Talk:Anathem

Removed vocab section

This section was pretty inaccurate so I did away with it. For instance it assumed 'math' and 'mathic' referred to mathematics, which they do not. Perhaps better to link to the few definitions stephenson gives on his website at http://www.nealstephenson.com/anathem/dict.htm , ora (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

New Plot Teaser/Summary

http://time-blog.com/nerd_world/2008/03/the_return_of_neal_stephenson.html Sean22190 (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Juicy, but is it reliable? How much of this should we include? Skomorokh 22:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, having met him this evening, I think I can safely say that it's largely bollocks. 81.152.201.157 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• What's "largely bollocks," the book or the linked article? Please specify. Did NS debunk his own publisher's description of the book? (Not a rhetorical question, since publishers have been known to sex up the jacket copy.) Also, while it's great you got to meet the author, that encounter counts as primary research and is not usable outside of this talk page...unless a professional reporter was nearby and either he or NS has already published an account of your conversation. BTW, I entered a sweepstakes on Harper-Collins' site to get an advance copy of Anathem. I hoped that the "First Look" web page for the book (registration required) would have more information than its public page or its Amazon page, but the plot summary is identical. Identically occulted? Bridgman (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Information likely to be uncorroborated

I work at a bookstore and one of the perks is that we get advance copies of all sorts of books. I managed to score Anathem. Am I allowed to post information from the book [not spoilers, but I could correct the plot summary of the guy from Time Magazine] even if the information would likely be uncorroborated until September? Coruscus (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I the advance copy says William Morrow (which is an imprint of HarperCollins). I could correct the article but again, I don't have outside information. Coruscus (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There were a few mentions yesterday, eg. http://www.arcanology.com/2008/06/24/anathem-and-music/ via boingboing.

As for what can be added, anything "verifiable" (see WP:V: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."). Anything unlikely to be challenged can be added without a specific referenced source (we can't generally cite blogs, they're not reliable). So yes, add anything true and encyclopedic :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a copyright violation

This edit wasn't actually a copyright violation. Each of the requirements fair use laid out in the Fair Use Policy are met. I'll post my rationale if requested, but it's late and I don't want to right now.Coruscus (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The word-for-word text from a work's prologue in the absence of critical commentary on the work is in fact a copyright violation. --EEMIV (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_use seems to say it's okay. It wasn't anywhere near excessive length (in my opinion) and establishes context. Coruscus (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of this is miss leading... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.223.229 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Clock of the long now

Why is there a reference to this clock in the article? The foundation has some tangent conceptual similarities to the situation depicted in the book, but how is that one clock project related in any way? 142.103.168.46 (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the link please. --Gwern (contribs) 02:36 14 August 2008 (GMT)

So this is the way Wikipedia is organized now? With mystery links that don't reveal their relevance until you read cross search other sources off site tangently related to the mystery link in order to find its connection back to the original? You realize that as of this writing, not one page among the book article, the author profile, the clock article, or the foundation article mentions anything about the author's point of inspiration for his new work?75.153.125.74 (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In an ideal world, I would have read Anathem already, taken detailed notes, gone through all relevant reviews and descriptions of it, parsed all the Stephenson interviews, and pulled everything together into one single section on Influences & inspiration which will stand as the first and final word on the topic, covering in precise detail everything one could want to know about the novel's relation the the Long Now.

But you know what? I haven't. I've made a first stab at it, and I would appreciate it if you would be just a little less hostile. If you don't like it, go edit the article yourself! --Gwern (contribs) 11:16 24 August 2008 (GMT)

Will do. 75.153.125.74 (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of publication

It looks like it is being published in the UK by Atlantic Books on the 1st of September: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nation-Terry-Pratchett/dp/0385613709/ref=sr_1_4/203-2932654-5579969?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220039061&sr=8-4 http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayProductDetails.do?sku=6197187 Tomgreeny (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Already published - bought it today

I just bought this book in sci-fi shop in Stockholm, Sweden. Someone should update the publishing date - it is already out. toxygen (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources for expansion

The Anathem wiki has a useful list of External Resources which we can use to source and expand the article. the skomorokh 16:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

xkcd reference

Is it really necessary? This is supposed to be an encylopedia (no?) - would other encyclopedias include such references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.200.26 (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think not. It's trivial, and unless Stephenson's use of so many invented words is commented extensively on by serious reviewers, does not belong in the article. the skomorokh 19:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I like xkcd, but this is unnecessary. I'm taking it out (sort of expecting a revert war, though...) 12.174.19.210 (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be moved to a in popular culture section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.7.202 (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a brief reference (jab), not a notable analysis. (As much as I love xkcd, we simply don't add his link to the article of every subject he mentions!) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

May not need jargon warning

You really can't talk about the characters without using the words that Stephenson created for the novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdurham (talk • contribs) 05:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Plot summary section seems to do a decent job of it, no? the skomorokh 12:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we just precede the plot summary with a terminology summary, or maybe link to the "terran" words, e.g. "Fraa Erasmus", "Suur Ala" etc? Lenborje (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the first point. Jargon is a huge part of the novel - it can't be avoided when discussing the novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.24.137 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

Do we need one? Like way at the beginning? The foreword of the book says to skip the foreword for best experience. We should replicate the same here.

Thanks for the concern, but Wikipedia doesn't do spoilers. the skomorokh 12:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Plot summary"?

Doesn't a plot summary summarize the plot (rather than just information available in its early exposition)? I skipped it at first, bcz i've still got a couple hundred pages left, but when i saw how short it is, i went back and read it. In fact, there's no plot info at all: just description of the initial setting and the narrator, in the book's cryptic and unencyclopedic jargon. I looks like the aftermath of an edit war where the anti-spoiler-ists admitted losing the battle but not the war.
--Jerzy•t 06:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Washington Post Review is suspect

Surely there are other negative/borderline reviews that could be cited instead? I do not disagree with Dirda's ultimate verdict, necessarily, but parts of the review sound like a guy who skimmed the text pretty heavily.

The most glaring mistake Dirda makes is that he gets the name of the planet wrong. As he himself points out, Anathem deals heavily in both semantics and cosmology. How, then, does he manage to confuse the name of the language for the name of the planet? I understand that "Orth" is a false cognate of "Earth." But I don't think you can read 900 pages and still make this kind of mistake. For one thing, "Arbre" and "Orth" are both clearly defined in the foreword. More to the point, this is not a piece of minor trivia; we see major characters struggling to reconcile multiple variants of Orth with each other, "Fluccish," and other languages all throughout the novel.

To be fair, I myself thought that "Orth" was the planet's name for a while, as I did not read the forward (and also because I read the phrase "Middle Orth" like Tolkien's "Middle Earth" rather than "Middle English"). Within 100 pages, though, it is clear that "Arbre" is at least a name of the planet. By 200 pages, "Orth" could only be a language. By 400 pages Stephenson has beaten both of these things into your skull. All of which still leaves 500 pages in which the names are used more often, and even less ambiguously. I don't see how we can take Dirda seriously in light of this. Imagine a film critic reviewing Star Wars who kept referring to "Luke Skywalker, the farm boy from planet Jawa."

Also, Dirda claims "death rays" appear in the novel. They don't. The "rods" that are shot into Arbre from orbit are physical objects--Stephenson makes this utterly unambiguous, and in fact pieces of them are later found and used in the construction of buildings. The only other weapons of note are nuclear bombs and simple firearms.

In my opinion, Dave Itzkoff's review for the New York Times[1] is a much more substantial work of criticism than Dirda's, and without the worrying lapses in reading comprehension.
72.129.191.72 (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)