Talk:Jack Vance

Talk:Jack Vance/Archive 1: from the beginning to 19 July 2006

Rewrite and expansion of the VIE section

As I've said before, I have no horse in this race (or irons in this particular fire, or any other dumb metaphor you can think of). I am totally disinterested in the VIE controversy (not UNinterested, DISinterested). It seems to be to have been an enormous waste for time for a lot of talented people who could have been directing their energies elsewhere. I have now rewritten the VIE section, based on what seems to be non-biased, easily verified facts, not wild claims, speculations, gossip, innuendo, or personal opinion. I think that a paragraph about major edition such as this obviously belongs in a long article about a major writer -- years from now, as someone has pointed out during this discussion, this will have become the standarized edition to which all future academics will refer. Maybe I've made some mistakes in what I've written -- if so, please correct them. But otherwise, I think it ought to be left more or less as it is. Are there other, verifiable facts that all also PERTINENT to be added to it? Fine. Add them. But let's stop all the back and forth arguments that have wasted so much time and space up till now. Hayford Peirce 20:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I must note that I never objected to the factual info about VIE per se; my objection is all about using this Wikipage as a promotional hype vehicle. --Arvin Sloane 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These principles sound quite reasonable. However, the VIE section now has a subtle negative tone, using words like "purported", which I find puzzling. At the very worst, this undertaking can only be a benefit to those who enjoy Jack Vance's work. Why not adopt at least a neutral tone? For example, the claim of using original manuscripts is not "purported" but is easily verified by reference to public materials. The verification itself does not belong in the Wikipedia page. Otherwise, you may as well call Jack Vance the purported author of purportedly published works, &tc.--65.211.196.130 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and the iPod

Dave Alexander had dinner with Jack a month or so ago and the conversation went like this: Dave: "Jack, did you know that you invented the iPod?" Jack: "I did?" Dave: "In one of the Cadwal Chronicle books the hero checks into a hotel and the desk clerk gives him an iPod-like device that he attaches to his ear and it's already programmed with suitable music." Jack: "Nonsense! I never wrote anything like that!" Dave: "I'll find it for you." Dave was certain that it was in one of the first two books of the Cadwal series but was unable to find it. So it must (according to him) be in the third one, Throy. But neither of us can find our copies of the book. Can anyone here verify Dave's assertion? If so, maybe a sentence or so to this effect could be stuck in the article. Hayford Peirce 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find it in Cadwal Chronicles, I believe. It's in "Maske: Thaery." This shoulder-worn device, pre-programmed with all kinds of mood-suitable musak ("chotz," if I remember correctly), is given to Jubal Droad (and to all other visitors, mandatorily) on the planet Eiselbar. Jack's digression on Eiselbar's commercial music and musicology (in Glossary at the end of this book) is remarkable and visionary. Arvin Sloane 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks. I've got Maske: Thaery. But I'm also the only guy in the world without an iPod. Do you think that Jack's early version of it is notable enough to be mentioned in his article? Hayford Peirce 22:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, Mr. Peirce, you're not the only one. I hate "wearing" music, and never owned iPod. If an urge to listen to something comes upon me, which isn't often (most performances are substandard), I make an audiophiliac ritual out of it. And no, I don't think iPod deserves mentioning on Jack's page; I also regret that computer games sneaked their way into Vance's realm. Just ordered your "Thirteenth Majestral," I'd like to see what's in it -- the unspeakable baron is one of my favorite authors. Arvin Sloane 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving this page, or most of it

This page has now become *very* long. And most of the vituperative issues seem to have been settled. I think that probably everything except the last two or three sections should be archived. IN THEIR ENTIRETY, I might add: this is the whole point of archives -- nothing is deleted! Does anyone here know how to do it? I've looked at some archives for other discussions and it looks as if a simple Template:Arch*ve is stuck at the top of the designated area. If no one else here has more expertise in this than I do, I'll give it a go. Hayford Peirce 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! Arvin Sloane 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive achieved

I think I've managed to create an archive for all of the earlier discussions. Click on the link at the top of this page. Please remember: nothing on the Archive page should be edited -- it is now part of the historical record, for good or for bad.... Hayford Peirce 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]