Talk:Captain Vorpatril's Alliance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Published" or not?[edit]

When you make an ebook available and sell it to strangers for real money, that strikes me as "publishing" it. It's not clear to me how it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like most modern publishers, Baen Books create an Advance reading copy as part of the process of getting a book ready for publication. Among other things, that's the version they send out to famous authors in the hope of getting endorsements they can put on the cover. The final book may be significantly different from the ARC.
Unlike (most?) other publishers, Baen sell these ARCs in electronic format ("eARCs"). They charge $15 for an eARC, compared to $6 for ebooks that have been officially published. As they warn, an eARC is "an unproofed manuscript and is guaranteed to be full of typos and error. It is pretty much raw from the authors word processor." Nonetheless, quite a few people do purchase them ... many of whom will happily buy the final book as well.
This book was unofficially published in a preliminary form in (AFAIK) June, then officially Published in its final form in November.
(Another complication: publishers typically start shipping books about two weeks in advance of the official publication date. Baen does this. Baen also start selling official-version ebooks when they start shipping the physical books. In this case, the official publication date is 2012-11-01, but I got the ebook on 2012-10-16.)
So I think "November 2012" is the most correct. Does anyone agree? Comments?
Cheers, CWC 09:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you've said there actually contradicts what I wrote ... copies were distributed for sale from June 2012 by the official publisher, whatever they happen to call the edition in question - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, David, your conclusions follow logically from valid assumptions. But the contemporary publishing industry runs on established practices, not logic.
Official publishing dates are now a fiction, chosen for marketing reasons. (They were once meaningful, but have been getting steadily more ficticious over the last 20-30 years.) The real publishing date is generally about two weeks ahead of the official one (a minor discrepancy), but Baen's eARCs come out months ahead (a major discrepancy).
I presume that our articles about books should report the official publishing dates, even when ficticious; eARC releases are probably also worth reporting if significantly in advance of the official release. Cheers, CWC 05:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point on listing official publication dates. I do think the ebook publication was far enough ahead it does need noting, though. Particularly as "ARC" didn't previously mean "edition sold for money" while claiming an official publication date months later - this is new, is it not? - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ARCs release dates have never been considered the "published" date by anyone in the publishing industry, regardless of whether they were offered for sale or not. This may be an issue to bring up over at WP:NOVELS as you don't seem to be understanding that. It would be good to get more eyes on this. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am understanding that it is marketing jargon as well as a word in English. I am saying that the word in English is actually of some relevance and should not be wiped out by the marketing jargon that you note is in fact a lie - David Gerard (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another good question from David: whether selling ARCs for money is new. I believe (but have not checked) that none of the major publishers do that yet. Baen are unusual in many ways.
  • They have their own infrastructure for selling and distributing eBooks, so it was easy for them to sell eARCs.
  • (Another, not relevant here, is that their eBooks have no DRM.)
  • IMO (this is WP:OR), Baen have a policy of lessening the distinction between their authors and their readers (in fact, some of their readers have become best-selling Baen authors). Hence, their web forum ("Baen's Bar"). Publishers have long given hardcopy ARCs to authors and reviewers in the hope of getting useful endorsements to put on the cover. Customers wanted those ARCs too, so Jim Baen gave them eARCs (at a hefty premium price).
To summarize: this is not new, in that Baen have done it for a while, but it is a fairly radical innovation in a rather stodgy industry.
Nihonjoe, your statement that ARC "release dates have never been considered the 'published' date by anyone in the publishing industry" seems right, but it kinda misses the point. The customary practices of the publishing industry have made official publication dates into a polite fiction. But Wikipedia is not part of the publishing industry, and should be written to avoid confusing ordinary readers. When the official date is only 2 weeks later than the real date, that discrepancy is rarely if ever significant enough to mention in a Wikipedia article about a book. When Baen sell some kind of copy of a book 5 months in advance, a good article about the book probably should briefly mention both publication dates, as this article currently does. If other publishers start selling eARCs, we should apply the same policy to articles about those books.
So my position is now the same as (I think) David Gerard's: we should, as a rule, give both publication dates. Cheers, CWC 07:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if distinguishing "official publication date" and "actual publication date" in the template would fly ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps adding an {{{1}}} line in the template? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology[edit]

By the stages of infant development, it seems to be at least a year (or a little more) after the end of Diplomatic Immunity... AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the ARC ebook. Is the usual chronological chart in the back of the paper book? - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- the article says that it's set "soon after Diplomatic Immunity", but we have multiple indications that that's not true for any reasonable and customary definition of "soon", so that it would seem to need fixing. AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get upset. Looking at the chronology, it lists DI as happening around the time Miles turns 32, and CVA as happening around the time Miles turns 35. Cryoburn happens around the time Miles turns 39. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Word of God will do for this purpose, it's effectively part of the book. Of course, if there are any notable critics who've raised objections to the claimed timeline, thus rendering the objection notable ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is with the word "soon", which seems to be used in a meaning other than its ordinary English meaning. AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified Plot[edit]

Clarityfiend, you did a great job clarifying my plot summary, but one error you made: Byerly did not suspect Tej was working against Barrayar. I've read the book so many times I've nearly memorized it, and I am very clear on that point. --Cyberherbalist (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low Importance?[edit]

This novel is rated as of "low importance", but a novel nominated for an important book award cannot be of low importance. This label should be removed. --Cyberherbalist (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Low-importance novel articles" but also simultaneously "Mid-importance science fiction articles" (as well as "Unknown-importance Women writers articles"). It sold 5k copies during the release-week, and is the 14th book in a "trilogy". But in the history of the novel it is probably not in the top 1000 novels of all time, let alone the top 100, in terms of sales-volume or literary impact, right? By contrast, in the world of sci-fi, it is a mid-importance sci-fi novel, because it was a Hugo nominee (however flawed that nominations process has become), and because it is in a series by a well-known sci-fi author, thus probably placing the novel in the top 1000 sci-fi articles of all time (but not in the top 100). In other words, the extant categorizations do seem correct to my wiki-eyes, or at least, as correct as any coarse high/mid/low type of classification scheme can be. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sources[edit]

At ~500 words the plot-summary seems to be of reasonable size for the ~400 pages of the novel, but aside from the one sentence about the Hugo nom and the sentence-and-a-half about the advanced-reader-copy thing, the body-prose consists almost entirely of {{all_plot}} material (cf the WP:JUSTPLOT wiki-essay and the WP:NOTPLOT wiki-policy).

  Remedy is usually expansion: the reviews above ... some of them anyways since not all of them are WP:RS methinks ... can be used to make a 'reception' section for the book, and to validate that the plot-summary covers the main events necessary to explain the story. I did not find any WP:SCHOLARSHIP material on this book specifically (though some may exist for the overall series), nor any general-journalism coverage either. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plot error[edit]

Possible spoilers ahead

The plot description, written primarily by Clarityfiend, incorrectly describes ImpSec's headquarters as built directly over the bunker. There are several indications that this is impossible, including the dance performance/sonic mapping by the Jewels in the small park across the street, the several references to the rescue tunnel being dug by ISI stright down in the park, and the fact that when the ImpSec building sinks into the mud, it would have destroyed the bunker (with all the historical treasures and gold), thus preventing Duv Galeni's inventory (and estimate of ~eight billion marks in value). When I made a small change to correct that, Clarityfiend reversed the edit, and has not responded to my pointing out the error.Will102 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged Clarityfiend over on your talk page to keep the discussion all in one place. I also pinged him here in case there is anything relevant to the discussion here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the way I remember it, but I could be wrong and I don't have a copy of the book. Is it worth my time to check out this minor detail? Probably not. IMO, you're overreacting to my single change. If I had engaged in an edit war, then you'd have something to complain about. As for not responding (presumably to your rebuttal on your talk page), you can't expect instantaneous feedback. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Captain_Vorpatril%27s_Alliance&oldid=1206541741"