about it. I was recently discussing this issue with another editor, and trying to figure out how we can best address it, so I'm not surprised to see it come up again here. WP:PLOTCITE and MOS:PLOTCITE generally focus on writing about fiction, but also apply to non-fiction summaries. During the discussion, it was claimed that both conflict with WP:V, but I don't quite see that. As far as I understand it, primary sources may be used to support non-controversial material that doesn't require interpretation in both fiction and non-fiction synopses (for example, WP:NOR: "A primary source may be used...to describe the plot"). It may be enlightening and instructive to raise this issue in the appropriate forum after this review has concluded because it has come up before and will continue to come up until the policies and guidelines are in sync and the confusion around this issue has lessened.
  • I'm not disputing that summarizing the primary source is allowed (it unequivocally is) nor that doing so is an improvement in this case. I'm disputing that omitting parts that are not discussed in detail by the secondary literature is a problem specifically from a WP:NPOV perspective. TompaDompa (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this, so this dispute is unlikely to resolve itself in this review (some of the material has subsequently been added after this review was posted, resolving the initial aspects of the dispute). I note your objection to my approach, but I would like to make a brief response to your objection. The secondary source literature on this narrow subject is written by proponents, supporters, and fans. A few of them, such as Pringle, have made mention of the missing material in question. From a broader perspective outside of the specific book under discussion, the critical literature on Gernsback himself and the problematic nature of the literature is well known. Pringle, as a secondary source, is one that bridges the gap in coverage between the two (there are likely others). Bleiler covers this material in the introduction to the work, an introduction that two of the secondary sources point to as significant. Knowing all of this and seeing it not in fragmented, separate pieces, but rather as a cohesive whole, implies that if the synopsis is missing this coverage, then it is a red flag for NPOV, from both the primary and the secondary POV. That's my entire position in a nutshell. You appear to be arguing in some way that just because proponents of science fiction ignore these issues in the secondary literature, we should also ignore it, even if the primary subject mentions it. I just can't follow or agree to this argument, because either way, if the primary or the secondary is ignored, it's still a NPOV problem, more so because the wider literature on the topic points to the same problem. Like I said, we probably aren't going to agree on this. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
      • I think you're conflating the subject of the article, i.e. Bleiler's book, with the subject of Bleiler's book. TompaDompa (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• articles are supposed to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. We're allowed to think the secondary sources do a poor job of covering what we consider to be the salient points, but ultimately deciding the relative importance of different aspects is up to them, not us. That applies directly to interpretive and analytical content, not to fictional plot summaries and synopses. See above for the confusion that is widely shared. In any case, I'm glad you raised the point. I assumed good faith that the secondary literature didn't cover these issues, but now that I've had time to check, it looks like it does. You cite Gunn 1999 ten times, who writes: "the most fascinating sections were the preface and the introduction"; then there is Burgess & Bartle 2002 which you cite seven times, who write: "Scholars will also be interested in the analytical essay that makes up the introduction", so there's secondary sources asserting the importance of the section. Moving on to Pringle 2000, which you cite seven times, he writes in the context of Bleiler's introduction, "Most 'Gernsbackian' sf was ill-written and poorly thought-out, and much of it was downright puerile-indeed, a good deal of it was written by teenagers. Some of it is marred for modern readers by racism and other now-reprehensible social attitudes." The index of the book itself has an entry for "Racism, general and odd" and points the reader to multiple entries, which ranges from "anti-Black bias", to "anticolonialism", anti-Indian bias, and anti-Semitism. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The first two of those mention the introduction in very general terms and the last one is Pringle giving his own opinion (which happens to align with Bleiler's). There is, I think, a pretty big difference between that and the sources reporting on specific points Bleiler makes. TompaDompa (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I read it differently. The first two show that the introduction is significant, meaning we should best represent it in the synopsis. If you read Pringle a bit closer in context and compare it to what Bleiler writes, you will notice that Pringle is summarizing and paraphrasing the points in the intro; it’s not Pringle’s opinion. Viriditas (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
      • It already was represented in the synopsis. As for what Pringle writes, yours is certainly a possible interpretation, but it is an intepretation, and not one I share. Pringle lists a few authors in the relevant paragraph—that's Pringle's selection, not one from Bleiler's introduction. I'm also fairly certain the "numerous other annotations in this book" mentioned by Pringle refer to the individual story entries, not the introduction section. The fact that Pringle writes that "The best of these old stories, even when viewed at second hand through Bleiler's lens, have the virtue of freshness" likewise indicates to me that Pringle gives his own opinion here. TompaDompa (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
        • This isn't really a big deal, but it is interesting to me how two people can read the same passage and come away with different takes. Since you adequately explained your reasoning, which I think is a perfectly valid take, I feel like I should briefly explain my own. I can illustrate the disconnect between our two views very easily. First, take a look at Pringle again. We are both referring to the fifth paragraph in his review (not including the heading with the title). The paragraph begins with a bit of whimsical opinion, and this goes on for seven sentences. It is not until the eighth sentence in the fifth paragraph that Pringle returns to the book, beginning with "One has to bear in mind..." This is where Pringle deftly summarizes the introduction, and does so in order of the points raised by Bleiler (historical mediocrity of the literature, puerility and youthful authorship, followed by racism and outdated attitudes). This is not a coincidence. It is only in the eleventh sentence that Pringle returns to his opinion, as you correctly observe up above. The reason I immediately recognized this (and perhaps you did not), is that it's a technique I use when I write about literature, particularly when I want to quickly, briefly, and accurately summarize a larger section. It's kind of like a musician recognizing their favorite chord progression or jazz cliche. There's no thought involved, you see it right away in your mind and know it. If for some reason you still don't see this, I can further show you the ordered, one-to-one relationship. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
          • That's not the same order? Bleiler mentions racism on p. xv and teenage authors on p. xxiv. TompaDompa (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
            • I apologize for confusing you. It's an order of sorts. I think the reason Pringle switched out racism and placed it at the end instead of the middle can be explained in two ways: 1) the original order used by Bleiler doesn't really work in the review. If Pringle instead wrote that science fiction "was ill-written and poorly thought-out, marred for modern readers by racism and other now-reprehensible social attitudes, and was childish, written by teenagers", it would not have the same impact, and would disrupt the natural flow he describes. Instead he re-orders it to show poorly thought-out, childish stories written by teenagers reflecting outdated social attitudes. It's more logical the way Pringle writes it, even though Bleiler mentions racism second instead of third. Further, by presenting it this way, it follows the structure of the book, which classifies the racism and outdated social attitudes after the introduction, in the subsequent sections. I doubt this answer will satisfy you, however. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Content

• Gunn nevertheless identified several negatives. He found the font and three-column layout of the magazine section to make it unnecessarily difficult to read.
  • Is "to make it" needed here? I read it as: "He found the font and three-column layout of the magazine section unnecessarily difficult to read." Or, "He found the font and three-column layout of the magazine section made it unnecessarily difficult to read." Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    • No, it's not needed. Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
• Besides the main contents of the book, Easton found the description of the science fiction magazine readership in the book's introduction particularly interesting—noting that while Bleiler describes the general readership in a fairly unflattering manner, he also lists a large number of people among the most devoted fans who would go on to be significant personages within the fields of science and literature
  • This is the kind of thing I expect to see in the contents section. Easton is telling us what Bleiler says about the readership and the fans in the reception section. This seems to work for you, but it seems strange to me as the reader and violates my own expectations about how the reception section works. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Review

I think that about does it. Aside from the issues noted above, everything checks out. No copyvio; QPQ done. Hook lengths are good. The NPOV issue was addressed. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)