Talk:Golden Age of Science Fiction

As the person who previously removed this characterization indicated, this is a bizarre combination of thoughts. In "Nightfall", there is no "Copernican revolution"; we do not witness a growth in understanding of the universe, but a descent into barbarity. The existence of the stars is hardly understood by anyone in the story, and they are perceived -- even by the most "scientific" -- not with wonder but with horror. Nightfall neither celebrates scientific achievement nor the "sense of wonder", but suggests that mass panic is an inevitable concomitant of people being exposed to things beyond their understanding. Unless you believe that the "Copernican revolution" was marked by the sacking of observatories and the murder of astronomers by people unable to deal with the concept of a heliocentric solar system, the comparison makes no sense; and even then it certainly cannot be equated to a "celebration of scientific achievement". The idea that Golden Age science fiction celebrated or was inspired by the work of scientists is reasonable, but much better examples ought to be suggested.RandomCritic 18:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "sense of wonder" in science fiction refers to reader reaction, rather than the wonder characters experience. And the idea that, suddenly in one night, a civilization discovers the vastness of the universe... that's as good an example of the sense of wonder in science fiction as you can find. As regards the Copernican revolution remark, I understand why it might strike you as odd (it did me as well, when I read it characterized that way in the source, The History of Science Fiction), but I think it fits. The point is that a dramatic transformation in cosmology (which is the essence of the Copernican revolution) happens in one night rather than over the course of many decades. The horror and destruction is secondary in this regard, though you actually can find parallels even there (think Galileo affair) if you strain the comparison. I don't have a particular problem with leaving out Copernican revolution remark (despite that it's referenced), but Nightfall should remain as a clear example of the sense of wonder in Golden Age sf.--67.186.162.70 06:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Silverberg, though he started publishing in the dying days of the "Golden Age," really doesn't belong here. He is generally considered a "New Wave" writer. Sir Rhosis 03:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely he belongs. Starting his career in 1946 qualifies him. However, I would argue that his work, above all else, is an indication that be belongs to the Golden Age. These are his peers, and his works mirrors their own. -SB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.103.220 (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age doesn't just refer to the time period but the style. I've only read Solaris, but I would have said that its dreamlike tone and theme of futility qualify it more as a precursor the the New Wave, if it can be categorised at all. Euchrid (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

L.Ron Hubbard was one of the most published Sci-Fi and general pulp writers in the '30's and '40's. His stories like Ole Doc Methuselah, Final Blackout and To The Stars are classics of the genre. He should be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2BFairman (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The volume in the series "Writers of English: Lives and Works" titled "Science Fiction Writers of the Golden Age" edited by Harold Bloom, 1995, Chelsea House Publishers (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Fiction-Writers-Golden-English/dp/0791021998) states that it provides information on the "thirteen most significant science fiction writers of the Golden Age". It lists these as Poul Anderson, Isaac Asimov, Alfred Bester, James Blish, Ray Bradbury, Arthur C Clarke, Robert Heinlein, Fritz Leiber, C L Moore and Henry Kuttner, Frederik Pohl, Theodore Sturgeon, A E van Vogt. Would this be a good list to work from? Carey McCarthy (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article only focuses on written prose. What about movies, television, etc.?--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there are some classics, they are perceived as almost camp nowdays, due to the clunky visual effects. Voyage to the Moon, The Day the World Stood Still, The Attack of the Body Snatchers, and The Thing, that sort of thing. Most were not original, but taken from the written genre which has weathered a good deal better than the visual.I think the original "Thing" taken from Campbell's story "Who Goes There", is still pretty good and better than the remakes. Just MO. Student7 (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with the first entry on this talk page that L. Ron Hubbard should be in this list. His "Stories of the Golden Age" series definitely makes the cut. Some info here: http://www.goldenagestories.com/?link=lrh-text-link, and at a third party website: http://www.sfsite.com/04b/mm342.htm. Thoughts on this? It really hasn't been addressed.Orangepulp81 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, LRH should be. His biographical article doesn't discuss his writing enough either.
-MacRùsgail (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Orangepulp81 was referring to the position, at that time, of the talk section #Hubbard. I've just moved that section (which was far from the first discussion of this talk page's article to be submitted) to its chronological position several sections above this one.
--Jerzy•t 21:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I am disgusted to see Hubbard on this page, as if he was equal to legendary writers like Asimov and Heinlein. Looking at Orangepulp81's user page, he is clearly a scientologist, so not exactly objective. Same goes for the links he provided, they aren't trustworthy in any capacity. I will be removing Hubbard's name this instant. P.S.: Apologies for formatting, It's been a while since I've done any editing / writing on Wikipedia. Mr. Gerbz (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an enormous amount of unsourced claims on this article, as well as original research. I'm going to start adding some cited references and looking for things to back up some of the claims here, but some of it will certainly need to go. Euchrid (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this date appropriate for the end of the Golden Age considering that most of the examples of Golden Age literature mentioned in this article were published after 1946? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.231.117.93 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs to the fact that it seems to have been an almost totally male, and mostly American movement. SF was on the go in dozens of other countries, and has an independent origin outside the USA, but Golden Age was mostly by and for the USA (with a few exceptions - but all from English speaking parts of the world to my knowledge)-MacRùsgail (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who first used the phrase "Golden Age of Science Fiction"? 38.111.35.2 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   The meme along the lines of "GASF is an individual's early teen years" is IMO indeed less important than that of "GASF was a period in the history of literature", but IMO the former's role as a joke and as an insight into the genre is also worthy of coverage, even if it is treated just as an unproven hypothesis. IMO it's clear the sources are available to support at least the assertion that 12, 13, and 14 are commonly cited ages, and a little research should probably turn up cogent arguments that that 3-year period approximates a phenomenon of at least a tendency for a male-puberty-related period of SF .. uhh ... intoxication (or whatever). I find

• 3 results for "the golden age of science fiction is 11"
• 2,330 results for "the golden age of science fiction is 12"

• 509 results for "the golden age of science fiction is 13"
• 501 results for "the golden age of science fiction is 14"
• 2 results for "the golden age of science fiction is 15"

along with

• 6,230 results for "the golden age of science fiction is" (Hartwell OR Graham)

• 16,200 results for "the golden age of science fiction is"

and

• 177,000 results for "the golden age of science fiction"

   It wouldn't be as valuable as the average WP article, but it wouldn't be the worst either. Offhand, i'd favor either

Golden Age of Science Fiction (meme)

or

Golden Age of Science Fiction (developmental psychology).

--Jerzy•t 01:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   "Between the ages of 12 and 14 I devoured countless volumes" is just a personal reminiscence, but it may whet someone's appetite for further research.
--Jerzy•t 01:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start a list here of sources for the dates of the Golden Age; I'm doing this because I'm working on the

• Starts in summer 1939 -- SFE3 article on ASF
• Consensus that the start is some time after Campbell takes over ASF -- SFE3 article on Golden Age
• Period that begins with Campbell's editorship -- Brian Attebery in Cambridge Companion to SF, p. 37.
• "enjoyed an adolescence and a Golden Age before 1940 or so and matured steadily through the Eisenhower years" -- John Clute in Cambridge Companion to SF, p. 65.
• "But this 'Golden Age', like the Gernsback era before it, actually lasted little more than a decade" -- Gary K. Wolfe in Cambridge Companion to SF, p. 99.
• Alva Rogers gives the July 1939 issue as the start; quoted in Aldiss/Wingrove's Trillion Year Spree, pp. 217-218; also quoted by David Kyle in his Pictorial History of SF, p. 110.
• "The period 1940-42 has been called a Golden Age, not just of Astounding but of all science fiction". Mike Ashley in Holdstock's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, p. 58.
• "...the 'Golden Age', the decade of exciting innovation that began when Campbell took over the editorship of Astounding". Jack Williamson, Wonder's Child, p. 128.
• 1938-1949 -- Erik Leif Davin, Pioneers of Wonder, p. 16.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see [1], much of which is preserved in Brave New Words, edited by Jeff Prucher, p. 80. I was one of the people who ran that website for years, so I think it would be a conflict of interest for me to add anything based on that or based on Brave New Words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden Age of Science Fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825082507/http://www.loa.org:80/sciencefiction/why_silverberg.jsp to http://www.loa.org/sciencefiction/why_silverberg.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Developments in the genre" section, I found that perhaps the phrase: "express the libertarian ideology" is somewhat ambiguous in its meaning, especially as the linked page for "Libertarian" gives definitions for both Left and Right wing ideologies, and also in relation to the context of the GASF. My personal recollection of Heinlein points more towards Right wing, but I will try and get a copy of the cited text in order to verify that.

BillyBob CornCob (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gerbz, Danbloch, I'm not going to edit the article in either direction, but re the recent edits about including Hubbard, here are a couple of relevant quotes from SFE3, one of the most authoritative reference works on sf:

• Within a few years Campbell had managed to take over not only many of the best (and youngest) working writers of the period, such as L Ron Hubbard... from the article on Golden Age SF, by Peter Nicholls and Mike Ashley.
• Certainly Hubbard was for John W Campbell Jr – then in the throes of creating his Golden Age of SF – a worthwhile and prolific contributor to the two journals, though he was not a member of that small group – L Sprague de Camp, Robert A Heinlein and Isaac Asimov being the prime movers – who were rewriting the rules of generic plausibility in terms which survived for many years; he should perhaps be linked with A E van Vogt as one of the two rogue members of the early Campbell pantheon. Retrospective attempts to elect Hubbard to a central role in the creation of modern sf are best seen as gestures of loyalty from those – like Algis Budrys – who were sympathetic to his later career. From the article on Hubbard himself, by John Clute and Peter Nicholls.

Whatever you think of Hubbard, he was clearly an important figure at the time of the Golden Age, and he was one of the most popular writers in ASF at the start of that period. The second quote asserts he was not a central figure in the Golden Age. I think both things are true and should be reflected in the article; it would be wrong to write Hubbard out of this period when he was very influential, and it would be wrong to assert his stature matched that of van Vogt, Asimov, or Heinlein. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Mike Christie's excellent points I'd like to add one more: Hubbard actually was singled out as a member of that select company in Alec Nevala-Lee's 2018 Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction. Though to be fair, in the words of one reviewer, "Hub­bard’s central presence in the book, in fact, lies less in his contributions to the invention of modern SF (which he’d never been much interested in until it became a paying market for him) than in his role in seducing Campbell into the pseudo­scientific obsessions that eventually eroded the once-dominant influence of Astounding." Dan Bloch (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you both for the civilized discussion, and for providing both pro and counter-arguments. That's a breath of fresh air in these times. Middle of the road option seems to be making a new subsection of 'controversial writers' or something in that direction. Preferably not added in until such a list could be a bit longer than just one name (otherwise it would just give more attention to Hubbard). On the other hand, that might just encourage other cults to get their prophet in there too, lol. Your thoughts? Mr. Gerbz (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of a "controversial" section; as you say that might attract poor-quality edits. I think the right answer is that the narrative text in the article should talk about the run-up to the Golden Age -- pre-Campbell, then Campbell's stable of authors, then the Golden Age. Hubbard was one of the most popular authors in ASF at the time and I think it's fine to say so -- and since this all predates dianetics etc. by a decade we can just ignore the non-sf aspects of Hubbard's life. He was a popular pre-Golden-Age author; he remained popular during WWII, but is not regarded by scholars of the field as a key figure in the Golden Age itself. Writing that text is the hard part of course, but when someone gets around to it I think that's what it should say when it refers to Hubbard.

As a side note, the definition of the duration of the Golden Age is an interesting subject -- further up this page I made a list of some date ranges I've found in various sources. The basics are the same -- Campbell, ASF, the war -- but there's a bit of variation in the details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there aren't any further comments, I'm going to go ahead and put Hubbard back. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The time and style fits, but I don't know how popular he was. 93.172.194.70 (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ellison is considered

New Wave, which succeeded the Golden Age. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]