Talk:Jack Vance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jack Vance article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Enough is enough: let us return to the article

  • RLetson mentioned his intention to re-write some parts of the article. I must admit that I kind of like it as it is, somebody's presumptious "B" rating notwithstanding. I'd like to know, what RLetson has in mind, in particular. Arvin Sloane 03:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery again

An anonymous editor cut a sentence about "The Moon Moth" out of the slavery paragraph, and the result was clunky. Rather than just revert the clumsy (and uncommented) edit, I tried a revision that removes the connection with aristocracy (a rather weak connection, I think) and emphasizes a couple of thematic functions of the motif. It could be better (there's an interesting connection among and between the motifs of slavery, general socio-political domination, and freedom/authenticity), but it's a start, and at least it doesn't read quite so much like a freshman essay. RLetson 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, that same anonymous editor inserted into the Kenneth Rexroth article the assertion (long a part of the JV article) that Narvath is based on Rexroth. In both cases the attribution is hedged by "allegedly" or "said to be"--is there a source for this notion? I'm not aware of one (which is not to say it's not out there). Otherwise I'd suggest cutting it from the JV article. (The Rexroth folks can do their own doubting.) RLetson 17:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Rendering book names was inconsistent (some were in Italics, some in quotes). Now, unless they are links, they are all in Italics. Yes, I've also never seen a Rexroth reference anywhere other than in this article. Arvin Sloane 08:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of those titles (e.g., "The World-Thinker," "Rumfuddle," "Assault on a City,") belong in quotation marks--they're short stories or novellas. Only separately-published works get italics. (Unless there's yet another obscure Wiki exception to standard American usage, anyway. I still itch to edit all the UK punctuation to conform to American standard.) No time to fix now, but I'll get around to it if no one else does. RLetson 15:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It's getting complicated: for example, "The World Thinker" was a name of a separately published collection of stories, while "Nopalgarth" is a collection of short stories and a novella, which is usually treated as a name of a separately published book. Are "The Moon Moth" and "Gold and Iron" separate books, novellas, or what? Not that this is important but I am getting confused. I am used to see short stories' names in Italics almost everywhere: introductions, burps, newspaper articles. Sorry if I've done wrong, though. Arvin Sloane 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It depends on the entity being named. In this context, it's the individual story rather than any collection named for it. If you check one of the JV bibliographies it's not hard to distinguish (though the path may wind a bit). For example: Gold and Iron first appeared as "Planet of the Damned," a "complete in one issue novel" in Space Stories magazine and was then reprinted as the free-standing (but abridged) Slaves of the Klau (well, half of an Ace Double, but each half is treated as a separate book typographically), and eventually re-reprinted with Jack's original title (and restored text) by Underwood-Miller. I think I've got each version correctly formatted here. Newspapers seem to follow their own conventions for titles (perhaps because of technical issues with their typefaces), but the standard I learned and taught was quotation marks for entities that are not stand-alone and italics (or in old typewriter-era MS days, underlines, which apparently don't display here) for anything with its own covers. (There are probably exceptions that I'm not remembering or that have changed in the 20+ years since I last taught comp.) It's nit-picky, but decades of paper-grading and copy-editing have made this stuff part of my nervous system. RLetson 17:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited punctuation and title formats in Overview section and did some minor revising. RLetson 20:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is going on here?

It seems an editor has repeatedly been removing material from this page. Might one inquire if there is some valid reason for this?--Baphomet V 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've archived an offtopic and concluded discussion by moving it to Archive 2. There is no reason to restore it. Gamaliel 23:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I applaud you for not deleting it outright, Gamaliel, since a lot of your fellow "administrators" I've dealt with wouldn't have hesitated to do so. Peter1968 05:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you perhaps point to an official Wikipedia rule or guideline that suggests that an editor may repeatedly remove material that he considers "offtopic and concluded" when there is no consensus on this?--Baphomet V 23:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages. Please take this to my personal talk page to avoid cluttering this page with further irrelevant posts. Gamaliel 00:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
But I am simply responding to your activities. Before you started taking an interest in this page, we were discussing how to improve the Jack Vance article. In what way do you feel you are contributing to this effort? (By the way, you seem to have forgotten to leave behind a summary of the contents of the discussion you archived, as the page you link to encourages you to do.)--Baphomet V 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Before I took an interest in this page, a user was threatening an edit war over a template. That is the material I archived. If you wish to restore this material, please explain how this would improve the Jack Vance article. Otherwise, please use this page to discuss the Jack Vance article. Thank you. Gamaliel 01:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Basically then, Gamaliel, your function at Wikipedia is going around as a self-appointed net cop "taking interests" in talk pages where you can counteract misbehaving users? --Tetragruppasum 08:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original titles

Tetragruppasum: Why delete the alternate titles? Even if your beef is with the VIE titles, two of those you changed are indeed JV's preferred ones as indicated by their use in the Underwood-Miller editions (Gold and Iron and the long version of Showboat World), and The Domains of Koryphon was indeed the original title of The Gray Prince in its magazine version. And even if one objects to the VIE titles, the bibliographic fact remains that the texts have been published under those titles. In what way is the originality of these titles "dubious"? Would you feel less affronted if they were labelled "alternate titles"? RLetson 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be less affronted if they were labelled "alternative* titles. Sorry, I'm a pedant when it comes to the pejoration of the word alternate to mean something it doesn't. Yes, I'm in a minority and fighting a losing battle, but...
The fact that The Gray Prince was titled the Domains of Koryphon for its initial run in a magazine is news to me. I owned the Coronet edition of The Gray Prince and it made no mention of the story previously appearing anywhere else, which I assumed was more or less obligatory. The Eye s of the Overword, for example, mentions its fixup status and many of the stories appearing in F&SF. Learn something new every day. Peter1968 09:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
If not "alternate titles", how about "randy scouse gits"? —Tamfang 06:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Who is the scouse among us, then? Not me, sir. Peter1968 23:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Then the removal of these you mention maybe was a mistake. Since the link to all the VIE titles have been foisted on the article we need not confuse Wikipedia readers with them. But if a title actually has been used by publishers other than amateur small print runs, I of course think they belong in the article. --Tetragruppasum 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder about the "bibliographic fact" referred to by Mr Letson. Clearly, you cannot walk into a bookstore and ask for Clarges, rather than To Live Forever, and expect to be understood. The bookstore people will not find any such title in the databases they have access to. Was the VIE reported to the Library of Congress? Do the VIE volumes have ISBN numbers? I do not question their physical existence, naturally---the books have unquestionably been published under the variant VIE titles. But giving those variant titles here is likely to be confusing to the newcomer who has just discovered Vance (this is what I imagine the ideal target audience for the article to be). Because he will never actually see books with those titles on them.--Baphomet V 13:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

About "alternate": Peter: Nothing wrong with pedantry (I'm a fully-certified pedant myself), but this is common US usage--I take it that UK/Aussie usage is more conservative? As far as magazine titles go, I first read the novel as a magazine serial, so I've always been aware of the, um, alternative title, but the original-publication information is available in all the standard JV bibliographies (though it is oddly difficult to winkle out of Hewett & Mallet).
About bibliographic facts: I have no intention of participating in the wrangle over the virtues or vices of the VIE, but unless everyone involved in the project is lying or delusional, there exist some 600 sets of these texts, some of which are now available in libraries. (I have written for reprint series with print runs as small as 250.) If, in addition, the titles and texts represent JV's preferences, that is also a bibliographic fact worth noting. I realize that while this entry is not a full-featured bibliography, one function it might serve is to alert readers to the various titles under which a text might be found. Anyone who has done much bibliographic work recognizes the problems of ghost titles, misattribution, and tangled publishing histories, and indicating variations is useful and simple to accomplish. RLetson 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I am sure your reluctance to pass judgment on the VIE is a very noble thing, but then nothing I said requires you to. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that a total of 12 sets were donated to libraries. And who knows what they did with these sets. For all intents and purposes, the VIE is unavailable, and the titles used in it are unlikely to be of any practical significance. In any case, there is already, as a result of much lobbying on the part of interested parties, a link to a list of the titles used by the VIE.--Baphomet V 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restored several alternate and/or original titles that should be non-controversial. The others can wait until there's a reasonable consensus. RLetson 20:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Chash and Wankh are reissue titles, right? Vance's preferred titles seem to have varied over time. In an interview with Jack Rawlins he claimed his preferred title for Showboat World was "The Magnificent Showboats of the Lower Vissel River: Cusp 23, Big Planet." In the same breath he mentions that his preferred title for "The Galactic Effectuator" was simply "The Effectuator." --Tetragruppasum 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Surely nothing else fits in the same breath as The Magnificent Showboats of the Lower Vissel River: Cusp 23, Big Planet.--Baphomet V 22:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The Magnificent Showboats of the Lower Vissel River: Cusp 23, Big Planet is in fact a magic spell that enables the sorcerer to fit an infinite number of syllables into the same breath. True to form Jack couldn't remember the spell afterwards and next time they asked him he misremembered it and "Lune XXIII" made its appearance. --Tetragruppasum 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW the Library of Congress does have a VIE set, and their records indicate that the books do have ISBNs: see [[1]] It took me something under 2 minutes to discover this. RLetson 05:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh.
  • Bibiographic information regarding Vance titles. Anyone interested in absolutely full information regarding this rather tangled question, including lost works, can find it on the Foreverness bibliographic page, in the ALL TITLE INDEX.
  • VIE book set avalability. 50 sets have been donated by Paul Allan to libraries around the world. Several other sets have been donated to libraries by various individuals. The University of Texas was a subscriber. Several sets are still avalable for sale from the project or individual subscribers.
  • Status of VIE titles. As noted by RLetson VIE titles are the titles Jack Vance instructed the VIE to use. Some of these titles are 'original', in the sense that these were the titles originally given by Vance and/or under which they were originally published. Others are titles created by Vance on the occation of the VIE, given that certain stories never had authorial titles and Vance did not like the published ones. Cugel's Saga / Cugel: The Skybreak Spatterlight, is an example. Other titles, like Gold and Iron, are titles preferred by the author, and under which the story has been published, even though it has also been published under other titles. The VIE takes no 'position' on the title question; VIE books simply use the titles Vance instructed it to use, and in volume 44 full title information, including titles of lost and unpublished works, is provided. The correct title of 'Showboat World' is; The Magnificent Showboats of the Lower Vissel River: Lune XXIII South, Big Planet.
  • VIE ISBN #. It is: 0-9712375. The Ellery Queen volume ISBN # is: 0-9712375-1-4. There is a VIE set in the Library of Congress. PaulRhoads 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books emulating Vance - A Quest For Simbilis

The fact that Vance regretted allowing Michael Shea to write A Quest For Simbilis needs to be sourced obviously. I'm personally curious (and have been for some time) at the reasons Vance disliked the book. I'm not keen on it either, it doesn't hold a candle to Eyes of the Overworld or Cugel's Saga but that's my opinion, obviously. So, if someone has a definitive source, that'd be great. Peter1968 08:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Michael Shea had permission to do so also needs to be sourced. Both facts are mentioned in Cosmopolis. I know because I put them there. I did so because Jack Vance has told me about these matters. I do not recall where, in the 63 issues of Cosmopolis, the reference is. I also hope we will not get into a complex discussion of to what extent the content of these 'influenced by' books should be described, since the answere is so clear: to no extent at all. Nothing stops the interested parties from creating wikipedia pages about these books and linking the titles to such pages.PaulRhoads 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Peter; the reply above is not 'tangential'. It responds to your demand that the issue 'be sourced'. If you want details on this matter you can contact me directly. I am unable to converse with you on the VanceBS by reason of bannage.PaulRhoads 08:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If you say it's in Cosmopolis (Vance's permission and later dislike) I'm sure it could be mentioned in the article, especially if Cosmoplois is available online somewhere, which it apparently is. Bottom line is: someone made the claim that Vance regretted giving Shea permission and that does need to be backed up with fact. Wikipedia has an almost unholy love affair for facts and cross-references as you may be aware. Peter1968 10:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you interested in knowing about Vance's attitude about Shea's book or about conforming to Wikipedia standards? Regarding the latter, I have been given such a hard time here, during the period of my perfectly innocent and honest efforts, that it only interests me to the extent it attacks the VIE--which it is no longer doing, so I'm good.PaulRhoads 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
"Perfectly innocent and honest efforts"? Did you not start your activities here with outright vandalism, repeatedly changing the descriptions of the Vance message boards into nonsense? We know that somebody, who has the same ISP as you, did. Baphomet V 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The former. Peter1968 00:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Then what motivates your comment, above? What makes you think I should be interested in what you call the 'bottom line'?PaulRhoads 09:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll get the information from somewhere else. Thanks for your input anyway. Peter1968 10:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eyes of the Overworld article

Could someone here look over the article for The Eyes of the Overworld and perhaps re-write it with an eye to a neutral point-of-view as Wikipedia actually requires? The way it is now comes across as a lamentation written by an Amnesty International sympathiser. Peter1968 03:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Most of Wikipedia has that rotten flavor now, which, in many cases, renders it useless. Whenever one tries to do something about it, the howling pack of Gamaliels and their infrared hell-hounds comes to jam, gag, and expel any blasphemer who encroaches upon the sacred mantras of the Progressive Thought Police. Academia and computer forums are totally occupied by the most primitive, intolerant socialists. I am sure our descendants will research this historical phenomenon with glee: the numerous ever-doubting sages were defeated by the few self-righteous fools, they'll say, again and again, and that's how the New Dark Ages began. Arvin Sloane 08:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Against religious dogmatism or more anti-religion than that?

I came across this intriguing passage: "Vance uses these episodes to satirize dogmatism in general and religious dogmatism in particular. Indeed, there is a great deal of the 18th-century philosophe in Vance, who in his Lyonesse trilogy pokes particular fun at Christianity." This begs the question, though; is Vance an agnostic or atheist; or has he espoused any particular belief system? Perhaps Vance has refused to comment publicly, and I would respect his privacy in such a matter, but if anyone has information from an interview, I think it would improve the article. That he respects the rights of individuals to maintain their own beliefs is already implied. His emphasis on the individuality suggests this. By comparing Vance to "18th-century philosophes," there is the suggestion of Deism, although someone not familiar with (or interested in looking up) that group of mainly French thinkers wouldn't have much of a context. Has Vance specifically compared himself to their thinking, or is it a bit of colorful exposition by the article's author?

  • "We've got one life, and that's it!" - said Jack Vance. As to what this represents -- an agnosticism, an atheism, or some other "ism" -- who cares? Even if there had been some creator of the observable universe, which is highly unlikely, that entity is totally irrelevant to us mortals. Arvin Sloane 09:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/c/Talk%7EJack_Vance_dcfc.html"