The Greatest Classic Sc Fi Writer – Thesis Question, participation appreciated!

[dustinzgirl]

What you guys are describing is a common problem for college thesis....narrowing down the specifics....and forming the question. To answer the original question of who is the greatest sci fi writer, we have to answer first what a sic fi writer is, what time line we are looking at, do we define great by literary merit, hugo awards, nobel prizes, or by books sold? Personally it would make me sad to see great defined by sales. Unless you are a car salesman. Then do we include utopia? odyssus? plato's atlantis? surely those are science fiction on some levels, esp. atlantis. What about nostradamus? Prophet, or nutcase, that was sci fi for that era.

The questions can go on and on and on...in anything, not just science fiction writers, but I see this a lot in marketing research, customer service research, ect...drawing and defining the lines to begin and stop becomes impossible when you ask TOOO many questions, and trite when you don't ask ENOUGH questions.

My advice to Alien would be to 1st---define the era. Modern, ancient, modern classical. what decades do we define as the birth of modern science fiction? And why? begin there.

The problem I see with this entire thesis is that it is way, way too loose. There are no final definitions. No specific lines are drawn.

Another problem you are going to run into when you write your dissertation is the sheer amount of opinions people in the sci fi world take as law. Aasismov confuses me and bores me. Lovecraft interests me and scares me. But there are tons of ppl who would take aasismov over lovecraft, and many who swear on life and liberty that verne began science fiction. In fact, I am sure entire books have been written on the subject.

So to that, you have to finalize your definitions of the big three: what, why, how before you can actually ASK your thesis question.

 

[McMurphy]

What you guys are describing is a common problem for college thesis....narrowing down the specifics....and forming the question. To answer the original question of who is the greatest sci fi writer, we have to answer first what a sic fi writer is, what time line we are looking at, do we define great by literary merit, hugo awards, nobel prizes, or by books sold? Personally it would make me sad to see great defined by sales. Unless you are a car salesman. Then do we include utopia? odyssus? plato's atlantis? surely those are science fiction on some levels, esp. atlantis. What about nostradamus? Prophet, or nutcase, that was sci fi for that era.

The questions can go on and on and on...in anything, not just science fiction writers, but I see this a lot in marketing research, customer service research, ect...drawing and defining the lines to begin and stop becomes impossible when you ask TOOO many questions, and trite when you don't ask ENOUGH questions.

My advice to Alien would be to 1st---define the era. Modern, ancient, modern classical. what decades do we define as the birth of modern science fiction? And why? begin there.

The problem I see with this entire thesis is that it is way, way too loose. There are no final definitions. No specific lines are drawn.

Another problem you are going to run into when you write your dissertation is the sheer amount of opinions people in the sci fi world take as law. Aasismov confuses me and bores me. Lovecraft interests me and scares me. But there are tons of ppl who would take aasismov over lovecraft, and many who swear on life and liberty that verne began science fiction. In fact, I am sure entire books have been written on the subject.

So to that, you have to finalize your definitions of the big three: what, why, how before you can actually ASK your thesis question.

Amen. That is absolutely sound advice. I remember attempting a lofty final paper in my Ancient Near East class on Egyptian Mythology...than Egyptian Mythology as expressed in primary works...than Egyptian Deities as expressed in primary works dating back to the Old Kingdom....BEFORE resting at how Egyptian Deities were first depicted in mythology via primary works dating from the Old Kingdom, First Dynasty.

An impossible paper became an "A" paper entitled "From the Dusty Footprints of Ra."

 

[dustinzgirl]

Amen. That is absolutely sound advice. I remember attempting a lofty final paper in my Ancient Near East class on Egyptian Mythology...than Egyptian Mythology as expressed in primary works...than Egyptian Deities as expressed in primary works dating back to the Old Kingdom....BEFORE resting at how Egyptian Deities were first depicted in mythology via primary works dating from the Old Kingdom, First Dynasty.

An impossible paper became an "A" paper entitled "From the Dusty Footprints of Ra."

Good for you.

One thing I do is begin with the literature review section, before you even ask the thesis/hypothesis, this way, you can use the information to form a question that is not answered by the literature, or to prove/disprove a contention from your literature....

An example of this case may be that many people hail the writers like verne, aasimov, shelley as the parents of sci fi, but sci fi actually extends way way before that.

Anyways, just throwing out ideas. Writing an A paper is one heck of a task. Kudos mcmurphy!

 

[McMurphy]

Good for you.

One thing I do is begin with the literature review section, before you even ask the thesis/hypothesis, this way, you can use the information to form a question that is not answered by the literature, or to prove/disprove a contention from your literature....

An example of this case may be that many people hail the writers like verne, aasimov, shelley as the parents of sci fi, but sci fi actually extends way way before that.

Anyways, just throwing out ideas. Writing an A paper is one heck of a task. Kudos mcmurphy!

Heh, thanks, but I am earnest in the contention that I brought up the personal experience merely to provide proof how the truth to your wisdom in regards to paper writing.

 

[iansales]

But your question got me thinking....maybe one way to reform "the greatest science fiction writer" question into something measurable is by reassigning it as the "most recognized science fiction author by Hugo Awards." In that case, Connie Willis should be the focus of the paper, right? She has earned more Hugo awards than any other writer (information taken from page 579 of 1994 Bantam paperback edition of Doomsday Book).

Connie Willis apparently ties with Harlan Ellison for most Hugo Awards for fiction - 8 wins each. Most Hugo Awards in total goes to Charles N Brown (editor of Locus) and David Langford (best fan writer / best semiprozine), with 26 wins each.

I'd avoid using an award as any kind of criteria. While the number of awards, er, awarded is nice and quantifiable, the factors that lead to it being given often have no bearing on the work being honoured.

 

[iansales]

Re: Ten Percent of the Brain Debates Endlessly Over the Definition of Science Fiction

I am completely on board with the assuration that Shelley, with the correct prescribed criteria, is a foreparent of certain modern science fiction forms...

I'm not sure what your point is here. Aldiss claims Frankenstein as the first identifiable work of science fiction. According to his definition of the genre. It's not so much playing games over who came first as it is trying to actually define science fiction.

Myself, I subscribe to the Gary Westfahl school. The first work of science fiction was Hugo Gernsback's Ralph 124C 41+. The genre did not exist until the publication of Amazing Stories in 1926. I don't need to pick a literary classic as the genre's beginning; I see nothing wrong with science fiction starting with a truly dreadful book because it has improved.

 

[j d worthington]

Re: Ten Percent of the Brain Debates Endlessly Over the Definition of Science Fiction

See? There you go; yet another example that predates Shelley. I have a feeling that the words of Aldiss and other critics are being misused by others to plug her into the "first science fiction author" title.

McMurphy: I'm unclear whether you've read Aldiss's Billion Year Spree (or his revised version, Trillion Year Spree). If not, then I can assure you, he's quite clear on the subject, spending an enormous amount of space (some might say a tedious amount of space) making the case for her on this one both for Frankenstein and The Last Man as well. And, as I believe I said earlier, Asimov certainly has claimed her as among the first, most notably in his introduction to The Rest of the Robots if I remember correctly. Several others have claimed the honor for her over the years, and, as I said, dating back a looong time. And, yes, it was because Frankenstein was the first to supply a rationalist explanation for the events, rather than a fantastic or supernatural one. (At least, that's the claim; it did do that, but whether it was the first or not may be another matter.) While I think Mary Shelley certainly deserves to be on the list of important progenitors of sf, I'm not really sure that she fits all that easily as an sf writer per se. And therein lies the problem: lack of definition of terms.

At any rate, I agree with the idea that this whole thing seems far too nebulous and vague to be very helpful at this point; at least, judging from what we've seen here. As someone who does a fair amount of both reading and writing on such things, there's a serious need here for some streamlining if you're going to actually get much benefit from the questions you're asking; otherwise your final paper is going to be about as shapeless as the Blob on a hot griddle....

 

[Pyan]

Re: Ten Percent of the Brain Debates Endlessly Over the Definition of Science Fiction

about as shapeless as the Blob on a hot griddle....

Yuckk...j.d., you have a very strange brain!

 

[j d worthington]

Re: Ten Percent of the Brain Debates Endlessly Over the Definition of Science Fiction

Yuckk...j.d., you have a very strange brain!

And you're just now noticing this? Hmmm. I knew Cthulhu was old, but I never heard he suffered from senility....

 

[McMurphy]

Krajewski, Apparently, Ate Human Brains.

Asimov certainly has claimed her as among the first, most notably in his introduction to The Rest of the Robots if I remember correctly........(At least, that's the claim; it did do that, but whether it was the first or not may be another matter.)

Thank you for proving my point. "Among the first" is not the same as "the definitive first science fiction author," so these claims are way too loose. Can someone actually quote the exact claim of Asimov?

And it does sound like a criteria of a working science fiction genre was first established before the claim was made..."rational thought," although can anyone quote the exact definition that Asimov has given? It would also be helpful to quote, with citations (naturally), where the critic has boasted that he intended such a claim to be regarded as universally correct, and that there is not room for an active dissent of differing opinions.

What baffles me is not that there has been very well written books penned by educated and qualified critics of the literary field, but that a liberal arts discipline such as literary study is suddenly to have everyone nod their head without question towards a claim of "fact" based on subjective definitions. Ab initio, I have pointed out this is a highly subjective opinion, and, if blindly recited through half memories, it is terribly misleading historically.

So rational thought must be the backbone for anything to be considered science fiction? Hmm. I was not aware that there is a single piece of rational thought in Philip K. Dick's Radio Free Albemuth.

We must alert our local bookstore chains: They are placing the novel in the wrong section.

 

[McMurphy]

4 Out of 5 Literary Scholars prefer Aquafresh

I'm not sure what your point is here. Aldiss claims Frankenstein as the first identifiable work of science fiction. According to his definition of the genre. It's not so much playing games over who came first as it is trying to actually define science fiction.

See? Now we are getting somewhere. Again, that is not the same claim people were boasting earlier. There is a huge gap of difference on both intent and actual meaning taking place here between Aldiss's claims and what people are claiming that he said or intended as his objective.

My point is not to say that Aldiss never wrote that Shelley was a parent of science fiction based within his definition of the science fiction genre. My original point is that it is not true that Mary Shelley is universally proclaimed the first science fiction writer ever. People do see a huge difference between the two, right?

[In regards to the Hugo suggestion, it was just that, and I agree with the flaws in picking the greatest science fiction novel based on awards, which is why the suggestion was followed up with a refocus in researching as to why some authors have been awarded both the Hugo and the Nebula while others have been more prone to recieve the former. It could be a good excercise in proposing a definition for science ficiton. Again, it is just a suggestion towards the right direction in regards to a qualifiable thesis statement.]

 

[Dr. Atomic]

I think that a certain level of rational thought -- even rational thought based on whatever the knowledge of the day might be -- is what helps establish science fiction as its own subgenre within the larger genre of fantasy.

It's the reason why The Martian Chronicles, by Bradbury's own admission, is fantasy, not sf. It's the reason why a lot of Ellison's stuff is fantasy, and not sf. And I'd say that it's the reason that the examples you cite that I'm familiar with, McMurphy, are fantasy, and not sf (Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon).

McMurphy, you seem stuck on the idea that the sf community has taken Aldiss' arguments for Frankenstein as the first sf novel as absolute truth. The fact is, while many people agree with Aldiss, and agree with the REASONS he puts forth -- this isn't blind faith we're talking about -- there are many people within the field who disagree entirely. However, within the fairly accepted "definition" of science fiction -- and I use quotes because, while I've yet to hear anyone provide a single, solid, all-encompassing definition of the field, I do think there are some basic, generally accepted criteria that help separate sf from the rest of the literary world -- all of the stories put forth as first, or even proto-science fiction, by those who disagree with Aldiss, have at their center some level of rational thought.

Regardless... I'd like to hear why the works you cited SHOULD BE considered as science fiction. Aldiss supports his arguments by demonstrating how Frankenstein fits within the parameters of science fiction as we understand them today (i.e., you can trace a literary line directly back to it -- whereas, with many of the even older stories offered up a first sf, you have to jump the tracks and accept a new sort of definition for sf -- one that includes sf props, perhaps, but not the use of those props for the PURPOSES of sf... either for comedy, fantasy, or whatever).

 

[iansales]

I think that a certain level of rational thought -- even rational thought based on whatever the knowledge of the day might be -- is what helps establish science fiction as its own subgenre within the larger genre of fantasy.

Ha! Them's fighting words! Science fiction is not a subgenre of fantasy. It is an independent genre, derived from realism. Fantasy does not derive from realism.

McMurphy, you seem stuck on the idea that the sf community has taken Aldiss' arguments for Frankenstein as the first sf novel as absolute truth. The fact is, while many people agree with Aldiss, and agree with the REASONS he puts forth -- this isn't blind faith we're talking about -- there are many people within the field who disagree entirely.

I concur. Received wisdom might have it that Aldiss is right... but that doesn't mean he is right. I personally don't hold with his theory.

However, within the fairly accepted "definition" of science fiction -- and I use quotes because, while I've yet to hear anyone provide a single, solid, all-encompassing definition of the field, I do think there are some basic, generally accepted criteria that help separate sf from the rest of the literary world -- all of the stories put forth as first, or even proto-science fiction, by those who disagree with Aldiss, have at their center some level of rational thought.

You're correct in saying there is no "single, solid, all-encompassing definition" of science fiction. And plenty have tried. Sadly, the "basic, generally accepted criteria" appear to be no more than the presence of spaceships or aliens...

 

[McMurphy]

McMurphy, you seem stuck on the idea that the sf community has taken Aldiss' arguments for Frankenstein as the first sf novel as absolute truth.

Actually, my point is that people have been taken the Shelley assertion as fact, and if you would like me to quote posts on both here and recent science fiction lists that overtly work with that jumping off point in mind, I will, but the back link and a google search will also provide the same information. I think the debate has proved necessary because, by evidence of recent redefining of claims in posts, people had to back away a bit in assertions that it is of universal agreement that Shelley is the first science fiction author. The only reason I am "stuck" on it is because people, at first, attempted to strike down the dissent, and it is nice to see that it has finally softened.

Aldiss supports his arguments by demonstrating how Frankenstein fits within the parameters of science fiction as we understand them today.

Citation of his work that supports this claim, please post (admire my Yoda impression?). Not that it isn't an excellent notion of criteria or that the debate over Shelley is entirely exclusive to Aldiss's works, but I want to be sure that I am at least countering words that Aldiss wrote. Since I am not the one using him as a shield from putting forth a logical stance as to why Shelley is the first science fiction writer, that ball is not in my court.

 

[McMurphy]

Ha! Them's fighting words! Science fiction is not a subgenre of fantasy. It is an independent genre, derived from realism. Fantasy does not derive from realism.

I completely agree that science fiction is not a subgenre of fantasy. Unfortunately, I have seen it placed as so at times and within certain venues.

 

[iansales]

Actually, my point is that people have been taken the Shelley assertion as fact, and if you would like me to quote posts on both here and recent science fiction lists that overtly work with that jumping off point in mind, I will...

To tell you the truth, I've seen Wells and Verne quoted most often as the beginnings of science fiction. But if I snapped at you, I apologise. I interpreted your post to include myself in those who put Frankenstein first.

 

[McMurphy]

To tell you the truth, I've seen Wells and Verne quoted most often as the beginnings of science fiction. But if I snapped at you, I apologise. I interpreted your post to include myself in those who put Frankenstein first.

No, not at all. Hopefully, you are taking this as a good exercise in debate, which is something I miss very, very much from my school days.

If it helps, I am a huge Wells fan; hence, the avatar title.

[Looking back at my post (#18), I can see why you would think that I was claiming that you agreed with the Shelley assertion, and my apologies. I should have taken greater care in setting up some transitional sentences.]

 

[Dr. Atomic]

McMurphy: I think you're taking my words the wrong way. I wrote that "Aldiss supports his arguments by demonstrating how Frankenstein fits within the paramters of science fiction as we understand it today."

By that I mean -- since there's some confusion, though I'm not sure why -- Aldiss BACKS UP his argument. People are free to disagree with him, but at least he's providing the reasons he feels this way. He said "X." People responded with, "Why X?" And he responded with "Here is my reasoning in support of X." And people responded to that with, "Oh. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for explaining your reasons. Now we're free to agree or disagree as we see fit. At least we have the rational behind your argument to ponder in a clear, meaningful way."

Which is why I think that you're incorrect in saying that people use Aldiss' arguments as a shield. That implies that people decided on their own at some point that Frankenstein was the first, and -- YAY! -- Aldiss came along and provided the reasons. Rather, I think many people -- not all, but many -- read Aldiss' book (or arguments by others that cite Aldiss' book and reasoning) and were CONVINCED BY ALDISS (or, etc.) that the arguments MAKE SENSE. So it's really NOT a case of the tail wagging the dog... That dog is most definitely doing the wagging.

Now... as to my request...

I'm not asking you to refute Aldiss' reasons, since I've come to understand you haven't read Billion- or Trillion Year Spree. I AM, however, asking you to please show us why the work YOU cited should be considered as science fiction. Otherwise, we take it on faith that you're correct -- since I'm willing to bet that few of us have read the work -- that your arguments have any validity to them at all. (For the record, I'm sure they have some merit -- but you've got to give us some help, here...) Unless you can give me a reason why your argument makes sense -- not why Aldiss is wrong, mind you -- then I can't possibly agree with you. But if you can, then I'm HAPPY to change my mind, or at least look at a broader picture. I'm looking at this as an opportunity to learn something new. (Which is why I'm on this forum.)

Iansales (and McMurphy): I didn't mean them to be fighting words. I should have qualified my statement. I meant "fantasy" as in something that doesn't -- and can't currently -- exist. As opposed to "fantasy," a specific genre that means what we all think it means. I happen to believe that science fiction is fantastic literature, but one that derives from rational thinking -- and extrapolation -- based on current known ideas or theories or whateve. But for all its grounding in realism, it's NOT real. The very fact that we're forced to dream up certain aspects of the reality implied within a science fiction book means that it's a fantasy. Further, we come up with multiple aspects of the same element of the implied reality -- take FTL, for instance. Different writers explain faster than light travel in different ways -- because it doesn't really exist. Or consider vintage sf... At the time, it seemed entirely plausible, but now, even some of the best of it, makes absolutely no sense. (Creatures on Mars, jungles on Venus, etc.) It reads more like fantasy than ever.

Perhaps I should have said that sf is a form of fantastic literature, as opposed to saying it's fantasy. Because Fantasy is in fact a subset of fantastic literature...

Anyway, that's all I mean. I thought it was an accepted stance within literary circles. My mistake. (For whatever it's worth -- I'm a die-hard science fiction fan, and haven't read fantasy in a couple decades. If I WERE to pick a fight, it'd be on the side of the sf community... mostly because we've got lasers. )

 

[Alienweirdo]

Whoa, some debate i've started. i've had a bit of bad day, so if i sound off, i apologise now.

Thanks to those who have voted, and thanks to those who made their points diplomatically. J.D as always, your comments are as always a tremendous help and insight.

@ Dr Atomic, Pyanfaruk and Iansales etc: Ok everybody, here is the reason for these candidates. The reason i'm not doing lesser known writers is because my Thesis title is 'How the Real World Effects Mainstream science fiction', in more detail, the influences the general public don't see when they read/watch sci fi. This is the sci fi that the everyday schmo unlike you and i encounter. Ask anyone on the street and they wouldn't necessarily have heard of Philip K. Dick or J. G. Ballard etc. This is why i have chosen to use these writers, as people know their stories from movies and so-forth. Just becuase i have made a poll on a small subject, doesn't mean thats all i'm writing about. i would have imagined the mass of different threads i have posted would have hinted at this! i only wanted a little extra primary research that saved me from standing on the streets handing out questionnaires in the rain... If you all feel happier, banish the poll to the nether regions of where ever threads get deleted to, and we can all have a fresh start.

I guess its my own fault for not making things clear enough. i honestly didn't expect people to be giving me so much advice. i know what i'm doing with my thesis. i have narrowed down my subject matter. i have my chapter titles, i have my secondary research, i have my dissertation tutor, and i have 3 proof readers. i appreciate the concern but i believe i am well on my way. As you all know and seem so keen on reminding me, Sci fi is a vast subject matter. but then, everything is.

[rant]Sorry if my spelling offends people, despite what my names says i am only human! if it offends you, thats my problem not yours, get over it.[/rant]

I have never read any Gernsback, never heard good things about his work. the reason he was there was thanks to the strong suggestion of one of my tutors. This proved him wrong! so thank-you for backing me up.

Apologies again if i sounded off, it was unintended if did. i'm going to bed.

And finally, how many posts do i have to do before i get my own laser?

 

[McMurphy]

...And to Why I Was Great at Atari's Pitfall

Which is why I think that you're incorrect in saying that people use Aldiss' arguments as a shield. That implies that people decided on their own at some point that Frankenstein was the first, and -- YAY! -- Aldiss came along and provided the reasons. Rather, I think many people -- not all, but many -- read Aldiss' book (or arguments by others that cite Aldiss' book and reasoning) and were CONVINCED BY ALDISS (or, etc.) that the arguments MAKE SENSE. So it's really NOT a case of the tail wagging the dog... That dog is most definitely doing the wagging.

Okay, I see your point, but there is an error in it; namely, the notion of citing his work. No one has yet to actually cite his work. I am led to believe that either people have not read his book and are instead using him as possible validation via noting his critical work on the market that supports their assertions (which I would like to point out that there is nothing wrong with that in on itself) or are working from vague memories of past readings that would leave plenty of room for mis-indirect-quoting. I will not repeat myself (Well, more than I have the dire habit of doing), but I call upon the "ten percent of the brain" example to illustrate wide spread repeating of a "fact" without the original citation attached. My lord, a whole generation learned that people only used ten percent of the brain in schooling of all levels, and, to this day, there are plenty of field related websites still misquoting the source material. I just wish to reel back in the flippant use of others' works without citation on that basis. I must make very clear that my point is not to make the debate over the Shelley claim exclusive to a critic's work or that there isn't a viable argument within the correct framing that Shelley could be regarded as a parent of science fiction literature.

Now... as to my request...

I'm not asking you to refute Aldiss' reasons, since I've come to understand you haven't read Billion- or Trillion Year Spree. I AM, however, asking you to please show us why the work YOU cited should be considered as science fiction. Otherwise, we take it on faith that you're correct -- since I'm willing to bet that few of us have read the work -- that your arguments have any validity to them at all. (For the record, I'm sure they have some merit -- but you've got to give us some help, here...) Unless you can give me a reason why your argument makes sense -- not why Aldiss is wrong, mind you -- then I can't possibly agree with you. But if you can, then I'm HAPPY to change my mind, or at least look at a broader picture. I'm looking at this as an opportunity to learn something new. (Which is why I'm on this forum.)

That is a valid request, and it makes sense as to why that could be needed to adequately convince others of a possible claim of mine, but I will tell you why, for two main reasons, that has no place within this conversation.

One, I fail to see how my personal views of what does and does not fall into the science fiction genre have anything to do with the point I have put forth in this thread. Again, due to the recent up-cropping of science fiction lists that have been either typed up for paper form or internet viewing, it has become fashionable (feel free to use whatever related adjective rather than "fashionable" if one finds him/herself hinging too greatly on it) to take the claim that Mary Shelley is the first science fiction writer at face value. While I strongly believe that literary theories dating no earlier than the twentieth century should not be classified as a "loooooong time," I am not saying that the critics themselves are being fashionable. See the difference? My point is that the Shelley opinion---however well researched it is---should not be handled as a mere piece of unattached trivia. Whether I was to claim the Bible as the first piece of science fiction, which I don't, or to boast that TRUE science fiction has yet to be written (imagine the last phrase said in a French accent), it has no bearing on my point within this thread because I am challenging the status of the claim and how it becomes historically inaccurate due to inadequate citing.

Two, the following is how I see me getting caught up in defining what is science fiction so to usher in the examples of possible predating pieces as self defeating and of a gallows route. Obviously, I feel that the examples I have given are, in fact, science fiction under certain pretenses. Is it the assertion that these works have never been regarded as science fiction? My defining within this thread, however, is more of a trap than anything else, and since this is a debate, that is a fact I must acknowledge. To tie my challenge of the status and common quotation of the Shelley Claim tightly with my definition of science fiction provides a direct route for people to discredit a---quite frankly---obvious point. For example, every time someone would type "...but I think fiction must include themes of alien concepts to be considered science related..." it is being used to challenge a relatively unrelated claim of mine.


Now, I can see how the above reasons I have provided, despite how legitimate they are, will be viewed as ducking the bullet much like issuing the challenge is easier than actually providing direct quotes of either of the critics frequently name-dropped in this debate. Because of that, I am MORE than willing to debate what defines science fiction literature and demonstrate how the adventures of Pole could be regarded as science fiction in a separate thread free of the strings attached to the Shelley debate. I think that is a great topic, and one that will be well visited by many of the users on this site.