Talk:C. J. Cherryh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Older topics

I added a link to the Cherryhlist. I don't know if this counts as "self promotion" (since I run the list)! I checked the style guidelines and didn't see anything specifically forbiding it. This mailing list has been around since 1992 and (the old version) is referenced by Meetpoint Station, which is another external link. If I err, please edit out. jjaquinta

I was a member, sometime a long while ago. It's a good list and IMO totally appropriate for the article. —Morven 16:34, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

"Her world-building skills rival J. R. R. Tolkien's, and allow her to create uniquely believable alien cultures, species, and perspectives, and to make the reader reconsider basic assumptions about human nature." I don't disagree with this, but as phrased it is perhaps a bit POV? Should this be rewritten? DES 21:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've created a redirect-link to this page from CJ Cherryh (which is easier to type) --Bruce1ee 08:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very Good Idea. Bo-Lingua

"For that matter, it is difficult to find an indecisive character anywhere in her fiction:" This may need changing. Many if not most of her male characters are indeed indecisive and very unsure of themselves; witness Bren Cameron, Justin Warrick, Tully, and Vanye. It's true they always grow stronger over the course of their stories, but they are indecisive enough for long enough that the statement in this article is not really true. Not sure if it needs changing... I'm new to the whole Wiki thing. And can I just say that Cherryh is one of my most favorite authors of any genre! --Swartzer

I agree. In Cyteen, many of the men are often blowing in the breeze. Kdammers 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I pop in occasionally to add/update info. I'm also very new at Wikipedia & don't understand editing very well. It would be very appreciated if people can help clean up my entries: you'll note I don't really know how to do HTML, so have simply pasted in actual links, rather than a footnote. I'm certain someone will want to edit these into footnotes, etc. I've also added in items I know for a fact. For example, "Flash Gordon" was the cancelled TV show, NOT "Buck Rogers", as erroneously noted in the insert written by Don Wollheim accompanying Easton's Press' edition of DOWNBELOW STATION: CJC herself told me it was "Flash Gordon" & not "Buck Rogers". Is there a way info from personal comunications should be noted? When writing my thesis, I noted "personal communication", the date & the source...but how does Wikipedia handle this? [user SER, 23:12, 29 November 2005] [14:20, 8 Jan 2006]

Added compilations "Devil to the Belt" and "The Chanur Saga" using paperback release years. I don't believe these compilations had hardback releases. In both cases I've put 2000 as the year. jg 10:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Added: a number of External Links, & asteroid 77185 Cherryh as an Award. If inappropriate, please delete. Added because these are obscure links, yet I feel they add to Wikipedia's depth & breadth. (BTW, if anyone is confused, I now have a Wikipedia account: I was formerly SER & 67.185.158.121) RaenLyn 07:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Edits

Thanks for that, whomever did it. I hadn't realized it until I saw the changes. Thanks for catching it. Bo-Lingua

Glad you liked it. I'm new at this, so I'm glad I did well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jg og 2@yahoo.com (talk • contribs) 10:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Style

what follows is POV, but I think it is dedidely missing from the article: CJCh often writes in a cumbersome manner that makes reading uncomfortable. Kdammers 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that it would be better said: Ms. Cherryh's manner of writing is often described by some as "cumbersome" or "uncomfortable."
I personally have no problem reading her work; my wife would agree with you. I think that there are two sides to the story. Bo-Lingua 02:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Cherryh's books are not light reading and can be a challenge, particularly if you're unfamiliar with her style of writing. Sometimes careful reading is required in order to keep track of all the characters, places and events, and often re-reading her books is more rewarding than the first read. --Bruce1ee 07:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Bruce1ee's statement above. [User: SER, 23:01, 29 November 2005]
To not discount any of your comments, but as the goal of wikipedia is Neutral Point of View it would not be fitting to have a partisan comment either way, thus the middle of the road "often described by some" arrangement, acknowledging your valid points of view while remaining NPOV. Bo-Lingua
Sorry, but taking the "middle of the road" is not necessarily NPOV. For example, if I don't like the taste of Coca-Cola, there's no need to add that to the Coca-Cola article. There will always be people that don't like something or have one opinion or another. NPOV does not require one to describe every POV, just the ones significant enough to merit mention. If there are a significant number of people that have notable complaints about Cherryh's writing, then it may possibly be included. Given that it can be properly sourced, of course, but NPOV often goes hand-in-hand with verifiability. --C S (Talk) 06:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
We should instead see if we can find any comments on her style by professional reviewers, e.g. in SF magazines. Unsourced opinions, or those hidden behind the weasel words "Some", or "Many", should not be used. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 08:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point, Matthew: THE CHERRYH ODYSSEY, edited by Ed Carmien, is probably an excellent source. I have a copy & will review it for pertinent quotes when I have the opportunity over the next few weeks. [User: SER, 14:25, 8 January 2006]

--- Actually one of the interesting things about CJ Cherryh's "intense third person" style (as noted in the main article) is that events are written from a very strict point of view. However as a reader, one can find more information about events by reading other books that take place at the same time and place, but from a totally different view. CheyenneWills 17:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite an example of that? Bo-Lingua 19:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Try taking a look at Rimrunners, Tripoint, Finity's End, and Merchanter's Luck. See http://www.kefk.net/Website/Kefk/Cherryh_Timeline.asp which contains a cross reference timeline CheyenneWills 03:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Another timeline is here http://www.cherryh.com/www/chrona1.htm
I think it would not be hard to find positive reviewer comments about this multiple-Hugo-winning author. It is true that she has an elliptical style that requires the reader to pay attention; she will say in 200 words what a lesser writer might blather on for a thousand words about. She draws the reader into the story by describing events in their own context instead of spoonfeeding the reader with contemporary exposition. It is true that different readers prefer different styles, and that this writer has a distinctive style (though varied from series to series). A brief discussion of her style would be relevant, though I think reviewers are much more likely to use adjectives like "brilliant" rather than "cumbersome". Avt tor 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split article?

The main Cherryh article is starting to get a little long / big, especially now with the book cover scans added. Does it make sense to consider splitting out the "Works" section onto its own page, and then link to the new article from the main page? (For a complete list of Cherryh's writings, please see List of works by C. J. Cherryh, or something like that). If we did that, it would mean the reader had to click through to get a complete list, but on the other hand the main article would be much more manageable.

Also, a List of works page would mean we could move the "Excluded Short Fiction" list out from The Collected Short Fiction of C. J. Cherryh article -- where it just doesn't quite feel like it properly fits. (I can say that I think 'cause I put it there in the first place!). It might be better to have all those other short stories in a List of works page rather than in the article on the "Collected Short Fiction" book in which they don't even appear. I dunno -- anyone else have thoughts on this? Fairsing 07:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not unhappy with splitting the article, although I don't think it's that long (have a look at Isaac Asimov). As to what the "Works" page would be called, there are several options (to name a few):
I personally prefer the last one (if we decide to split the article), but that's just my opinion. --Bruce1ee 08:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be much interest in splitting the article right now, so perhaps status quo is better for now. Fairsing 14:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there's really only about the three of us that are actively working on anything related to Ms. Cherryh, so whatever we say, methinks, is the status quo. I htink that we should go with C. J. Cherryh bibliography for her works, and I think that could help the article immensely. Maybe put in a selected (Hugo winners, etc.) and then the all comprehensive list as a See C. J. Cherryh bibliography for the Ms. Cherryh's full bibliography.. Bo-Lingua 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favour of a separate bibliography article (and like the "bibliography" title for it). So go for it - WP:BB! --Alvestrand 08:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created the bibliography page, but I'm wondering if we should keep anything about specific novels (like Cyteen, Downbelow Station, The Chanur Novels, The Foreigner Series) on this page? (meaning Bibliography type.) Comments? I've left it here until we come to consensus. Bo-Lingua 14:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the split. Yes, I think reference to her major works should remain here, along with a brief summary of her output. Those readers interested in more detail will go to the bibliography page. --Bruce1ee 14:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm in agreement here too. The bibliography page looks good -- thanks. Maybe we should also keep a reference to The Cherryh Oddysey in the main article as well since it's about her and her work rather than just a book she wrote. Fairsing 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. I've moved it back. Bo-Lingua 17:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreigner universe = Alliance-Union universe?

The April 21 addition from BoLingua implies that there is a direct connection between the Foreigner universe and the Alliance-Union universe. Is there any specific evidence for this, or is it just speculation? It would be really cool if they were linked, but I can't remember anything from the books that specifically links them. On Cherryh's home page she has them listed as separate universes, but if there's a clear indication in one of the books that they are the same universe that's a whole different ball game. I think it might make sense to either 1) Clarify that the link is speculative and there is no specific evicdence to back it up; or 2) Provide the citation for the evidence that clearly links the two universes together. - Fairsing 03:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In the first book, Foreigner, Ms. Cherryh makes comment that the Phoenix is being sent out to establish another set of star stations for Earth, as Earth had managed to lose the war with Union and gotten its fingers burnt with the aliens on the other side (hani, mahendo'sat and kif.) I'll go home and re-read the first one to make doubly sure, but I'm fairly certain. That's really about the only link that is given, as far as a connection goes. And really, there is no connection, because any link is lost so early and deciseively. The connection is only to show what technology we, the reader can expect the humans to have. Bo-Lingua 22:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I reread it, and I would've sworn it said something to that nature. I'm going to reread them and see if there's something about that, or if I'm just mixing up my novels, which I fear is the case. All the novel said is that Phoenix was heading toward Earth's second stepping stone to the stars, and there was a comment that they were sure that aliens existed, which leads me to believe that it's started in the A-U universe, although that's really not an important point because the events of the stories take place some 500 years after Phoenix gets lost, per the back cover blurb on the Foreigner paper-back (first edition). Any novel that isn't clearly disparate from her other series I expect to fall somewhere in the A-U Timeline. For Ex, Morgaine Cycle is a far-future story of A-U, although it's only mentioned in passing in the book. Cuckoo's Egg likewise A-U but the timeline is uncertain. I think a lot of her books fall into the timeline, or could, because the only one that has a substantial break from her jump technology would seem to be the Gene Wars; these again could be lumped into the A-U universe as a far future. If I had any luck ever getting a response to her via e-mail, I'd ask Ms. Cherryh myself. Bo-Lingua 20:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for checking this out. My copy of Foreigner is in storage so I can't check it myself, but please do post the results of your investigations. I share your sense that a lot of her materials when not specifically identified as A-U could still fit there. So then the question becomes whether or not the books actually indicate that they are part of A-U, or alternately that Cherryh has stated they are part of A-U even if the books don't say so specifically. Since she has Foreigner listed as a separate universe on her Web site, it would seem to indicate they are not part of A-U, but if there's something in the books themselves that contradict that we could cite that as evidence that in fact the Foreigner universe and the A-U universe are the same despite the indication on her Web site that they are separate. For example, the Chanur novels are listed as separate on her Web site but there are specific indications in the books that they are in fact part of the A-U universe. If you have the citations for Morgaine, that would be helpful too, as I don't remember anything specific from those books that place them in the A-U universe. Fairsing 21:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I will look for specific references. As for Morgaine, I remember that somewhere, in Book Two, I believe, she states that she's from Union and that they were sent to travel through space and time shutting the Gates. Bo-Lingua 22:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
One indication of difference: In A-U, jumps have weird effects on humans, and they're generally drugged to the gills to make it through sanely. In Foreigner, it just makes them sleepy (and lasts far longer). But that could be generations of technology... --Alvestrand 17:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
In Tripoint she suggests that some humans can make it through undrugged, and some must have it. It could be generations of technology, or the cumulative knowledge of several 100 years of space travel. Bo-Lingua 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Just checking back on whether we have substantiated the connection between Foreigner universe and A-U universe with an actual reference. The main Cherryh article and the FU universe article state the connection, but I'd really like to be able to back that up with a citation or something. I'm tempted to take out the references until we can legitimately make the connection, but am deferring for now b/c it's been so long since I read the first Foreigner novel I don't really trust my memory. In any case, any luck on this? Fairsing 04:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I picked up my copy and re-read the first few pages. I would say "no confirm, no deny" - there is no explicit link, and the technology IS different (long jumps with conscious pilots & crew, no "points" in transits, just point the ship and go, fuel-limited, starships refuelling themselves from matter "just lying around" seems a matter of course). I'm also not convinced that the type of society is the same as in A-U. Not enough that one could really object if Cherryh let an A-U starship land at Mospheira, but not enough to convince me that they are necessarily connected. (I don't believe Gene Wars or the Mri are intended to be the same universe either, btw...) --Alvestrand 08:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The conscious pilots could be explained away, like Capella in Tripoint. When you say no points, what do you mean? Every jump that is actually referenced in the series drops them out in the vecinity of a star, like the AU universe. Her other ships in A-U have limited fuel supplies and they do refuel at the star-stations; I looked at the gathering of fuel that took place in the first few chapters as what the in-system ships of Pell or Cyteen would do.
While the society that results is not the same, it does strike me as very similar to the A-U universe, and so I wouldn't discount that it is some outgrowth, but maybe several hundred years forward. I'm going to have to re-read the series, because I really, truly thought there was some sort of link. Aside this commentary, I do agree, and I have removed the text. Bo-Lingua 18:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


I read that, as well, and I agree. I've removed the link and notation from the F-U page. Bo-Lingua 14:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Glad we got this resolved. I just edited out the reference from the Bibliography page as well. Fairsing 18:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, glad you caught that! Sorry I missed it. :) Bo-Lingua 18:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New talk page for Bibliography article

Hello all, there hasn't been any talk yet on the Bibliography page, but the new discussion I wanted to start felt like it fit there a lot better than this article. Please see the new Talk page for the Bibliography article and let me know what you think about my question re: groupings and additional articles. Thanks! Fairsing 22:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV warning tag

Which section of the article was this referring to? I'd like to address this as soon as possible. Please clarify the reason for this tag so the issue can be addressed - thanks. Fairsing 15:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was cruising through pages linking to the disambiguation page Environment and saw this text

World building

Cherryh's works depict fictional worlds with great realism supported by her strong background in linguistics, history, archaeology, and psychology. Her world building skills, comparable to J. R. R. Tolkien's, allow her to create uniquely believable alien cultures, species, and perspectives, and to cause the reader to reconsider basic assumptions about human nature. Cherryh's worlds have been praised as complex and realistic even when she presents them through implication rather than explication.

It so incensed me that I put the NPOV tag on the page (without reading the rest of the article), assuming that it would all be like that, but even if it wasn't, that alone justified the tag. Having read the article now, that is the only section that is problematic, but I think it needs something stronger than a Citation needed{{Fact}} tag, which could deal with the comparison to JRRTOLKIEN. Reading the whole paragraph makes me feel sick. I propose that the NPOV tag should go at the top of the World Building section and a citation needed tag be placed after "comparable to J. R. R. Tolkien's" and "Cherryh's worlds have been praised as complex and realistic even when she presents them through implication rather than explication."
The reason that I didn't say all of this on the talk page at the time was because I was being an ar*ehole. Grumpyyoungman01 03:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - comparing anything to Tolkien is dangerous (and I speak as a fan of both authors). I do find most of the article believable, having read too many books where the "aliens" are lightly disguised American Indians, Chinese or other "local" cultures - Cherryh's aliens tend to be consistent AND different. I did a websearch for the combination of "cherryh" and "tolkien" - but most of the relevant hits seem to be lightly edited versions of the Wikipedia article, unfortunately :-( --Alvestrand 08:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"Are you familiar with Cherryh's works?" No, but I will take up the opportunity. I like Frank Herbert, Robert Jordan, Victor Kelleher and Isobel Carmody. I don't like Raymond E. Feist, David Eddings, Terry Pratchet and find David Brin ok. From my profile, do you think I will like her books? P.S. I don't think that anything asserted in world building is false, just that it is written in a fawning style, which is bad regardless of how valid it is or how many sources are attributed. Grumpyyoungman01 11:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Grumpy, I've added a link to an independent review that does the comparison; granted _any_ review is POV. I agree that the sense of "fawning" should be removed, and look forward to a resolution to your apt request. Bo-Lingua 15:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You did that pretty deftly Bo-Lingua, and I have no complaints about it anymore. A POV citation is fine. It is good to see who is making a claim and their arguments for that. Your minor alterations have removed the fawning style quite nicely, please consider my 'request'/grumbling aptly resolved. Grumpyyoungman01 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Glad we were able to resolve this. I agree that the paragraph as it was before didn't meet Wikipedia standards and that Bo-Lingua's edit here was just what the doctor ordered. Grympyyoungman01 -- thanks for getting this started. (BTW, I think you will find Cherryh light-years away from Eddings, and more serious than Brin at least in his more tongue-in-cheek moments; maybe closest to Herbert of the authors you mentioned. If you liked Dune my guess is you should start with the Faded Sun Trilogy. It's some of Cherryh's oldest stuff from early in her career, but the Mri should be right up your alley. Enjoy!) Fairsing 00:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Grumpy, I freely admit that the text that incensed you is POV. I was a newbie when I wrote it, and I didn't yet understand the importance of NPOV. Thanks to those of you who cleaned it up. At this point, however, doesn't it belong (sans fawning) in the Major themes spinoff? JD Lisa 20:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I don't worship Tolkien, but I've always found the thoughtfully anthropological nature of Cherryh's work more remindful of Ursula LeGuin. This is especially true of her earlier few novels and of Cyteen, before she became (apparently) jaded and began just cranking out action yarns. I first met her at AggieCon in 1976, a few months after publication of Brothers of Earth, when she was just discovering the delight of being a "pro" and being gently mobbed by readers who recognized her nametag. I made the comparison to her then (having gotten her attention by fetching her a Dr. Pepper) and she was, naturally, very flattered -- which, I confess, was my intention. But she seems to have forgotten recently why her earlier novels were so highly thought of. . . . --Michael K. Smith 14:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cherryh template?

I don't know if we need one, but just to see what it would look like I tried my hand at creating a template for C. J. Cherryh in my own userspace with a view to (possibly) putting it at the bottom of all Cherryh articles using {{C. J. Cherryh}} (to be created). An example of this is {{Heinlein (books)}} at the end of all the Robert A. Heinlein book articles. If anyone is interested you can see it at C. J. Cherryh template and decide whether you think it is worth developing further. I feel it is a little large at the moment and I'd like to remove some of the whitespace (although I'm not sure how). Any comments / suggestions would be appreciated. --Bruce1ee 12:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. I like it. I vote we use it.
  2. I wouldn't classify Lois and Clark as a Science Fiction novel, but I don't know that it would fit better anywhere else.
  3. Would it look better with the groupings left-aligned?
  4. Since Wikipedia's about Unity, It would be best to stylistically follow the heinlein template. Otherwise, my vote is go with it. Bo-Lingua 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Bo-Lingua. I've moved Lois & Clark to the Fantasy section (where it is in the bibliography). I've also created an alternate template using left-justification, so now there are two draft templates to compare:
The second template is deeper than the first because of the row spacing and I don't know how to reduce it. (I'm no table expert and what I've done is to simply copy and hack from other tables - so I'm sure my code could be improved on.)
As far as template standards go, I don't think there are any – see the variety in Category:Author navigational boxes. But to anyone interested, please have a look at the two draft versions above, and feel free to make changes. --Bruce1ee 09:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I like them both; but I lean more to the left-aligned...I just wish there was an obvious way to shrink up the spacing between the lines...I too am not a table guru. :( Bo-Lingua 14:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the general idea of a Cherryh template, but I'm not sure about the two examples. They both seem pretty big and unwieldy to me. Perhaps something more like Template:Twain? Fairsing 23:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Schzmo at the Wikipedia:Help desk, I found out how to reduce the row spacing of the alternate template. So here again are the two drafts to review:
Fairsing, I want to create a third draft template based on the Twain template you suggested. I can remove all the book series headers and have a continuous stream of titles with only 3 main headers: Science Fiction, Fantasy and Collections. Is this what you had in mind? --Bruce1ee 06:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like it -- thanks! I think the small font size on the Twain one helps as well to keep it small / manageable. Otherwise, you could have a short article on a book with a template at the bottom twice as long as the article! Fairsing 14:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've created a third draft template as requested using the NavigationBox in the Twain template. I've preserved the book title sequence as in the first two drafts, but of course this can be changed. This version is certainly more compact, but I think it needs the book series names. Anyway here are the three drafts to review:

It seems there is agreement that we should use a template on all Cherryh pages and I'm ready to create {{C. J. Cherryh}}, but we just need to decide which of the drafts to use. Here they are again (including a new one):

  1. C. J. Cherryh template – centre-aligned
  2. C. J. Cherryh template alt – left-aligned
  3. C. J. Cherryh template alt 1 – compact
  4. C. J. Cherryh template alt 2 – compact variant

--Bruce1ee 10:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for template alt 2. Thanks for the good work, Bruce1ee! Bo-Lingua 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I prefer template alt 1 because it is smaller, but I'm fine with alt 2 as well. Go for it! Fairsing 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Alt 1 could work...but could we bold the divisions without making them headers like in Alt 2? (so make an alt-3)? I could go for that even more. Bo-Lingua 15:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
As requested I've created alt-3. So here's the complete set:
  1. C. J. Cherryh template – centre-aligned
  2. C. J. Cherryh template alt – left-aligned
  3. C. J. Cherryh template alt 1 – compact
  4. C. J. Cherryh template alt 2 – compact variant
  5. C. J. Cherryh template alt 3 – compact variant 2 --Bruce1ee 08:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Super job, Bruce1ee! I really like alt 3. Fairsing 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yup, let's go with Alt. 3. We've almost got our own C.J. Cherryh Wikiproject going. :) Bo-Lingua 17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've created {{C. J. Cherryh}} using C. J. Cherryh template alt 3 and I've added it to some of the Cherryh articles. Feel free to add it to others. I suggest that any further discussion on the new template be done at Template talk:C. J. Cherryh. Thanks you guys for all your support and encouragement. --Bruce1ee 12:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persondata

Shouldn't it be NAME=Cherry, Caroline Janice and ALTERNATIVE NAME=C.J.Cherryh? The first one is her name after all and the second one only her pseudonym. --Anibas 08:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point, but I believe it is correct as it is. The focus of the article is on Cherryh the author, not the person, making her pseudonym the principal name (and the title of the article). --Bruce1ee 06:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
A simple correction: Carolyn's first name is "Carolyn", not "Caroline". RaenLyn 08:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

The German Wikipedia does not have any photos of CJC, and so I recently recieved a request to add one / some. The same person also commented that the USA Wikipedia has a dated photo of CJ. While lovely, this individual felt the addition of a more current photo would be nice. I have numerous photos of CJ which I took, so hold the licence to them. I would be more than happy to add one to Wikipedia: German, USA, and any other editions -- but can't figure out how to do so. I even tried tonight, but failed. If someone is willing to upload the photo & insert it into Wikipedia, I would be more than happy to email a copy in order that they might do so. Please advise. RaenLyn 08:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What problems are you having with uploading? You can find help at Wikipedia:Uploading images, although I'm sure you know what to do. I don't mind uploading the images for you, but I think it would be better if you do it yourself as you are the copyright holder. --Bruce1ee 09:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've downloaded a recent photo in Wikimedia Commons but am CLUELESS how to get it onto this page. Someone has also requested the same photo be downloaded onto the German Wikipedia Cherryh entry. The file name is <Carolyn.jpg>, if that helps. Please someone -- could you tell me how to do it -- or do it yourself? Thanks! RaenLyn 07:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that Image:Carolyn.jpg already exists on the English Wikipedia, which is not the same as Commons:Image:Carolyn.jpg on Commons. As I understand it, articles will always link the local Wikipedia's image name (if it exists) before looking for the same name on Commons. To resolve this it would appear you would have to upload your photo into Commons again, but under a different name, and one that is not used elsewhere. --Bruce1ee 08:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I see you've also uploaded your photo on the English Wikipedia here. You could link that to this article, but if you want to also use it on the German Wikipedia, it would be best to reload your photo on Commons as discussed above. --Bruce1ee 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure any of us are improved by more recent photos... Avt tor 20:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason we should choose the more recent picture over the other? If it qualifies under fair use, why change? Bo-Lingua 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, public domain images always take precedence over fair-use images (WP:FU), and because the previous fair-use image is now orphaned, it will be deleted. --Bruce1ee 07:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I just saw the current pic of CJC is now in use on this site, as well as the above discussion. I was definitely NOT trying to usursp the lovely pic from some years ago, & was disappointed that it was deleted. In providing the current photo, I was trying to be helpful, in response to a specific request. Is there any way the previous pic can be restored to this (English edition) Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RaenLyn (talk • contribs) 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
The original non-free image was downloaded from here and claimed as fair use because of the absence of any public domain images. But now of course there is a public domain image and "non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." (WP:NONFREE). However, this non-free image could still be used again if a compelling case can be made explaining why it should be used instead of the free image. --Bruce1ee 08:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Themes of C. J. Cherryh work?

Is this title correct? It doesn't sound right to me and I'm not even sure if it's grammatically correct. It was split off from C. J. Cherryh by User:Painbearer on 27 October 2006. I renamed it to Themes of C. J. Cherryh's works (cf Themes of Henry Lawson's works), but the original creator changed it back to what it was. What do others feel about the title? --Bruce1ee 06:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David A. Cherry

the second fact on this wiki is C.J. Cherry is "the sister of artist David A. Cherry" why not just spit in her eye. its like saying "Arthur Clark, the brother of local church organist Marsh Clark" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.198.143 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 27 January 2007 UTC

David A. Cherry is a past Worldcon guest of honor and ten-time Hugo nominee. A bit more than a church organist. Avt tor 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it's offensive. If her brother is also famous, that's great; I only know a few of his paintings, and if anything she's more famous. If it bothers you SO MUCH, rephrase it. Bo-Lingua 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Opera

I think the Foreigner books are far, far from the best examples one could cite for "Space Opera." No, scratch that - they're not space opera at all!!! (at least not the first three books - I haven't finished the series. A much better example - in fact one that could serve as an examplar for the sub-genre as a whole - would be Hunter of Stars - if I have the title right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.17.134 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 2 July 2007 UTC

[edit] Writing Style

I first read this article in the French version, and I'm pleased to see both articles include the mention of the "internse third person" technique. This clarified for me something that had intangibly intrigued me for a long time about Cherryh's style, and it is much appreciated. Thank you to the authors of the articles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.17.134 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 2 July 2007 UTC

I found a link off of wikipedia on her Writing Style. TimSSG (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC) http://www.encyclocentral.com/20357-C.J._Cherryh_Short_Story_Essay_Novel_Writer_.html

Thanks for the citation – I've added it to the "Writing style" section. --Bruce1eetalk 10:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at that EncycloCentral link again, I see that it appears to have been sourced from C. J. Cherryh! Which means it can't be used as a citation in this article. Although at the bottom of the EncycloCentral page it states that it "provides original, informative & authoritative reviews & articles." What do you make of that? --Bruce1eetalk 13:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)