Talk:A. E. van Vogt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Isn't the Nexialist in The Voyage of the Space Beagle the inspiration for Spock on Star Trek? Shouldn't this be mentioned? Also, it's mentioned that several sci-fi films have used the idea of the carnivorous alien stalking the crew of the space ship; a mention of the names of these movies would allow searches on the movie title to find the van Vogt article, which would be good for van Vogt's fame. -- 66.239.48.29

Elliot Grosvenor, the Nexialist in the Space Beagle, is very unlike Spock. He is not particularly logical, relying rather on a very wide ranging scientific knowledge gained by using advanced learning techniques including hypnotism. He also has little compunction in using his techniques to defend himself against the internal politics of the ship as much as against external threats, and, in the end, he uses those same techniques to manipulate the crew of the Space Beagle into doing what he thinks is the right thing (and of course since he is the hero, it is the right thing). He knows something about everything, especially human motivation and emotions, a matter on which Spock seems happy to admit ignorance. I really don't think that they have much in common. -- Derek Ross
Which is very interesting and accurate, but doesn't seem to address the question of whether Grosvenor was the inspiration for the character of Spock. This is a factual matter of what Roddenberry (or whoever) was thinking. Alan Nicoll 16:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Also: Does anyone know how van Vogt's name is to be pronounced? This should go in the article. -- 66.239.48.29

Vogt is pronounced as "vote." The "g" is silent. My encounters with this pronunciation include a pun, I think by Forry Ackerman, something about "he gets my Vogt for" a distinction; and visits to a few science fiction conventions where Van was introduced. -- Alan Nicoll
  • Ben Bova introduced me to Van Vogt at the WorldCon back in '76 and I *thought* he pronounced it "Vo" as in "go", but I could easily be wrong about this.... Hayford Peirce 19:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Come to think of it, the pun works even if you pronounce the "g." Alan Nicoll

Contents

[edit] General Semantics

I question the characterization of General Semantics presented here, especially in characterizing it as "fuzzy logic." Seems to me GS is fundamentally about avoiding bewitchment by language, as in confusing the map with the territory, and the person today with the person tomorrow. The null-A angle is a rejection of two-valued logic, which differs significantly from fuzzy logic. Alan Nicoll 22:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

And the current version seems to mischaracterize fuzzy logic. Does anyone know what Van Vogt actually said, so we can present his views as such? Dan 07:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Since the Null-A books are to some extent an exposition of General Semantics, there should be some wothwhile quotes in them. -- Derek Ross | Talk
In fact each chapter of Pawns of Null-A starts with a little snippet illustrating a point from the philosophy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the A._E._van_Vogt article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/A._E._van_Vogt}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Meta-systems

"all-encompassing systems of knowledge (akin to modern meta-systems)" -- If you follow that link, the article on Meta-systems is worthy in tone of Van Vogt, but it doesn't appear to describe the kind of General Semantics/Dianetics/"Nexialism"-type Theory of Everything in question. If there is a true connection, let's clarify it. -- Dell Adams 07:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm doing it too! Good grief! -- Dell Adams 07:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 What were the dates of publication of Van's novels?
        --k d f

[edit] criticism

I removed some of the "criticism" of Vogt's writings but I see Antaeus Feldspar restored them.... anyone else want to chime in about this? I feel like given the genre and the period, it's a bit pedantic to list various scientific "mistakes" in old sci-fi novels. These stories are fanciful by nature, and it's a bit like saying that Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator violates the laws of physics, or that Teletubbies have no valid physiological explanation for their abdominal television implants. wikipediatrix 17:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that some note of the issues might be in order, but not to the extent that it currently is. Perhaps simply a note to the effect "As with many authors of the period, Van Vogt's works were meant to entertain and not educate. To that end, he permitted scientific errors to enter his stories when they would help his story."Shsilver 18:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
These are fairly large mistakes, however, and I don't think the genre and the period account entirely for that. I mean, can you honestly say that the two "Charlie" books or the Teletubbies actually fall into the same genre as van Vogt's science fiction and establish the standard by which they should all be judged? I fully support putting in notes to explain that perhaps those technical errors should be judged by a different standard due to the genre and period, but I can't support just removing them entirely and therefore making the choice for the reader that they're insignificant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Name me any science fiction book ever written (but especially in the 1940s-1960s) and one can pick out major glaring scientific flaws. Does this mean one should? Probably not. Most science fiction authors of his era do not have such a section in their article, and it seems rather unfair to single out Vogt. wikipediatrix 19:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether it was fair or not (opinions differ), Knight's criticism of van Vogt's science and style was highly visible and influential at the time, so it's certainly worth mentioning, e.g., his later characterization of the magazine version of _The Worlds of Null-A_ as a pretentious, foolish, wildly complicated and self-contradictory magazine serial. Ahasuerus 04:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Also consider that while no one is likely to look on the "Charlie" books or the Teletubbies or most of the science fiction books you are counting as comparable as anything but entertainment, van Vogt gets credited for popularizing Non-Aristotelian logic through his writing (the famous "null-A" he wrote so much about). That sort of real-world influence is frequently accompanied in articles with criticism which may present reasons why assertions or implications from that source should be taken with caution; see the article on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation for an example. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

How about page 626 of "The S.F. Encycl." by Peter Nicholls (the 1979 edition), which, in the article on van Vogt states: "It was during these years that AEVV, along with Isaac Asimov and Robert A. Heinlein, and to a lesser extent Theodore Sturgeon, seemed nearly alone to create, by writing what Campbell wanted to publish, the first genuinely successful period of American sf...." Reader polls and surveys at the time also almost always put AEVV near the top. Hayford Peirce 16:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, we don't have to guess. An analysis of Analytical Laboratory data indicates that van Vogt was more popular than any other Golden Age author except Heinlein and Doc Smith. Ahasuerus 16:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow! I had no idea such an article existed. Perfect example of a guy with too much time on his hands, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 22:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The reason I tagged it is because the phrasing seemed uncomfortably like what I'd read in the typical band-vanity page ("Their many fans would agree that Retching Lemur is one of the best bands of all time!") Of course I know that van Vogt did indeed have a quite significant following -- but any claim made for how significant, such as him being in the top three of the time, really should be backed up with more than the conditional that's there now about who fans "would have named". So, since we've got some better data now, perhaps it should get edited in? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, we can do that. Keep in mind that his standing with the fans was very high in 1939-1943, but dropped precipitously at the end of WWII -- see the graph at the bottom of the linked page. Ahasuerus 02:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lydia Bereginsky

Lydia Bereginsky's name was a link. I didn't think it necessary. If she is notable for something other than marrying Van Vogt, somebody please say so, and create a Wikipedia page about her. Mr Frosty 17:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Snipped "Golden Age" claim

I've taken out the line, "It was the cover story of the issue of Astounding which ushered in the Golden Age of science fiction. " For one, this is unsourced, and a pretty grand claim. For two, it's unclear what's doing in the ushering, the story, the cover, or the issue. Wasn't germane to the subject at hand. --P L E A T H E R talk 00:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Never thought that the oft repeated assertion needed a cite, having read versions of the story for decades on end, but since such memories do have a tendency to fade, the need for a cite is not in doubt. The other issue by Pleather, about clarifying what was being ushered in, still needs to be better addressed. The minor modification doesn't seem to do much toward that end, so a bit more editing is needed. Ombudsman 03:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The July 1939 magazine issue ushered in the Golden Age. The reason for the claim is that both Van Vogt and Asimov had their first published stories in this issue (and Van Vogt's was indeed the cover story). Heinlein's first story was published in the next issue, August 1939, Sturgeon shortly afterwards, and things took off from there. A cite confirming this should be easy to find. As to being germane, van Vogt is one of the authors whose work is characteristic of the Golden Age, so of course it's germane. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact it's all laid out and cited in our John W. Campbell article, so I just copied the citation in. That's better than deleting something which is common knowledge among serious SF fans. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empire of the Atom

Please add the following: Although Van Vogt has a gigantic reputation as an sf writer, it seems that he has been allowed to get away with what I would call "the Queen's award for plagiarism" - namely his story EMPIRE OF THE ATOM which was shamelessly derived from I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves.

Thanks to the writer/s of this article. -- (unsigned by Anon)

That's interesting. I haven't read Empire of the Atom but I'll watch out for it. However Graves himself shamelessly derived I, Claudius from Suetonius work, so van Vogt wasn't alone. Authors do that kind of thing, even good ones. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/2E/_/Talk%7EA._E._van_Vogt_9070.html"