[SFRA-L] the new SF Encyclopedia

Fri Oct 14 13:02:51 EDT 2011

The latest book mentioned is 1993; which is, of course, the date of  
the last print edition. And the online version does say quite clearly  
somewhere that many entries have not yet been updated -- and from what  
little I know of the project, the least likely to be updated are those  
near the end of the alphabet...

Edward

On 14 Oct 2011, at 17:31, Joan Slonczewski wrote:

> I rarely comment on what's said about me on the web, but since others
> have raised the issue, I must say that my own entry in the SF
> encyclopedia is more dated, vague, and dismissive than any other
> capsule entry out there; Wikipedia does far better, in a comparable
> number of words.
>
> My SF entry spends half the space on my very first book published in
> 1980, because it shows "most of her subsequent concerns"--as if I
> never had a new thought since then.  The "subsequent concerns"
> themselves are not stated.  The one sentence on A Door into Ocean
> doesn't mention nonviolent resistance. The sentence about Wall around
> Eden is incomprehensible.  My latest book mentioned (Daughter of
> Elysium) was published in 1993.
>
> As a printed encyclopedia, this would be ok (in the old days, I would
> have been grateful just to be included) but as a (presumably) up to
> date web reference, I would question its usefulness.
>
> Joan
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Craig Jacobsen  
> <jacobsen at mesacc.edu> wrote:
>> "Anything else people want to raise about the new edition?"
>>
>> Graham,
>> Well, since you asked. At the risk of making this look like a  
>> criticism sandwich, I really do want to voice my appreciation for  
>> the work that went into this project. As Neil noted, the  
>> Encyclopedia has been an indispensable text, and over the years I  
>> have bought every copy that I ever chanced upon in a used  
>> bookstore, and passed them along to students who demonstrated  
>> interest in studying the genre. It is great to see it as a digital  
>> text that can presumably be updated and expanded. There's no real  
>> "but" here, no criticism of the structure of the site, but I am  
>> curious as to the decision-making process that led to the site  
>> being so, well, Web 1.0. The discussion already here demonstrates  
>> that we've moved into an era where there's a desire to interact  
>> more fully with such resources, and that urge is being pushed into  
>> outlets such as this listserv. I'm confident that the SFE team  
>> discussed the possibilities of making the site more Web 2.0, and as  
>> someone interested in the evolving nature of scholarship, I wonder  
>> if you might share some of the reasoning. I've been curious for  
>> some time about the continuing ironic conservatism of science  
>> fiction scholarship in adopting technology. The journals are slow  
>> to embrace online content, the conferences slow to fully mediate  
>> sessions, the associations slow to create full-blown online  
>> communities, the publishers slow to make critical texts available  
>> as e-books. So I guess I'm more curious about the form than about  
>> quibbling over content. Any insights you want to share?
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> Craig B. Jacobsen, Ph.D.
>> English Department
>> Curriculum Development Facilitator
>> Mesa Community College
>> 1833 West Southern Ave.
>> Mesa, AZ 85202
>> 480-461-7244
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Graham Sleight" <grahamsleight at gmail.com>
>> To: sfra-l at charlemagne.cddc.vt.edu
>> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:20:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: [SFRA-L] the new SF Encyclopedia
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Writing on behalf of the SFE team in response to the various  
>> comments here:
>>
>> 0) Many thanks for all the support and positive comments, both here  
>> and
>> privately.
>> 1) The best way to get in touch with the SFE team is via the  
>> contact form at
>> http://www.sfe3.org/contact.php .
>> 2) Paul Voermans, thanks for taking John Clute's entry in a  
>> positive spirit.
>> 3) Re David Gerrold: most of the points I would have made have been
>> anticipated by Neil Easterbrook - especially that a critic's  
>> perspective on
>> an author's work may be very different from the author's. (And a  
>> reader's
>> perspective may be very different from the author's too.) To put it  
>> at its
>> gentlest: I'm not sure if there's any objective point of view about  
>> an
>> author's work, but I'm pretty sure the author is the least  
>> objective person
>> about it. Having just re-read John's entry on Gerrold (
>> http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/Entry/gerrold_david), I'd say that  
>> it seems
>> to me a pretty balanced summary of his career - and in line with  
>> comments of
>> critics elsewhere. That said, if David Gerrold wants to get in  
>> touch with
>> us, he's very welcome to.
>>
>> Anything else people want to raise about the new edition?
>>
>> Best -
>>
>> Graham Sleight
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 October 2011 10:01, Easterbrook, Neil  
>>> <n.easterbrook at tcu.edu> wrote:
>>>> JJP--
>>>>
>>>> I can't, of course, defend each and every entry in the SF  
>>>> Encyclopedia, old
>>>> or new. Tho I do want to say I'm not one of the writers or part  
>>>> of the
>>>> editorial team, so I have no investment in the project's status  
>>>> other than
>>>> that of a scholar (and fan) who has benefited from the earlier  
>>>> editions.
>>>>
>>>> The first and second editions have been almost (clearly almost,  
>>>> in yr
>>>> friend's case) universally celebrated as one of the most  
>>>> essential, vital,
>>>> and central contributions to sf *knowledge* (I really mean that  
>>>> word, rather
>>>> than *scholarship*)--from the time it first appeared until now. I  
>>>> think in a
>>>> published essay Rob Latham once called it something like the only  
>>>> truly
>>>> indispensible work in our discipline. In a reasonably recent  
>>>> WorldCon panel
>>>> organized by Cheryl Morgan, it was the one book assumed as the most
>>>> important of the last 20 years, including every work of fiction.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry that yr friend feels slighted, but John Clute, the author  
>>>> of his
>>>> particular entry, is one of the best, if not the best, critics in  
>>>> the field.
>>>>
>>>> They are accepting corrections and suggestions, I think, and at  
>>>> least from
>>>> my experience, both professional and personal, they are perfectly  
>>>> willing to
>>>> admit inadequacy and correct entries.
>>>>
>>>> But of course a critic's job is to see things from a critic's  
>>>> perspective,
>>>> not a novelist's.
>>>>
>>>> --Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> SFRA-L mailing list
>>>> SFRA-L at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>>>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sfra-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SFRA-L mailing list
>>> SFRA-L at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sfra-l
>>
>> --
>> Graham Sleight
>> Email: grahamsleight at gmail.com
>> Web: http://www.grahamsleight.com
>> Home: 01923 230122
>> Mobile: 07963 893411
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SFRA-L mailing list
>> SFRA-L at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sfra-l
>> _______________________________________________
>> SFRA-L mailing list
>> SFRA-L at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sfra-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> SFRA-L mailing list
> SFRA-L at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sfra-l