Talk:Jack Vance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jack Vance article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2

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)
Ah, I guess you're a bit too young to get the joke. —Tamfang 20:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not that young, but I suppose I don't get the joke, no. Feel free to fill me (and other interested bystanders) in though. Peter1968 09:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
In 1967 the Monkees recorded a song with the nonsense title "Randy Scouse Git". Over where that phrase isn't nonsense, it was given the alternate title "Alternate Title". —Tamfang 07:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The origin of the phrase was in the British sit-com 'Till Death Us Do Part.' It was used by the right-wing, bigoted, lead character 'Alf Garnett' (a Londoner) when referring to his 'son-in-law,' who was both a "leftie," a Liverpudlian and sleeping with his daughter. The phrase is non-complimentary. Interestingly the actor playing the "randy scouse git" is former prime-minister Tony Blair's father-in-law.

Urselius 13:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I know the show and Alf's actor, Warren Mitchell - was just curious how it applied to the works of a Bay Area Californian like Vance. Peter1968 01:25, 8 August 2007 (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)
  • I've taken a stab at the "Overworld" article -- see what you think. I'll get around to doing an article for Cugel's Saga as well. --Andersonblog 23:03, 8 June 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)

[edit] Minor correction

Changed 'Zygote' to Zipangote, in the 'Books about' section (The Jack Vance Lexicon: From Ahulph to Zipangote).

Urselius de Urgel

Urselius 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research?

While much of the article in its current form is fascinating, it seems to fall well-afoul of Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy (WP:NOR). Some sections, such as the one below, attempt to attribute qualities to Jack Vance the person derived from observations of Jack Vance the writer. While they may well be true (though in this particular case, there are so few instances of the described behaviour that they seem statistically insignificant), I don't believe they belong in a Wikipedia article, unless clearly sourced. Also, the bit regarding gender roles and such seems incorrect--from memory, there are a few stories featuring a very assertive (and decidedly non-traditional, for the time) heroine named Jean Parlier (sp?). I don't recall the details off-hand, or I'd add a note. Traumerei 18:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vance's emphasis on individualism prevents him from being a relativist. Indeed, his values sometimes assert themselves as socially conservative, as with his disdain for homosexual behavior: the few homosexuals in Vance's work are all villains, principally King Casmir of Lyonesse, Faude Carfilhiot and the wizard Tamurello, all from the Lyonesse trilogy. One Dying Earth story, "The Murthe," is especially explicit in insisting that women's and men's natures are different and that any deviations from one's gender norm are to be avoided. This ontological "sexual conservatism" also manifests itself in male-female relations.

Be bold! don't be frightened to edit stuff - you're as much an editor as *anyone* else on Wikipedia. If you think this article has original research in it, flag the page as such with {{Original research}}. You've already provided a viable reason. Peter1968 04:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not "frightened" or unwilling to edit articles, but the scope of the original research label would extend to much of the article in its present form. Personally, I feel that since, as far as I know, Vance hasn't been critiqued extensively in academia or print, some of the OR may well be useful (due to lack of primary sources), especially if grounded solidly in the text. The above paragraph was one that struck me as being unwarrantedly forceful in its conclusions. Anyway, I wanted to obtain some input/consensus from other readers, and solicit help as well! That being said, I'll tag portions as original research. I'll try and come up with some text to replace them by and by. Traumerei 05:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Frightened was the wrong word to use, let's face it. Nonetheless, the founders of Wikipedia would rather their editors err on the side of boldness rather than caution. A lot of the information here *is* sourced from personal interaction with Vance, either as a colleague, a friend, or other similar type acquaintances. Peter1968 08:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has had OR and NPOV problems since the first time I read it about a year ago, and fixing them would require a major rewrite, particularly of the long "Characteristics" section, which keeps trying to turn into an essay of appreciation and analysis instead of presenting evaluations and observations drawn from a not-inconsiderable body of commentary (much of which is already listed in the "Books about Vance" section). There's not as much published about Vance as on, say, Heinlein or Le Guin, but there's more than enough to stock a Wiki entry. BTW: Several contributors to this project do indeed have personal knowledge of Vance, but as I understand Wiki protocols, such knowledge is specifically not part of the information base we are to draw on--it is unpublished and therefore unverifiable. Working critics and journalists (I am both) find this counter-intuitive, but them's the rules here, and in this case they don't prevent the construction of a perfectly respectable article. RLetson 05:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the "Possible Influences" section as including OR--some of the influences mentioned can be found in sources, but others seem impressionistic rather than researched (the The Tin Woodman of Oz and Washington Irving suggestions, for example". Sourcing assertions about stylistic echoes or influences isn't that hard, since that particular topic isn't as extensively covered in the commentary as, for example, Vance's thematics. RLetson 20:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Traumerei, keep up the good work! Last summer I rewrote the main article, elliminating the 'characteristics' section. It was resolutely reverted (I won't mention the insult-obligato). My original article, an overview of Vance's work, was broken apart to make the discussion of the mysteries a separate section, even though they are utterly integral, thematically, stylisticly and chronologically, with the rest of the work. Your sample paragraph, which bairs the mark of Bohamet (aka Alexander Feht) is totally unsuitable. But dealing with this wikipedia page is a classic example of what is wrong with wikipeadia in general; namely that a small band of folks with axes to grind and too much time on thier hands have the same access as normal folks. Just stand back and watch..PaulRhoads 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Rhoads, your paranoid suspicions are unwarranted. I am not "Bahomet"; I never touched the English Wikipedia Jack Vance article. The only thing I did here was to translate it into Russian. Please, refrain from mentioning my name in public if you want to avoid serious legal complications. Alex Feht 09:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If "Bohamot" is intended (after all, we cannot all be classical scholars) as a reference to me, I should point out that I, of course, had nothing to do with the quoted passage either. It was added by somebody whose ISP is located in Maryland.--Baphomet V 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Earlier today, I added a link to a "Jack Vance Message Board", since that website contained a fair bit of pertinent information, including several responses from Vance to questions (I have personally never contributed to it, but I found the question and answer section especially fascinating as a Jack Vance reader). User Peter1968 reverted the change, referring to WP:EL as well as the first archive of this discussion page in the reversion summary. The very first paragraph of WP:EL provides a cogent reason (interview transcripts, excerpt below) for the presence of the first link...the other one seems to be a general "news" listing, which could be of use to people looking for current information. I looked through the first archive, and I think what is being referred to is a lengthy discussion involving a board named the "Gaean Reach"--this link doesn't seem to be relevant to that discussion (admittedly, it was meandering and I just skimmed through it), and it seems to contain valuable information. Was the reversion just a mistake? I don't believe the links violate WP:EL, and they contain useful information. Traumerei 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie o television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews).

I've gone and re-added them as you make valid points. I may have gotten the VanceBBS (as it's known) mixed up with the Gaean Reach one, which there was some contention over. So - good call. Peter1968 08:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe the links to the message boards were originally dropped because it was decided that Wikipedia policy did not sanction links to message boards as such. As has now been pointed out, the JVMB contains material from Vance himself that is of specific interest. As this is also true of The Gaean Reach---it has early reviews written by Vance that are available nowhere else except in the library at UC Berkeley---I have now reinstated that link as well. Baphomet V 11:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The Gaean Reach message board is problematic for several reasons; Jack Vance specifically requested that the 4 or 5 jazz reviews (short pieces for his university newspaper), researched by Bruce Yurgil in the UC archives, which are posted there, not be made public or publisized. The VIE would have liked to publish them but did not for this reason.
The Gaean Reach message board was created by Yurgil in reaction to VIE related controversies on the VanceBBS. Apart from a few shreds of fanish chit-chat, is was intended to be, and was, a launching platform for flaims aimed at the VIE project and its managers, with occational responces from same. With publication of all 45 VIE volumes it's 'reason d'etre' abandoned it, and it has been inactive even since.
As for Baphomet V, his mission here seems to be a quixotic crusade to reanimate that fossil which was the ancent fighting-spirit of the Gaean Reach. To what end, if not shere rancor, is hard to understand.
As for the jazz reviews themselves; they are juvinalia, not without a certain limited interest in themselves, but which add nothing to what is well known about Vance's interest in jazz. The novel "Gold and Iron", for example, contains a section which resumes and out-strips them. Wikipedia may prefer to respect Vance's wishes with respect to them.PaulRhoads 09:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me you are trying to insinuate that the material by Vance posted on The Gaean Reach appears there without Vance's permission, and against his wishes. But of course Bruce Yurgil does in fact have the explicit permission of Jack Vance to post this material in this fashion.
The Gaean Reach is the second most important Vance-related message board after the Jack Vance Message Board. Neither is very active; I suspect this has something to do with the fact that Vance fandom is a rather small concern, not on the order of, say, Harry Potter fandom.
Let me also note how tiresome this type of thing became already long ago. In between attempts to infiltrate the Jack Vance Message Board, from which he has been banned for many years, Paul Rhoads spends his time vandalizing the Jack Vance Wikipedia page. Could not all this energy instead be spent in some constructive manner?--Baphomet V 11:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not insinuating anything; I am stating, openly and positively, that the articles Bruce Yurgil has posted on the Gaean Reach were the object of a specific interdiction from Jack Vance. How do I know? Because I was involved with Bruce in requesting permission from Jack for the publication of this material, and I was, like Bruce, dissapointed by the negative result--though not seriously so, because of the negligible importance of the material. Bruce posted the material on the Gaean Reach in spite of the interdiction. There is no question about that; the question is, what should wikipedea do in consiquence?
As for the relative importance of The Gaean Reach, what does that have to do with anything? Does an alleged #2 status in cyber-vance-fandom somehow make The Gaean Reach pertenant to wikipedea? The Gaean Reach, being inactive, piratical and slanderous, is practically nil in itself, so why bother at all about its relative importance?
Regarding relative matters, however, Bophomet V's insinuations about the aleged tiersomeness of my extra-wikipedian activities may be compaired with the real tiersomeness of his statements above. I, at least, am trying to improve this wikipedia article by suggesting that it could be unburdened of certain inapropos clutter. PaulRhoads 14:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As the manager of the #2 discussion board about Jack Vance, I can clear up a mis-statement by PR. Jack Vance has granted me and everyone else permission to run his previous articles from the Daily Californian. The article that Jack asked not to be reprinted was from one of the school's literary magazines. I have honored his request and have refrained from posting it.Bruce Why (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Define '#2 discussion board' please. Which one is that? Peter1968 (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A couple of paragraphs above mention the Gaean Reach and its #2 status.Bruce Why (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Literary Influences

I retitled this from "Possible influences", after adding a batch of specific citations from the author himself, found in the new Jack Vance Treasury.

The section ended up choppy and needs an overall rewrite. Before that, though, we should try to get citations for some of the other influences claimed. For instance, I'm almost certain Vance has been quoted admiring Ernest Bramah, but googling didn't find a cite online. Cheers, Pete Tillman 22:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some structural changes

I have reordered the articles, as well as simplifying and rationalizing the influence and biblioegraphy sections. The latter seems unhelpful. It includes no stories or mysteries. It is not complete or chronological. It appears to have been originally created by someone concerned with a classification of Vance's work by Geaen Reach - non-Geaen Reach. This might be the subject of an amusing article (and has been, in Cosmopolis/Extant) but does not seem relevant here. A complete and chronological bibliography exists on Foreverness, and perhaps a simple link should be given to that, or it might be copied here. I would also prefere seeing science fiction and mystery discussed in one section, about Vance's work, since these genres are intimitly linked in Vance, from an artistic point of view (think of the trio Paul Gunther, Ronald Wilby, Howard Alan Treesong, or the trio Ettar, Robert Struve, Pardaro/Efriam, for just 2 examples), even if the mysteries do not ineterst everyone. The page, after all, is about Vance and his work, not those aspects of the work which interest some people (I mean no disparagement: we all have our particular interests, but this page should reflect Vance's work, not anyone's prejudices about it, including, of course, my own). The current sturcture of these secitons (SF, fantasy) is confusing and redundant. I would be happy to initiate this job, but not if mysteriously angry people are going to jump up and down cawing loudly. What do other's think?PaulwRhoads 12:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging the science fiction and mysteries in one section seems to verge on WP:OR to me. Do you have some sources to show that somebody has already discussed Vance in this manner? Clarityfiend 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
What does original research have to do with it? Why not say that separating Vance's work into 2 sections (SF - Mystery) is also some sort of WP:OR? There are pleanty of articles about such things, in all directions, in Cosmopolis and Extant, but who needs them? It is obvious that Howard Alan Treesong, for example, is a developement of Ronald Wilby and Chickweed ('mystery book characters), both of whom as boys, like Treesong (Howard Hardoa), write a Book of Dreams, the contents of which are essentially identicle to Treesong's. I am not proposing to make such points in the Wikipedia article; I am indicating it to underscore the obvious fact that Vance's mysteries and his SF are not more diverse than his fantasy and his SF, or his various SF works among themselves. I have never seen this done in any published article; it only occurs here on Wikepedia! I do not understand the rational behind speaking about Vance's mysteries as if they are were a different species of thing than his SF and fantasy. If his work is going to be discussed, it should be taken together, particularly since the clumbsy genre classifications into which it falls (SF, fantasy, mystery) are nothing but marketing convieniences, and in many cases obscure the nature of Vance's work rather than revealing it in any helpful way. How can you use such terms to classify Vance stories like Alfred's Arc, Bird Island or The Dogtown Tourist Agency? The latter is both a science fiction story and a mystery. And Maske:Thaery, for example, has fantasy elements (talking trees, dream states, and so on). I am not saying that the SF, fantasy or mystery elements of Vance work could not be consintrated on, but such consintration should occure in a subsection of the section on his work.
By the same token the bibliography is based on criteria I fail to descern, unless it is someone's enthusiam for the Gaean Reach setting. But what does that have to do with a bibliography? Does not classification of Vance's work in this way constitute 'original research'? I have nothing against such enthusiasms, I even share them, but I don't see how it belongs here.
Could you clairify your objection? Is there some published research on the basis of which the SF and mysteries were separated, and could you cite it? The original discussion was unified, and then it was split apart; why? On what basis? With what rational?PaulwRhoads 22:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. It was a bad idea in retrospect to cite OR for merging sections. I would however suggest you create a user subpage and get feedback first.
On a separate issue, what is obvious to you may not be so obvious to others. You need to back up your theses, e.g. the connection between Treesong, Ronald Wilby, and Chickweed, with sources. Clarityfiend 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I repeat; I have no intention of discussing this 'thesis' on wikipedia! Anyway, it is not a 'thesis' and it is certainly not 'mine'. It is a blatant fact (to wit; Treesong, Wilby and Chickweed all wrote a "Book of Dreams", the content of which is, in essence, identicle--if you are not aware of this, read the books: The Book of Dreams, The View from Chickweed's Window and Bad Ronald.). This fact is of the same order as the fact that Jack Vance exists. Such facts do not require tip-toeing around OR! Now, were I to claim that the Book of Dreams theme in Vance is evedence that Vance sufferes some Freudian pathology or other, that would be a 'thesis'. But I'm not doing anything like that. I'm simply trying to point out, here, in the discussion page, that a rigid divission of Vance's work by genre is not a helpful way of presenting it.
As for creating a 'user page', what is this discussion section for? I am trying to get feedback here, and you are giving it. You seem to be against what I propose. Could you show some sources to back up the implications of the current structure of the wikipedia article? Or shall I go ahead and try to make the thing more logical and helpful?PaulwRhoads 07:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you've made up your mind, so there's not much point continuing this thread. I'll just wait to see what you do. Clarityfiend 16:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
My friend, I fail to understand you. I have not 'made up my mind', I am proposing to do some work to make what, in my opinion, might be an improvement in the page. If you would prefere, for whatever reason, that the page remain as it is, I won't fool with it, because I'm not interested in any brohaha. You seem to think that there is some sort of established idea about Vance's work which makes it imperative to discuss it under separate headings, and that doing it any other way constitutes 'original research' and is some sort of personal, possibly excentric and revolutionary idea which has just occured to me. I've never heard of any of this, but if that's how it is, fine! I'll take your word for it. I just think the discussion would be more coherant if all the work were discussed together.PaulwRhoads 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I happen to think that organizing Vance's writing by genre is fine, but am open to any improvements. I already admitted that it was silly to object to merging on the basis of OR. Naturally, I can't judge how it will pan out until I see what it looks like. I promise not to pounce on it like a rabid wolverine. Clarityfiend 03:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Very nice! I'll do the work and we'll see what we think...another thing: will you protect me from any rabid wolverine that does pounce?PaulwRhoads 10:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Working on the page...

I have created a new general piece about Vance's work, which I have attempted to make as brief and inclusive as possible. What remians from the SF and mysteries sections I have temporarilly combined in a 'Characteristics and Comnmentary' section, which I want to work up, and merge with the unsatisfactory bibliography, into a more extensive and casual discription of the work. Comments?PaulwRhoads 13:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hussade Merging

The article for Hussade was merged with this one. Ideally, it should be part of the Trullion:Alastor article when it is written. Any takers to start the article on this book? I'm not a fan of the book and don't feel qualified to start an article. Peter1968 05:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sheirl, I'll take a shot at it. (And yes, I know, don't call you Sheirl-y.) Clarityfiend 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't an article about hussade be on its own page? Whatever. However, what about those images? Shere speculation; the trapeez supports are not shown; the number of ways and runs doesn't seem right (I have not checked Trullian, where they are specified) but there is certainly not that boulivard of a border around the whole thing where, if the image were accurate, most of the play would take place; and what about the tanks? Also, what the heck do those electronic pictures of players tell us about Vance or his work? Is this not a case of the dreaded OR, about which all of us are so concerned? However, if not, at each Vance title should there be illustrations? If there were, would not the page become extreemly heavy? But if yes, perhaps the VIE illustrations could be used in such a way?PaulwRhoads 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't an article about hussade be on its own page? The editor who merged it with the JV one deemed it failed fictional notability guidelines to warrant its own article. This sort of thing is usually hard to defend and so, I'm happy to have hussade appended to the Trullion article when it's written. Peter1968 20:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly I created the original article as an analogy to Kosho, which does have its own page. I have no particular objection about having the section here, or in a future Trullion article when it's created (it's certainly needed). But it was the fact that Hussade appears or is referred to in several JV titles that made me think it merited a stand-alone entry. If that isn't a good enough reason, fine. Cenedi 22:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops. I got this mixed up with one of the other Alastor books - I don't have Trullion. Unless I can find a copy somewhere, somebody else will have to do the honors. Clarityfiend 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No objection to an article about Hussade! But do not the images constitute OR--given that they are someone's very nice but personal and unsupported (and even somewhat inaccurate) personal interpretations--and are we not obligated to wage a holy wikipedia war against OR?PaulwRhoads 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Images are usually exempt from original research guidelines. Peter1968 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the section to the new Trullion: Alastor 2262 article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "In" vs "of"

The third paragraph of the article, which reads

He is generally highly regarded by critics and colleagues, some of whom have suggested that he transcends genre labels and should be regarded as an important writer by mainstream standards. Poul Anderson, for instance, once called him the greatest living American writer "in" science fiction (not "of" science fiction).

has annoyed me for years. Is there really a distinction between being a writer "in" science fiction and being a writer "of" science fiction? No. Did Poul Anderson reasonably mean to make such a distinction---i.e., did he mean to say something more than that Vance is a great science fiction writer? No, of course not. If I were to say that Agatha Christie is the greatest writer in mystery fiction, would anybody think I meant that Christie "transcends the genre" or somesuch? No.

The old paragraph is an attempt by a fan to argue that Vance is not just a science fiction writer (as if that were somehow suspect), and look! other people think so too. But making such an argument by twisting words that were clearly never meant to have any such special connotation does not serve this cause, quite the contrary. It just looks silly and pathetic, and will, in fact, make the casual reader less inclined to take Vance seriously.

I am therefore removing this paragraph.--Baphomet V (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commented out unsourced material

Once WP:VER is satisfied for this material, please un-comment it. Peter1968 (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norma Vance

Died peacefully at home on the morning of March 25, 2008. Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Source? I'm surprised I didn't hear about it through other channels. —Tamfang (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The only source I have is the JV Yuku site here which mentioned her death in this article. It seems the Vance's son, John, is friends of many of the regulars there. Googling turns up nothing though. Peter1968 (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty credible. Thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There's an obit on p. 67 of the May Locus. RLetson (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)