Talk:The Man in the Moone/Archive 1

Archive 1

One of the first works of SF

For historical interest (and context) The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction places the work in this order and range:

1516

Thomas More, Utopia

1627

Francis Bacon, New Atlantis

1634

Johannes Kepler, A Dream

1638

Francis Godwin, The Man in the Moone

1686

Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle, Discussion of the Plurality of Worlds

Please note that Sagan and Asimov refer to Kepler's 1634 novel as one of the first, etc. If I had known about the DYK, I would have suggested that due to any number of novels that hold the claim as the first work of science fiction, it would have been better to simply describe it as an early example of the genre. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an inconsistency in this text: the first lines states it was likely written between 1599 - 1603, yet later it is stated that it was influenced by Galileo's work of 1610... 49.176.171.163 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Purchas

I took 1613 for Purchas his Pilgrimage from our article on Samuel Purchas. I see now that this can't stand. It went through a number of editions, and I'm wondering if it wasn't published serially, or at least as revisions (four editions between 1613 and 1626). Poole (p. 18) gives 1625, and if I read Poole correctly, he's saying that Purchas provides Godwin with Trigault's revision of Ricci's account (Trigault's is 1615, so it couldn't have been in a 1613 version of Purchas). Extrapolating, then, the suggestion is that it's a 1625 edition which includes Ricci's account redacted by Trigault redacted by Purchas that Godwin reads--an important point since, as Poole says, it sets the date after 1625. Unfortunately Poole does not comment on different editions/revisions of Purchas; I'm going to make the minor edit "1625 edition" and will see about updating/specifying the specifics on Godwin's composition (haven't read all of Poole yet). Drmies (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I've read and summarized the dating part from Poole, forcing me to shift a few things around (as a result things are doubly wiki-linked, possibly repetitive, etc). My references are of course not in order (and Poole 2009 isn't in the biblio yet). I would love to do clean-up right now but I have to get some (other) work done. Feel free to jump in and butcher what I wrote--you cain't hurt it much. Sorry to leave a mess. Lovely though to get the green children in. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Ha, two days was a bit fast, even for Mars. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  An easy mistake to make if you thought Poole was talking about how long it took Mars to rotate on its axis, rather than how long it took to orbit the Sun. Tricky stuff astronomy. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Too much credit: it was just a typo. Let's read on. Poole's a very legible introduction. Also, I like how you shuffled the reception around. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm good at shuffling commas around, just ask Ealdgyth. With your agreement I'm going to can the GA nomination and go straight for FAC, maybe on Monday after we've both had a last sniff around. What say you? Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, hang on to your seat. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• MF, you've been doing that jstor parameter, right? I think there's a couple that don't have that--Neville Davies (note 34), Dziubinskyj (note 44, jstor 4241138), Simoson (note 28, jstor 27646531). Also, Hutton (note 49) still has the reference in the text, not in that ref section. BTW, I don't really like that jstor parameter. I don't use it because it's not in the default template set-up, but also because it adds a term to the citation and not in a pretty way. But hey. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  I like consistency and rationality. Let's just fix those citations, bugger what the default says. If we're not consistent we'll get torn two new assholes at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I think we took care of all of them. I don't want a new asshole. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• And thank you, Crisco. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Slight problem

I am not quite satisfied with "Initially considered to be an early work, modern critics now generally agree that it was written in the late 1620s"; there's a tension towards ambiguity; was it the critics that were considered an early work? Of course there's no real ambiguity, but it's suboptimal as a sentence structure. --John (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I won't quibble with your use of "structure" as the kind of noun that takes an article here, and "sentence" as a modifier... You got a point re: dangling modifier. Besides, "modern" and "now" say the same thing, certainly. Thanks John. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Good solution, well played. --John (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Science fiction or not

While some critics claim it as one of the first works of science fiction, there is no general agreement among critics that it is even "proto-science-fiction"

I haven't yet had time to review these refs, but this statement sticks out a bit as undue weight. One should be aware that any debate over what work is considered science fiction and which one is not is generally resolved through subgenres. For example, The Man in the High Castle is a form of alternate history science fiction. Childhood's End is a form of apocalyptic science fiction, etc. This gets even more difficult with works like Cloud Atlas, which could be described as a dystopian, post-apocalyptic science fiction fantasy novel. (Phew!)The point I'm trying to make is that most works categorized as science fiction (but not all works) have critical arguments against their classification in the literature. In my experience (and this is where things can get a bit complex) these types of genre disputes don't exist in and of themselves. That is to say, these critics aren't pointing out problems with the classification of the work, but instead (and this is not obvious to the casual reader) by questioning the category they are examining the limitations of the genre and by doing so, they are fleshing out what science fiction really means and why it is important. In other words, there is no need to say "there is no general agreement among critics" that this work is the first work of science fiction because such a statement is generally meaningless. Critics are not working towards agreement, and they very often question the genre itself to explore its boundaries. On the other hand, it is much more informative to rewrite this in two ways. First, instead of saying "some critics claim it as one of the first works of science fiction", explain why it is considered the first work of science fiction. What makes it different from other non-science fiction works of its time and place? Second, instead of saying "there is no general agreement among critics that it is even proto-science-fiction", explain specifically why it might not meet the criteria. I apologize for using so many words to say something so simple. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, at this moment I have access to Poole (2010), and it is really not interested in those technical matters. About all it says is that the text is a work of fiction and is "scientifically derivative" (65). That doesn't answer your question, but it suggests that there may not be much of an answer. Still, I'll go through the sources again to see what I can find. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, that's all I'm asking. I will support whatever you find. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC review is now go

Hold on to your hats! Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Malleus, Grant McColley is a well-known scholar of early Modern English literature who's published extensively on Milton, Godwin, Wilkins, et al. I can't write him up right now but I could in the next few days. If you want to call him a literary scholar and one of Godwin's earliest modern editors, that would be true. Acceptable, that's another matter. Poole could be called "Godwin's most recent editor". Drmies (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  We don't need to produce articles on either of them, just briefly introduce them. As I just said in the review though, I was a bit surprised to find that Tillotson doesn't have an article. Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I know--I do think that McColley warrants an article. I've been here too long: such obvious statements as "the book's first modern editor" or "most recent editor" could be tagged as OR by some pedantic editor with a grudge. I'm going to have a look at the review: my weekends are usually taken up by family stuff, but at least the fence, and now the play fort and the swings, are finished. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• BTW, thanks for all the good work I saw you did yesterday and/or the day before. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

  I think we've still got a few things to address, but it's a bank holiday here tomorrow, and I've been told by she-must-be-obeyed that it's about time I removed the tree stump in our back garden, and finished tiling the hall floor, and replaced the curtain rail in our front room ... so I may not be around much until Tuesday or Wednesday. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Holy moly. Those stumps are back breakers. But it is about time that you finish that floor--I'm tired of almost breaking my neck every time, and the neighbors are talking. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  I was reassigned to more urgent duties when our power washer failed this morning, so the tree stump remains a treat in store. Next up that hall floor ... then the kitchen downlighters ... Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

1961 edition

Not sure what your criteria are for including an edition under the list of modern editions, but the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia of SF lists a 1961 edition, copies of which can be seen on used.addall.com; it was apparently a limited edition Christmas gift so may never have been for sale. Nicholls & Clute also mention that it was the cause of Wilkins' 1640 revision of his work, which you might find worth mentioning too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've been looking at this comment for months and finally felt guilty enough to do something about it. The 1961 edition doesn't seem to be worth mentioning, but after pondering your remark on Wilkins I went back to Poole and made a revision to our article: thanks Mike. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  Glad it was useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)