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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is an interesting fact, but it would also fall under Wikipedia:No original research. Of course, if a reliable source has mentioned this ipod fact before, then it could be included. Garion96 (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, Garion96, but why your interest in this page, and more importantly, why your need to play hall monitor? Most of us here have actually dealt with Jack Vance personally in one way, shape or another. Call it original research, if you will, but your need to play stickler bureaucrat is annoying. This particular page on Wikipedia has generated enough contention without some interested bystander with a guideline fetishism coming in and playing child minder. Peter1968 11:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this article and it's talk need a child minder. :) But seriously, I really enjoy the books of Jack Vance and I think he deserves a great (or at least a good) article. I also think this article is not even close to that yet. All the policies I mentioned are core policies of wikipedia, not just guidelines. Perhaps the fact that most of you here have dealt with Jack Vance personally makes it harder for you to make this article. For instance, from dealing with Jack Vance you might know the truth of a lot of things, but it has to be verifiable, to play stickler bureacrat again, read this for more info on that. Garion96 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm very much aware of Wikipedia's "core policies" as you put them. I've been an editor here for some time. I'm also very much aware that 99% of everything that occurs on this site happens due consensus and it is all very mutable. Maybe this article does need a minder etc, but who is to say it should be you, Garion96? That's my point. Peter1968 15:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you see me removing all the stuff from the article I object too? Than why the reminder about consensus? I use this talk page to discuss things I think are important and perhaps reach a consensus about it. Is that so bad? You might not agree with what I say, but that's something else. I really don't see myself as a minder, those were your words. Garion96 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Also -- if one wanted to include mention of Ipod-like devices -- the "reliable source" would be the Vance novel in question, would it not? But there is no need to mention neither Ipods nor computer games in my opinion. The RPG connection, however, is pertinent and is indeed mentioned obversely in the WP Gygax entry.

As I see it, the current article, if not 100% perfect, is quite impartial and fact-oriented. Jack's not-so-exciting biography is what it is: one could add more details, probably, but there is no clearly objectionable material in it. As to the work overview, most of the statements there are true and can be supported by endless quotations, links, and footnotes — which wouldn't make the article more readable. Perhaps, Garion96 would be so kind as to mention specifically, what ignites his bureaucratic ire, and how this transgression should be made more "verifiable"? Arvin Sloane 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What I would like of course, is an article like the Robert A. Heinlein article. A (close enough for comparison) similar writer. But yes, I like sources and I like notes. I think it makes for a better article. See also some points I mentioned before here. Garion96 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Heinlein article is definitely overloaded with citations, and constitutes a very disappointing reading. It also contains referrals to extremely dubious points of view ("Starship Troopers" being a fascist work, etc.). There must be a measure in all things, including application of laws, rules, and policies. Otherwise, human civilization and life on this planet would become impossible. Let me give you an example. A Wikipedia article on Gene Wolfe contains the following quotation from O'Leary: "Gene Wolfe is the best writer alive. Period." According to Wikipedia policies, since this idiocy can be verified as a published utterance coming from a verifiable and "reputable" source (O'Leary happens to be a writer), it has a place in the article. According to same policies, the very reasonable assertion that Jack's "Lyonesse" trilogy is considered by many as being among the best in the fantasy genre, needs "citation." BS. Even if you, personally, don't think that "Lyonesse" is among the best fantasy works, it wouldn't change the true and verifiable fact that many people think so. I do, and hereby confirm it. On the other hand, very few people would agree that Gene Wolfe is "the best writer alive, period." Making this assertion a part of Wikipedia article on the basis that it is "quotable" and "verifiable" is using the rules of the game to defeat the game itself. And that is what many people do here: being denied their point of view once or twice on Wikipedia page, they pass their time lurking and catching all kinds of instances where people say very reasonable, obvious things without bothering to clutter the text with footnotes and links, and annoy these people to satisfy their personal grudge. Don't. Please, allow Jack Vance's Wikipedia page to be somewhat deserving Jack's taste and talent: reasonable, devoid of ass-polishing. Arvin Sloane 15:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

On the Lyonesse example, I like to know which writers/critics think Lyonesse is among the best in the fantasy genre and why. And perhaps some writers/critics who don't agree with that. That I might think Lyonesse is the best is not important for the article. I also would like to know where and in what context Poul Anderson called Vance the greatest living American writer in science fiction. Many of you are quite experts in Vance, so I assume and hope you have the sources for that. FWIW, I agree with you on the Gene Wolfe example. See also here. To end this reponse with a bureaucrat note. Garion96 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You would like to know, Garion? Once again, who are you? See, this is the thing. You've come in here like a backyard lawyer and insisted "you" want changes. So, my naturally and equally arrogant question in response is: who are "you" to ask for that? What makes you a more important Wikipedia editor than me or RLetson, Hayford or any of us here? I'm with Arvin Sloane here. If you wanted to apply Wikipedia's policies universally, then nearly every article written here would fail. Seriously.

A lot of the answers you ask for could be answered quite well by Googling or visiting your local library. Since you're the one who insists on dotting all the i's here, feel free to do so, and not insist that we do it for you. Peter1968 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this is the thing. I encountered this article and I asked for sources (or would like to know) . Not insisted that I "want" changes. What I asked for can be ignored or dismissed, I don't mind although of course I don't agree. The fact is that for you (the editors currently working on the article) it would propably be quite easy to find sources (perhaps I am wrong there) since you seem to be quite experts on Vance. While for me it probably would be more difficult. But don't worry, you win. Right now I don't have the time, patience and easy access to a library which could provide answers to do research to this article. Garion96 (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fair enough then; as you can see from another talk article, we're on the job re: sourcing praise and other aspects of Vance. Natually, you and any other Wikipedia editor is quite welcome to help. I wasn't trying to offend, but your attitude and methods came across as a case of "important person syndrome" and that does rub many the wrong way. Still, that's all behind us and we'll move on with the effort of making this a definitive Vance reference. Peter1968 10:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

High praise citations

It's asking for citations in regards to the praise Vance has received from peers and the press. Would blurb praise of the cover of books suffice? There's quite a bit of it, from people like Frank Herbert and Robert Silverberg, et al. What may be a self-evident fact to some folks isn't to the fine print readers around here, so we may have to get to work on sourcing some of Vance's praise. It won't be hard. Peter1968 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had a long blurb from a Washington Post review on the back of one of Jack's books, in which his style was discussed -- it would have been a very useful "reliable" source. But I looked through all of my JV books and couldn't find it. Rats! I'll keep looking. What about, let's say, an introduction by Tim Underwood in one of his limited editions of a JV book. That's verifiable. But it's also a source writing about a book he's publishing.... Hayford Peirce 15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note: If one wants to spice up, say, the lead section with some verifiable praise that really suggests Jack's place in the SF world, one place to start is the Cunningham Jack Vance: Critical Appreciations and a Bibliography, which has some of the "writer's writer" reactions from (among others) Gene Wolfe. There have also been various comments from Bob Silverberg through the years, including an intro to the Gregg Press edition of Eyes of the Overworld (unfortunately very hard to find, but I think it's reprinted in Reflections and Refractions, Underwood Books, Grass Valley, California, 1997. ISBN: 1-887424-22-9). [Slight pause for Googling.] Here's another source, dug out of The Jack Vance Information Archive: "Nebula Awards 32, edited by Jack Dann (Harcourt Brace, 1998), contains Grand Master tributes to Jack Vance by Robert Silverberg and Terry Dowling." And so on. If it were one of my own pieces, I'd keep it to a minimum--X writers have declared JV to be an inspiration, SFWA named him a Grand Master, and so on. RLetson 06:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Shall we get back to work?

I've just looked back at the last few topics in the now-archived discussion page and think maybe it's time to go back to working on the article instead of each other. I suggest a few jobs small and large:

Cleanup: Cut the "Trivia" and "Publication" sections--the former really is trivial, and the latter belongs (suitably shortened) in the bio. Agreement on this?

The big "Overview" section needs to be subdivided (by period, preferably) and reorganized. Probably a separate "themes" topic that identifies patterns and motifs (revenge, bildungsroman, the ramble) as well as philosophical and political issues. Much useful material is already in the section, but it could be fuller and would benefit from some sort of chronological and/or topical framework.

The genre question: This has been a stone in my shoe for some time. While Jack has certainly squirms any time anyone applies a category to him, the statement that "his work fits [genre categories] inexactly" cannot be defended by anyone (pace Paul Rhoads) who knows the work and the various genres. What, pray tell, do you call a narrative that includes sorcerers, spells, demons, and other supernatural machineries? That's fantasy, folks. And stories that portray star travel in a far future, human-settled galaxy are science fiction; and contemporary-setting stories in which someone solves a murder are mysteries. So we can state that Jack doesn't like to categorize his work, but we cannot ignore the fact that the world sees his work as belonging to those genres.

VIE: Oy, such fuss over this! The existence of a standard edition of a genre writer's works is significant, particularly given the voluntary/noncommercial nature of the project and the fact that the texts established for the edition are intended to become the standards for future commercial editions and translations of Vance. This is a pretty unusual situation. And Wiki protocols ought to assure that even if some interested party (say, the editor-in-chief) has a hand in writing the account, there are enough other editors and enough public info about the VIE available (a website, a project journal) to assure a reasonably objective account. The section as it stands now looks fine to me, neither outsize nor POV. (Though I do see one tiny copy-edit I'd make: "44 hardback volumes" for "44 volumes of hardbacks.")

Sources: Between the items in the Books About Vance section and various standard reference works (Clute & Nicholls, Dictionary of Literary Biography [an entry written by yr. obt. svt.], Survey of Science Fiction Literature, Survey of Modern Fantasy Literaure), just about all the materials needed for an "Overview" makeover are available. We do not have to make this stuff up. If we want evaluative statements, they're out there. If we want a sense of important themes and motifs, they're out there, too. The critics and scholars have done the heavy lifting--all we need to do is choose the appropriate bits. RLetson 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like you've done a masterful summing up of how it should be rearranged. I particularly like your comments about Jack's categories of works. No matter what *he* thinks about his stuff, everyone else agrees that he writes fantasies, science-fiction (which may then fall into a couple of different sub-genres, if you will), and mysteries. As you say, there's nothing mysterious about that at all. As far as Jack's opinion is concerned, that's like K. Vonnegut loudly, bitterly, and indignantly denying that he ever even *conceived* of writing anything remotely resembling science fiction. Sigh. It must be the Clown-Who-Wants-To-Play-Hamlet syndrome. I gotta say, however, that in all the years that Jack and I exchanged several million words over red wine and/or beer I never *once* heard him lament his widely perceived status. Maybe he knew I'd laugh at him. Or maybe he appreciated the fact that I liked his mysteries so much when they had been essentially ignored by the reading public. Hayford Peirce 23:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I generally don't have anything against RLetson's proposals, though I would prefer to go very gently about the "Overview" section, which, IMO, is reasonable and passable. Perhaps, it would suffice to add some footnotes and/or links to the sources, rather than to embark upon fixing something that obviously works. Arvin Sloane 05:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The link to Foreverness

There is currently a link to the Foreverness site in the list of external links. As Foreverness is primarily a repository for Paul Rhoads's extensive writings on politics and religion, is not officially associated with either the VIE or Jack Vance himself, and contains potentially actionable libelous material, I suggest this link should be removed. Also note that the official policy on the Jack Vance Message Board is not to allow links to Foreverness, on legal grounds. See http://p078.ezboard.com/fjackvanceezboarddiscussion.showMessage?topicID=135.topic and note particularly the statement of Ed Winskill, the VIE treasurer. Baphomet V 01:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Will this nonsense ever die down? I'm not a particular fan of Mr. Rhoads's editorializing, but to call Foreverness "primarily" dedicated to it is more than a bit of an exaggeration--even Mike Berro (of the JVMB) seems only really upset at the contents of Extant. I don't know (yet) exactly what the objectionable material is, but it sure would be nice to be able to point to the Cosmopolis archive, which includes, along with more Rhoads opinion pieces than most folk would probably care to ingest, some useful and even unique Vanceana. But if the questionable can't be disentangled from the useful, I suppose we have to go without the whole site. Drat. RLetson 02:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

RLetson, if you genuinely want this nonsense to die down, don't impose it on Wikipedia readers: many of us would rather spend the rest of our lives without any "useful and even unique Vanceana" allegedly found on Rhoads-controlled sites, given a blissful opportunity not to see or hear, ever again, anything remotely reminding us of Rhoads, his odious persona, and his cockamamie writings. Away with your nonsense, away with any links to Rhoads. John S 05:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen: Could we, please, wrap up this distasteful subject? Friends of that mentally disturbed individual are cordially invited to create a Wikipedia page dedicated to him, complete with all the links to his multiple blogs. Leave the VIE description as is; otherwise, keep the Jack Vance page clean. Arvin Sloane 05:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)