Talk:Rudy Rucker

Tetration

There is no mention of "tetration" in this page, even though someone said somewhere else at Wikipedia that he uses the word "tetration" and there is no tetration page at Wikipedia.

Novels linkage

I don't see the point of linking all the novels since by convention, most novels do not get Wikipedia articles. RedWolf 07:21, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I removed most of the links in my edit. I think some may need to be added in again in the future, maybe Saucer Wisdom. A large part of the problem is that beyond the Ware Tetralogy, there's no agreement what his most signifigant works are. (Setting aside some fannishness, we may have to recognize that perhaps the Ware Teralogy is his only signifigant work).Whitejay251 06:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ware Tetrology continuity

I was somewhat surprised to find no mention of the fact that Rucker seems to have undergone a religious conversion between the third and fourth "ware" book, and that the fourth book doesn't fit together very well with the other three as a result ... 24.22.58.51 11:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Realware feels more disjointed when compared to the first three novels. However, I don't believe he went through a "religious conversion" per se (unless you have a source which says he did, ie an interview). He did quit drinking and doing drugs between the third and fourth novel. Since drug use is such a big part of the ware tetralogy, the change in his attitude towards drugs is likely the source of that disjointed feel. If you're referring to the greater reliance on theistic themes in Realware as evidence of a religious conversion, I'd refer you to his non-Ware novels. Rucker is an author whose ouevre is reliant on a search for transcendance from consensual reality (see Transrealism). In Realware he imported some themes he had explored in previous novels but not the previous Ware novels.

This discussion belongs more at the Ware Tetralogy article in any case. I'll work it in there. There should be mention of his substance dependence in this article, but I'm not sure how I want to work that in exactly. Whitejay²⁵¹ 15:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on essays in Seek!, I'd say that Rucker did not so much have a religious conversion as a reevaluation of his previous religious conversion--deciding that his quest for mystic union with the universe (to put it crudely) ought to involve being nice to other people, and that meant not being a drunk. Which is good for him, but not necessarily so good for his fiction--Realware definitely has a preachy feel to it.

Insofar as his significant novels are concerned, I think White Light would have to be included--I believe the edition I read was published as part of a series of "significant novels in science fiction" or some such.

What I'm surprised about is that there's no discussion of his mathematical work here, which underlies a lot of his science fiction. My understanding is that it's considered significant. I don't really feel competent to write about it here, though; hopefully someone who knows the field will take a crack at it. Nareek 04:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientific background for sci-fi authors

A scientific background for popular sci-fi authors while certainly not predominate, is not unusual. The most obvious example is Isaac Asimov (biochemistry), but there are many others such as Fred Hoyle (astronomy), Carl Sagan (astronomy), Arthur C. Clarke (math & physics), Larry Niven (mathematics), Jerry Pournelle (statistics), and Michael Crichton (medicine). We could do a Wiki-list as an exercise. --Blainster 20:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

why is his photo a negative?

Very distracting - it looks like a mistake. If it's done on purpose for artistic or whatever reasons, the cutline should say so. - DavidWBrooks 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You can use a picture taken by my daughter Georgia Rucker if you like, we'll license it under GFDL. The picture is at [[1]] Rudyrucker 05:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gödel

Because Rudy Rucker is a fiction writer, I wonder if his interview with Gödel was fabricated. Did he really meet and talk to the noted recluse?Lestrade (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Rudy is pretty good about differentiating between what he's making up and what's real. --Pleasantville (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to believe you, but I can't understand how you could be so certain. Only Rudy Rucker, in his own mind, would know the truth. Lestrade (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

He's a friend and I edited one of his books as a freelancer for the publisher. How does this relate to the existing article? Pleasantville (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The existing article describes some of Rucker's work as Transrealism which is science fiction based on the author's own life and immediate perceptions, mixed with fantastic elements. When this statement is combined with the fact that Gödel was extremely private and disliked publicity, as well as being averse to meeting people, then it naturally follows that there was a possibility that the interview may have been fictitious. No harm intended. Just asking a question.Lestrade (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Yes, Lestrade, I did meet Kurt Gödel in his Princeton office in 1972, as described in my book INFINITY AND THE MIND. Though if you don't believe my book, why would you believe my comment! Rudyrucker (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Is saucer wisdom fiction, or non-fiction? the article seems to contain opposing points of view. having skimmed through the book (very briefly) it doens't seem obvious to me. G30ffr3y (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

SAUCER WISDOM in a transreal novel, that is, it is fiction that is closely linked to autobiographical events of the author's life. In this particular work, I dialled up the level of transrealism very high, which seemed fitting for a book celebrating the coming of the New Millennium (year 2000). You can find out more about the genesis of this book in the writing notes, which can be accessed via the Saucer Wisdom book's website. Rudyrucker (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyberpunk

Which sources say he writes cyberpunk novels? The Voice of the Wild (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Try searching google. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Chaos software

The article should include a mention the James Gleick's CHAOS: the Software software that he cowrote for Autodesk, which is downloadable as shareware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyIrresistible (talk • contribs) 06:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Needs References

Whoah, I see a warning that this entry needs references!

(1) A Google Scholar search on "Rudy Rucker" returns academic citations of Rucker's works.

(2) A regular Google search for "Rudy Rucker review" yields general reviews. Rudyrucker (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

How to Revert Author Edits?

I see a warning that I edited this, my article, in the past. I'd like to undo these edits and clean up the record, but I'm not sure how. If I try and remove my old edits, I'm blocked from doing this, as the reversions would conflict with later edits by others. Any advice? Rudyrucker (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you pull up the weeds, you will pull up the wheat with them. It is impractical to remove your edits and your status as a connected editor will not change. The solution I see is to remove the Notable Wikipedian template (now connected contributor template) from this talk page. You inadvertently edited before knowing of Wikipedia policy against editing your own article. Your edits in themselves have not been a problem and you do not seem to be the sort of self promoting unnotable jerk that the Wikipedia policy is meant to thwart. However, the connected contributor template causes a categorization that draws some unwanted attention. It seems that it would avoid wasting people's time to just remove the template. This should wait until others have had a chance to agree on not on this point. I have also improved the formatting of your signature. I hope you do not mind. Fartherred (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

While we are at it, the WikiProject Computing template and WikiProject Computer science templates could be removed too. Rudy Rucker is a computer scientist who taught at universities, but that is insufficient to make him notable as a computer scientist. His notability is only as a science fiction writer. So, if there is no objection I will remove those templates. Fartherred (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There has now been enough time for comment and no objections to removing the templates, so I will cut them and we may get some discussion then. Just to summarize my argument: There is a connected editor who is causing no problems and no longer editing his own article. There is no requirement to use the connected contributor template wherever possible. Removing the template will save people the trouble of looking here for connected contributor problems. Fartherred (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Fartherred, for clearing this up. Rudyrucker (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fartherred, I guess I would however maintain that by some lights I can be considered a notable computer scientist. I shipped three software products, CA Lab, Chaos, and Artificial Life Lab. I was one of earlier professors to teach computer games programmign (this was at SJSU), and I authored an Addison Wesley book on this, "Software Engineering and Computer Games." And finally, I published a tome about the Philosophy of Computer Science (a budding field), this was THE LIFEBOX, THE SEASHELL, AND THE SOUL, now under the imprint of Basic Books. So maybe I am mildly notable. In any case, time will tell.Rudyrucker (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Your contributions as a computer scientist might very well be more valuable than your contributions as a science fiction writer. I have personally read nothing that you wrote other than what you have posted on Wikipedia. I judge notability by reviews of your work. As I understand it, notability for a scientists is established by their being mentioned in commentaries by others about scientific work. There might be some disagreement about this standard on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia cannot be a directory of all computer scientists. Perhaps you are notable and I missed published discussion of your work. I have not put much time into it. The Google Scholar search results that you provided seem to refer to many of your published works but not commentary about them. Other published works citing yours may establish notability. I will need to check what the standards are myself. Thanks for your help so far in pointing out information. I will try to serve Wikipedia's interest, but am somewhat inexperienced. Fartherred (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

For an example of discussion about whether a computer scientist qualifies as notable according to Wikipedia see this article for deletion discussion. Fartherred (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of no citations templates

The no citations template is not needed on the career section since there are now citations. The no citations template is not needed on the works section because each work is its own citation. Fartherred (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of notability template

There are two online articles about Rudy Rucker listed as references in [[Rudy Rucker]]. For a third there is ROY CHRISTOPHER's article. These references were the result of casual searches. The template indicates that [[Rudy Rucker]] is likely to be deleted. That won't happen. It is time for the notability template to disappear. Fartherred (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Testimonial

So I was surprised to see a "testimonial" section of this supposed encyclopedia article on Rudy Rucker. But now that I see he's influenced the editing of this article (complete with a friend that edits the article too), I'm no longer surprised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.215.34 (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The article on author Robert A. Heinlein states that he is identified as "one of the three masters of science fiction...", which is a comment on his reputation in the field. The statement that a prominent author considered Rudy Rucker prominent in science fiction seems equally appropriate. I placed the testimonial section in the article. I am not fortunate enough to number Rudy Rucker among my friends or even acquaintances. Which friend of Rudy Rucker do you claim edits this article? How does that explain the presence of a testimonial section? If there is some way that this article can be improved, we should be able to determine that by plain statements. Fartherred (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)