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)

Why lie about the VIE? What is being gained, and by whom?

The VIE is not an integral edition of all of Vance's speculative works, it is an edition of all his work, which has been published as 'mystery', 'fantasy' and 'science fiction'.

Paul, sometimes I wonder if you understand simple English? I don't say this to insult you -- I mean it literally: you frequently bring up stuff that indicates, at least to me, that you are not tracking what other people have written. The VIE is NOT an edition of "all his work". You yourself have written that it contains his fantasy and science-fiction PLUS the 3 Ellery Queens. This indicates to me that the OTHER 11 mysteries (or however many there were) were not included.

If I don’t understand English I am hardly in a position to realize it. Be this as it may, the VIE is, without any doubt, an edition of ALL Vance’s work, including those parts of it which cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be classified as speculative, such as ‘Bird Island’, or the ‘Joe Bain’ mysteries (unless you have redefined the word speculative to mean fiction, an act to insure my inability to understand English). As for the ‘Ellery Queen’ volume, it is VIE volume number ‘14 bis’. Now, perhaps you yourself fail to understand English properly? I do not say this to insult you, but all is a fairly simple word, which I use exclusively in its traditional meaning without inventing any new meanings for it. In any case, the least effort of research, such as on Foreverness, would have revealed to the ignorant or the dubious that, even not counting the 3 novels in volume ‘14 bis’, VIE volumes 10 through 14 contain 11 mystery novels.--PaulRhoads 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The VIE was not put together by Vance enthusiasts, it was accomplished under the aeges of the author himself, with a great deal of input from Norma Vance as well. It was not put together but created with system and deliberation, with a total and public record of what it has done currently avalable on the internet.

Once again, simple English. Being published under the aegis of Jack is meaningless. It was, literally, put together by "Vance enthusiastics". "Put together" means created with "system and deliberation."

Hayford, sometimes I wonder if you understand the basic nuances of English? I don’t say this to insult you--I mean it literally; you are failing to perceive the derogatory tone you use here (and everywhere else, as far as I can see). Put together, in the context of your phrase, has a connotation of slapdash amateurism, implying the opposite of system and deliberation. As for the aegis of Jack Vance, this by no means meaningless! To wit; nothing was done editorially by the VIE without the author’s instructions and accord, which is a crucial guarantee of the approach and result of VIE editorial work.--PaulRhoads 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The VIE does not present original manuscripts as Vance first submitted them for publication, it uses the texts Vance wanted us to use, including versions revised by himself, including revissions exclusive to the VIE. The original publications are sometimes the best, and sometimes not. The VIE, at Vance's direction, uses the best versions in various cases, and makes as many corrections from manuscript or at Vance's express direction, as possible. The errors and editorial changes did not later show up but, as mentioned above, were often present, to one degree or another in original publications. They were corrected in the VIE not according to the editors of the Vance Integral Edition but according to Jack Vance himself, with a public record of what was done, avalable at Foreverness, a link to which is being blocked!

You are making petty "distinctions without a difference" as the lawyers say. Your objections are meaningless.

Do you mean to inform me that there is no difference between presenting original manuscripts as Vance first submitted them for publication and what the VIE actually did? This difference, it seems to me, is not a distinction without difference, nor yet meaningless. Your failure to perceive it seems peculiar.--PaulRhoads 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So, what, exactly, is the objection to recounting the VIE is a neutral manner? I have proposed several texts, and here is another The work of Vance has been published in an integral edition, under the author's aeges, with the texts and titles preferred by the author..

Paul, let me put it to you so that perhaps you can finally understand it. I am a professional writer. People actually pay me money to write words for them. I am also a highly experienced copy-editor of my own work and that of others. Moreover, I love correct word usage and English styling and grammar. In short, I know a LOT about words and how to use them. I also have NO feeling about the VIE one way or another, as I have tried to tell you over and over. I have rewritten the VIE in the most neutral, objective, NPOV manner that is possible to do so. RLetson is ALSO a professional writer who shares the same skills and mindsets as me. He has vetted my copy and found it acceptable. You, Paul, however, based on everything I have seen that you have written, have difficulties both in communicating in simple, correct English AND in presenting a NPOV about this VIE. For this reason, I think that the current version of the VIE will have to stand. It is both factual and NPOV. If you want to add NPOV new material that is relevant to the article, please do so. It will be copy-edited to bring it up to correct usage but it will be left there. If, on the other hand, it is more POV, self-publicizing polemicism, then it will be ruthlessly edited. I am sorry to have to write to you in such terms, but you have become extremely tiresome to everyone else in this particular sphere of interest with your obsessive ramblings. Would you PLEASE either learn the elements of NPOV or just leave the article alone. I am still trying hard to be completely neutral about this section but it is increasingly difficult. I, RLetson, and others have never participated in ANY of the controversy that apparently attends the VIE -- all we want to do is create an objective, interesting, well-written Vance article that is also NPOV and factually correct. As some point all the info that is needed to provide this will have been put into the article, edited, polished, vetted, and generally agreed upon by the contributors. You are certainly not helping this proces.... Hayford Peirce 18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha! At last I understand. Thank you for the clear explanation; in short I am a worm who ought to disappear (have I understood English in this case?) As for your vaunted neutrality and objectivity, I’ll leave others to judge it.--PaulRhoads 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As for this, 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, if it does not fall into the catagory of speculation, gossip, innuendo and personal opinion my understanding of these terms is falty.--PaulRhoads 17:12, 27 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)

I find the Cunningham volume of dubious value. It contains a number of pieces by authors (notably Dan Simmons) who clearly have little or no familiarity with the work of Jack Vance. Baphomet V 16:34, 26 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)

I am the gentlest of writers, but that section reads like it was written by a committee (which of course it was). Why, for example, start by mentioning the mysteries when the first published work is fantasy and SF? (Especially when there is an "As Mystery Writer" section right below.) And while the topics addressed in the "Characteristics" subsection are pretty much the ones that most commentators address, the presentation is rather miscellaneous and includes rather more admiring POV language than is probably good for a Wiki entry--for example, "exquisite and bone-dry ironic language and his rich evocation—often in a few well-chosen words. . . ." I have no argument with the sentiment, but it's perhaps better to let some other, published commentator (or better yet, commentators) express it--there is certainly no shortage of appreciations of JV's style among his colleagues. Much that is here can be preserved, but it deserves a stronger framework (chronological is easiest) and a bit of toning down. RLetson 06:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

RLetson: Give it a try (if there's enough time on your hands), and show us how you want it to read. I agree that structurally it leaves much to be desired. I disagree with the notion that anything arbitrarily interpreted as "a point of view" has no place in Wikipedia. If a certain observation (like the innocent sample you've quoted) doesn't draw any objections, then it pretty much reflects a consensus, and ceases to be that frightful bogey, a "POV." Personally, I have very little respect for "published commentators," as opposed to the sincere and reasonable appreciation of a writer by his incognito admirers. Don't forget, what substance invariably floats on top (that is, gets "published" in the first place) in turbid waters of our society. Jack, for one, never forgets his carpenter's corns. Arvin Sloane 06:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are two references to Gygax and his RPG in the article. One should suffice. Why not delete the sentence "Some of Vance’s fantasies such as "The Dying Earth" are a primary source for the roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons, at least according to one of the creators, Gary Gygax." from the overview and keep the one under the "Trivia" heading as is. The rest of the Trivia stuff about the Demon Princes/Treesong's address could preferably be scrapped. The Demon Princes have their own, rather substantial, WP entry and need not be described here.

I removed the two trivia about demon princes and Treesong adress. I also tried to merge both mentions of the RPG but it was reverted and it's back in the trivia section now. Isn't it better to have that info in the section "Vance’s Work: An Overview" instead of a seperate trivia section? Also, perhaps it simpy could be moved to The Dying Earth? Garion96 (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree--in fact, I'd get rid of the trivia section altogether, D&D reference and all. That's why it's called "trivia." Let the games people chase the sources of spells in the appropriate entries; it adds nothing to my understanding of JV. RLetson 03:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I, for one, find it significant that Vance has had an impact in the RPG world but this mention doesn't belong in "Vance's work: an overview" section. But if one keeps the section "Books emulating Vance", the RPG connection is as valid in my opinion. Whether there is a section called "Trivia" or not doesn't matter but I'm not scared of the word. --Tetragruppasum 05:56, 8 August 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)

Mike Berro is not up-set about Extant. It was suggested to him, by Dan Gunter, that certain content put Mike, who was hosting the VIE site, at risk of law-suits from the Moderator of the Gaean Reach, and the famous Alexander Feht. This absurd contention (neither the GR moderator nor Alexander F. has ever complained to Extant, nor have they delegated Dan Gunter to defend them) provoked the collaps of the VIE site. Dan is now claiming that certain content in Extant slanders himself, and is seeking to disqualify Foreverness on that basis, a situation which has infected wikipedea. I have made prolonged and good-faith efforts to communicate with Dan so that the passage or passages of Extant he is concerned about (as opposed to the 14 issues of Extant) can be identified and ajusted as necessary. Dan, who has indeed been informed of my efforts and my attitude, refuses to contact me, directly or indirectly, and persists in not identifying the alleged objectionable material. This material therefore fails to have more than a virtual existance, a situation which will prevail until Dan Gunter steps forward and identifies the material. Dan's prolonged refusal to take this obvious step towards the ajustment of a situation he claims is prejudicial to himself, suggests his campaign of intimidation and accusations against Extant and Foreverness may be motivated by something other than concern about the alleged objectionable material. The editors of this wikipedia page ought to take these facts into consideration; Foreverness should not be excluded because of unsubstantiated accusation. [Paul Rhoads]--213.11.125.90 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether the accusations are unsubstantiated or not, but I don't propose to look further, because I think the link to Foreverness is unnecessary for other reasons. The way I read the Wikipedia external links policy is that the Vanceana that Russell mentions could be summarized directly in the article, with a link directly to the page inside the Foreverness site that is the reference to the material summarized. The relevant sentence from that policy: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." A link to the site overall might be relevant to a separate Wikipedia article on the VIE, but I don't believe it's necessary for this article. Mike Christie 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

For what reason has the link to Foreverness been removed from the links section at the bottom of the page? The bibliographic information on Foreverness is otherwize avalable only in VIE volume 44, to say nothing of the rest of the site. [Paul Rhoads, having trouble signing in]--213.11.125.90 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul, the removal of the link is part of this discussion. My suggestion just above your comment is that we should add the relevant information to the article itself and use Foreverness as a reference for the added material. Foreverness doesn't appear to me to meet the criteria for external links cited in WP:EL. Mike Christie 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Now how about my points about the VIE section? [Paul Rhoads]--213.11.125.90 19:07, 31 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)

It appears that the link in the VIE section of the article has been changed from the official VIE site to the Foreverness site. I shall therefore revert it. (Edit: Apparently somebody else did so already.) I am sure most (excluding, of course, those to whom this issue is just "nonsense") will agree that any link in the VIE section should be to the official VIE site, not to a site that the VIE has explicitly repudiated (see the link I gave above). Baphomet V 16:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• For Peter1968: It's dubious to link to the controversial Foreverness site, especially if one does it from the words "300 volunteers." If one must link to information about these volunteers (which I assume is the purpose of the link) one should link directly to the subpage buried a couple of levels down on the Foreverness site where they all are listed. But then again, WHY would one want to link to this information? There is already a link to the official VIE page in this small VIE section, isn't that sufficient? Why also link to this other, dubious, site? The site is dubious for various reasons. For one thing, it's conspicuously not linked to from the official VIE site. Secondly, the link to the publisher Andreas Irle was rightly removed from "External links." If you visit Foreverness you'll find an entire section dedicated to Andreas Irle Publication with a big fat link to this commercial venture. That is both sneaky and dubious. Thirdly, Foreverness mainly consists of an archive of the fanzines Cosmopolis and Extant that, apart from containing articles relating to the glorious VIE project and on Jack Vance of various qualities, also contains endless tirades about Islam, modern art, French politics and a host of other topics with precious little bearing on Vance's sci-fi. Dubious in the true sense of the word./Tetragruppasum

Fair enough, I'm happy with that. At the time, I reverted it as it appeared nothing more than a frivolous change. Understandably, there seems to be many axes to grind over the VIE and Vance's Wikipedia article needs to be kept free of them obviously. But, as I said, I'm happy with your explanation. However Mike Christie has his own take on things as you can see in the section beneath this one. Peter1968 06:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed link to Totality

Gents, would you consider adding a link to the Totality Online site? It's a free service (requiring e-mail verification for security reasons) allowing Vance fans to easily look up favourite words and paragraphs throughout the entire Vance opus. Check it out at http://www.pharesm.org If you wish to know more, feel free to ask... Eclectic Omnivore 12:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're actually free to add your own link or do whatever editing you see fit here. However, it must fit within certain guidelines. I see no real issue with your site being linked, personally. Peter1968 14:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Worked fine for me, though the end user agreement is a little over the top for what is essentially a fan's database. Try registering with a Gmail account. Peter1968 11:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add the link. I know that, in principle, anyone can edit the article, but seeing as you gentlemen are working hard to maintain a level of quality and standardization, I thought I'd ask first :-) As to the above comment regarding the registration process: works fine with most users, but we have the occasional glitch where the registration confirmation doesn't reach the applicant for some obscure reason. In that case we activate the account manually and send a note. Should have happened by now in your case. The end user agreement was created in collaboration with the Vance family, and reflects their wishes. It may seem over the top to you, but the database contains all of Jack's works, and certain legal aspects concerning user rights need to be adequately covered. Eclectic Omnivore 13:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Totality site worked, and seems to be useful. The previous problem was my mistake: I made a typo in my e-mail address while registering. Alex Feht 00:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

VIE link

I see some recent conflicting links to the VIE site. The most recent requests a reason for the link's inclusion. I believe the link should be included because the VIE is a notable fact about Vance and should be referenced for verifiability. I'd be happy converting that link to a footnote, and will do so if you suggest that that's acceptable, but it is clearly the best way to supply verifiability to that paragraph. Mike Christie 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To repeat, the Foreverness site at www.integralarchive.com, which is what Paul Rhoads wishes to link to, is not the VIE site (which is at www.vanceintegral.com). Furthermore, it is not associated with the official VIE site. Finally, the VIE organization has explicitly made known (see the message board link above) that it does not wish to be associated with it. Baphomet V 03:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood -- it's the official VIE site I thought was being linked to; I must have misread the links in the diffs. I've said elsewhere that I think it would be OK to link to a specific page in Foreverness in the form of a footnote ref, in order to support specific information, but I agree that there is no reason to provide a general link to the whole site. Thanks for the clarification. Mike Christie 11:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Slavery

"The Last Castle partially centers around two societies, one human and one alien, each of which has enslaved members of the other, to their mutual discomfort." Wouldn't this be The Dragon Masters? Or have I experienced a serious memory glitch? RLetson 03:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This description would be equally applicable to The Last Castle and to The Dragon Masters. Arvin Sloane 05:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with RLetson: The sentence must refer to "The Dragon Masters". The meks in "The Last Castle" have not enslaved humans.--Tetragruppasum 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Tetragruppasum: Humans in The Last Castle have enslaved the Meks. That makes this book "partially centered around two societies, one human and one alien, each of which has enslaved members of the other, to their mutual discomfort." Before typing, think. Arvin Sloane 09:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Aerth

Why does aerth redirect here? DirkvdM 09:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No idea why. Since that article has no content, I've requested it be deleted. Peter1968 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

political books

"Vance wrote two political books ... and also this one ... and also these two ..." and no mention of Wyst? Funny. —Tamfang 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)