h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Computers In Science Fiction: Novels - A1045694
Author: Atlantic_Cable - U196159

These entries replace: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A1007687

As suggested it has been split into books, tv, film, androids (which I draw distiction between computers) and comtemporary.

The entries are:
Main entry :A1045766

Computers in Contemporary Movies : A1009405

Computers In Science Fiction: TV : A1045667

Computers In Science Fiction: Movies : A1045658

Computers In Science Fiction: Novels : A1045694

Androids In Science Fiction : A1013545

Under the Asimov entry Novels you forgot all about Positronic Brains, which you mention for the movie aspect.

I think this entry would be a little clearer if it were ordered vaguely chronologically. While we're always respectful of our creator, there's no real reason why the Hitchhikers computers should come first, especially as the humour of his books plays with the rules set down by Asimov

As this isn't really an entry about general computers in novels (ie, the first appearance of a Sinclair Spectrum in a book, or whatever) might the addition of the word 'Sentient' to the title make it a little clearer?

Introduction added.

Which bits of Minority Report were based on the Multivac story? Do you have any evidence for this?

Although the film is *very* different from the short story on which it is based, I can't quite see the link to Asimov's work.

Also, a note on consistency - it seems a little odd to have the 'data box' for all the examples except the first two. Could you add these in?

Sort of, it's about how Multivac predicts that someone will destroy it, and how the pre-cogs in Minority report predict the destruction of the pre-cog programme.

It's about fate, mosty.

I'd disagree with thtat though... Multivac doesn't just *predict* being destroyed, he/she/it actually tries to make it happen. That story is about a computer being so advanced, being loaded with so many of mankinds problems, that it wants to die.

Minority Report is about predicition - which *is* what Multivac does, but isn't really what the above story focusses on.

But in Minority report, one of the precogs does want to destroy the pre-cog programme because she is "awake" and not a vegetable, as everyone thinks. She doesn't want to have to see murders anymore, even knowing that those murders are being prevented.

It also has the "seeminly un-erring system" being foiled very cleverly (the man in charge commits the perfect murder)

The only story that the 'Minority Report' film can definately be sain to be based on is 'Minority Report' the short story by Philip K Dick. All else is suppostion.

I'd argue a few other things about that Asimov section as well. R Daneel Olivaw (sp?) and R Giskard are definately self-aware. So there isn't only one. It is infered self-awareness comes once the positronic brian is sufficently complex. So all 'advanced' robots are self-aware, the more basic ones aren't.

I wouldn't say Asimov invented the positronic brain either, as I don't think he actually made one. Rather he was the first person to postulate the positronic brian. What he did invent (and it was always his proudest achievement) was the word 'robotic'. The word robot existed before, it being the Slavic word for 'worker' or 'slave'. But nobody ever put an '-ic' on the end of it before Asimov.


Geggs

Hi, Atlantic Cable!

I can see that you've been putting a lot of work into this series of entries, but I'm afraid I have to say that this particular entry is nowhere near ready at the moment. I know that you've put a disclaimer in the text that this is not intended as a definitive guide, but I think that anyone who reads the title will expect a general survey of the field, and that's not what they're getting here.

You have quite a lot of information here, but the way it is organised seems quite inconsistent and your choice of examples is oddly arbitrary.

I think this is a serious problem, since if it hits the Front Page in anything near its present form, a horde of argumentative fans are likely to arrive, complaining bitterly.


So, some specific points:
Are you concentrating on the author, the novel/short story, or the computer? Your first three sections are arranged by author, your next by the fictional series. It would be best to stick with one or the other.

You say this is in roughly chronological order, but you don't give the dates of publication. For computers of all things, this is important, in comparing the fiction with the reality of the time.

You say 'novels' in the title, but aren't both the Multivac stories and 'I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream' short stories?

I really don't understand the justification for putting in the Diggers trilogy here. The computer was not a particularly important part of the story, and the trilogy itself, while entertaining, is not exactly influential.

A bit more research would help - what about the whole Cyberpunk genre, especially Neuromancer? Or the Difference Engine, as an alternative history branching at Babbage's computers? What about Vernor Vinge's more recent works? I don't think it's sufficient to say 'This is only a selection' - I think you need to justify what you are putting in and what you're leaving out. Remember that Edited Entries are supposed to be balanced.

Finally, something that I think I've already said in commenting on some other of your entries, the whole thing is too long. Over 2000 words would be fine if the entry was balanced and comprehensive, but if you try and put in anything else, you're goint to have to take qutie a bit out.

Some suggestions for the pruning shears :

-The introduction is quite repetitive. You could probably cut it in half.
-The whole Arthur C. Clarke paragraph about 'David' - this bit would have more impact if you stick to 2001.
-The Clarke footnote about satellites (belongs in an entry about Clarke rather than here).
-The sentence about the Foundation books. Again, there's no need for it here.
-The whole middle paragraph about AM.
-The whole quote for the Hitch Hikers Guide.
-The gnome trilogy.


Azara

Thanks for the input. I have made the following changes.

All headings organised by author. It was confusing before.

The introduction has been re-worked. the point of the entry (which was not clear before) is to show the evolution of sentient computers in scifi.

Explanation about why David is in the Clarke section, he is an emotioanally fallible computer who wants to ensure his survival.

Satellite stuff cut down.

The sentence about the Foundation books cut down to a one liner.


"-The whole middle paragraph about AM." What is wrong with the middle paragraph? I think it's good, showing a psychotic computer is one of the main stays of scifi.

-"The whole quote for the Hitch Hikers Guide."
I think the quote works, it shows how the computer can answer the question and not answer it at the same time.


The gnome trilogy has been cut.

Hi, Atlantic Cable!

Title change

Organised by author

Various cuts
My suggestions were of course meant as guidelines - I know that cutting an entry back is one of the hardest things to do. So I'm fine with the idea that you're keeping some of the bits I might have pruned.

I still think the dates of publication would be handy, when you're using roughly chronological order. The Internet Speculative Fiction Database at http://www.isfdb.org/ is a very good resource for that kind of check.

As I suggested in the cyborgs thread, asking a question on Ask h2g2 might get some input from people who are not reading Peer Review (but might argue about the entry if it hits the front page). 'What are the most famous sentient computers in SF?' or something on those lines might get a few other suggestions. This would help to ensure that the entry really is balanced, in accordance with the guidelines.

I really appreciate the care with which you've considered my comments!


Azara

Thanks, I've added publication dates to all authors work.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Atlantic Cable, I know this is not your fault, but I have to say that I'm sorry to see this entry being picked at this stage. I think it would have benefited from another while in Peer Review - I don't think the number of commentators so far in any way reflects the knowledge of written SF available among members of the h2h2 community.

But that's a problem for the scouts (Bad scouts! bad!) not for you.

Since you've worked hard to improve the entry, I think you deserve the customary glass of - congratulations on getting your entry accepted for the Edited Guide!

But I think you should check up that 1975 date for the Multivac stories - I could have sworn they date back to the 50s


Azara

As I thought - a quick Google check shows that 'The Last Question' Multivac story was published in 1956.

Atlantic Cable, I think you should find out when the *first* Multivac story was published, then get hold of whoever gets this to sub-edit and explain that they will need to change the sections around.

Azara

Good idea.